Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
04 April 9, 2014 Commission
INN maw Riverside County Transportation Commission MEETING AGENDA TIME/DATE: 9:30 a.m. / Wednesday, April 9, 2014 LOCATION: BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside ito COMMISSIONERS .e Chair— Marion Ashley Vice Chair— Daryl Busch Second Vice Chair — Scott Matas Kevin Jeffries, County of Riverside John F. Tavaglione, County of Riverside Jeff Stone, County of Riverside John J. Benoit, County of Riverside Marion Ashley, County of Riverside Deborah Franklin / Art Welch, City of Banning Roger Berg / Jeff Fox, City of Beaumont Joseph DeConinck / To Be Appointed, City of Blythe Ella Zanowic / Jeff Hewitt, City of Calimesa Mary Craton / Randy Bonner, City of Canyon Lake Greg Pettis / Kathleen DeRosa, City of Cathedral City Steven Hernandez / Eduardo Garcia, City of Coachella Karen Spiegel / Eugene Montanez, City of Corona Scott Matas / Russell Betts, City of Desert Hot Springs Adam Rush / Ike Bootsma, City of Eastvale Larry Smith / Robert Youssef, City of Hemet Douglas Hanson / Patrick Mullany, City of Indian Wells Glenn Miller / Michael Wilson, City of Indio Frank Johnston / Micheal Goodland, City of Jurupa Valley Terry Henderson / Don Adolph, City of La Quinta Bob Magee / Natasha Johnson, City of Lake Elsinore Scott Mann / Wallace Edgerton, City of Menifee Tom Owings / Jesse Molina, City of Moreno Valley Rick Gibbs / Kelly Bennett, City of Murrieta Berwin Hanna / Kathy Azevedo, City of Norco Jan Harnik / Susan Marie Weber, City of Palm Desert Ginny Foat / Paul Lewin, City of Palm Springs Daryl Busch / Al Landers, City of Perris Ted Weill / Scott Hines, City of Rancho Mirage Steve Adams / Andy Melendrez, City of Riverside Andrew Kotyuk / Scott Miller, City of San Jacinto Ron Roberts / Jeff Comerchero, City of Temecula Ben Benoit / Timothy Walker, City of Wildomar Basem Muallem, Governor's Appointee Comments are welcomed by the Commission. If you wish to provide comments to the Commission, please complete and submit a Speaker Card to the Clerk of the Board. RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION www.rctc.org AGENDA * *Actions may be taken on any item listed on the agenda 9:30 a.m. Wednesday, April 9, 2014 BOARD ROOM County of Riverside Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street, First Floor, Riverside, CA In compliance with the Brown Act and Government Code Section 54957.5, agenda materials distributed 72 hours prior to the meeting, which are public records relating to open session agenda items, will be available for inspection by members of the public prior to the meeting at the Commission office, 4080 Lemon Street, Third Floor, Riverside, CA, and on the Commission's website, www.rctc.org. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if special assistance is needed to participate in a Commission meeting, please contact the Clerk of the Board at (951) 787-7141. Notification of at least 48 hours prior to meeting time will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility at the meeting. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Each individual speaker is limited to speak three (3) continuous minutes or less. The Commission may, either at the direction of the Chair or by majority vote of the Commission, waive this three minute time limitation. Depending on the number of items on the Agenda and the number of speakers, the Chair may, at his/her discretion, reduce the time of each speaker to two (2) continuous minutes. In addition, the maximum time for public comment for any individual item or topic is thirty (30) minutes. Also, the Commission may terminate public comments if such comments become repetitious. Speakers may not yield their time to others without the consent of the Chair. Any written documents to be distributed or presented to the Commission shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Board. This policy applies to Public Comments and comments on Agenda Items. Under the Brown Act, the Commission should not take action on or discuss matters raised during public comment portion of the agenda that are not listed on the agenda. Commission members may refer such matters to staff for factual information or to be placed on the subsequent agenda for consideration. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — JANUARY 8 AND JANUARY 31, 2014 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 9, 2014 Page 2 6. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS — The Commission may add an item to the Agenda after making a finding that there is a need to take immediate action on the item and that the item came to the attention of the Commission subsequent to the posting of the agenda. An action adding an item to the agenda requires 2/3 vote of the Commission. If there are less than 2/3 of the Commission members present, adding an item to the agenda requires a unanimous vote. Added items will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR — All matters on the Consent Calendar will be approved in a single motion unless a Commissioner(s) requests separate action on specific item(s). Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be placed for discussion at the end of the agenda. 7A. REVISED PROPOSED POLICY GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 BUDGET Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2014/15 Budget. Page 1 7B. FISCAL YEAR 2012/13 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT AND MEASURE A AUDIT RESULTS Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for the FY 2012/13. Page 9 7C. CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY FOR THE INTERSTATE 15 EXPRESS LANES PROJECT Page 18 Overview This item is for the Commission to approve the Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (1-15 Express Lanes). Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 9, 2014 Page 3 7D. AGREEMENT WITH JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND PROJECT REPORT FOR THE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Page 27 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-018-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to perform additional studies and design support for the completion of the final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (REIR/SEIS) and Project Report (PR) for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project for an additional amount of $2,243,505, plus a contingency amount of $224,350, for a total additional amount of $2,467,855, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $45,511,717; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute non -funding related agreements for the environmental clearance and design of the project. 7E. AGREEMENTS FOR ON -CALL RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AND SURVEYING SERVICES Overview This item is for the Commission to: Page 113 1) Award the following agreements to provide on -call right of way engineering and surveying services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $750,000; a) Agreement No. 14-31-043-00 with Huitt-Zollars, Inc; b) Agreement No. 14-31-044-00 with Parsons Brinckerhoff; and c) Agreement No. 14-31-045-00 with RBF Consulting, a Company of Michael Baker Corporation (RBF); 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements. Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 9, 2014 Page 4 7F. FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 STATE TRIENNIAL PERFORMANCE AUDIT RESULTS FOR THE COMMISSION AND THE TRANSIT OPERATORS Page 154 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Receive and file the FY 2009/10 through FY 2011/12 state triennial performance audit results for the Commission; and 2) Receive and file the FY 2009/10 through FY 2011/12 state triennial performance audit results for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). 7G. OPERATION OF THE FREEWAY SERVICE PATROL PROGRAM IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Page 158 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-45-084-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in the amount of $1,547,104 in state funding for FY 2013/14; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 7H. SUPPORT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, RIVERSIDE APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION AS A MANUFACTURING COMMUNITY AS PART OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INVESTING IN MANUFACTURING COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP Page 168 Overview This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to provide a letter of support for the University of California (UC) Riverside's application for designation as a manufacturing community (Manufacturing Community) as part of the U.S. Department of Commerce Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (ICMP); Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 9, 2014 Page 5 2) Adopt Resolution No. 14-014, "Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Support for the University of California Riverside's Application for Designation as a Manufacturing Community as Part of the U.S. Department of Commerce Investing and Manufacturing Communities Partnership"; and 3) Work in cooperation with UC Riverside and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) in providing information and support for the application. 8. PRESENTATION FROM SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT EXECUTIVE OFFICER BARRY R. WALLERSTEIN Overview This item is for the Commission to receive and file as an information item. 9. STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROPERTY ACQUISITION UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to receive a presentation for the SR -91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR -91 CIP) property acquisition. 10. STATE LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt the following state bill positions: 1) AB 515 (Dickinson) — Seek Amendments; 2) AB 2197 (Mullin) — Support; 3) SB 785 (Wolk) — Support if Amended; 4) SB 969 (DeSaulnier) — Oppose Unless Amended; and 5) SB 990 (Vidak) — Oppose. 11. CAP AND TRADE FUNDING PRINCIPLES Overview This item is for the Commission to adopt principles for state cap and trade funding. Page 172 Page 182 Page 191 Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda April 9, 2014 Page 6 12. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA 13. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Overview This item provides the opportunity for the Commissioners and the Executive Director to report on attended meetings/conferences and any other items related to Commission activities. 14. CLOSED SESSION 14A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 Agency Negotiator: Executive Director or Designee Property Owner(s): See Below Item APN(s) Property Owner(s) 234-250-009 234-250-010 234-250-011 234-250-012 1 234-250-013 Yavitz Company, LLC 234-250-029 234-250-030 234-250-031 14B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(1) Case Nos. RIC 1106550 and RIC 1204820 15. ADJOURNMENT The next Commission meeting and is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, May 14, 2014, Board Chambers, First Floor, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside. AGENDA ITEM 5 MINUTES RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES Wednesday, January 8, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Marion Ashley at 9:35 a.m. in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California, 92501. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Ashley led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Steve Adams Frank Johnston Marion Ashley Andrew Kotyuk Roger Berg Bob Magee Ben Benoit Scott Mann John J. Benoit Scott Matas Daryl Busch Basem Muallem Mary Craton Tom Owings Kathleen DeRosa Ron Roberts Ginny Foat Adam Rush Deborah Franklin Larry Smith Rick Gibbs Karen Spiegel Berwin Hanna Jeff Stone* Douglas Hanson John F. Tavaglione Jan Harnik Ted Weill Terry Henderson Michael Wilson Steven Hernandez Ella Zanowic Kevin Jeffries *Arrived after the meeting was called to order Commissioners Absent Joseph DeConinck Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 2 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS At this time, Chair Ashley presented former Commissioner Bob Botts with a plaque to commemorate his tenure as the Commissioner representing the city of Banning from 2008 to 2013. Chair Ashley then presented past Chair Karen Spiegel with a plaque to commemorate her tenure as Chair for 2013. In addition, past Chair Spiegel received a plaque to commemorate the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR -91 CIP). Anne Mayer, Executive Director, presented Matthew Wallace, Procurement Manager, with a 5 -year service award. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — NOVEMBER 13, 2013 M/S/C (Johnston/Smith) to approve the November 13, 2013 minutes as submitted. Abstain: DeRosa, Foat, Hanna, and Henderson 6. PUBLIC HEARING — ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS OF NECESSITY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF FEE, BUILDING ACCESS EASEMENT, BUILDING DEMOLITION EASEMENT, PERMANENT NON-EXCLUSIVE AERIAL EASEMENT, PERMANENT FOOTING EASEMENT, PERMANENT WALL FOOTING EASEMENT, TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT, AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT INTERESTS IN ALL OR PORTIONS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY, BY EMINENT DOMAIN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 115-060-024; 118-160-071; 118-160-020 AND 118-160-022; 118-090-003; 118-250-014 AND 118-250-022; 117-103-021; 118-250-020; AND 117-114-012, LOCATED IN CORONA, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, FOR THE STATE ROUTE 91 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BETWEEN PIERCE STREET ON THE EAST TO THE COUNTY LINE ON THE WEST, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA At this time, Chair Ashley opened the public hearing and called upon legal counsel to explain the nature and scope of the hearing. Steve DeBaun, legal counsel, explained the purpose of the hearing is for the Board to consider the adoption of Resolution of Necessity Nos. 14-001, 14-002, 14-003, 14-004, 14-005, 14-006, 14-007, and 14-008 for the acquisition of various real properties for the SR -91 CIP. He stated at the conclusion of the hearing, the Board will be asked to adopt the resolutions of necessity and listed the findings. He explained the purpose of the hearing is to consider the need for acquisition of the property and not to consider the value of the property. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 3 Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board, verified proofs of mailing that certify the notices were sent to the property owners of said parcel numbers are on file with the Commission. She then listed all written objections, protests, and/or requests to be heard from the owners or owner representatives: 1) Michael Leifer from the Law Offices of Palmeri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm, & Waldron LLP representing Bedrosian Quarry, LLC; 2) Michael Leifer representing Z Corona Properties, LLC; and 3) Darrell Clendensen representing the Ellestad and Clendensen property. No. APN CPN Owner RON No. Request to be Heard 1 115-060-024 115-060-025 22304 Bedrosian Quarry, LLC 14-001 Yes 2 118-160-071 22178 Z Corona Properties, LLC 14-002 Yes 3 118-160-020 118-160-022 22181 Myrvin H. Ellestad and Lera C. Ellestad, Darrell D. Clendensen 14-003 Yes 4 118-090-003 118-121-016 22182 Corona Associates 14-004 No 5 118-250-014 118-250-022 22196 Maude -Corona LLC 14-005 No 6 117-103-021 22258 Circle K. Stores, Inc. 14-006 No 7 118-250-020 22942 Maude -Corona LLC 14-007 No 8 117-114-012 23171 Paul G. Markovits, Trustee of the Paul G. Markovits Trust and Thomas Markovits, Trustee of the Thomas Markovits Trust 14-008 No Mark Lancaster, Acting Right of Way Manager, presented the resolutions of necessity for the SR -91 CIP and discussed the following areas: • Four findings required by the Board; • Project Map — Parcel locations in the project; • Parcel list; • Offers of just compensation and contact summary for each parcel; • Aerial views of parcels with property owners or their representatives in attendance requesting to be heard; and • Staff recommendation. Michael Leifer representing the Bedrosian Quarry property stated he submitted correspondence with attachments at the end of business day on January 7. The clerk of the board distributed the correspondence to the Commissioners. Mr. Liefer discussed the impacts to the property, expressed strong concerns and opposition regarding the type of easement being proposed, and requested the property be acquired in fee. At this time, Commissioner Jeff Stone joined the meeting. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 4 Michael Leifer representing Z Corona Properties stated two letters were submitted for incorporation into the record as a result of a meeting with the Commission's consultants, legal counsel, and staff. He explained with the addition of those letters, the property owners and Mr. Leifer have no objection to the Z Corona property acquisition. Mark Lancaster stated the Bedrosian parcel was extensively coordinated with the design -builder to move the placement of the columns approximately 20 feet to the north to the end of the property to provide the property owner with the maximum utilization of the nine dock doors located on the eastside. He discussed the meeting with Mr. Leifer and the property owners where Mr. Leifer stated an aerial easement is more injurious than a fee take. However, staff believes allowing use of the area under the structure for the ingress and egress of trucks results in the least private injury for this parcel. He explained any liability concerns are a matter of compensation. Staff will continue to work with the property owner on a settlement agreement. At Anne Mayer's request, Mr. Lancaster reiterated if the aerial easement was converted to a fee take, the use of the dock area would be impacted and potentially require the removal of a portion of the building. Additionally, staff explained the purpose of the aerial easement to the property owner at a meeting on January 6. Anne Mayer stated adoption of the resolution of necessity does not prohibit staff from continuing to work with the property owner and Caltrans regarding the concerns about the aerial easement. Mr. Leifer discussed his concerns about the legal rights being sought by the Commission, the location of the columns, and other examples of aerial easements. At Commissioner Ginny Foat's request for clarification, Mark Lancaster explained the possibility of taking the property in fee and allowing the property owner an easement has not been explored with Caltrans. Anne Mayer reiterated staff is more than willing to meet with the property owners and Caltrans to determine if there are any other ways that will work for Caltrans in terms of its need to inspect the bridges and the column on an annual basis and the property owners maintain its business operations. In response to Commissioner Henderson's question to Mr. Leifer if he agrees the negotiations can continue if the Commission moves forward with the staff recommendation, Mr. Leifer replied negotiations will continue, however, the Commission is charged with deciding the appropriate take and to consider the property interests being taken. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 5 Commissioner Henderson expressed concern regarding the issues suddenly being raised after several months to negotiate these issues. Also, based on the discussion, there may be another solution to these issues. She then asked Mr. Leifer to clarify his statement about the Commission's responsibility. Mr. Leifer replied the resolution of necessity determination is the decision of the Commission and the property owner should not be forced to share land with Caltrans. Anne Mayer explained with respect to Mr. Leifer's comments regarding the Commission's responsibilities, staff is requesting the Commission adopt a resolution of necessity. She reread the second finding and stated staff presented the Commission, in accordance with the resolution requirements, the option with the least private injury to this particular parcel. Therefore, the Commission has met that task for the resolution of necessity to be adopted. If the property owner prefers another solution, staff is willing to meet with them. Commissioner Tom Owings stated he is concerned when the government tries to tell the property owner what is best for their property and business operation. He asked Mr. Leifer if Mr. Lancaster has more knowledge about the operations of his client's business than the owner. Mr. Leifer replied no. In response to Commissioner Owings' request for clarification that Mr. Leifer would not agree this is the least injury to this property, Mr. Leifer concurred. Commissioner Owings asked Mr. Leifer to explain this is not a negotiating measure on his part and to assure the Commission. Mr. Leifer replied his clients were informed approximately one year ago this property would be a fee take and so the assumption was there would be no land sharing with Caltrans. The property owners did not object to the fee take. Mr. Leifer explained there were discussions with the Commission's legal counsel regarding the consequences of a fee take. Mr. Leifer stated he did not learn of the proposed aerial easement until a few months ago and expressed the property owner did not agree to that. He reiterated his concerns with any private property owner having to share property with Caltrans. At this time, Commissioner Kevin Jeffries stepped out of the meeting. At Commissioner Owings' request, Mr. Leifer reiterated the property owners concerns in terms of overall liability and risk exposure, adding the property owners did not waive the right of compensation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 6 In response to Commissioner Owings' question if the Commission were to approve the resolution of necessity if he believes it would put the property owners at a disadvantage in future negotiations, Mr. Leifer replied concurred. In response to Commissioner Owings' request to state the action he desires the Commission to approve, Mr. Leifer replied his motion would be to direct staff to come back at the next hearing for a fee take or to move to amend the take to a fee take. Commissioner Adam Rush asked if there is any determination either through case law or state and federal regulations that provide a direction or preference in this type of situation between an aerial easement and a fee take. Mark Lancaster replied he is not aware of any case law. Commissioner Roger Berg explained the Commissioners need to understand this is a design -build project, which by its nature, the design and right of way acquisition needs will change to allow for the least injurious impacts to the property owners. He suggested the Commission consider this when voting. In response to Commissioner Mary Craton's concern regarding an easement for the property owner, Anne Mayer explained there are several examples where there are Caltrans' structures over private property and the state has an aerial easement. She explained what may be more unique is Caltrans owning land in fee and granting an easement to a private owner to have its operations on a Caltrans' property. She expressed staff is willing to discuss this matter with Caltrans and the property owner to reach a resolution. Anne Mayer stated she believes the staff recommendation is the least injurious to this property. At Commissioner Jan Harnik's request, Mr. Leifer reiterated the property owners concerns related to an aerial easement. Commissioner Owings expressed he does not believe staff is acting in the best interest of the property owner and it is a cost issue. Mark Lancaster stated the implication that staff is more knowledgeable about the property owner's business is incorrect. He believes if the property owner loses 20,000 square feet of the building, staff needs to find a way to leave the building and operations intact. Commissioner Owings replied the property owner knows more about his business than Mr. Lancaster, therefore, it is about the cost. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 7 Mr. Lancaster replied that is an inaccurate characterization. The property owner built the building a certain size for a certain purpose and staff is trying not to change that. Commissioner Owings expressed if the property owner is willing to allow it to be changed, why should Mr. Lancaster act as the guardian of the property owner's best interest. Mr. Lancaster stated the property owner has not expressed a willingness to reduce the size of the building. Commissioner John Tavaglione expressed strong concern to Commissioner Owings for questioning staff as if they are on the stand in a court of law. He stated to Commissioner Owings that his approach is unprofessional and this type of behavior has never been heard at these Commission meetings, committee meetings, or even at the Board of Supervisors' meetings. Commissioner Tavaglione described it as embarrassing and suggested to Commissioner Owings to stop this behavior. Commissioner Owings apologized if his comments are embarrassing, however, his intent is to stand up for property owner's rights. Commissioner Tavaglione replied it can be done without criticizing staff. Commissioner Stone stated he believes staff has done everything possible to be as uninjurious to the property owner as possible and suggested the aerial easement is an appropriate plan. He believes the issue relates to liability and is certain there are indemnifications that can be met with Caltrans to ensure the property owner is protected. He expressed support for the staff recommendation and stated staff will continue to work with this property owner in good faith. Chair Ashley then called on any other persons who wish to be heard on this matter. There were no other requests to speak from the public. Chair Ashley closed the public hearing. M/S/C (Stone/Henderson) to: 1) Conduct a hearing to consider the adoption of resolutions of necessity, including providing all parties interested in the affected properties and their attorneys, or their representatives, an opportunity to be heard on the issues relevant to the resolutions of necessity; Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 8 2) Make the following findings as hereinafter described in this report: a) The public interest and necessity require the proposed project; b) The project is planned or located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury; c) The real property to be acquired is necessary for the project; and d) The offer of just compensation has been made to the property owner; 3) Adopt Resolutions of Necessity Nos. 14-001, 14-002, 14-003, 14-004, 14-005, 14-006, 14-007, and 14-008, "Resolutions of Necessity for the Acquisition of Fee, Building Access Easement, Building Demolition Easement, Permanent Non -Exclusive Aerial Easement, Permanent Footing Easement, Permanent Wall Footing Easement, Temporary Access Easement, and Temporary Construction Easement Interests in All or Portions of Certain Real Property, by Eminent Domain, More Particularly Described as Assessor Parcel Nos. 115-060-024; 118-160-071; 118-160-020 and 118-160-022; 118-090-003; 118-250-014 and 118-250-022; 117-103-021; 118-250-020; and 117-114-012, Located in Corona, Riverside County, California", for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR -91 CIP), between Pierce Street on the East to the County Line on the West, in Riverside County, California. At Commissioner Douglas Hanson's request, Chair Ashley requested a roll call vote as the voting equipment appears not to be functioning properly. Jennifer Harmon conducted a roll call vote for the approval of the resolutions of necessity. 29 Ayes and 2 No votes. No: Craton and Owings 7. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There was a revision to Agenda Item 9, "Fiscal Year 2013/14 Mid -Year Revenue Projections". Per legal counsel's request, Agenda Item 15, "Closed Session", was pulled from the agenda. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 9 8. CONSENT CALENDAR M/S/C (Busch/Stone) to approve the following Consent Calendar items. Abstain: J. Benoit 8A. FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 MID -YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS 1) Approve a net increase of $3,913,000 in FY 2013/14 expenditures for mid -year budget adjustments; 2) Approve Agreement No. 07-31-164-09, Amendment No. 9 to Agreement No. 07-31-164-00 with Best Best & Krieger LLP (BBK) to provide general legal services related to right of way acquisitions for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR -91 CIP) in the amount of $1,660,000, including contingency of $500,000, for a total authorized contract value of $5,040,100 for FY 2013/14; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. 9. FISCAL YEAR 2013/14 MID -YEAR REVENUE PROJECTIONS Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer, presented Agenda Items 9 and 10 concurrently, highlighting the following areas: • Annual Revenue Projections and revenue sources: TUMF, LTF, and Measure A; • Revenue forecast highlights; • Activity by economic category and segments; • Historical sales tax by segment; • Measure A and LTF revenues and taxes; • TUMF revenues; and • Next steps. Commissioner Karen Spiegel requested the presentation be distributed to the Commissioners and asked for clarification on the low revenues for the month of December. Theresia Trevino replied a statement from the State Controller on its cash report indicated cash receipts dropped and cited the late start to the holiday season. In response to Commissioner Foat's request for clarification regarding the special revenue funds and Measure A, Theresia Trevino replied the special revenue funds includes Measure A, Local Transportation Fund, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees, Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 10 State Transit Assistance, and Motorist Assistance Program revenues. These funds are presented in the CAFR as a schedule of expenditures for local streets and roads monies. M/S/C (Busch/Spiegel) to: 1) Approve the mid -year FY 2013/14 revenue projections of $157 million for Measure A revenues, $76,500,000 for Local Transportation Fund (LTF) revenues, and $12 million for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues; 2) Approve the budget increase adjustments to Measure A revenues of $10 million and expenditures of $4,246,000, to reflect the revised Measure A projections; 3) Approve the budget increase adjustments to LTF revenues and transfers in of $4,448,900, and expenditures and transfers out of $561,100 to reflect the revised LTF projections; and 4) Approve the budget increase adjustments to TUMF revenues of $5.7 million to reflect the revised TUMF projections. 10. FISCAL YEAR 2014/15 REVENUE PROJECTIONS M/S/C (Busch/Spiegel) to: 1) Approve the projections of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) apportionment of $81.5 million for the Western Riverside County, Coachella Valley, and Palo Verde Valley areas for FY 2014/15; 2) Approve the projections for Measure A revenues of $167 million for FY 2014/15; and 3) Approve the projections for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) revenues of $12 million for FY 2014/15. 11. MULTI -FUNDING CALL FOR PROJECTS FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director, presented the Multi -Funding Call for Projects funding recommendations, highlighting the following areas: • Multi -Funding Call for Projects — Fund sources, project application deadline, 55 projects were submitted, and total funding available; • Matching projects to funding; • Project evaluations; • Funding availability; • CMAQ, and STP/MARA project recommendations; • Local contribution; and • Next steps and recommendation. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 11 M/S/C (Mann/M. Wilson) to: 1) Approve the funding recommendations included in Table 1 for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds and Table 2 for Surface Transportation Program (STP) and 2009 Western Riverside County Measure A Regional Arterial (MARA) funds; 2) Direct staff to prepare and execute Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with the project sponsors to outline the project schedule and local funding commitments; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to execute the MOUs with the project sponsors, pursuant to legal counsel review; and 4) Program the projects in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). At this time, Commissioner Jeffries rejoined the meeting. 12. 2014 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM AND PLATFORM Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, presented the 2014 Legislative Program and Platform, highlighting the following areas: • State legislative proposals — 1-15 tolling of electric vehicles, transit design -build, and Metrolink station parking enforcement; • California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) modernization; and • Federal legislation — MAP -21 reauthorization and Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act. At this time, Commissioners Steve Adams and Basem Muallem left the meeting. In response to Commissioner Rush's question regarding tolling and electric vehicles, Aaron Hake replied it is difficult to obtain enough data to determine the number of vehicles in the system since these vehicles are new. He stated in a study by Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the University of California, Los Angeles on what the market could be in the near future, projections could be as much as 60,000 electric vehicles in Riverside County within the next 10 years. Staff is pursuing this issue because of the uncertainty of the market for these cars. In response to Commissioner Hanson's question regarding the Best Best and Krieger's (BBK) CEQA Guidelines memo and staff's involvement and recommendations, Aaron Hake stated staff will review the memo, noting Senator Darrell Steinberg passed a bill at the end of this session that requires those guidelines to be updated. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 12 Steve DeBaun stated the CEQA Guidelines are an important place to look for potential changes and covers all manners of CEQA issues and how agencies are to analyze impacts. Commissioner Henderson stated there will be a Quality of Life and Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee meeting, which will discuss these issues. She will also take this discussion to the next California League of Cities meeting. Commissioner Henderson then asked who is interested in carrying the Commission's legislation. Aaron Hake replied Assemblyman Eric Linder and Senator Richard Roth have both expressed a willingness to assist the Commission with legislation for 1-15 tolling of electric vehicles and Metrolink station parking enforcement. The design -build legislation will be sponsored by the California Transit Association and the bill author has been identified. Commissioner Henderson requested staff inform the Commissioners if there is an opportunity to assist with any of the legislation. Commissioner Larry Smith asked what the Commission is seeking in expanding the design -build concept. Aaron Hake replied the design -build law is currently written towards transit operators. Staff's proposal is to either specifically define the Commission is an agency or to add county transportation commissions to the definition. M/S/C (Spiegel/Henderson) to: 1) Adopt the 2014 State and Federal Legislative Program; and 2) Adopt the 2014 State and Federal Legislative Platform. 13. ITEM(S) PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION There were no items pulled from the Consent Calendar. 14. COMMISSIONERS/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT 14A. Commissioner J. Benoit introduced and welcomed Laura Skiver, the new SunLine Transit Agency General Manager. 14B. Commissioner Henderson announced Commissioner Spiegel was chosen as the 2013 Woman of the Year for the Women in Transportation — Inland Empire Chapter. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 8, 2014 Page 13 14C. Commissioner Jeffries briefed the Commission on SB 407 (Padilla), which was approved in 2009 regarding property transfers related to plumbing fixtures replacement. Implementation began January 1, 2014. 14D. Anne Mayer announced: • The annual Commission Workshop will be held January 30 — 31, 2014, at the Hilton Palm Springs; • There are no committee meetings for the month of January; and • Wednesday, February 12 is a County Holiday so the February Commission will be relocated to another facility or cancelled. 15. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 11:49 a.m. Respectfully submitted, )1-mv^e- -4—H Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES Friday, January 31, 2014 1. CALL TO ORDER The Riverside County Transportation Commission was called to order by Chair Marion Ashley at 9:32 a.m. at the Hilton Palm Springs, 400 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Daryl Busch led the Commission in a flag salute. 3. ROLL CALL Commissioners/Alternates Present Marion Ashley Roger Berg Ben Benoit John J. Benoit Daryl Busch Mary Craton Ginny Foat Deborah Franklin Rick Gibbs Berwin Hanna Douglas Hanson Jan Harnik Terry Henderson Steven Hernandez Kevin Jeffries Andrew Kotyuk Bob Magee Scott Mann Scott Matas Glenn Miller Jesse Molina Basem Muallem Greg Pettis* Ron Roberts Larry Smith Karen Spiegel John F. Tavaglione Ted Weill Ella Zanowic *Arrived after the meeting was called to order 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no requests to speak from the public. 5. ADDITIONS / REVISIONS There were no additions or revisions to the Agenda. Commissioners Absent Steve Adams Joseph DeConinck Frank Johnston Adam Rush Jeff Stone Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2014 Page 2 6. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT LEGISLATIVE UPDATE Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager, presented an update on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) modernization legislation including the Commission's proposed comments to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Commissioner John Benoit requested staff coordinate with the county of Riverside on the proposed comments. Aaron Hake concurred. Commissioner Scott Mann briefed the Commission on a discussion at the U.S. Conference of Mayors regarding National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) substitution and a pilot program in Texas to relax the NEPA requirements. He suggested there may be an opportunity to advance this issue with the new Secretary of Transportation. M/S/C (J. Benoit/Mann) to receive and file an update on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) modernization legislation. 7. TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE REGIONAL ARTERIAL PROGRAM FUNDS FOR THE PERRIS BOULEVARD WIDENING PROJECT Shirley Medina, Planning and Programming Director, presented the request from the city of Moreno Valley for Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Regional Arterial program funds. Commissioner Jesse Molina expressed the importance of this project to the city of Moreno Valley. M/S/C (Berg/Spiegel) to: 1) Approve the request from the city of Moreno Valley (Moreno Valley) for $3 million in TUMF Regional Arterial program funds for the construction of the Perris Boulevard widening project, Ironwood Avenue to Manzanita Avenue; 2) Approve Agreement No. 06-72-041-03, Amendment No. 3 to Agreement No. 06-72-041-00, with Moreno Valley to add TUMF funds in the amount of $3 million for construction; and 3) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2014 Page 3 8. ELECTRONIC TOLL AND TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS INTEGRATION AND IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT David Thomas, Toll Project Manager, presented the scope of services for the agreement with Cofiroute to provide electronic toll and traffic management systems integration and implementation. At Commissioner Molina's request, David Thomas explained how toll revenues will be collected and distributed between the Commission and Orange County Transportation Authority. At Commissioner Terry Henderson's request, David Thomas provided the term of the agreement of 2018 when all work has been completed by the system integrator. M/S/C (Franklin/Molina) to: 1) Adopt the sole source findings set forth in this agenda report; 2) Authorize the Executive Director to award, on behalf of the Commission, Agreement No. 14-31-071-00 for the Electronic Toll and Traffic Management (ETTM) Systems Integration and Implementation Agreement between the Commission and Cofiroute USA, LLC (Cofiroute) for the 91 Express Lanes in an amount of $25,900,000, plus a contingency amount of $780,000, for a total amount not to exceed $26,680,000; 3) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission, subject to final revisions to the terms or scope as agreed upon by the Executive Director and legal counsel; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work up to the total amount not to exceed as required for the agreement. 9. PAYING AND REPORTING THE VALUE OF EMPLOYER PAID MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS Anne Mayer, Executive Director, presented the need to rescind Resolution No. 13-005 and to adopt Resolution No. 14-009. M/S/C (Henderson/Smith) to: 1) Rescind Resolution No. 13-005, "Resolution of The Board of Commissioners of Riverside County Transportation Commission for Employer Paid Member Contributions", adopted on May 8, 2013, as it inadvertently omitted the provisions of Government Code Section 20636(c)(4); and Riverside County Transportation Commission Minutes January 31, 2014 Page 4 2) Adopt Resolution No. 14-009, "Resolution of The Board of Commissioners of Riverside County Transportation Commission for Paying and Reporting the Value of Employer Paid Member Contributions", to implement the employees' cost sharing of the Employer Paid Member Contribution (EPMC) as follows: a) Effective July 11, 2013, through July 9, 2014, this benefit shall consist of paying 5 percent of the normal member contribution as EPMC, and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable {excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)} as additional compensation; b) Effective July 10, 2014, through July 8, 2015, this benefit shall consist of paying 2 percent of the normal member contribution as EPMC, and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable {excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)} as additional compensation; and c) Effective July 9, 2015, this benefit shall consist of paying 0 percent of the normal member contribution as EPMC and reporting the same percent (value) of compensation earnable {excluding Government Code Section 20636(c)(4)} as additional compensation. 10. COMMISSIONERS / EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT There were no reports from Commissioners or the Executive Director. 11. CLOSED SESSION 11A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL: ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (d)(2) of Government Code Section 54965.9 — Potential Number of Case(s): 1 There was no announcement from the Closed Session item. 12. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Riverside County Transportation Commission, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m. The next Commission meeting is scheduled to be held at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 12, 2014, in the Board Room at the County of Riverside Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, California. Respectfully submitted, Jennifer Harmon Clerk of the Board AGENDA ITEM 7A RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Revised Proposed Policy Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2014/15 Budget BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2014/15 Budget. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The initial step in the budget process is to develop policy goals and objectives for the next fiscal year that are consistent with the Commission's overall strategic direction. Most importantly, the adoption of the Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the annual fiscal year budget provides an opportunity to match the Commission's spending priorities in a manner that implements the promises made to the citizens of the county of Riverside in both Measure A Expenditure Plans and fulfills other Commission responsibilities. At its March 12 meeting, the Commission recommended approval of the policy goals and objectives for the FY 2014/15 Budget and requested consideration for some additional policy goals and objectives. Staff revised the Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2014/15 Budget to include the additional items, which are highlighted below: • Promote Mobility: An objective related to CEQA/NEPA reform was added as well as an objective related to future rail expansion opportunities the Western Riverside County. • Encourage Economic Development: The last objective regarding support for local projects was revised to include those that are consistent with Commission commitments such as the Cajalco Road corridor. • Financial and Administration Policies: A new section related to Procurement Policies was added; this section includes the objective for enhanced outreach to Riverside County businesses and contractors. Staff recommends the Commission approve the revised Policy Goals and Objectives for the FY 2014/15 Budget. Attachment: Revised Proposed Commission Policy Goals and Objectives for FY 2014/15 Budget Agenda Item 7A 1 Commission Policy Goals and Objectives In addition to financial and administration policies, the Commission has seven long-term policy goals: promote mobility, mitigate and address the impact of goods movement, encourage economic development, ensure improved system efficiencies, foster environmental stewardship, support transportation choices through intermodalism and accessibility, and prioritize public and agency communications. For each of these policy goals, the objectives and initiatives that were considered in the framework of the work plan for the FY 2014/15 budget are identified below. While Riverside County shows signs of economic recovery, the Commission remains cautious about revenue availability. The need for better transportation remains a top public priority, and the Commission is poised to address this challenge via the seven policy goals. In moving forward with an aggressive program of projects and services, the Commission may face fluctuating Measure A, TUMF, and TDA revenues and uncertainty regarding the availability of federal and state transportation revenues. Due to the long-term nature of many of the Commission's programs, many of the policy goals' objectives and initiatives are ongoing from year to year. Promote Mobility The Commission, in cooperation with local, state, and federal agencies, will strive to create a transportation system that promotes efficient mobility both within the County and region. • Continue to aggressively pursue completion of the environmental, design, and construction processes on key components of the Western Riverside County Delivery Plan, which includes the SR -91, 1-15, and 1-215 corridor improvement projects and the SR -60 truck climbing lane project. • Enhance corridor mobility and traveler choice by: o Continuing property acquisition and construction on the SR -91 corridor improvement project through Corona, which includes the extension of tolled express lanes (91 Express Lanes) into Riverside County; and o Continuing to develop a tolled express lane system on 1-15 between SR -60 and Cajalco Road. • Provide leadership in the planning and development of the Coachella Valley -San Gorgonio Pass corridor rail service. • Work closely with partners in the Coachella Valley, including CVAG and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) to ensure the implementation of Measure A funding priorities. • Complete projects and programs included in the 1989 Measure A ordinance and determine use(s) for any unexpended revenues. • Continue the preliminary engineering and environmental clearance for the Mid County Parkway and SR -79 realignment projects. • Continue to work with state and federal agencies to fund and construct projects programmed in the STIP, Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), Proposition 18 bond programs, Active Transportation Program, and Measure A program as well as other high priority regional projects. 2 • Maximize obtaining all available transportation funds and strategically program funds to meet funding deadlines and to prevent the lapse and loss of funds. • Leverage the effective application and use of Measure A Western County regional arterial and other state and federal funds to deliver eligible regional arterial projects. • Work closely with local jurisdictions to administer the TUMF Regional Arterial Program and facilitate the delivery of eligible arterial improvements in Western County. • Actively participate in the SR -91 Advisory Committee to facilitate near and long-term improvements to SR -91, enhance intercounty public transit options, and foster mobility improvements between the two counties. • Advocate streamlining efforts at the state and federal levels that will reduce costs, time, and delays currently associated with project delivery including, but not limited to, timely project reviews and approvals. • Continue active engagement in state and federal efforts to streamline and reform CEQA and NEPA to improve the ability to deliver critical projects that enhance mobility within the County and the region. • Continue to coordinate and provide public access to commuter information via the 1E511 system and focus commuter assistance and 1E511 outreach efforts under one brand. • Continue cooperation with the FTA regarding the Small Starts process to support the continuation of construction and initiation of the Perris Valley Line commuter rail service in 2015. • Continue to work with the public transit operators to control costs and increase system efficiencies in order to accommodate and adjust to fluctuating revenues from local, state and federal sources. • Continue to develop transit service to further promote seamless intracity, intercity, and regional transit connectivity for County residents. • Commence consideration of future rail expansion opportunities including the potential for extension of the Perris Valley Line to the Hemet/San Jacinto and Temecula areas. Mitigate and Address the Impact of Goods Movement The Commission will work with federal, state, and local governments to facilitate the movement of goods and services to, within, and through the County, recognizing the vital role goods movement mobility plays in the economic health of the County, the State, and the nation. • Seek funding and local agency concurrence to implement the Commission's approved, high -priority railroad grade separation list to mitigate the impact of increased goods movement demands on the transportation system. • Encourage Congress to create a federal freight trust fund, or similar program with a dedicated and firewalled revenue structure, in order to treat the nation's multimodal national goods movement network as a system rather than individual projects. • Remain committed to a regional approach regarding goods movement issues in order to maximize funding from state and federal sources to goods movement needs in Southern California. 3 • Continue working with the Ports and regional transportation commissions to develop a funding mechanism for needed projects and mitigation on a regional basis. • Provide input to the National Freight Advisory Committee regarding the establishment of a national freight network and California State Freight Advisory Committee regarding regional freight priorities. Encourage Economic Development Transportation decisions will consider the economic benefits derived from any improvement, and, where feasible and practical, will pursue transportation alternatives that enhance or complement economic development. • Commit to seek opportunities related to transportation projects that will create jobs and improve the economic base in the County. • Support local agencies in the design and construction of interchanges that are in proximity to regional economic centers and developments. • Support local projects, consistent with countywide transportation goals and Commission commitments, which enhance business development, local employment, and area tourism. Ensure Improved System Efficiencies The Commission will select projects and allocate funds in a manner that will improve safety and reduce congested traffic corridors. • Advocate the development and use of advanced technologies for transportation applications that are affordable and practical. • In partnership with SANBAG, implement enhancements to the 1E511 mobile application for improved deployment of real-time traffic information, real-time bus and rail transit trip planning information, and rideshare information available to commuters for the purpose of trip planning and reducing congestion. • Assure the effectiveness of transit planning through coordination with the County's eight transit operators, Citizens' Advisory Committee, and annual SRTP process with a goal toward promoting program productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness. • Provide innovative commuter rideshare programs to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and coordinate with other regional rideshare service providers to address intercounty commute trips. • Work with local jurisdictions, Caltrans, and the CHP to continue efficient delivery of a comprehensive motorist aid system which includes an 1E511 traveler information service, a call box program, and a FSP program, including temporary services in freeway construction zones. • Leverage resources to incorporate park and ride facilities and additional connecting bus service at Metrolink stations that may have available capacity. • Continue working with Caltrans to monitor traffic conditions for the purpose of focusing transportation funds on congested corridors and system deficiencies. 4 • Work with Caltrans and regional agencies in developing resources for preservation and maintenance of the highways and regional arterials. • Support the implementation of active transportation facilities that support transportation alternatives. Foster Environmental Stewardship The Commission will achieve its mobility goals while promoting environmental stewardship and protecting the area's natural resources and quality of life. • Continue working with the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), Caltrans, and state/federal resource agencies to implement the MSHCP. • Work with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), sub -regional agencies, and local jurisdictions to implement the current RTP and sustainable communities' strategy that meets regional air quality goals, conformity guidelines, and SB 375 green house reduction targets for the SCAG region. • Support a variety of outreach channels and educational programs that promote the benefits of ridesharing, public and specialized transit, rail, and availability of commuter resources for the purposes of reducing vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled, and emissions. • Facilitate private/public use of clean fuels technology. • Continue to develop sustainable and green commuter rail stations and provide upgrades and rehabilitation projects to reduce the environmental impact of the existing stations. Support Transportation Choices Through Intermodalism and Accessibility County residents will be served, where economically feasible, through the development of transportation alternatives and travel options that consider the needs of a wide range of citizens. • Work with transit providers and local social service agencies to provide specialized transit service to meet a broad spectrum of socio-economic transit needs of seniors, veterans, persons with disabilities, and low income residents. • Leverage commuter and motorist assistance outreach channels in order to increase the awareness and use of alternative commuting modes. • Implement the Commission's commuter rail SRTPs and Southern California Regional Rail Authority's (SCRRA or Metrolink) plan for commuter rail services. • Continue to pursue the goals and objectives as outlined in the Coordinated Public Transit -Human Services Transportation Plan (Coordinated Plan) for Riverside County related to a unified, comprehensive but flexible strategy for transportation service delivery to address transportation gaps and/or barriers focusing on unmet transportation needs of elderly individuals, persons with disabilities, and individuals of limited income. 5 • Enhance security, surveillance, and emergency response capabilities of County transit facilities and roadway infrastructure through proactive planning, interagency coordination, and investment. Prioritize Public and Agency Communications The Commission will provide timely, informative, and accurate reporting to encourage informed public and agency participation in the Commission's decision -making processes. • Promote a close working relationship with news and civic entities to increase interest and understanding of transportation and related issues. • Enhance the provision of public information through various forms of communication (e.g., website, annual report, monthly newsletter, television, Speakers Bureau, print media, radio, etc.). • Maintain an ongoing effort of informing Riverside County's Congressional and State Legislative delegations regarding transportation issues. • Develop an effective long-range legislative strategy regarding state and federal funding and policy. • Protect and enhance flexibility in the Commission's use of state and federal transportation revenue in addressing regional priorities and needs. • Explore local options for sustainable funding in addressing long-term transportation and quality -of -life needs for Riverside County. • Seek legislative flexibility for innovation in financing, construction, and maintenance of regional transportation projects. • Pursue policy objectives contained in the Commission's comprehensive adopted legislative platforms. • Maintain ongoing efforts to educate commuters, businesses, and the public regarding the Commission's toll planning efforts and specific project development efforts underway. • Keep the public informed about construction -related impacts from projects. Financial and Administration Policies Financial Planning Policies • Administrative costs, including salaries and benefits, shall be funded by allocations from Measure A, LTF, FSP, SAFE, and TUMF funds. • The Commission shall budget no more than one percent (1%) of Measure A sales tax revenues for administrative salaries and benefits. 6 • Administrative program delivery costs will be budgeted at whatever is reasonable and necessary, but not to exceed four percent (4%) of Measure A sales tax revenues (inclusive of the one -percent salary limitation). The Commission shall budget 100 percent of the annual required contribution related to the postretirement health care benefits. • The Commission shall utilize unexpended 1989 Measure A funds only for projects and programs included in the 1989 Measure A. Sales tax revenues from the 2009 Measure A shall be expended only for projects and programs included in the 2009 Measure A. • Amounts will be budgeted by fiscal year for multi -year projects, based on best available estimates, with the understanding that, to the extent actuals vary from those estimates and the project is ongoing, adjustments will be made on a continual basis. • The fiscal capital budget should be consistent with the strategic plan and deviations appropriately noted, explained, and justified. • A balanced budget shall be adopted annually with operating and capital expenditures and other financing uses equal to or less than identified revenues and other financing sources as well as available fund balances. Revenue Policies • Sales tax revenue projections will be revised semi-annually to ensure use of current and relevant data. Staff may adjust annual amounts during the budget preparation process to reflect the most current economic trends. • A strategic application of local funding sources will be used to maximize federal and state funding of projects. • Fiduciary responsibility regarding Western County TUMF revenues shall be exercised, and revenues will be allocated pursuant to Commission direction and the approved 2009 Measure A. • Adopted toll revenue policies will establish congestion pricing in order to maximize throughput on toll facilities. Such pricing will be adjusted quarterly by pre -defined formulas. Debt Management Policies • Outstanding sales tax revenue bonds shall not exceed $975 million. • Toll revenue supported debt may be issued for specific highway projects and may comprise toll revenue bonds and federal loans. • The Commission will maintain 2.0x debt ratio coverage on all senior sales tax revenue debt and 1.3x debt ratio coverage on all toll revenue debt. • Debt issuance will be for major capital projects including engineering, right of way, and construction. Operating requirements, if any, must be paid from current ongoing revenues and may not be financed except for initial toll operations. • Costs of issuance, including the standard underwriter's discount, will not exceed two percent (2%). 7 • The Commission may enter into interest rate swaps to better manage assets and liabilities and take advantage of market conditions to lower overall costs and reduce interest rate risk. • While it is the intent of the Commission to establish a cash debt reserve for long term bond issuance, as necessary, surety bonds can be obtained when beneficial to the Commission. • All sales tax revenue debt must mature prior to the termination of 2009 Measure A on June 30, 2039. • All toll revenue supported debt must mature prior to the expiration of toll facility agreements. Expenditure Accountability Policies • Established priorities for planning and programming of capital projects will be reviewed annually with the Commission. • Actual expenditures will be compared to the budget on at least a quarterly basis, and significant deviations will be appropriately noted, explained, and justified. • Operations and maintenance agreements for toll operations will be implemented, and related costs will be compared to toll financing assumptions. Reserve Policies • The Commission will maintain program reserves in accordance with Measure A and TDA policies and guidelines. • The Commission will establish and maintain a transit operator's reserve of 10 percent (10%) for the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley. Additionally, a 10 percent (10%) reserve will be established and maintained for each of the Western County transit operators (public bus and commuter rail). • The Commission will establish and maintain reserves for toll operations, capital improvements, and debt service in accordance with toll supported debt agreements. Cash Management and Investment Policies • Where possible, the Commission will encourage receipt of funds by wire transfer to its accounts. • Balances in the bank operating account will be maintained at the amount necessary to meet monthly expenditures. • Construction and operating funds will be invested per the Commission's established investment policy emphasizing in order of priority: 1) safety, 2) liquidity, and 3) yield. • Cash disbursements to local jurisdictions and vendors/consultants will be completed in an expeditious and timely manner. 8 Procurement Policies • The Commission will conduct enhanced outreach to businesses and contractors located in Riverside County regarding opportunities to provide the Commission with competitive and qualified goods and/or services. • The Commission will continuously evaluate its procurement program and policies to ensure competitive, transparent, objective, and fair selection processes. • The Commission will continue to expand and improve vendor access to contracting opportunities. Auditing, Accounting, and Financial Reporting Policies • The Commission will maintain its ERP system in order to integrate project and toll operations accounting needs and improve accounting efficiency. • The Commission will issue a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR); separate financial reports for the LTF, STA, Proposition 1B Rehabilitation and Security Project Accounts, and toll operations upon commencement of such operations; and State Controller's Transportation Planning Agency Financial Transactions Report as well as Government Compensation in California Report. • An audit is to be conducted annually on the Commission's accounting books and records. As long as the Commission has outstanding bonds and federal loans, an independent accounting firm must conduct the audit. • The Commission is responsible for ensuring that audits of Measure A and TDA funding recipients are completed and reviewed for compliance and other matters in a timely manner. Human Resources Management Policies • While accommodating the assumption of toll operation responsibilities, Commission staffing levels will be consistent with the intent of its enabling legislation, which envisioned a small, but effective staff. • Contract staff and consultants will be used to augment staff efforts as much as necessary to support programs or workloads, which do not appear to be of a permanent nature. Information Technology Management Policy • Significant effort will be made to maintain efficient and cost-effective technology infrastructure by continuously upgrading network equipment and software to ensure quality performance, productivity, and connectivity among staff, other agencies, toll operator, and the public. Network security will continue to be a top priority to maintain the integrity of the Commission's network and information. Linking Commission Policy Goals and Departmental Goals and Objectives The following matrix (Table 19) illustrates the linkage of the Commission's overall policy goals described in this section to the individual departmental goals and objectives included in Section 6. Table 19 — Relationship Between Commission and Departmental Goals Goods System Environmental Economic Intermodalism & Financial & Department Mobility Movement Efficiencies Stewardship Development Accessibility Communications Administration Management Services Executive Management X X X X X X Administration X X Legislative Affairs & Communications X X X X X Finance X Regional Programs Planning and Programming X X X X X X X X Rail Maintenance and Operations X X X X X Public and Specialized Transit X X X X X Commuter Assistance X X X X X X Motorist Assistance X X X X Capital Project Development & Delivery X X X X X X X Add "X" to Environmental Stewardship and Intermodalism & Accessibility categories for Motorist Assistance AGENDA ITEM 7B RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Theresia Trevino, Chief Financial Officer THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2012/13 Transportation Development Act and Measure A Audit Results AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and Measure A audit results report for the FY 2012/13. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In May 2011, Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C. (TCBA) and Macias Gini O'Connell LLP (MGO) were selected to perform the financial and compliance audits and agreed -upon procedures (audits) of Riverside County's TDA claimants and Measure A recipients, respectively, except for the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the city of Beaumont (Beaumont). The RTA and Beaumont audits were completed by their auditors. The FY 2012/13 audits represent the third year TCBA and MGO performed these audits for the Commission. The firms and the other agencies' auditors completed the audits of and issued the audit reports for all but five of the local governments, non-profit agencies, and transit agencies that received TDA and Measure A funds. The audit reports related to the financial statements for one TDA Article 3 and two TDA Article 4 recipients have not been issued. The following is a summary of the 62 audits performed: Funding Type Type of Procedure TCBA (Western County) MGO (Eastern Other County & Auditors Riv. Co.) Total TDA Article 3 (bicycle and pedestrian projects) TDA Article 4 (transit) TDA Article 8 (local streets and roads) Measure A specialized transit Measure A local streets and roads Financial and compliance audit Financial and compliance audit Financial and compliance audit Agreed -upon procedures Agreed -upon procedures 10 3 0 5 2 2 11 0 17 10 0 2 0 15 7 2 0 11 0 27 Based on a review of the reports, the following are highlights of the results of these audits. Staff will follow up on matters noted as necessary. Agenda Item 7B 9 TDA Article 3 (Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects) • Six jurisdictions (Banning, Cathedral City, Corona, Lake Elsinore, Riverside, and County) have deferred revenues and/or fund balances aggregating $77,373 that have not been earned or expended, respectively. Since funding is based on approved projects, remaining funds should have been expended by June 30, 2013, or for completed projects, returned to the Commission. A significant portion of this amount appears to be related to transfers from other funds to provide matching funds and to accumulated interest; however, staff will review any amounts that should be returned to the Commission. • One jurisdiction (Coachella) has a liability to the Commission for the return of $545 in excess funds following the completion of a project. • One jurisdiction (Desert Hot Springs) has a liability to the Commission for the return of $3,091 in excess funds that were used during FY 2013 for projects that were not approved by the specific project grant allocation. This is reflected as a compliance finding. TDA Article 4 (Transit) • All transit operators met the fare ratio requirement. • Two transit operators (Riverside, SunLine Transit Agency) restated FY 2012 amounts as a result of prior period adjustments related to revenue recognition. • The compliance and internal control reports for SunLine Transit Agency included a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting related to revenue recognition and account reconciliation. SunLine Transit Agency management responded that it has taken actions and will take additional actions during FY 2014 to ensure that proper accounting practices and procedures are in place. • The compliance and internal controls report for Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency included a material weakness in control over financial reporting related to errorneously recording a reduction in cash in the amount of $212,674 for expenditures that were incurred during the fiscal year but not paid until subsequent to the fiscal year end. Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency's management responded that it already has a system of internal controls in place and the error could have happened to any agency with the best internal controls. The error was caught by the agency's auditors and management corrected the error in the financial statements. TDA Article 8 (Local Streets and Roads) • The city of Blythe (Blythe) has a fund deficit of $604,568, which reflects a reduction from the prior year's fund deficit of $680,985. Article 8 funds have not been approved since 2007, as Palo Verde Valley TDA funds are used primarily for transit needs. In a prior state triennial performance audit, a recommendation was made for the Commission to work with Blythe to resolve the use of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds in order to eliminate the need for the annual audit of these funds. The Blythe fund deficit is related to expenditures incurred less amounts transferred from its general fund to offset a portion of the expenditures. Although the activity in this fund is no longer Agenda Item 7B 10 related to LTF, the state advised the fund must continue to be audited until it is closed. To close the fund, Blythe will need to transfer other sources to the TDA Article 8 fund or transfer the fund deficit to another fund. In the meantime, the Commission will continue to incur audit costs related to Blythe's TDA Article 8 fund. Measure A Specialized Transit • Two agencies (Inland Aids Project, Independent Living Partnership) did not meet the required individual cash match requirement; however, one of these agencies did receive in -kind contributions, which in the aggregate exceeded the total match requirement. The other agency did not meet the total match requirement by $2,175 (5.1 percent). • Three agencies (Care -A -Van, Care Connexxus, and Riverside County Regional Medical Center) receiving Measure A and federal funds did not have certain written policies required by the federal funds; however, no instances of noncompliance were noted. • Two agencies (Care -A -Van and Friends of Moreno Valley) had potential excess funds approximating $15,500 as of June 30, 2013, that the Commission may request be returned or may approve to be carried over if requested by the agencies. This reflects a decrease from the FY 2011/12 results. Measure A Local Streets and Roads • Three jurisdictions (Calimesa, Murrieta, and Blythe) met their maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements using the prior year carryover, as permitted under the MOE Guidelines. A fourth jurisdiction (Wildomar) did not meet its MOE requirement and requested an amendment to its base year MOE requirement, which the Commission approved at its March 2014 meeting. • Six cities (Corona, Murrieta, Norco, San Jacinto, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage) have fund balances in excess of three years of revenues. The Commission policy suggests such amounts should not exceed three years. • Two cities (Lake Elsinore and Indio) recorded expenditures not included in the Five -Year Capital Improvement Plans (CIPs) submitted to and approved by the Commission. Subsequently, the cities submitted amendments to the CIPs, which were administratively approved by the Executive Director. • Two jurisdictions (Calimesa and County) recorded overhead costs in excess of 8 percent of revenues. The Commission's policy states overhead should not exceed 8 percent of revenues. Attached is the summary of transportation and transit fund operations and related audit results for the various types of TDA (Articles 3, 4, and 8) and Measure A (specialized transit and local streets and roads) funding. Each schedule provides information for each claimant and recipient regarding the revenues, expenditures/expenses, and change in fund balance/net assets for the year ended June 30, 2013, and other financial and compliance information. Agenda Item 7B 11 Attachments: 1) FY 2012/13 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule 2) FY 2012/13 Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule 3) FY 2012/13 Transportation Development Act Article 8 Schedule 4) FY 2012/13 Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule 5) FY 2012/13 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Agenda Item 7B ATTACHMENT 1 Transportation Development Act Article 3 Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2013 Desert Canyon Cathedral Hot Lake Moreno San County of Banning Lake City Corona Coachella Springs Hemet Indio Elsinore Valley Perris Riverside Jacinto Wildomar Riverside Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Article 3 $ - $ 70,000 $ - $ 29,996 $ - $ - $ 24,983 $188,800 $192,917 $ - $ 92,338 $ 96,279 $ 39,367 $ - $ 310,000 Other - - - - - - - - - - Interest income (60) - (70) - - 146 - 1,403 - - 571 Total revenues (60) 70,000 (70) 29,996 - - 24,983 188,800 193,063 - 92,338 97,682 39,367 - 310,571 Total expenditures 70,000 - 29,996 - 3,091 24,983 203,848 192,917 - 92,338 96,279 - 37,834 310,000 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures (60) (70) - (3,091) - (15,048) 146 1,403 39,367 (37,834) 571 Transfers in (out) - - - 31,462 - (39,367) - Excess (deficiency) of revenues and transfers in over (under) expenditures (60) - (70) - (3,091) - 16,414 146 - 1,403 - (37,834) 571 Prior period adjustment 64 - - - - - - - Fund balances at beginning of year 13,255 - 119 166 - - (16,414) 22,591 - - - (24,471) 39,188 Fund balances at end of year $ 13,259 $ - $ 49 $ 166 $ - $ (3,091) $ - $ - $ 22,737 $ - $ - $ 1,403 $ - $ (62,305) $ 39,759 Deferred revenues at end of year $ $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 62,305 $ Due to RCTC $ $ - $ - $ - $ 545 $ 3,091 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ Source: 2013 Financial Statements Section 99234 3/31/2014 12 ATTACHMENT 2 Transportation Development Act Article 4 Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2013 Banning Beaumont Corona Riverside PVVTA SunLine RTA Total operating revenues $ 155,315 $ 400,034 $ 415,615 $ 374,768 $ 98,457 $ 5,246,115 $ 10,626,489 Operating expenses: Depreciation and amortization Other operating expenses Total operating expenses Operating loss Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Grants: Local Transportation Funds 1,090,265 1,238,220 1,669,624 2,471,444 722,479 9,401,823 25,579,557 State Transit Assistance 25,129 600,889 157,920 7,497 282,354 863,353 1,256,640 Federal - - 4,165 451,185 26,432 8,369,664 19,778,296 Measure A specialized transit - - - 4,500,000 2,602,179 Proposition 1B 1,522 199,199 77,650 231,993 550,055 737,949 844,136 Other - - 599,783 34,329 76,555 513,507 Interest income (119) 12 (4,861) 5,150 2,361 1,937 51,735 Interest expense - - (14,703) - (97,394) Transfers in (out) - - 33,222 - Gain (loss) on sale of property - - - - 80,210 (6,495) Other 3,967 12,792 - (3,498) - - 2,210,080 Total nonoperating revenue (expense) 1,120,764 2,051,112 2,504,281 3,182,290 1,618,010 24,031,491 52,732,241 Net increase (decrease) (215,748) 509,560 633,604 (194,978) 702,625 77,380 4,220,661 Prior period adjustment - - - (22,856) - (644,137) - Net assets at beginning of year 924,344 686,594 1,744,005 2,721,460 811,965 43,415,533 29,825,995 Net assets at end of year $ 708,596 $ 1,196,154 $ 2,377,609 $ 2,503,626 $ 1,514,590 $ 42,848,776 $ 34,046,656 266,839 1,224,988 1,491,827 (1,336,512) 290,528 1,651,058 1,941,586 (1,541,552) 247,195 2,039,097 2,286,292 (1,870,677) 582,334 3,169,702 3,752,036 (3,377,268) 151,384 862,458 1,013,842 (915,385) 6,101,433 23,098,793 29,200,226 (23,954,111) 5,442,326 53,695,743 59,138,069 (48,511,580) Deferred revenue at end of year: Operating $ 115,839 $ - $ - $ 146,572 $ 8,208 $ 1,046,299 $ 4,614,365 Capital 102,207 42,468 4,673 2,523,656 431,326 16,599,062 35,991,820 Total deferred revenue at end of year $ 218,046 $ 42,468 $ 4,673 $ 2,670,228 $ 439,534 $ 17,645,361 $ 40,606,185 Required fare ratio Actual fare ratio 12.68% 10.00% 10.00% 20.00% 10.00% 10.00% 17.55% 17.49% 23.80% 20.25% 11.82% 13.82% 21.06% 28.90% Fare ratio compliance status Met Met Met Met Met Met Met Source: 2013 Financial Statements Note 1 The audits for RTA and Beaumont were completed by other auditors hired by each entity. Section 99260 13 3/31/2014 ATTACHMENT 3 Transportation Development Act Article 8 Schedule Year ended June 30, 2013 County of Blythe Riverside Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Article 8 Other revenues Interest income Total revenues Total expenditures Excess (deficiency) of revenues over Transfers in (out) Excess (deficiency) of revenues over Prior period adjustments Fund balances at beginning of year Fund balances at end of year Source: 2013 Financial Statements (under) expenditures (under) expenditures $ - $ - 64 64 173,583 2,500 (173,583) 250,000 (2,436) 76,417 (2,436) (680,985) 2,436 $ (604,568) $ Note: Article 8 allocations for Western County and Coachella Valley ended in 1993 and 1987, respectively, as available LTF funds are now used to meet transit needs. Article 8 allocations for Palo Verde Valley are subject to an annual unmet needs hearing. City and County have been advised to clear deficit and spend fund balance, respectively, in FY 2011 in order to need for annual audit.) Section 99400 (a) 14 3/31/2014 ATTACHMENT 4 Measure A Specialized Transit Schedule Year Ended June 30, 2013 Boys & Riverside Girls Club County of Friends of Independent Regional Blindness Southwest Care Moreno Inland AIDS City of Living Medical Community Support County Care -A -Van Connexxus CASA Valley Project Norco Partnership Center Connect Operating revenues: Measure A $ 75,635 $ 219,800 $ 353,031 $ 175,000 $ 63,180 $ 64,500 $ 79,066 $ 70,000 $ 566,274 $ - $ 159,559 In -kind match - 2,993 48,000 8,801 242,510 4,764 - 36,072 837,886 - 109,212 Cash match: federal JARC/NF - - 79,904 24,558 - - - 141,789 - Cash match: other revenue 32,985 126,819 57,999 162,198 36,342 40,308 - 23,487 305,141 10,000 Total operating revenues 108,620 349,612 538,934 370,557 305,690 105,606 119,374 106,072 1,427,647 446,930 278,771 Operating expenses -in kind - 2,993 48,000 8,801 242,510 4,764 36,072 837,886 - 109,212 Operating expenses -salaries & benefits 74,855 212,810 327,114 173,261 - - 54,388 51,420 224,431 345,102 41,938 Operating expenses-nonpersonnel 33,765 133,809 160,711 161,698 58,500 101,393 64,986 12,980 354,456 101,828 112,337 Operating expenses -administrative overhead - 26,797 4,680 5,600 21,117 15,288 Total operating expenses/capital expenditures 108,620 349,612 535,825 370,557 305,690 106,157 119,374 106,072 1,437,890 446,930 278,775 Change in net assets - 3,109 (551) - (10,243) (4) Prior period adjustment - - (1) - Net assets at beginning of year - 7,766 - 5,224 - 6,323 - Net assets at end of year $ - $ - $ 10,875 $ - $ - $ 4,673 $ - $ - $ (3,921) $ - $ (4) Match requirement -cash Match requirement -in kind Actual match -cash Actual match -in kind Match requirement compliance status Source: 2013 Financial Statements Measure A Specialized Transit $ 25,211 $ 112,408 $ 134,716 $ 162,198 $ - $ 29,700 $ 42,483 $ - $ 34,387 $ 247,103 $ 10,000 $ - $ 2,000 $ 48,000 $ 8,801 $ 63,180 $ 2,550 $ - $ 36,061 $ 788,188 $ - $ 45,000 $ 32,985 $ 126,819 $ 137,903 $ 162,198 $ - $ 36,342 $ 40,308 $ - $ 23,487 $ 305,141 $ 10,000 $ - $ 2,993 $ 48,000 $ 8,801 $ 242,510 $ 4,764 $ - $ 36,072 $ 837,886 $ - $ 109,212 Cash not met; Met Met Met Met Met Met Not Met Met exceeded in Met Met total 15 3/31/2014 ATTACHMENT 5 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2013 Westem County canyon--------- ----------__________- Banning Calimesa Lake Corona Eastvale Hemet Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore Menifee Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Perris Riverside San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A $ 477,885 $119,972 $ 150,576 $ 3,337,786 $ 894,705 $ 1,448,453 $ 1,557,989 $ 1,010,820 $ 1.,283,019 $ 3,461,167 $ 1,869,173 $ 542,694 $ 1,215,545 $ 5,970,562 $ 696,259 $ 2,473,038 $ 509,759 Reimbursements 259,616 504,329 5,807,360 - 195,451 Other revenues - - - - 450 - 380 - 2,303 - - 8,958 - Interest income 1,493 421 (233) 18,036 2,660 6,768 1,989 576 5,668 (71,026) 21,538 1,312 (6,559) 86,056 27,699 38,256 - Other financing sources -transfers in 54,844 - - - - - - - - - - - 52,132 - Other financing sources -Measure A loan proceeds - - 557,000 - - Total revenues 534,222 380,009 707,343 3,860,151 897,365 1,455,671 1,559,978 1,011,776 1,288,687 9,199,804 1,890,711 544,006 1,208,986 6,261,027 776,090 2,511,294 509,759 Expenditures and other financing uses: Construction and maintenance - 42,554 722,071 1,943,033 - 4,016,147 519,688 371,783 270,836 5,254,577 1,720,303 886,914 - - 471,782 317,976 Engineering and Other 75,775 - - - - - - - - - - - - - Administrative overhead/overhead allocations/indirect costs - 14,317 31,918 - 8,471 84,320 262,561 5,719 - - 42,580 21,301 Capital outlay 24,190 - - 312,315 475,756 - - - - 2,980,513 7,184,972 - - Debt service: Principal 48,455 - Interest 3,260 - 35,969 - - - Transfers out - - - - 400,000 - 727,309 - - - 213,385 1,667,801 - Totalexpendituresandotherfinancinguses 99,965 56,871 773,786 1,974,951 312,315 4,016,147 519,688 856,010 755,156 5,553,107 2,453,331 886,914 2,980,513 7,184,972 255,965 2,139,583 339,277 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures and other financing uses 434,257 323,138 (66,443) 1,885,200 585,050 (2,560,476) 1,040,290 155,766 533,531 3,646,697 (562,620) (342,908) (1,771,527) (923,945) 520,125 371,711 170,482 Prior period adjustment/rounding - - (12,998) - - (1) - - 1 178,680 (1) - - 2,424 - Fundbalancesatbeginningofyear 892,853 143,949 171,527 10,560,515 1,112,367 4,766,134 1,412,702 784,452 2,666,649 6,910,297 8,521,801 3,039,518 3,618,450 20,202,642 2,422,192 5,755,992 891,776 Fund balances at end of year $ 1,327,110 $467,087 $ 92,086 $ 12,445,715 $ 1,697,417 $ 2,205,657 $ 2,452,992 $ 940,218 $ 3,200,181 $ 10,735,674 $ 7,959,180 $ 2,696,610 $ 1,846,923 $ 19,278,697 $ 2,944,741 $ 6,127,703 $ 1,062,258 Fund balance by year received: 2013 $ 534,222 $380,009 $ 92,086 $ 3,860,151 $ 897,365 $ 1,455,671 $ 1,559,978 $ 940,218 $ 1,288,687 $ 9,199,804 $ 1,890,711 $ 544,006 $ 1,208,986 $ 6,261,027 $ 776,090 $ 2,511,294 $ 509,759 2012 792,888 87,078 - 4,903,356 676,827 749,986 893,014 - 1,158,523 1,535,870 1,794,491 428,667 637,937 8,609,485 937,345 2,306,221 436,347 2011 - 3,154,476 123,225 - 752,971 1,805,359 570,067 4,408,185 547,204 1,310,188 116,152 2010 & Prior - - 527,732 - - - - - 2,468,619 1,153,870 - 684,102 - - Total fund balances by year received $ 1,327,110 $467,087 $ 92,086 $ 12,445,715 $ 1,697,417 $ 2,205,657 $ 2,452,992 $ 940,218 $3,200,181 $ 10,735,674 $7,959,180 $ 2,696,610 $ 1,846,923 $ 19,278,697 $ 2,944,741 $ 6,127,703 $ 1,062,258 Cash and investments $ 1,266,383 $596,611 $ 92,008 $ 11,528,279 $ 1,566,272 $ 1,898,141 $ 2,395,423 $ 737,960 $ 3,115,009 $ 9,452,110 $ 7,654,521 $ 2,836,145 $ 3,267,648 $ 16,682,330 $ 634,202 $ 5,703,416 $ 923,981 MOE Base Year requirement Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2013 Financial Statements Measure A Local Streets Roads $ 164,325 $ 2,401 $ 28,873 $ 2,208,200 N/A $ 18,924 N/A $ 960,771 $ 214,225 $ 1,459,153 $ 595,702 $ 22,536 $ 1,218,470 $ 12,449,203 $ 156,391 $ 1,431,799 $ 22,100 $ 102,237 $ 3,600 $ 58,193 $ 5,250,750 N/A $ 16,112 N/A $ 2,210,640 $ 497,027 $ 2,114,062 $1,157,852 $ 43,855 $ 481,170 $ 16,829,155 $ 396,235 $5,513,392 $ - Met Met with Met Met N/A Met N/A Met Met Met Met with use Met Met Met Met Met Did not meet. use of of carryover City carryover requested amendment to base year of $0. 16 5 of 6 3/31/2014 Measure A Local Streets and Roads Schedule Year ended June 30, 2013 Revenues: Intergovernmental allocations: Measure A Reimbursements Other revenues Interest income Other financing sources -transfers in Other financing sources -Measure A loan proceeds Total revenues Coachella Valley Coachella Valley T Faro9 b� 1 Valley 1 Cathedral Desert Hot I County of City Coachella Springs Indian Wells Indio La Quinta Palm Desert Palm Springs Rancho Mirage Blythe Riverside $ 1,296,371 $ 603,838 $ 456,094 $ 235,291 $ 1,541,398 $ 2,453,084 $ 1,886,574 $ 828,392 $ 823,796 $ 6,073,338 130,111 906,867 36,966 351,810 - - - - 395,684 - 6,480 - - 4,129 79 812 180 8,260 17,075 (33,041) 47,192 8,701 51,553 174,150 - 18,427 - - - - - - 1,474,650 603,917 456,906 253,898 1,945,342 2,600,270 2,760,400 919,030 1,184,307 6,124,891 Expenditures and other financing uses: Construction and maintenance 692,266 5,550 948,142 211,000 1,021,070 1,039,386 3,191,810 340,754 10,901,364 Engineering and Other - - - - - - - - - - Administrative overhead/overhead allocations/indirect costs 103,710 41,102 1,607,770 Capital outlay - - - - Debt service: 673,382 235,761 Principal - - Interest - - - - - - Transfers out 428,183 502,765 162,000 - 31,462 - - - 660,771 - Total expenditures and other financing uses 1,224,159 508,315 1,110,142 211,000 1,725,914 1,039,386 3,191,810 340,754 937,634 12,509,134 Excess (deficiency) of revenues over (under) expenditures and other financing uses 250,491 95,602 (653,236) 42,898 219,428 1,560,884 (431,410) 578,276 246,673 (6,384,243) Prior period adjustment/rounding - - (27,951) - - Fund balances at beginning of year 266,854 1,042,498 653,294 33,702 963,777 21,425,164 8,961,548 2,664,946 3,071,723 15,427,134 Fund balances at end of year $ 517,345 $ 1,138,100 $ 58 $ 76,600 $ 1,183,205 $ 22,986,048 $ 8,530,138 $ 3,215,271 $ 3,318,396 $ 9,042,891 Fund balance by year received: 2013 2012 2011 2010 & Prior Total fund balances by year received Cash and investments MOE Base Year requirement Amount of Excess MOE at end of year MOE compliance status Source: 2013 Financial Statements $ 517,345 $ 603,917 $ 58 $ 76,600 $ 1,183,205 534,183 - - - $ 517,345 $ 1,138,100 $ 355,580 $ 1,008,418 $ 391,688 $ 92,205 $ 678,867 $ 1,197,884 58 $ 76,600 $ 1,183,205 - $ 37,163 $ 965,104 $ 2,600,270 $ 2,760,400 $ 919,030 $ 1,184,307 $ 6,124,891 3,146,265 4,490,271 826,064 1,744,119 2,918,000 3,000,737 1,279,467 822,301 389,970 14,238,776 - 647,876 - - $ 22,986,048 $ 8,530,138 $ 3,215,271 $ 3,318,396 $ 9,042,891 $ 23,204,998 $ 8,326,255 $ 3,068,319 $ 3,156,265 $ 9,035,821 75,147 $ 963,640 $ 2,048,564 $ 937,007 $ 2,398,146 $ 1,498,732 $ 674,811 $ 520,192 N/A 714,219 $ 6,710,943 $ 4,573,342 $ 4,836,772 $ 3,173,267 $ 2,933,935 $ 92,647 N/A Met Met Met Met Met N/A; FY 2014 is Met Met Met Met with use N/A first year for of carryover MOE requirement 17 Measure A Local Streets Roads 6 of 6 3/31/2014 AGENDA ITEM 7C RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Michael Blomquist, Toll Program Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Conflict of Interest Policy for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to approve the Conflict of Interest (COI) Policy for the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project (1-15 Express Lanes). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 2006, the Commission assessed the feasibility of tolling four freeway corridors and concluded that portions of the State Route 91 and 1-15 corridors were generally feasible from a financial, traffic operation, and engineering standpoint. Environmental studies began on 1-15 in 2008. At its 2010 workshop, the Commission adopted a reprioritization strategy for the 10 -Year Western Riverside County Delivery Plan projects including staff's recommendation to re-evaluate the original 1-15 Corridor Improvement Project (1-15 CIP) scope. Staff worked with the 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee and returned with project scope recommendations. The Commission approved a new 1-15 Express Lanes project to construct tolled express lanes in the 1-15 median from Cajalco Road in the city of Corona to just south of SR -60 near the San Bernardino County line. In 2013, staff worked with the 1-15 CIP Ad Hoc Committee to evaluate project delivery methods. In January 2014, the ad hoc committee approved using design -build for the next phase of project delivery. In preparation for the design -build phase of work, staff is planning the procurement of both a project and construction management firm (2014/2015) and a design - build team (2016/2017) to engineer and construct the project. The Commission adopted a similar COI policy in 2010 for the SR -91 CIP. This policy was successfully utilized many times during the project's procurement phases. Staff proposes the Commission adopt a similar policy for the 1-15 Express Lanes. Agenda Item 7C 18 Purpose and Goals of Policy The attached COI policy prescribes the Commission's policy on conflict of interest relating to consultants, advisors, and individuals participating or desiring to participate in the management, planning, procurement, design, construction, or development of the 1-15 Express Lanes. The COI policy goals are as follows: • Protect the integrity and fairness of the management, planning, procurement, design, construction, or development of the 1-15 Express Lanes; • Avoid circumstances where a consultant or proposer obtains, or appears to obtain, an unfair competitive advantage as a result of work performed by a consultant; • Provide guidance to consultants and proposers, or potential consultants and proposers, so they may assess and make informed business decisions concerning their decision to provide services on the 1-15 Express Lanes or to submit a qualification submittal and/or proposal related to the management, design, construction, or development of the project; and • Protect the Commission's interests and confidential and sensitive project -specific information. The policy provides general conflict of interest standards, a process to determine whether a COI exists and factors relevant to a COI determination. Attachment: RCTC Conflict of Interest Policy for the 1-15 Express Lanes Agenda Item 7C 19 RCTC Conflicts of Interest Policy for Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project Section 1. Purpose. This Policy prescribes Conflict of Interest policies applicable to private entities, including Consultants and Proposers, participating or desiring to participate in the Commission's planning, procurement, design, construction or development of the Project. A private entity's failure to comply with these standards of conduct may result in potential liability to the Commission and the private entity and the private entity's preclusion from participation in the Project. This Policy is intended to apply in the context of the Commission's development of the Project pursuant to a design -build delivery method and contract. Section 2. Definitions. Section 2.1. "Affiliate" means with respect to any Consultant: (a) any member, partner or joint venturer of such Consultant; (b) any individual or entity that directly or indirectly controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control with, such Consultant or any of its members, partners or joint venturers; and (c) any other entity for which 20% or more of the equity interest in such other entity is held directly or indirectly, beneficially or of record by (i) such Consultant, (ii) any of such Consultant's members, partners or joint venturers or (iii) any Affiliate of such Consultant under clause (b) of this definition. Section 2.2. "Commission" means the Riverside County Transportation Commission. Section 2.3. "Conflict of Interest" means a circumstance arising out of a Consultant's existing or past activities, including past activities as a Consultant to or employee of the Commission, business interests, familial relationships, contractual relationships, and/or organizational structure (i.e., Affiliates, etc.) wherein (i) the Consultant is or may be unable to render impartial assistance or advice to the Commission, (ii) the Consultant's objectivity in performing the scope of work sought by the Commission is or might be otherwise impaired, (iii) the Consultant has, or is perceived to have, an unfair competitive advantage; (iv) the Consultant's performance of Services on behalf of the Commission does or may provide an unfair competitive advantage to a third party; or (v) regardless of whether accurate, there is a perception or appearance of impropriety or unfair competitive advantage benefiting the Consultant or a third party as a result of the Consultant's participation on the Project. Section 2.4. "Consultant" means any person or business entity (including any individual employee of such entity or any division and/or Affiliate of such entity) previously or currently retained, or in the process of being retained, by the Commission to provide Services in connection with the Project, including subconsultants and individual employees of subconsultants. Section 2.5. "Executive Director" means the executive director of the Commission or his or her designee. Section 2.6. "Policy" means this RCTC Conflicts of Interest Policy for the Project. 20 Section 2.7. "Project" means the Interstate 15 Express Lanes Project. Section 2.8. "Proposer" means any person or business entity, including joint ventures, partnerships, limited liability companies, corporations, consortia, teams or other groups or organizations of individuals or entities, or the individuals and entities that make up such groups, that have submitted a qualification submittal or proposal for work on the Project or are interested in submitting a qualification submittal or proposal for work on the Project. Section 2.9. "Services" means, in the context of this Policy, consulting services related to the Project, which may include, but are not limited to, some or all of the following: planning services, procurement services, federal and state environmental services; financial advisory services; insurance services, legal services; DBE compliance or program development services, labor compliance services, traffic and revenue studies; operations and toll planning services; program oversight; design and construction management services, preliminary engineering services (including right-of-way, structures, survey and utility), and public and community outreach services. Section 3. Conflicts of Interest. Section 3.1. Purpose. This section prescribes the Commission's policy on Conflicts of Interest relating to Consultants participating or desiring to participate in the planning, procurement, design, construction or development of the Project, and thereby: (A) protects the integrity and fairness of the planning, procurement, design, construction or development of the Project; (B) avoids circumstances where a Consultant or Proposer obtains, or appears to obtain, an unfair competitive advantage as a result of work performed by a Consultant; (C) provides guidance to Consultants and Proposers, or potential Consultants and Proposers, so they may assess, and make informed business decisions concerning their decision to provide Services on the Project or to submit a qualification submittal and/or proposal related to the design, construction or development of the Project; and (D) protects the Commission's interests and confidential and sensitive Project -specific information. Section 3.2. Applicability. This Policy applies to Consultants who desire to participate in, have participated in or are participating in the performance of Services for the Commission related to the Project. This Policy may prohibit or restrict the ability of a Proposer to have a Consultant participate on a Proposer team as an equity owner or team member, act as a consultant or subconsultant to a Proposer, or have a financial interest in a Proposer or an equity owner or team member of a Proposer. This Policy relates solely to the Project and does not address the Commission's approach to conflicts of interest on other Commission projects. Section 3.3. Conflicts of Interest Disclosure • Section 3.3.1. Obligation to Disclose. Consultants participating in the Project shall arrange their affairs so as to prevent Conflicts of Interest from arising. Any 21 Consultant having an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest shall disclose the matter to the Commission in writing with supporting facts and information to the following individual: Mr. Matt Wallace Procurement and Asset Manager Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street. 3rdFioor Riverside, CA 92502 Email: mwallace@rctc.org Disclosures will also be requested as part of any request for qualifications or request for proposals relating to the design, construction or development of the Project. The Consultant's Conflict of Interest disclosure obligation is ongoing. Consultants should undertake reasonable due diligence, including necessary conflict searches, to determine whether new actual, potential or perceived Conflicts of Interest arise. Due diligence should extend to investigation of past relationships and, if the Consultant is an entity, to employees, officers or directors of the Consultant. If a Consultant becomes aware of an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest at any time during its participation in the Project, the Consultant shall promptly disclose the matter to the Commission as described herein. A Consultant shall use its best efforts to respond to any requests for additional information and documentation which the Commission deems necessary to fully evaluate the Commission's Conflict of Interest issues and to consider the Commission's determination. The Consultant's failure to provide such information or documentation when requested may impact the Commission's final determination hereunder. Section 3.3.2. Failure to Comply. If a Consultant fails to comply with this Policy, including failure to comply with any mitigative measures imposed under this Policy, or otherwise fails to disclose an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest, the Commission may, in its sole discretion: (A) Preclude and/or disqualify the Consultant and its Affiliates, including any Proposer with whom the Consultant is or had affiliated, from participation in the planning, procurement, design, construction and/or development of the Project, including any competitive process associated therewith; (B) Require the Consultant and its Affiliates, including any Proposer with whom the Consultant is or had affiliated, to implement mitigative measures; (C) Segregate or terminate the Consultant and its Affiliates, including any Proposer with whom the Consultant is or had affiliated, from planning, procurement, design, construction and/or development of the Project; and/or (D) Pursue any and all other rights and remedies available at law, in equity or set forth in any request for qualifications or request for proposals, which rights and remedies shall include the right to seek any and all direct or indirect costs and damages resulting from the Consultant's failure to comply with this Policy, including, but not limited to, costs resulting from third -party challenges to the procurement or the 22 Commission's re -procurement of the Project. Section 3.4. Period in Which a Conflict of Interest Applies. If the Executive Director determines that the performance of Services by a Consultant creates an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest, the provisions in this Policy and any decisions made by the Commission related to such Conflict of Interest (including prohibitions, mitigative measures, etc.) shall continue and apply for the duration of the planning, procurement, design, construction and development of the Project, provided that the Executive Director may, on a case -by -case basis and in his or her sole discretion, modify the length of this time period in writing if he/she determines that the modification is in the best interests of the Commission and the Project. Section 3.5. Application to New Firm. If a Conflict of Interest applies to an individual, the Conflict of Interest and prohibition with respect to the individual will not apply to the individual's new place of employment, unless the new employer is an Affiliate of the employee's previous employer or unless mitigative measures will not, in the Commission's sole discretion, mitigate or eliminate the Conflict of Interest issue. If the new employer is not an Affiliate of the previous employer and is otherwise eligible to perform Services for the Commission pursuant to this Policy and applicable law, the new employer will remain eligible despite the employment of the individual, but mitigative measures may be required of the new employer with respect to the employee. Section 3.6. Federal and State Requirements. Section 3.6.1. Federal and State Laws. For federal -aid projects and in certain other circumstances, the Commission must comply with the Federal Highway Administration's organizational conflict of interest regulations found in 23 CFR §636.116. The Commission must also comply with certain California laws and regulations, including, without limitation, Government Code §§1090 and 87100 et seq. Nothing in this Policy is intended to limit, modify, supersede or otherwise alter the effect of those laws and regulations, and the Commission will apply this Policy consistent with those laws and regulations. Section 3.6.2. Limitations on Commission Consents and Approvals. To the extent that application of the federal and state laws and regulations described in Section 3.6.1 would preclude or limit participation by a Consultant or an individual with respect to the Project, then notwithstanding any other aspect of this Policy or any contrary decision by the Commission in response to an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest under this Policy, such federal and state laws and regulations shall control and be determinative. Under no circumstances shall a decision, approval or consent by the Commission in response to a disclosure, request or actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest under this Policy be considered an opinion with respect to the applicability or effect of such federal and state laws or regulations, and Consultant shall bear all responsibility and liability for determining if a conflict under federal and/or state laws or regulations exist in relation to the Consultant's work or proposed work on the Project. Section 3.7. Binding Effect of Commission Decisions. The Commission shall not 23 withdraw or amend a prior consent or approval granted to a Consultant under this Policy unless: (A) The application of the federal and state laws and regulations described in Section 3.6 requires the consent or approval to be withdrawn or amended; or (B) The Commission decides, in its sole discretion, to withdraw or amend the consent or approval based on factual circumstances that the Commission has been made aware of that were not disclosed when the Commission made its original decision, or factual circumstances that are new or have changed since the Commission made its original decision; or (C) The Consultant or Proposer team fails to comply with any mitigative measures imposed under this Policy. Section 3.8. General Conflict of Interest Standards. Except as provided in Section 3.9 of this Policy, no Consultant that has previously provided Services or that is currently providing Services to the Commission with respect to the Project may be a Proposer or participate as an equity owner, team member, consultant, or subconsultant of or to a Proposer for the Project, or have a financial interest in any of the foregoing entities with respect to the Project. In Commission's sole discretion, this prohibition may be extended to Consultants that worked for the Commission on a project other than the Project, where such work was, in the Commission's sole determination, strategic to Commission's design -build program or afforded such Consultant access to information about the Project or the Commission's approach to the Project (or other design -build projects) or procurement of the Project (or other design -build projects) that would provide an unfair competitive advantage for such Consultant. Section 3.9. Determination Regarding Provision of Services for the Project. Section 3.9.1. Discretion of the Commission. Unless otherwise indicated in this Policy, all approvals, actions or discretion under this Policy and with respect to an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest shall be within the sole discretion of the Commission. Unless a particular decision regarding application of this Policy is referred to the Commission's Board of Directors by the Executive Director, the Executive Director retains the ultimate and sole discretion to act on behalf of the Commission hereunder and to determine on a case -by -case basis whether an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest exists and what actions may be appropriate to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate any actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest. Section 3.9.2. Determination Process. In response to a disclosure under Section 3.3 above or information the Commission obtains independent of a Consultant, the Executive Director shall determine whether a Consultant has an actual, potential or perceived Conflict of Interest that the Executive Director determines should prevent the Consultant from (i) being a Proposer, (ii) participating as an equity owner, team member, consultant, or subconsultant of or to a Proposer for the Project, (iii) having a financial interest in any of the foregoing entities with respect to the Project or (iv) otherwise participating in the design, construction or development of the Project. Once the Executive Director makes this determination, he/she or his/her designee shall send the Consultant a written notice regarding the decision and, if participation is approved, 24 whether the approval and participation is limited or subject to the Consultant meeting certain conditions. The Executive Director shall consider some or all of the following factors when making the determination: (A) Whether the Consultant will not, or in the case of the previous performance of Services did not, have access to or obtain knowledge of confidential or sensitive information, procedures, policies and processes that could provide, or could be perceived to provide, an unfair competitive advantage with respect to the procurement, design, construction or development of the Project; (B) Whether the data and information provided to the Consultant in the performance of the Services is either substantially irrelevant to the procurement for the Project or is generally available on substantially an equal and timely basis to all Proposers; (C) The type of Services at issue; (D) The particular circumstances at issue, including the Consultant's ability to effectively implement the safeguards described in Section 3.12, including an ethical wall, or to otherwise mitigate the Conflict of Interest in a manner satisfactory to the Commission; (E) The specialized expertise, if any, needed by the Commission and Proposers to implement the Project; (F) The period of time between the previous work for the Commission and the potential Conflict of Interest situation; (G) Whether the Consultant's work for the Commission has been completed or is ongoing; (H) The potential impact on the procurement and implementation of the Project, including impacts on competition; (1) Whether, with respect to a Consultant's prior environmental services related to the Project, if any, a record of decision or finding of no significant impact has been issued for the Project; (J) Whether, with respect to a Consultant's prior traffic and revenue Services related to the Project, if any, the prior work will have no impact on the Project's plan of finance, on a Proposer's ability to obtain and close funding or on the potential sources of funding for the Project; (K) Whether the Executive Director believes that the Consultant's participation is in the best interests of the Commission; and (L) Any other factors or circumstances deemed relevant by the Commission. Section 3.10. Procurement and Financial Services. Independent of the process described in Section 3.9, a Consultant actively engaged and performing procurement services or financial services with respect to the Project may not be a Proposer or participate as an equity owner, team member, consultant, or subconsultant of or to a Proposer for the Project, or have a financial interest in any of the foregoing entities with respect to the Project. 25 Section 3.11. Multiple Services. If a Consultant is providing more than one category or type of Services to the Commission for the Project (e.g., environmental services as well as procurement services) and there are differences in this Policy's considerations, standards, restrictions, limitations and outcomes applicable to those categories or types of Services, the standards, restrictions, limitations and outcomes applicable to a category that are more stringent will be applied (e.g., if a Consultant were only providing preliminary engineering services that have been completed, they may be approved to participate on a Proposer team, whereas, if they were also providing ongoing procurement services for the Project, they may not be approved to participate on a Proposer team). Section 3.12. Restriction of Services and Conditions to Approvals and Exceptions. In order to address actual, potential or perceived Conflicts of Interest, the Executive Director as part of providing his or her consent to the participation of a Consultant may, in his or her sole discretion: (A) Restrict the scope of Services the Consultant may be eligible to perform for the Commission or the Proposer team in order to further the intent and goals of this Policy; (B) Condition an approval, determination, or exception as the Executive Director determines appropriate to further the intent and goals of this Policy, including by requiring the Consultant or Proposer to implement certain safeguards, including, but not limited to: (i) The execution of confidentiality agreements satisfactory to the Commission, which may, among other things, include the segregation and protection of information obtained as a result of the Consultant's prior or ongoing work for the Commission or from former or current Commission employees; and/or (ii) The execution of ethical wall agreements satisfactory to the Commission, which segregate certain personnel from participation in the Project; and/or (iii) The execution of agreements satisfactory to the Commission regarding the dissemination of work product and materials created as a result of Consultant's prior or ongoing work for the Commission, including dissemination to the Commission and restrictions on dissemination by the Consultant to any Proposer team, including a team on which they intend to participate. Section 3.13. Provisions are Nonexclusive. The provisions in this Policy do not address every situation that may arise in the context of the Commission's planning, procurement, design, construction or development of the Project nor require a particular decision or determination by the Executive Director when faced with facts similar to those described in this Policy. In addition, additional policies, procedures and limits related to conflicts of interest or similar issues may be imposed by the Commission at any time with respect to the Project or any other Commission projects. 26 AGENDA ITEM 7D RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Alex Menor, Capital Projects Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. for the Completion of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement and Project Report for the Mid County Parkway Project WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 04-31-018-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) to perform additional studies and design support for the completion of the final Recirculated Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (REIR/SEIS) and Project Report (PR) for the Mid County Parkway (MCP) project for an additional amount of $2,243,505, plus a contingency amount of $224,350, for a total additional amount of $2,467,855, resulting in a total amount not to exceed $45,511,717; 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission; 3) Authorize the Executive Director to approve contingency work as may be required for the project; and 4) Authorize the Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute non - funding related agreements for the environmental clearance and design of the project. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The MCP project is a proposed new west -east transportation corridor planned to improve mobility in Western Riverside County. The original 32 -mile project limits were from Interstate 15 to State Route 79. The original Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/DEIS) for the MCP project was circulated for a 90 -day public review on October 10, 2008. The Commission accepted public comments for the record at six public meetings held in the cities of Corona, Perris, and San Jacinto and the communities of Mead Valley and Citrus Hills High School in the First District along with comments via the website and email. Agenda Item 7D 27 Comments submitted on the DEIR/DEIS raised environmental and community concerns regarding the portion of the project between 1-15 and 1-215 and funding concerns about the entire project. In response to these comments, the Commission took action on July 8, 2009, to focus the project limits to the portion between 1-215 and SR -79, reducing the project in half to a 16 -mile corridor. Since the Commission directive in 2009, staff has been working with its consultant team and project partners — Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Caltrans, local agencies, and tribal governments — to update and revise the technical studies for the modified project and released a draft Revised DEIR/Supplemental DEIS (RDEIR/SDEIS) in February 2013 for public review and comment. The development and release of the RDEIR/SDEIS was completed within the budget from Amendment No. 5 approved by the Commission in September 2010. Since the approval of Amendment No. 5, the MCP project team completed, or is in the process of completing the following items: • Reached agreement on a modified purpose and need. • Developed three modified build alternatives (Alternative 4 Modified, Alternative 5 Modified, and Alternative 9 Modified) and one design variation at the San Jacinto River Bridge area to be carried forward into the RDEIR/SDEIS. • Updated all engineering, traffic, and environmental studies required for a RDEIR/SDEIS and three modified build alternatives, including but not limited to a Supplemental New Connection Report at 1-215, Traffic Technical Report, PR, environmental technical studies and hydraulic studies for the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation (SJRB DV). • Released the RDEIR/SDEIS evaluating the modified alternatives in January 2013 for a 75 -day public review period. o The RDEIR/SDEIS included discussions of the process to date and how the comments received during public review of the original DEIR/DEIS led to a decision to refine the project purpose and need statement and to focus the project limits between 1-215 and SR -79. In addition to including the analysis of up to three modified build alternatives and the SJRB DV, the recirculated document included a phasing plan, associated environmental analysis, and addressed public comments received on the DEIR/DEIS in 2008. o Held public hearing on February 20, 2013. • Following release of the RDEIR/SDEIS and public hearing, started work on all documents required for a final REIR/SEIS and a Record of Decision (ROD). o Prepared responses to comments on the RDEIR/SDEIS. o Prepared the Multi Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Determination of Biological Equivalency or Superior Preservation Analysis, and submitted the joint project review (JPR) for the regional conservation agency and the wildlife agency review and concurrence. o Held 16 tribal consultation meetings and prepared a memorandum of agreement (MOA) and discovery and monitoring plan (DMP) for tribal government and Agenda Item 7D 28 agency review for forwarding to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for final approval. o Revised and updated the design exception fact sheets and, geometric approval drawings (GADs) for recommended Alternative 9 Modified to comply with Caltrans 2012 standards for reduced project limits. o Revised and updated all environmental technical studies for most recent guidance and final approval, including but not limited to noise, jurisdictional delineation, air quality, and relocation impact report. o Recirculated portions of Chapter 4 of the RDEIR on air quality, greenhouse gases, and climate change for public review on January 31, 2014. The public review period ended on March 17, 2014. Comments are currently being evaluated. o Received agreement in February 2014 from the transportation and resource agencies that the Preliminary Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative for the project is Alternative 9 Modified with the SJRB DV. The remaining items required to complete and secure FHWA ROD are as follows: • Preparation and approval of final Project Report; • Complete the final REIR/SEIS; • Complete the cost estimate review, project management plan and financial plan to comply with FHWA's Major Project Guidance for projects over $500 million; • Secure regulatory agency agreement on MSHCP Consistency Analysis, JPR concurrence, Section 4(f) concurrence, and SHPO concurrence on the MOA and DMP; • Circulate for public review the final REIR/SEIS; and • Secure the FHWA ROD. At the completion of this process between summer and winter of 2014, the Commission will be requested to certify the final REIR, FHWA to release the final SEIS for public review, and FHWA to issue a ROD. The critical path item in the schedule is securing SHPO concurrence; this action is unpredictable in length and could add an additional 12 months of time to the schedule and delay the issuance of the ROD to winter 2015. Following a ROD, the Commission can proceed to right of way acquisition, design, and construction of the MCP project. Contract Amendments At its December 13, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-31-018 for a total amount of $5,030,501 for Phase I work with Jacobs for the development of the project study report/project development study (PSR/PDS) and preliminary phases of the PR and environmental document (PR/ED) for what is now called the MCP. The original project limits were from 1-15 to SR -79. At its January 12, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 05-31-530, Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs for Phase II of the project and development and completion of the preliminary engineering and environmental document, for Agenda Item 7D 29 a total amount not to exceed $26,134,384. This brought the total project cost for Phase 1 and Phase 11 of the MCP project to $31,164,885. At its November 9, 2005 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 06-72-555, Amendment No. 2 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs in the amount of $4,845,385 for incorporation of three new alternatives identified during a value analysis study process for the MCP project. Both schedule and budget were impacted due to the need to conduct the required environmental and engineering studies for the new alternatives. Amendment Nos. 3 and 4, which covered work for the initial work on project re-evaluation, were funded with contingency funds. This brought the total contract value for the MCP project to $36,010,270. At its September 8, 2010 meeting, the Commission approved Agreement No. 04-31-018-05, Amendment No. 5 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs to perform additional work scope for the reduced project between 1-215 and SR -79. This amendment covered completion of the RDEIS/SDEIR and supplemental PR for the MCP project in the amount of $7,033,592. Amendment No. 6 was a no cost amendment to extend the term for an additional 48 months to complete additional technical reports and coordination with regulatory agencies and tribal governments. Through Amendment No. 6, the total authorized amount for the MCP project environmental and engineering studies is $43,043,862. CONCLUSION: Since the last Commission action in 2010 adding funding and scope to the contract, additional state and federal requirements have arisen as well as additional requirements from regulatory resource agencies and tribal governments. These requirements include the following: • FHWA: Cost Estimate Review, Project Management Plan, and Financial Plan; • State: New design requirements from 2012 Highway Design Manual change, Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Air Quality Analysis for Green House Gases and Climate Change, Noise Abatement Decision Report, and Soundwall Property Survey; • Tribal Government: Concurrence with the MOA and DMP, which also resulted in the need to prepare a Landscape Cultural Study; • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Additional flood plain and hydrology analysis; and • California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Modifications to the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Amendment No. 7 will provide funding to complete the final REIR/SEIS and final PR and obtain the ROD for the MCP project. Staff has negotiated with the consultant team a proposed Amendment No. 7 related to the scope, schedule and cost for the final REIR/SEIS and PR for the MCP project. During the negotiating process, it was agreed that some of the austerity measures undertaken by Jacobs in 2010, such as reduction in fee from 10 percent to 7 percent, and a 6 percent in reduction of overhead rate, will be maintained with this Amendment No. 7 resulting in approximate savings of $120,000. Agenda Item 7D 30 Staff recommends approval of Agreement No. 04-31-018-07, Amendment No. 7 to Agreement No. 04-31-018, with Jacobs to perform the additional work scope to complete the final environmental and engineering services associated with preparing a final REIR/SEIS and final PR for the MCP project for an additional amount of $2,243,505 plus a contingency amount of $224,350, for a total requested authorization of $2,467,855. The total authorized funding by the Commission for the environmental and engineering work related to the MCP project, with the addition of this request, will be $45,511,717, as summarized in the table below. Commission Authorization Contract Execution Date Amount Date Amount Description Original 12/13/2003 $ 5,030,501 2/3/2004 $ 5,030,501 Phase I work for preparation of PSR/PDS and preliminary phases of PR/ED Amendment No. 1 1/12/2005 26,134,384 5/6/2005 20,168,608 Phase II work for preparation of PR/ED Amendment No. 2 11/9/2005 4,845,385 1/11/2006 4,845,385 Phase II additional work related to three new alternative alignments Amendment No. 3 N/A N/A 11/14/2007 3,563,117 Phase II additional work for GADS and cultural investigation Amendment No. 4 N/A N/A 1/1/2010 2,402,659 Phase II additional work for rescoping of project for re-evaluation Amendment No. 5 9/8/2010 7,033,592 11/16/2010 7,033,592 Phase II additional work for RDEIR/SDEIS Amendment No. 6 N/A N/A 12/31/2012 - Term extension through December 31, 2016 Total 43, 043, 862 43, 043, 862 Amendment No. 7 (proposed) 4/9/2014 2,467,855 2,243,505 Phase II additional work for Final REIR/SEIS $ 45, 511, 717 $45,287,367 Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15 Amount: $ 400,000 $ 2,067,855 Source of Funds: CETAP TUMF Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 002302 81101 210 73 81101 Fiscal Procedures Approved: \i-4-€4-E-e-,.0."-u-oz/n Date: 03/19/2014 Attachments: 1) MCP Scope of Work Amendment 7 2) MCP Project Schedule 3) MCP Project Cost Detail Amendment 7 4) MCP Project Cost Summary Amendment 7 5) Draft Agreement No. 04-31-018-07 Agenda Item 7D 31 ATTACHMENT 1 -_ - Rh erAhleCounly Transportation Cjnnnrisdon SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 1 — PROJECT MANAGEMENT MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: • Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. • Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. 1.0 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 1.1 Project Management This task includes overall project management, Project Development Team (PDT) leadership, progress monitoring, and maintenance of project files for the following: • Amendment 4 (2009) — Scope and start re-evaluation phase for the modified project, 16 miles from Perris to San Jacinto. (Noted with an "A") • Amendment 5 (2010) — Scope for all studies and documents required to release a Revised Draft Project Report and Recirculated/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (SDEIS/RDEIR). (Noted with an "A") • Items added to the scope that were not in Amendment 5 scope of work, but were required to be performed in order to reach circulation of the RDEIR/SDEIS and completion of the re-evaluation phase. This work was done with the contingency fund in Amendment 5 and re -allocation of original Amendment 5 budget. No funds were requested for this work. It is noted in this scope of work for documentation purposes only. These tasks are noted with italics. • Items added to scope of work under Amendment 7 for the Final Phase to complete the final EIR/EIS and ROD. These tasks are noted with underline text. Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs) will supervise, coordinate, monitor, and review the Draft Project Report, Draft and Final Revised Project Report, Draft 32 r /rreideCoortlr TnorcpoModon Cjnnnrisdon Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (DEIS/DEIR) Recirculated/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (SDEIS/RDEIR), Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/FEIR) and all associated documents for conformance with the latest Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local agency standards, policies, and procedures. Monthly progress reports will be prepared to document progress on the project. This task also incorporates the management and project integration required for each of the subconsultants. The consultant will provide Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for the project re-evaluation. The job -specific QA/QC plan includes the type and timing of checks and reviews, the designation of personnel involved, and specific procedures. These procedures apply to all team members and will be regularly audited by our designated QA/QC manager to ensure compliance. All documents and papers for external use will be reviewed for completeness and consistency. A technical editor will be used for all external documents. 1.2 Project Scheduling and Project Controls Jacobs will prepare a detailed work breakdown structure (WBS) and integrate project milestones in the critical path schedule. All activities will be resource loaded for the team. The schedule will be updated bimonthly or more frequently as required, and a variance analysis will be provided in our monthly report. Primavera Scheduling Software, tied into the Jacobs Accounting System, will be used for this task. Jacobs will provide the Project Controls for this project to ensure proper financial controls to the project. Earned value will be used along with schedule updates to maintain project budget and schedule. 1.3 Project Meetings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend a number of meetings as specified below: Project Development Team (PDT) The PDT and Jacobs will meet monthly. These progress meetings will be used to coordinate the work effort and resolve problems and will be conducted by the Consultant. The Jacobs Team will meet with RCTC and others, including Caltrans, Riverside County, and the affected cities (Corona, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Perris, Riverside and San Jacinto) as necessary. Jacobs will provide discussion materials 2 33 RlrerrldeCounly Transportation GIIII1t,L Sh111 and agendas and will prepare and distribute meeting notes. Jacobs will develop an action item matrix, document all project decisions, and distribute correspondence copies to all project team members as appropriate. The meetings will also review the following: 1. Activities completed since the last meeting 2. Problems encountered 3. Anticipated strategic problems and possible solutions 4. Information or items required from other cities or the agencies 5. Schedule "look -ahead" discussion Small Working Group (SWG) Meetings Small Working Group meetings will continued to be scheduled quarterly for the SWG and monthly as needed, including representatives of local government and private sector agencies along the corridor, along with the FHWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Metropolitan Water District (MWD), Riverside County, and RCTC. This group will meet to provide environmental and engineering technical input in order to move the environmental process forward and to gain concurrence on a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The consultant will prepare the agenda and meeting notes and conduct a pre -meeting with RCTC to prepare for the monthly meeting. Resource Agency Coordination (RAC) Meetings RAC meetings will continued to be scheduled monthly as needed, including representatives of the following agencies: FHWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Caltrans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and RCTC. This group will meet to provide environmental and engineering technical input in order to move the environmental process forward and to gain concurrence on a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA). The consultant will prepare the agenda and meeting notes and conduct a pre -meeting with RCTC to prepare for the monthly meeting. Trend Meetings The Jacobs Team will organize and attend the monthly "Trend" meetings to discuss current issues and strategize for and anticipate potential project problems in the future. Jacobs will invite subconsultants based on the topic of discussion. 3 34 rrsirleCorrnlr Tmnspotauan Cpmnrission Budget and Schedule Meetings The Jacobs Team will meet monthly with RCTC to review schedule, scope and budget. The team will report on the estimate to complete or earned value of the project. The team will identify any potential out of scope items and areas where budget has been saved and can be utilized elsewhere. Development Coordination Meetings The Jacobs Team will attend development coordination meetings with local agency partners and / or developers, to coordinate alignments, right-of-way, developer tracts, etc., as needed. These meetings are to facilitate a means of communication between the local agencies, developers and RCTC in order to minimize impacts to the alignment and proposed developments. Caltrans Technical Coordination Meetings The Jacobs Team will attend monthly Caltrans workshop meetings to review and resolve engineering issues, share information, seek input, provide interim reviews of data, etc. Internal Team Meetings The Jacobs Team will run and attend semi-monthly internal team meetings to develop, discuss, review, and implement task assignments and coordinate tasks. Other Agency Meetings Other agency meetings include anticipated meetings with federal, State, and local agencies. These include coordination and support for the environmental streamlining process, the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) integration process, Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) development, and coordination with the SR -79 realignment projects. These agency meetings are anticipated as an average of one per month. 4 35 • J Rlrrrs/JhCaaaly Transporlalran (junnrlsslan SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 2 — PUBLIC OUTREACH MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: • Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. • Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 2.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH 2.1A Support for Public Meetings Attend outreach team meetings to prepare for public information and hearing associated with release of RDEIR/SDEIS; attend two trend meetings before each round of public meetings and hearing. Provide and/or review Draft support materials in the form of maps, newsletters, mail pieces, web site updates, newspaper ads, PowerPoints, and presentation materials for public meetings, hearing and any additional meetings with stakeholders. Assumption: Attend 10 meetings and review/produce support materials as needed. Scope includes associated team meetings to support this effort. Product: o Draft support documents for Public Meetings, hearing and any additional meetings with stakeholders o Timeline for deliverables leading up to Public Meetings 36 • - Rlrvrside Loun:r Transportation (,n,nrlsslon 2.3A Message Development and Media Relations Update key message document to reflect new project issues (environmental documents, project design, final route selection). The key message document is utilized for attending stakeholder meetings and in response or discussions to media inquiries. Message development includes preparing RCTC spokesperson on key message for briefings with local and regional transportation reporters prior to public meetings, release of Draft REIS/SEIR and other project milestones. Develop an MCP message document as needed for discussions with local, regional and federal partners and stakeholders. Assumption: Includes items in original Task 2.3A to support a public information meetings and a newsletter. 2.6A Public Informational Meetings and Website (3 Total) This task includes final documents for Public Information Meetings associated with modified project and release of RDEIR/SDEIS and includes maintenance and update to website. Assumptions: One public information meeting for project modification in late 2010 or early 2011 and two meetings for RDEIR/SDEIS — prior to public hearings for RDEIR/SDEIS. This task assumes one newsletter, including mailing. 2.6.1A Support Review and provide comments on final display materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint presentations. Attend public informational meetings. Includes 4 renderings for modified project -revised cad files, new boards, pdfs but no new flights or photos. 2.6.2A Communications Final presentation materials for RCTC spokesperson at public meetings. 2.6.3A Logistical and Public Information Support Meeting setup including researching venue locations and booking. 2.6.4A Hold Meetings Meeting attendance. 2.6.5A Web site 2 37 • - Rlrvrside Loun:r Transportation (,n,nrlsslon Update of website for new materials related to public meetings, hearings and release of RDEIR/SDEIS. Load of all environmental documents for RDEIR/SDEIS to website. Review and assist with update of website for public meeting. Update of website for new materials related to the Recirculation of portions of Chapter 4 of the RDEIR/DEIS. Load all environmental documents for the Recirculated Chapter 4 and produce products listed below. One additional update of website and materials listed below for update to public prior to the Final EIR/EIS. Products for all 2.6A tasks: • Talking points document • Q&A document products • Comments and reviews on materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint presentations • Letter and envelope • Newsletter • Email announcement • List updates • Newspaper ads 2.7A Recirculated DEIR / Supplemental DEIS Hearings , Final EIR/EIS Hearing Assumption: One public hearing for RDEIR/SDEIS and one for the Final EIR/EIS 2.7.1A Support Review and provide comments to display materials, newsletters, and draft PowerPoint presentations. Attend hearings. 2.7.2A Communications Draft talking points for RCTC spokesperson at public meetings. Draft Q&A document to help RCTC spokesperson prepare for public questions during meeting. 2.7.3A Logistical and Public Information Support Coordinate site locations and provide logistical support for up to 2 informational meetings. Prepare exhibits, newsletters, direct mailing, PowerPoint presentation, and advertising; place advertising. 3 38 Si"."OPE Rlrrrs/drCounty Transportation Commission 2.7.4A Hold Meeting Attend meeting Products for all 2.7A tasks: • Presentation materials • Comments and reviews on materials, newsletters, and PowerPoint presentations • Attend hearings • Web site update • Letter and envelope • Newsletter • Email announcement • List updates (1) for the first round • Newspaper ads 4 39 41:1D RlrrradrCnnnl 'rr'msjn riaiion Cr :.ssion SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 3 — SURVEY, RIGHT -OF -ENTRY (ROE), AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 3.0 SURVEY, RIGHT -OF -ENTRY (ROE), AND RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) 3.3.A ROW Studies Additional Work due to modified project includes work for ongoing requests from RCTC to include periodic studies for right of way estimates and other studies regarding acquisition cost and relocation impacts needed. In addition, to inspect alignments, and make note of special problems or unusual circumstances, identify and verify sensitive issues. Additional work due to investigation of the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation, response to comments and request for information at Placentia Ave future interchange. Additional work due to investigation of mitigation parcels, public requests, and updated Right of Way Data for information at Placentia Ave future interchange and 1- 215 Modifications. Products: Maps, data and information in format as requested by RCTC 3.4A Prepare Recirculated Draft Relocation Impact Report Additional Work due to modified project includes preparation of Recirculated Draft Relocation Impact Report, as supporting documentation to the RDEIR/SDEIS. The report will be prepared using same methodology and data assumptions as the previously prepared Draft Relocation Report. Product: Recirculated Draft Relocation Impact Report for three alternatives, Alternatives 4, 5, 9 from 1-215 to SR -79 (10 copies of each report). 3.4 Prepare Final Relocation Impact Report The Consultant will prepare update the information from the Draft Relocation Impact Report for the Final Relocation Impact Report. 40 RlrrradrCnnnl 'rr'msjn riaiion Cr :.ssion Assumption: For purposes of this scope of services, this includes one Final Relocation Impact Report. Any substantial changes in scope of services that require interim reports to be generated are not included in this scope of services. Product: Final Relocation Impact Report for each alternative (10 copies of report). 3.5A Prepare ROW Data Sheets Additional Work Due to Recirculated EIR/EIS will require updated ROW Data Sheets for Alts 4, 5 & 9. An estimated 1,250 parcels are impacted. Due to Project Modification leading to a Recirculated Draft EIR/ Supplemental Draft EIS in order to perform ROW Data Sheets, parcel -level GIS data will be created to visualize and track parcel geometry and estimate the percentage of the anticipated take area. Provide GIS mapping services for the anticipated 1,250 parcels impacted. Due to Recirculated EIR/EIS will require updated ROW Data Sheets for Alts 4, 5 & 9. An estimated 1,250 parcels are impacted. Final ROW Data Sheets Work to update the parcels related to the selected alternative only. The year and trend will be assessed and an escalation applied across all the parcels as agreed to in discussions with Caltrans in February 2014. Work to provide information for the FHWA requirement for a Cost Estimate Review for selected alternative. Utility Coordination - Ongoing Additional Work due to modified project includes preparation of Utility Cost Estimates. Prepare preliminary utility engineering documents as part of the environmental clearance document in the planning stage. Determination of prior rights will be coordinated with Jacobs. Obtain and analyze data to allocate cost between the utility owner and local agency for all required utility adjustment work and to clearly document, support and set forth the basis of this finding in a Report of Investigation. The Team will prepare a Utility Matrix identifying utility owners, descriptions of facilities, dispositions (i.e. protect, relocate, abandon), utility relocation designer and utility contractor, and initial cost liability determinations. Preparation of utility relocation estimate will also include railroad construction costs. 2 41 O�`OJNTYp T Rlrerade(,nnnl lransjn,riaih n Cs :.ssion SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 4 — ENVIRONMENTAL MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: • Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. • Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR —ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 4.0A ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES The scope for Task 4.0A assumes the limits on 1-215 stay within the current survey limits, Harley Knox Blvd (Oleander Street) on the north to north of Nuevo Road to the south. Tasks with an A were updated with additional scope to complete an RDEIR/SDEIS for the 16 mile project, re-evaluation phase, in Amendments 4 and 5. Portions of the modified alternative alignments were refined to address design changes requested by Caltrans and/or affected cities (e.g. avoidance of Paragon Park in the City of Perris) in response to comments on the Draft EIR/EIS and review of the GADs for Alternative 9. While these changes were made with every attempt to stay within the existing survey limits, 20 locations extended outside the previous survey limits and additional surveys to support the environmental technical studies were required. As a follow up item from the preliminary San Jacinto River Bridge analysis conducted by Jacobs and the MCP team in summer of 2011, alternative 4 from the preliminary analysis of the San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation was incorporated into the MCP technical studies and Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS. Some technical studies required either a more detailed analysis of the design variation (e.g. Natural Environment Study and additional model runs for the Noise Study Report) while others only required updates to the 1 42 i Rlrerade(,nnnl Tnms,nniaiion Cs .ssion project description and impact tables (e.g. Community Impact Assessment and Water Quality Assessment). Additional analysis was done by Dudek for discussion purposes with agencies in order to compare the base case bridge with the proposed design variation bridge. This included presentation materials, handout and two presentations to agencies. Task 4.4A Technical Studies to support RDEIR/SDEIS In this task, the technical studies and documents prepared in original Task 4.2 will be revised or supplemented in response to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA's decision to modify the MCP project. Revised or supplemented technical studies will be prepared that will accompany the submittal of the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS (RDEIR/SDEIS) for approval to circulate. Each revised or supplemented technical study will include a description of up to three modified Build Alternatives, as well as a description of the process leading to development of the modified Build Alternatives. The ability to secure Caltrans and FHWA approval of technical studies on these submittals is predicated upon: 1) The draft reports being revised and/or supplemented and submitted as complete reports with no contingencies or placeholders based upon information pending from the Traffic, Engineering, or Right -of -Way tasks, 2) A review process involving the Consultant, RCTC, and Caltrans to meet to discuss prior to drafting the revisions or supplemental reports to agree upon process and no changes in process being made by Caltrans or FHWA once the type of document is agreed to at these meetings, 3) Two concurrent reviews by RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA (draft and final), 4) Supplemented reports will include a CD of the previously approved report with the submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA, and 5) No changes in the survey area. 4.4.1A Biological Resources (NES/JD) The Environmental Team will prepare a technical supplement to the approved Natural Environment Study (NES; July 2008) and will include: • A summary of the results for each modified alternative of the delineation of waters subject to jurisdiction of the Corps, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The approved jurisdictional delineation will not need to be updated. An assessment of impacts of each modified alternative to biological resources, including sensitive plants, small mammals, burrowing owl, riparian birds, fairy 2 43 Rlrerade(,nnnl Tnms,nniaiion Cs .ssion shrimp, jurisdictional waters, sensitive habitats, wildlife crossings/habitat fragmentation, MSHCP Criteria Area and an updated table that summarizes occurrence potential of regional species of concern. • An update of the avoidance and minimization efforts. • Recommendations for mitigation (such measures will be included upon completion of coordination with the project team, including Caltrans representatives; these mitigation measures will not include construction -level documents such as specific restoration plans) The technical supplement to the NES will identify the need for any additional biological surveys (i.e., focused surveys that may need to be updated at the time of construction). The technical supplement to the NES will also identify regulatory permits that may be required for project approval and construction (i.e. a Corps Section 404 permit, CDFG 1602 Agreement, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Certification. The processing of required permits is not included within this scope of services. Product: 11 hard copies each of draft and final technical supplement to the NES 22 CD copies of the approved NES and appendices (July 2008) 4.4.2A Cultural Resources Technical Reports 4.4.2.1A Identification. Agency Coordination. LSA will coordinate with Caltrans, FHWA, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) throughout the execution of this task. This consultation will focus on ensuring that work completed under this scope of services complies with the requirements of these agencies for reporting, researcher qualifications, documentation, etc., while adhering to the proposed schedule. Revised APE Map Development. These design drawings will be used to develop the modified project Area of Potential Effect (APE) map for the undertaking. LSA will coordinate with District 8 staff in the development of appropriate APE limits for the modified project. All elements of this scope and budget are based on no changes to the APE that would add new unsurveyed areas to the APE. Native American and Interested Parties Consultation. LSA recognizes that the federal government has a unique relationship with federally recognized tribes and that Caltrans/FHWA has the ultimate responsibility in Native American 3 44 Rlrerade(,nnnl Tnms,nniaiion Cs .ssion consultation. LSA will coordinate with Caltrans/FHWA to determine the level of involvement LSA will have in the Native American consultation process to review the modified project with the tribes. In consultation with District 8, LSA will contact the seven tribal entities that have been involved with MCP to solicit their concerns and input about the modified project. This initial contact will be made through a verifiable letter system (e.g., Certified Letter). Subsequently, LSA will contact those entities by up to two phone calls to ensure each group has an opportunity to comment on the modified project. LSA will then coordinate up to two meetings with such groups (as needed), documenting comments provided during those meetings, and developing responses to comments as appropriate. Consultation will continue throughout the Section 106 compliance effort. Expanded Native American consultation activities have been required to support the development of the Draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), including coordination/scheduling and attendance at 13 additional meetings with the independent Section 106 facilitator (retained by FHWA and RCTC) and the Tribes (one kickoff meeting with the facilitator, one pre-MOA group meeting with the Tribes, nine individual meetings with the Tribes, and two follow up meetings with the facilitator and partner agencies) plus preparation of draft and final meeting summaries for all tribal meetings. Based on the previous review/concurrence process for the Finding of Effect document in late 2012, there is a potential for additional revisions to MOA and/or Native American consultation based on SHPO review of MOA. 4.4.2.2A Documentation and Reports Based on known resources within the modified study area, and with the basis that no new areas will be added to the APE, no additional archaeological resources will be identified for the modified alternatives considered. LSA will develop a revised Historic Property Survey Report (HPSR), which is the Caltrans/FHWA master document for the Section 106 effort. Attached to the HPSR will be the revised Archaeological Survey Report (ASR), the revised Extended Phase I Survey Report (XPI Report), the revised Archaeological Evaluation Report (AER), the revised Archaeological Evaluation Without Phase II Excavations Report (AEPER) and the revised Historic Resources Evaluation Report (HRER) that documents the results of the survey efforts for the modified project. The contents of the report will be coordinated with Caltrans/FHWA. HPSR. Upon completion of the revised engineering plans and consultation with the Native American tribes described above, LSA will complete a revised HPSR. The HPSR is the summary document used by Caltrans/FHWA for consultation and decision -making, and serves as the supporting documentation for NEPA and CEQA compliance. The HPSR documents 4 45 r RlrersiheCoun:r Transportation C/nnnr$slon completion of the identification phase, completion of the National Register eligibility evaluation of resources within the APE, and a Finding of No Historic Properties Adversely Affected with Standard Conditions. The revised HPSR will present a summary of findings, document public participation, describe properties identified and their significance/eligibility for the National Register and under CEQA, and the findings for the undertaking as a whole. The revised HPSR will include a modified location map, modified project vicinity map, and modified APE map as exhibits, as well as photographs, plans, and other graphics. The revised HPSR will contain the following attachments as appropriate: revised ASR, revised XPI Report, revised AER, revised AEPER, revised HRER, and letters from any concerned or interested parties. ASR. The revised ASR will document identification and recordation efforts for prehistoric archaeological resources with the modified project APE. The ASR will contain documentation of the research and field methods, an overview of the existing environment, ethnography, and prehistory of the study area, a description of identified prehistoric archaeological resources, and findings and conclusions. XPI Report. The revised XPI Report will document efforts of the XPI. The XPI Report will contain documentation of the research and field methods; a brief overview of the environment, ethnography, and prehistory; description of the prehistoric archaeological resources; and findings and conclusions. The XPI Report will also contain a bibliography, preparer's qualifications, and any other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and archaeological site records. HRER. The revised HRER will document identification, recordation, and evaluation efforts for the built environment and historical archaeological resources within the modified project APE. The revised HRER will contain documentation of the research and field methods, a historical overview, the description and significance of identified historic archaeological and built environment cultural resources (if applicable), and findings and conclusions for the modified project. The HRER will also contain a bibliography, preparer's qualifications, maps, DPR 523 forms for properties not exempted under Attachment 4 of the PA, and any other documents that may be necessary such as maps, figures, previously prepared resource records, and historical archaeological site records. AER. LSA will develop a revised AER. The revised AER will provide the basis for determining whether sites within the revised APE are eligible or ineligible for the National Register. It will also discuss the potential for sites to be impacted by the MCP Alternatives. The revised report will document the 5 46 Rlrerade(,nnnl Tnms,nniaiion Cs .ssion fieldwork and data analysis required to draw conclusions as to the National Register eligibility of the sites. AEPER. LSA will develop a revised AEPER. The revised AEPER will provide the basis for determining whether sites within the revised APE are eligible or ineligible for the National Register. Sites in the AEPER have not undergone Phase II excavations. It will also discuss the potential for sites to be impacted by the MCP Alternatives. The revised report will document the data analysis required to draw conclusions as to the National Register eligibility of the sites. Development of a Finding of Effect for the Eligible Resources. LSA will work with FHWA/Caltrans to develop a revised Finding of Effect for the resources found to be eligible for the National Register within the modified project. The revised Finding of Effect will be prepared for only those properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register. The specific format for the revised Finding of Effect will follow the format used in the previous draft FOE prepared for the project. These effects recommendations will be subject to FHWA/ Caltrans and SHPO review and comment. Following receipt of comments from Caltrans and FHWA on the revised cultural resource studies in mid -2011, additional work was required for the cultural resources studies including the following: (1) additional coordination and consultation with the Native American Tribes, (2) updates to the HPSR and Finding of Effect with respect to the change to adverse effect for site 33-16598, (3) preparation of a Discovery and Monitoring Plan (DMP), and (4) preparation of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). In 2013, Caltrans and FHWA requested that the MOA/DMP include an annotated outline of a new study; the Cultural Landscape Study. An initial draft outline was submitted to FHWA and Caltrans for review and comment prior to submitting the complete draft outline as part of the Draft MOA/DMP. Products: 9 copies each of the draft and final Revised HPSR, ASR, XPI Report, HRER, AER, and FOE 5 Digital copies of the Draft, Revised Draft, and Final MOA and DMP. 4.4.3A Paleontological Resources Identification and Evaluation Report LSA will prepare a revised Paleontological Resources Identification and Evaluation Report (PIR/PER) that addresses the potential for paleontological resources within the proposed right-of-way for each modified alternative and provides measures to mitigate impacts to significant, nonrenewable paleontological resources that may be encountered and impacted during construction excavation. A revised report will be developed that conforms to Caltrans. Product: 9 copies each of the draft and final Revised PIR/PER 6 47 Rlrrrsidr Counh. Transportation Commission 4.4.4A Noise Study Report Noise Study Report. LSA will prepare a Noise Study Report (NSR). The NSR will address the noise requirements of FHWA, Caltrans, Riverside County (County) and any incorporated jurisdictions (cities) along the proposed project alignment of the modified Build Alternatives. LSA will prepare a technical noise impact analysis consistent with applicable procedures and requirements. Projected vehicular traffic volumes on Mid County Parkway and adjacent affected street segments, if any, will be used in preparing the technical noise impact analysis. Additional information required is identified in the discussion below. The report will be prepared to respond to the applicable NEPA evaluation criteria, and to meet Caltrans and FHWA requirements. LSA will review the applicable federal (FHWA) and State (Caltrans) criteria for the project area. Noise abatement criteria (NAC) required by Caltrans and FHWA will be identified and used in the analysis. Areas with potential future noise impacts will be identified using land use information, aerial photographs, and field reconnaissance. Discussion of existing and future approved sensitive uses within the Mid County Parkway area will be included. Due to the limited number of noise level measurements between SR -79 and 1-215 previously conducted by team, LSA will conduct short-term (15 minute) ambient noise level measurements to establish the existing noise environment at representative noise -sensitive land uses within the project area. Short-term (15 - minute) noise level measurements will be made at up to 55 locations. Concurrent traffic counts will be conducted on a case by case basis depending on the existing traffic within the vicinity of each location. In areas where the existing traffic noise level is low or significant changes in traffic noise in areas where the modified Build Alternatives are proposed, the traffic noise prediction model will not be calibrated. Long-term 24 hour noise level measurements at up to 15 locations will be conducted to identify the peak traffic noise hours. In addition, simultaneous interior/exterior noise level measurements at up to 4 locations will be conducted at classroom buildings located adjacent to the proposed project. Observations of other noise sources, barriers, terrains, building heights, and other site specific information will be noted during each measurement period. Noise impacts from construction sources will be analyzed for each alternative based on the available project -specific information, such as the equipment expected to be used, length of a specific construction task, equipment power type (gasoline or diesel engine), horsepower, load factor, and percentage of time in use. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -recommended noise emission levels will be used for the construction equipment. Blasting or pile -driving may be required for project construction. The construction noise impact will be evaluated in terms of maximum levels (1 -max), and hourly equivalent continuous noise levels (Leg), and the 7 48 Rlrersidetounh• Transportation Cjnnnrlsslon frequency of occurrence at adjacent sensitive locations. Analysis requirements will be based on the sensitivity of the area and the applicable noise control ordinance specifications of the County and the affected cities. Noise impacts from vehicular traffic will be assessed for modified Build Alternatives are using the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5 required by Caltrans and FHWA. Model input data needed include peak hour traffic levels; percentages of autos and medium and heavy trucks; vehicle speeds; ground attenuation factors; and road widths. Peak -hour Continuous Equivalent Noise Level (Leq) along the Mid County Parkway corridor and area roads that would be potentially affected will be tabulated. Traffic parameters necessary for the model input will be obtained from the traffic study prepared for this project or use worst -case traffic conditions. Noise abatement measures designed to reduce short- and long-term impacts on noise -sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Mid County Parkway modified Build Alternatives will be determined where necessary. An evaluation of the potential mitigation measures and a discussion of their effectiveness will be provided. A preliminary feasibility and reasonable allowances will be provided for all noise abatement measures identified, based on Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects (Caltrans, August 2006). Additional work was required for the Noise Study Report due to: 1) The need to comply with new requirements from the new Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol released May 5, 2011, including a new requirement to plot receivers to represent office and commercial land uses; (2) Longer than expected review periods by Caltrans of both measurement locations and TNM files, resulted in some field work and TNM work having to be revised; (3) Comments from Caltrans resulted in additional work, including the request to add additional receptors up to 1,000 feet from the roadway alignment and request for additional short-term monitoring around peak hours (while LSA had the staff to fulfill this request, two additional sound meters rental were required); (4) Additional work required to research and update the model to include changes in the future developments. Noise analysis required to address Sunnyvale Appellate Court decision, which requires that an EIR comply with CEQA's requirements to evaluate a project's effect on existing conditions, not just a future year condition. Noise Abatement Decision Report. LSA will prepare a Noise Abatement Decision Report (NADR) for the modified Build Alternatives as defined in the Caltrans Noise Analysis Protocol (August 2006). The report will summarize the preliminary reasonableness determination from the Noise Study Report, present the engineer's cost estimate for the evaluated abatement, evaluation of nonacoustical factors related to feasibility, preliminary noise abatement decision, and secondary effects of 8 49 Rlrerade(,nnnl Tnms,nniaiion Cs .ssion abatement (impacts on cultural resources, scenic views, hazardous materials, and biology). The construction cost estimate for the evaluated abatement and the evaluation of nonacoustical factors related to feasibility will be provided to LSA by the engineer. LSA will prepare the NADR consistent with the Caltrans report guidelines with the best information available. Product: 9 copies each of the draft and final Revised Noise Study Report 9 copies each of the Draft and Final Noise Abatement Decision Report 4.4.5A Air Quality Report LSA will prepare a Revised Air Quality Analysis for the modified Build Alternatives in accordance with the Caltrans Transportation Project Level Carbon Monoxide (CO) Protocol, the EPA's fugitive dust conformity rule, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Handbook air quality guidelines. LSA will conduct the screening analyses specified in the CO protocol and, if required, conduct CALINE4 modeling for CO hot spots for up to 20 receptor locations for the Existing, Future No Build, and the modified Build Alternatives. LSA will evaluate the proposed project's impacts to long-term particulate matter concentrations (PM2.5 and PM10) and mobile source air toxics (MSAT) using the Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot -spot Analysis in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (EPA, March 2006) and the Interim Guidelines on Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents (FHWA, February 2006). In addition, the proposed project's impact on global warming and climate change will be discussed. LSA will also assist RCTC with the TCWG review process. Air analysis required to address Sunnyvale Appellate Court decision, which requires that an EIR comply with CEQA's requirements to evaluate a project's effect on existing conditions, not just a future year condition. Product: 10 hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Air Quality Analysis 4.4.6A Community Impact Assessment A technical supplement to the approved Community Impact Assessment (CIA; June 2008) will be prepared in accordance with the guidelines found in the FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A (Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, October 30, 1987) and the Caltrans Community Impact Assessment Handbook (June 1997). Per FHWA's request, the technical supplement to the CIA was revised to include 2010 Census Data that was made available to the public in the fall of 2011. Impacts to the following socioeconomic topics will be evaluated in the technical supplement for each of the modified alternatives under consideration: Land Use 9 50 0 RlrersldeCoun:, Transportation Cinnrrrlsslon Impacts and Growth Inducement, Farmland Impacts, Social Impacts, Relocation Impacts, and Economic Impacts. Specific issues to be addressed within each topic are discussed in further detail below. Recommendations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential socioeconomic impacts related to each topic shall be identified in the technical supplement where feasible. Land Use Impacts and Growth Related Effects. The technical supplement to the CIA will evaluate each modified alternative for its compatibility with and impacts to the existing and planned land uses within the refined study area. The discussion will assess the consistency of each modified alternative with relevant local, regional, and State regulations and plans related to land use and growth. This analysis will include projections of housing stock within the refined study area and a description of housing policies and programs related to each affected jurisdiction. This discussion will include an analysis of each modified alternative's impact on the jobs and housing balance based upon the interrelationship of commuting patterns with the location of future housing and employment centers within the refined study area. The technical supplement to the CIA will consider the ways that each modified alternative could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing (either directly or indirectly) within the refined study area. Planned growth relative to the highway infrastructure capacity throughout the study area will be considered to determine the potential for growth -related effects of the proposed action. This discussion will include a consistency analysis of the proposed modified project with relevant regional/local land use plans and their incorporated population and employment projections. The potential for growth -related effects will be evaluated based upon the potential for exceeding roadway capacity, levels of services, and increases (or decreases) in accessibility to vacant parcels, underutilized land, and agricultural land. The discussion will also include an evaluation and comparison of direct and indirect impacts of growth -related effects. Farmland Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will include a revised farmland impacts analysis, including an evaluation of impacts to all four types of farmland, including: (1) prime, (2) unique, (3) farmland of statewide importance, and (4) farmland of local importance. Early consultation will be initiated with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to prepare Form CPA -106. A map will be prepared identifying the location of all four types of farmlands within the refined study area. Based upon the results of Form CPA -106, the technical supplement to the CIA will: (1) discuss and summarize the impacts to farmlands from each modified alternative under consideration, (2) identify the status and summarize the potential impacts to Williamson Act contract lands, and (3) identify measures to avoid or reduce impacts to farmlands. Social Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will include a summary of any additional public outreach efforts conducted for the modified MCP project, including 10 51 • RlrrrsldrCnnnl •rrnnspnrinllnn G :.ssion public input received from meetings, newsletters, mailings, and additional community outreach efforts. The technical supplement to the CIA will discuss the following items for each modified alternative under consideration: • Evaluate potential neighborhood -level disruptions or community cohesion of the various social groups as a result of the proposed action. • Properties that may become restricted in access or landlocked. • A description of transit facilities, highways, streets, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the study area and changes in travel patterns and accessibility (e.g., vehicular, commuter, bicycle, or pedestrian) as a result of the proposed action. • A description, location, and impact analysis of community services and facilities within the refined study area, including schools, recreation areas, churches, hospitals, police and fire protection facilities, etc. • Availability of parking facilities and any lots or parking spaces that would be affected by the proposed action. Impacts to minority populations and low-income populations will be evaluated in compliance with Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Minority Populations and Low -Income Populations. The effects of the modified project on age -related, transit -dependent, minority and low-income populations will be analyzed at the tract level to determine whether any social group is disproportionately impacted. Potential mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any adverse impacts to these populations will also be identified. Relocation Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will include a summary of displacements (residential and commercial), the availability of replacement housing, and relocation assistance as identified in the Revised Relocation Impact Report (see Task 3.4A). The technical supplement to the CIA will also include an evaluation of potential impacts to the local housing stock and employment centers within the refined study area based upon the proposed displacements. Economic Impacts. The technical supplement to the CIA will discuss the following for each modified alternative under consideration: • Economic impacts on the regional and local economies, including the effects of the proposed action on development, local property and sales tax revenues, City expenditures, job opportunities, accessibility, and retail sales. Note, previous economic data collected for the approved CIA will be used as a basis for this analysis. 11 52 Rlrerade(,nnnl Tnms,nniaiion Cs .ssion • Impacts to the economic vitality of existing and future highway -related businesses (e.g., gasoline stations, motels, etc.) and the resultant impact, if any, on the local economy. • Impacts of the proposed action on established business districts and any opportunities to minimize or reduce such impacts by the public and/or private sectors. Product: 9 copies each of the draft and final technical supplement to the CIA 18 CD copies of the approved CIA (June 2008) 4.4.7A Floodplain Evaluation Report LSA will prepare a revised Floodplain Evaluation Report in accordance with Caltrans guidelines (Environmental Handbook, Volume I, Chapter 17) based on the revised Location Hydraulic Study to be prepared by the engineering team. The report will discuss potential impacts and mitigation measures related to floodplain encroachment, flood -related hazards, natural or beneficial floodplain values, access interruption, and the community floodplain development plan. Product: 9 copies each of draft and final Revised Floodplain Evaluation Report 4.4.8A Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment LSA will prepare a technical supplement to the approved ISA (October 2007) to present findings and recommendations for each modified alternative based on the site survey and historical records review conducted for the approved ISA. Recommendations may include site investigations for sites that are considered contaminated sites by the applicable oversight agency. This scope of services does not include: • Review of private records or interviews with private property owners • Sampling for asbestos or aerially deposited lead, or other soil sampling • Conducting Preliminary Site Investigations (PSIs) involving soil or groundwater sampling These activities are not recommended until the design phase for the selected alternative due to the potentially large number of properties requiring evaluation (resulting in significant costs to RCTC) and the likelihood that presence or absence of hazardous waste contamination will not influence the selection of a Preferred Alternative. Product: 9 hard copies each of the draft and final technical supplement to the ISA 18 CD copies of the approved ISA (October 2007) 12 53 13 4.4.9A Visual Impact Assessment LSA will prepare a technical supplement to the approved VIA (March 2008) that evaluates the visual impact of each modified alternative consistent with FHWA’s Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects (1988). This technical supplement shall identify potential visual impacts from project construction. The visual project impacts will be discussed from a qualitative perspective, but will be quantified using the scoring system in the approved VIA for the MCP project. To assist in the assessment of potential visual impacts associated with the modified alternatives proposed within the MCP study area, existing viewsheds and visual resources characterized in the approved VIA will be used again for this analysis (i.e. no additional visual simulations will be prepared). Following RCTC’s approval of Amendment 5, modifications to the design occurred that required visual simulations to be revised to account for design changes (i.e. connections to I-215, avoidance of Paragon Park, Redlands Interchange, etc.). Mitigation measures shall be recommended, if necessary, to reduce significant visual impacts. Product: 9 hard copies each of the draft and final technical supplement to the VIA 18 CD copies of the approved VIA (March 2008) 4.4.10A Section 4(f) Evaluation LSA will prepare a revised Section 4(f) Evaluation to address the effects of the three modified Build Alternatives on the two known 4(f) properties within the revised study limits. The revised Section 4(f) Evaluation will discuss avoidance alternatives and be included as an appendix in the RDEIR/SDEIS. LSA will also assist RCTC in coordination with the City of Perris regarding Paragon Park. Based on the SHPO Letter dated September 18, 2012, RCTC and FHWA "assumed eligibility for this undertaking" for four bedrock milling sites previously determined to not be eligible for listing on the National Register. With this assumption of eligibility, the four bedrock milling sites trigger protection under Section 4(f); therefore, an expanded Section 4(f) Evaluation was required. LSA will assist RCTC and FHWA in their consultation with CDFW to obtain their concurrence on the Section 4(f) determination for the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Dudek will assist by attending meetings with CDFW as needed to discuss issues of CDFW replacement lands as related to MSHCP issues. Product: 9 hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Draft Section 4(f) 54 14 Evaluation 4.4.12A Water Quality Assessment LSA will prepare a Revised Water Quality Assessment Report in accordance with Caltrans guidelines that discusses watershed characteristics, groundwater hydrology, regulatory requirements, pollutants of concern, and receiving waters conditions, impairments, objectives, and beneficial uses. The report will also be revised to address the new Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (February 2008) and will discuss Design Pollution Prevention BMPs, Construction Site BMPs, and Treatment BMPs that are applicable to the modified project alternatives per Caltrans requirements. Each alternative’s potential impact on water quality will be evaluated and the mitigation measures necessary to prevent adverse water quality impacts will be identified. For this study, LSA will use the Revised Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) to be prepared by the engineering team in Task 6.0. Product: 9 hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Water Quality Assessment Report 4.4.15A Section 404 (b)(1) Alternative Analysis LSA will prepare a revised Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis to address the effects of the three modified Build Alternatives. The revised Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis will discuss avoidance alternatives and be included as an appendix in the RDEIR/SDEIS. Product: 10 hard copies each of the draft and final Revised Section 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis 4.5.1.1A Prepare Administrative Draft Recirculated Draft EIR / Supplemental Draft EIS The results of the revised technical studies and supplements to the approved technical studies will be presented in an Administrative Draft Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS (RDEIR/SDEIS). LSA will prepare the Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS, incorporating the findings of the revised technical documents for submittal to RCTC, FHWA, Caltrans, and the Corps for review. Sections of the RDEIR/SDEIS will also be revised to address substantive comments received during public review of the original Draft EIR/EIS. The RDEIR/SDEIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of NEPA and CEQA, as well as the most current document formats and guidance posted on Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference Web site (as of May 1, 2009). 55 15 Both short-term construction and long-term operational effects of each modified alternative will be considered, as well as any potential impacts from a proposed phasing plan. The Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS will also address indirect and cumulative effects of each of the modified alternatives, CEQA considerations of level of significance of impacts including the new CEQA Guidelines approved [July 2009], and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The EIR/EIS will be organized in a manner intended to reduce the presentation of duplicative information to the extent feasible for areas where the alternatives overlap. Assumption: 36 hard copies of Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS 36 CD sets of the Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS CD copies of approved technical reports Product: Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS 4.6.1.1A Prepare Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS for Approval to Circulate LSA will revise the RDEIR/SDEIS per comments received from RCTC, FHWA, Caltrans and the Corps on the Administrative RDEIR/SDEIS and will prepare an electronic copy of the RDEIR/SDEIS for RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA final review and one hard copy for approval and signature to circulate the document for public review. LSA will also revise the public distribution list as part of the RDEIR/SDEIS with input from RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will assist the Corps to revise the 404 Preliminary Public Notice and distribute simultaneously with the RDEIR/SDEIS. The RDEIR/SDEIS will be circulated for public review once the list has been approved by the RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will prepare a draft Notice of Availability and Public Hearing for publication by the public outreach team. LSA will prepare and file a Notice of Completion with the State Clearinghouse in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. LSA set up GIS Stations at the SR-91 CIP Public Hearings in June 2011 that were useful to help the public understand the project, especially for property owners concerned about property acquisition. Based on the positive feedback from the public, RCTC requested LSA to set up two GIS Stations at the MCP Public Hearings for the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS in February 2013. Products: 36 hard copies of RDEIR/SDEIS 310 CD sets of the RDEIR/SDEIS 56 16 CD and hard copies of technical reports for RCTC, Caltrans, FHWA and the libraries. 235 Notice of Availability 1 Notice of Completion Revised 404 Preliminary Public Notice Product: RDEIR/SDEIS, Notice of Availability, Notice of Completion, & Revised 404 Preliminary Public Notice TASK 4.7 PREPARE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Draft Response to Comments document will be prepared for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. LSA will prepare responses for its areas of responsibility and will coordinate with other consultant team members, RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA to prepare responses for their respective areas of responsibility. The comments will be scanned into a *.pdf format to facilitate integration into the Draft Final EIS/EIR. The responses will be prepared in a tabular format similar to that included in the Winchester to Temecula Corridor Tier 1 Final EIS/EIR, and will include both general responses to broad (often repeated) topics of concern as well as specific responses to specific comments. Budgeting for responses to comments is difficult to project, since the scope of public and agency comments/concerns is not entirely known at this time. For preliminary budgeting purposes, we estimate that a total of 1,000 letters will be received. Each comment letter will be numbered and scanned. It is estimated that there will be a total of 3,000 comments within these letters. Each individual comment will be labeled on the letter and listed in the Response to Comments table. Each response will be included in the table as well. It is also estimated that 100 of the 3,000 comments will require detailed responses as specific comments. We have estimated the need for 1,280 professional staff hours and 280 support staff hours (Graphics, Word Processing/Editing, and Clerical) to complete this task. These specifications and any necessary adjustments to the Response to Comments budget will be reviewed with RCTC prior to initiating this task. Three additional review cycles of the Draft Response to Comments resulted in higher than budgeted expenditures. This task was budgeted assuming one concurrent review cycle per standard process on other deliverables, but a total of three separate submittals was made to accommodate three separate review cycles by RCTC staff, RCTC Legal Counsel, and a submittal to Caltrans and FHWA in advance of the formal submittal for concurrent review by the MCP partner agencies (Transportation and Resource Agencies). There is a potential for additional revisions needed to the Response to Comments following review by the resource agencies. 57 17 At the direction of RCTC, "Reject MCP" emails (Center for Biological Diversity form letters) received after April 19, 2013 (the close of the public comment period on the Recirculated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS), are being included in the Administrative Record (500-600 letters received per month). On November 14, 2013, RCTC requested that a Second Recirculated Draft EIR be prepared to provide updated Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas emissions analyses and revised CEQA significance determinations. The work effort includes preparation of a First and Second Administrative Draft for RCTC’s review and approval to circulate for public review; preparation of draft public notices; coordination of document distribution to the State Clearinghouse, libraries and the EIR/EIS distribution list; and, preparation of responses to comments on the Second Recirculated Draft EIR. Dudek will assist in responses related to the San Jacinto River Bridge crossing at Lakeview. Dudek will compile a complete and comprehensive report including graphics and maps as needed based on the modeling and information presented at various RAC meetings. Assumption: 30 copies of Draft Response to Comments. Product: Three separate submittals of Draft Response to Comments. 4.8 DRAFT FINAL EIS/EIR Following review of the Draft Responses to Comments, LSA will prepare a Draft Final EIS/EIR, which will incorporate changes to the EIS/EIR sections consistent with the responses to comments. The Draft Final EIS/EIR will be prepared for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA. After approval of Amendment 5 in 2009, the MCP partner agencies agreed to process the project in accordance with the 2006 NEPA/404 Integration MOU. Unlike the previous 1994 MOU under which the project was originally being processed, the 2006 MOU stipulates a series of specific information package submittals for each step in the three checkpoints of the NEPA/404 integration process. To provide supporting documentation to obtain agency concurrence on the Checkpoint 3 milestone (Preliminary LEDPA Determination), a comprehensive package was prepared and underwent two cycles of revision prior receiving agency concurrence on the Preliminary LEDPA. Assumption: 30 copies of Draft Final EIS/EIR Preliminary, Draft, and Final Checkpoint 3 Information Package (25 copies) 58 18 Product: Draft Final EIS/EIR Checkpoint 3 Information Package 4.9 FINAL EIS/EIR Based on comments received on the Draft Final EIS/EIR, LSA will prepare the Final EIS/EIR, including a Notice of Determination (NOD) in accordance with CEQA requirements, including an $850 California Department of Fish and Game-filing fee. LSA will produce copies of the Final EIS/EIR for distribution to commenting agencies prior to certification of the Final EIS/EIR by RCTC. With assistance from LSA, RCTC legal counsel (BB&K) will have primary responsibility for preparing Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which will be adopted by RCTC as part of the Commission’s action to certify the Final EIR. This task was originally budgeted assuming one concurrent review cycle per standard process on other deliverables. The scope has been expanded to provide an additional round of review of the Final EIR/EIS either due to FHWA requests or if RCTC requests to have BB&K review prior to the document being sent out to the Transportation and Resource Agencies. Assumption: 150 copies of Final EIS/EIR Product: Final EIS/EIR 4.10 PREPARE RECORD OF DECISION LSA will prepare a Draft Record of Decision (ROD) for submittal to RCTC, Caltrans, and FHWA for review. Based on comments received, a Final ROD will be prepared for submittal to FHWA for review and approval. FHWA will publish the ROD in the Federal Register. The ROD will include responses to comments received on the Final EIS and/or the USACE Public Notice. Although the approval of the ROD is the final completion milestone in the PA/ED process, the scope for this task includes post-ROD activities such as compilation of separate Administrative Records for CEQA and NEPA for use by RCTC and FHWA Legal Counsel. Assumption: 10 Copies of the Draft ROD 59 19 4.11 HCP AMENDMENTS, MSHCP CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION, AND OTHER REPORTS REQUIRED FOR RESOURCE AGENCY APPROVAL The consistency analysis with the Western Riverside County MSHCP (MSHCP) will be undertaken at two levels. The first level of analysis will be for CEQA/NEPA purposes and will analyze in general terms the relationship of the various alternatives under consideration in the EIS/EIR to the goals, objectives and biological considerations in the MSHCP and other relevant HCPs. The second level of analysis will occur following identification of a Preferred Alternative and will incorporate the detailed consistency analysis called for in Section 7.0 of the MSHCP. Scopes of services for both levels of analysis are provided below. Dudek will assist by attending meetings, providing supplemental information as needed in order to obtain a completed Joint Project Review (JPR) from the Regional Conservation Authority. Dudek will attend meetings and obtain supplemental information as needed related to Wildlife Agency review of the JPR. Jurisdictional Delineation: An updated Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) complying with USACE’s latest requirements was required in 2013 due to expiration of JD approved by USACE in April 2008 (USACE’s approval letter indicated that the JD was valid for a period of up to five years). Because of changes in USACE requirements (“post- Rapanos” guidance), a complete new report was required, not just updated forms. In addition, USACE requested that archival and field research be conducted to address concerns raised by USFWS regarding potential agricultural wetlands in the vicinity of the San Jacinto River Bridge in Lakeview. Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP): Additional details and information are now required for an HMMP (e.g., identification of specific parcels for mitigation) per updated USACE guidelines than when this task was first budgeted in 2004. Mitigation requirements (both requirements for plans and procedures for determining adequacy of mitigation) have changed substantially since 2004, beginning with the new Corps/EPA Mitigation Rule of April 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332), and continuing with extensive efforts in the last couple of years for standardization, especially in the South Pacific Division. Specific examples include: The Mitigation Rule itself, at §230.94, specifically requires the preparation of a final HMMP as follows: (c) Mitigation plan. (1) Preparation and Approval. (i) For individual permits, the permittee must prepare a draft mitigation plan and submit it to the district engineer for review. After addressing any comments provided by the district engineer, the permittee must prepare a final mitigation plan, which must be approved by the district engineer prior to issuing the individual permit. Prior to the Mitigation Rule, a final HMMP could be a condition of an individual permit. 60 20 On October 10, 2008, Corps Headquarters issued a Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL No. 08-03, http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/rgl08_03.pdf) that emphasized the need for more rigorous performance standards and monitoring requirements. Within the last two years, the South Pacific Division of the Corps has issued a number of new documents/requirements relevant to mitigation plans. These can be found at http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/PublicNoticesandReferences /tabid/10390/Article/7554/12501-spd.aspx . Specific documents include “Standard Operating Procedure for Determination of Mitigation Ratios”, “Mitigation Ratio Checklist”, “Instructions for Preparing Mitigation Ratio Setting Checklist”, “Uniform Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation Requirements” and more. There is a potential for additional labor effort needed to respond to detailed comments from USACE (to date USACE has only provided very broad, general comments. Section 404 Permit Application: A Section 404 permit application was not included in the original MCP scope of work. The work required is to prepare a Section 404 application for review and approval by USACE. Section 7 Consultation: Support to FHWA for Section 7 consultation with USFWS following approval of the MSHCP consistency determination was not included in the original MCP scope of work. The work required is to prepare a letter with supporting documentation from FHWA to the USFWS to initiate the abbreviated Section 7 consultation process called for under the MSHCP, and to provide support to FHWA in responding to any questions or additional information requests from USFWS prior to USFWS issuance of the Biological Opinion. Product: Draft and Final 2013 Jurisdictional Delineation and Analysis Draft and Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Draft and Final Section 404 Permit Application Draft and Final Section 7 Consultation Letter 61 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK 5 – TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR—ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. 5.0 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 5.0A TRAFFIC ENGINEERING This scope of work describes the steps necessary to provide a revised traffic analysis and phasing analysis of MCP Build Alternatives 4, 5, and 9. This traffic analysis will assume that Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 would be built from I-215 to SR-79 only. Following are assumptions that were made as to how this analysis will be conducted: The MCP project to be analyzed for traffic analysis purposes would be MCP Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 from I-215 to SR-79. At the I-215/MCP interchange, it is assumed that roadway connectors to and from the west would be deleted from the project and that the remaining connectors would retain their current design. The design of the MCP facility would be determined so as to avoid precluding a future extension of MCP west of I-215. Assumptions regarding the design of the individual alternatives are provided below. The No Build analysis will assume that MCP is not built between I-215 and SR-79. Separate capacity analysis scenarios will be conducted assuming that Ramona Expressway between I-215 and SR-79 remains in its current condition and that this roadway is built out to be consistent with the General Plans of Riverside County and local cities. 62 2 The horizon year for the MCP traffic analysis will be changed from 2035 to 2040. Traffic forecasts for 2040 will be determined using 2035 traffic mode l forecasts plus a percent per year growth factor. The assumed opening day for the project will be 2020. In addition to the horizon year (2040) traffic analysis, a traffic analysis will be conducted for opening year (2020) conditions. The 2020 traffic analysis will be conducted using the same assumptions and at the same level of detail as the 2040 traffic analysis, with the clarifications described below regarding the preparation of traffic forecasts for 2020 conditions. Socioeconomic forecasts for 2020 conditions will be determined in consideration of the socioeconomic forecasts from the SCAG regional transportation model and the RIVTAM model for various horizon years. The 2020 roadway network for the RIVTAM model will be developed by starting with the roadway network in the base year model. Roadway improvements will be added if they fall into one of the following categories: - Roadway improvements are identified in the SCAG Regional Transportation plan as scheduled to occur prior to 2020. - Roadway improvements are listed in City/County five-year capital improvement programs. - Additional roadway improvements will be identified on a case-by-case basis if the responsible agency has a secure funding source and has reasonable assurances that the improvement will be in place by 2020. In order to provide a detailed analysis of traffic conditions new model runs will be prepared. These model runs will include opening year and horizon year model runs for the No Build Alternative, and MCP Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 and the Alternative 5 and Alternative 9 design variations. The Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RIVTAM) transportation model will be used as the base model for traffic analysis. The RIVTAM model will be updated for use in the MCP corridor as follows: - Key roadways such as I-15, I-215, SR-91, and SR-60 will updated to reflect the SCAG 2008 Regional Transportation Plan. The model will be revised to 63 3 reflect any changes in improvements planned for these roadways between the 2004 and 2008 RTP’s. - Contact will be made with Riverside County, March JPA, and the Cities of Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Perris, and San Jacinto to determine whether any major changes have occurred in General Plan land use or development plans since 2004. The transportation model will be updated to reflect any major changes in land use plans. It is assumed that Caltrans would be the lead review agency in determining the adequacy of the Traffic Technical Report. It is also assumed that the portion of MCP east of I-215 would still ultimately become a Caltrans facility. A program-level phasing analysis will be conducted for the years 2020 and 2030 in order to document expected traffic conditions, traffic impacts, and recommended mitigation measures, assuming that portions of the project are built in 2020 and 2030. This phasing analysis will be conducted separately for Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 and the Alternative 5 and Alternative 9 design variations. In addition, a No Build phasing analysis will be prepared for comparison purposes for 2020 and 2030. The purpose of the phasing analysis will be to provide general information on the expected traffic forecasts and roadway improvements that would be provided if the MCP were built in phases over time. The phasing analysis will be conducted based on Average Daily Traffic conditions. It will specify project impacts and mitigation measures based on roadway segment analysis. Traffic forecasts for the 2020 phasing analysis will be determined using model runs of the 2020 model that was created for use in analyzing opening year traffic conditions. Traffic forecasts for the 2030 phasing analysis will be determined through interpolation of 2020 traffic forecasts and 2040 traffic forecasts. Two drafts and a final version of the Traffic Technical Report will be prepared in order to achieve Caltrans approval of the traffic analysis. It is assumed that a revised New Connection Report (NCR) at I-215 will be needed. It is assumed that traffic analysis will be needed for the preparation of new and/or modified Design Exception Fact Sheets related to the implementation of the revised roadway design concepts for Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 and the Alternative 5 and Alternative 9 design variations. 64 4 5.2A Traffic Technical Report A revised Traffic Technical report will be prepared. The format and content of the Traffic Technical Report will be similar to the previous version, but it will be revised to be consistent with the new project limits and traffic analysis assumptions. Additional Traffic analysis required to address Sunnyvale Appellate Court decision, which requires that an EIR comply with CEQA's requirements to evaluate a project's effect on existing conditions, not just a future year condition. Information included in Environmental Document. 5.2.3A Recommended Improvements/Mitigation The project team will work with Caltrans, RCTC, Riverside County, and local cities to establish significance thresholds for the analysis of traffic impacts. Wherever these thresholds are exceeded, roadway and intersection improvement strategies and/or mitigation measures will be recommended. The roadway improvements/mitigation measures will be described in sufficient detail to provide a clear understanding of the necessary improvements and their feasibility at a preliminary level. In some cases, sketches will be provided for clarification. Scaled drawings will not be prepared. In the analysis of recommended roadway improvements/mitigation, the base case for lane geometry assumptions will be the General Plans of Riverside County and the cities within the study area. The roadway lane geometry specified as the General Plan Buildout will form the basis for the No Project traffic analysis. 5.2.5A Draft Traffic Technical Report A second draft of the traffic technical report will be prepared to respond to comments on the administrative draft. Assumption: 50 copies of the Draft Traffic Technical Report will be needed. Product: Draft Traffic Technical Report 5.2.6A Final Traffic Technical Report The final traffic technical report will be included as an Appendix to the project environmental documents. It is assumed that 50 copies will be needed for distribution to FHWA, Caltrans, RCTC, and project consultant team staff. One original will be prepared for copying and distribution to the public by other members of the project team. Assumptions: 65 5 The basis for the capacity analysis will be the latest version of the HCM Manual for the MCP and crossing freeway mainlines, system interchanges, and intersections, and the RCIP for roadway segments 50 copies Final Report will be needed Products: Draft Report, and Final Report 5.3A Project Phasing: 2020 and 2030 Analysis A phasing analysis will be conducted for the years 2020 and 2030 to document expected traffic conditions and roadway improvements, traffic impacts, and recommended mitigation measures, assuming that portions of the project are built in 2020 and 2030. This phasing analysis will be conducted separately for Alternatives 4, 5, and 9, and the Alternative 5 and Alternative 9 design variations. It will be conducted based on Average Daily Traffic conditions and will specify project impacts and mitigation measures, based on roadway segment capacity analysis. In addition, a No Build staging analysis will be prepared for comparison purposes for 2020 and 2030. Traffic forecasts for the phasing analysis for 2020 will be based on model runs for 2020 conditions. Traffic forecasts for 2030 conditions will be conducted using interpolation of 2020 traffic forecasts and 2040 traffic forecasts. For each of the first two phases, a preliminary engineering level design will be done for the logical termini with connections and access to existing roadways for the three remaining build alternatives – Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. Preliminary plans showing phases and assumed roadway improvements by others and proposed mitigation will be provided and used for conceptual purposes only. These plans are not for the purpose of Caltrans review and approval, but for purposes of disclosing a possible phasing scenario in the RDEIR/SDEIS. In addition, tables will be produced showing construction and right of way costs per phase for one preferred alternative. These tables are for RCTC planning purposes only and will not be included in RDEIR/SDEIS. A set of 11x17 plans and tables will be combined into a report for RCTC internal planning purposes for the preferred alternative. 66 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK NO. 6 – ENGINEERING MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR—ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. 6.0 ENGINEERING 6.0A Engineering (for RDEIR/SDEIS phase) The scope for Task 6.0A assumes the limits on I-215 stay within the current survey limits, Harley Knox Blvd (Oleander Street) on the north to north of Nuevo Road to the south. A CE/CE was required for the Cone Pentrometer Tests done in the area of the MWD CRA. 6.1A Preliminary Engineering (for RDEIR/SDEIS phase) As a result of the project modification, there are three remaining build alternatives between I-215 and SR-79, with one design variation between Warren Road and SR- 79. Based on the remaining three alternatives, and the results of the revised Traffic Technical Studies, the Consultant will redesign and refine the horizontal and vertical alignments to minimize environmental impacts and reduce construction costs. The consultant will prepare a preliminary alignment plan for each of the three build alternatives, Alternative 4, 5, 9, including San Jacinto North design variation in English units at 1”:200’ scale for agencies’ review. Once the alignment plan is reviewed and accepted by Caltrans, RCTC, County of Riverside, the involved local city jurisdictions, FHWA and other regulatory agencies, it is important that the alignment for each alternative be frozen at this stage. Based on the frozen alignments, the consultant will assess the area of impact for the 67 2 environmental processing and documentation, the right-of-way requirements, and utility conflicts. In addition the consultant will investigate at a preliminary level alternatives to reduce impacts to homes in the City of Perris and avoid or minimize impacts to Paragon Park. The assumption for this scope is that only one alternative comes out of this investigation to move forward as Alt 9 in the RDEIR/SDEIS. The Consultant will develop an interchange at Redlands Blvd and compare to a Perris Blvd interchange for Alternative 9. Assume that the Redlands Blvd IC advances to environmental document. The consultant will consider existing right of way changes along the Southbound direction of I-215 and revise all alternatives to match the new right of way line. 6.1.1A Ultimate Buildout - I-215 to SR-79 (for RDEIR/SDEIS phase) Three build alternatives, Alternative 4, 5, 9 and one design variation, San Jacinto North segment. Alternative 4 and 5 between I-215 and Antelope Road and San Jacinto North Design Variation – These sections were done in metric units for the Draft Project Report. The consultant will convert these sections from metric units and standards into U.S. customary units and standards. . Alternative 9 between Antelope Road and SR-79 has already been converted from metric to U.S. customary units as part of the GAD effort. Alternatives 4, 5, and 9 between I-215 and Antelope Road – The Consultant to redesign the segments between I-215 and Antelope Road for all three build alternatives in U.S. Customary units. The Consultant will consider elimination of the parkway west of I-215 and the corresponding connector ramps and redesign the I-215 portion of alternatives, including redesign of freeway-to-freeway interchange at I-215 and local street interchanges at Perris Blvd and Evans Road as required based on elimination of western leg of project and the new Traffic Technical Study. The consultant will prepare preliminary layout plans, profiles, and typical sections for each alternative in U.S. customary units at 1”:200’ scale. The preliminary plans will be prepared to meet 2040 traffic demand as the ultimate buildout condition including number of lane on the mainline and interchange configurations. These preliminary plans will be developed based on Caltrans Highway Design Manual 6th Edition American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) standards, and other applicable county and cities design 68 3 standards. All proposed nonstandard features will be defined for documentation in design exception fact sheets for Caltrans review and approval. When agreement is given by Caltrans for the preliminary layout, profile and typical section sheets, the geometrics and R/W footprint will be established. for purposes of the RDEIR/SDEIS area of potential effect. The Consultant to generate the following data/information for use to determine Right of Way data sheets, Noise model and all impacts for the RDEIR/SDEIS. The data consists of the following microstation elements: 3D cut/fill line, 3D topo, 3D retaining walls, 3D centerline, 3D edge of pavement, roadway striping, plans and profiles. The data consists of the following GIS elements: shape file for the area of potential effect. Products: Layouts, profiles, and typical sections at 1”:200’ Scale Microstation and GIS elements Alternative 4, 5, and 9 - Antelope Road (Lake Perris) to SR-79 - The alternatives from Antelope Road to SR-79 are on common alignment. At the time of the project modification on July 8th,2009, GADs from Antelope Road to SR- 79 are substantially complete and through Caltrans review. The GADs have been done in U.S. customary units. For purposes of this scope of work, the team is assuming there will not need to be any changes to this section of the project based on new Traffic Technical Studies. Therefore, the ROW footprint had been established through the GAD effort for purposes of the RDEIR/SDEIS area of potential effect. Consultant to generate the following data/information for use to determine Right of Way data sheets, Noise model and all impacts for the RDEIR/SDEIS. The data consists of the following microstation elements: 3D cut/fill line, 3D topo, 3D retaining walls, 3D centerline, 3D edge of pavement, roadway striping, plans and profiles. The data consists of the following GIS elements: shape file for the area of potential effect. Products: Copies of GAD Layouts, profiles, and typical sections at 1”:100’ Microstation and GIS elements Revision to all design for the three build alternatives from outside widening of I-215 to median widening of I-215. Change in southbound I-215 exist right of way line, requiring redesign. Complete rework of systems interchanges. 6.1.2A Interim Build 69 4 Additional coordination is assumed to be needed with Riverside County and any proposed developer that may be conditioned to build any portions of MCP. Phasing scope of work is under Task 5.3.A. 6.3.1A Utilities Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.1 but is in U.S. Customary units and for the modified project limits from I-215 to SR-79. Utilizing the information and plans already developed for the project and converting the previous information from metric to U.S. customary units, the consultant will verify that the utility information is still current. With all the utility locations confirmed, the consultant will update the utility conflicts based on the redesign. Consultant will contact all affected utility companies to identify the changes in utility conflicts. During this phase, the Consultant will coordinate with the utility company for potential relocation and to determine role and responsibility in the next phases. Products: Utility Maps and Utility Cost Estimates in U.S. customary units 6.3.2A Right-of-Way Engineering Support Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.2 but in U.S. customary units for the segment between I-215 and SR-79 for the “modified project” of the three remaining build alternatives – Alternatives 4, 5, 9 and San Jacinto North design variation. The work will be completed in two sections, I-215 to Antelope Road which will consider any redesign and Antelope Road to SR-79 which will consider any changes made during the GAD process. A log will be kept of development status in the planning process, as well as a Cadd layer with this information. This information updated on a monthly basis based on input from County of Riverside, City of Perris and City of San Jacinto. At some point this information is frozen and dated for use in the RDEIR/SDEIS. The consultant will respond to requests from the public via RCTC with 11x17 pdf maps showing requested parcel and MCP alternatives right of way information. Additional data and engineering as needed for the area of Placentia IC and I-215 improvements. Products: Right-of-Way Requirement Plans at 1”:200’ Scale 70 5 6.3.3A Cost Estimates Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.3 but in U.S. customary units for the segment between I-215 and Antelope Road for the “modified project” for the three remaining build alternatives – Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. For the segment between Antelope Road and SR-79 cost estimates will be developed based on the GAD level plans. Additional deliverable required for FHWA Cost Estimate Review (CER), required for all Major Projects. Task to include update of cost estimate done for RDPR for selected alternative, required documents for three day CER meeting and attendance and presentation at CER meeting. Products: Cost Estimates in U.S. customary units for each of the remaining three build alternatives. Updated cost estimate for the Final Project Report for the selected alternative only. 6.3.4A Structures Advance Planning Studies Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.4 but in U.S. customary units for the segment between I-215 and Antelope Road for the “modified project” for the preferred alternative only among the three remaining build alternatives – Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. The APS’s that have already been prepared for the bridge structures within the segment between Antelope Road and SR-79 will NOT be converted from metric units to U.S. customary units and have already been approved. Only APS’s between I-215 and Antelope Road will be created based on redesign and converted to U.S. Customary units. Assume: 20 number of APS Additional Advanced Planning Study for San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation. Products: Structures APS Reports (General Plans and APS Checklists) for Preferred Alternative only. 6.3.5A Drainage Report Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.5 but applies only to revisions to the Drainage Report directly related to the “modified project”. The “modified project” includes new project limits from I-215 to SR-79. For drainage report update, geometric changes for the segment between I-215 and Antelope Road for the three remaining build alternatives – Alternatives 4, 5 and 9 and changes made in GAD footprint since the DEIR/DEIS, between Antelope Road and SR-79 will be considered and incorporated into the update. The entire Drainage Report will be converted from metric units to U.S. customary units. 71 6 Three Location Hydraulic Studies, Perris Valley Storm Drain, San Jacinto River – Lakeview Nueveo and San Jacinto River – SR-79, will be updated based on any design changes and new FEMA mapping Products: Drainage Report in U.S. customary units Three location hydrology studies 6.3.6A Storm Water Data Report (SWDR) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.6 but applies only to revisions to the SWDR directly related to the “modified project”. The “modified project” includes new project limits from I-215 to SR-79. For SWDR update, geometric changes for the segment between I-215 and Antelope Road for the three remaining build alternatives – Alternatives 4, 5 and 9 and changes made in GAD footprint since the DEIR/DEIS, between Antelope Road and SR-79 will be considered and incorporated into the update. The entire SWDR will be converted from metric units to U.S. customary units. Products: Storm Water Data Report (PR Level) in U.S. customary units 6.3.7A Conceptual Stage Construction & Traffic Management Plan (TMP) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.7 but in U.S. customary units and applies to I-215 for the “modified project” for the three remaining build alternatives – Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. Conceptual Stage Construction Plans previously completed for SR-79 will be converted from metric units to U.S. customary units and updated per the GADs. Products: Conceptual Stage Construction Plans at 1”:500’ scale; TMP Checklists 6.3.9A Design Exception Report (Fact Sheet) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.3.9 but applies only to the segment between I-215 and Antelope Road, including that of the I-215 freeway, for the “modified project” for the three remaining build alternatives – Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. This scope assumes no changes to the segment between Antelope Road and SR- 79, that is in progress for approval of fact sheets and the scope is included in 6.3.9. Fact Sheet for SR-79 is already approved. Fact Sheet updated for 2012 standards. Fact Sheets required for the section between Antelope and SR-79. Products: Fact Sheet for Advisory Non-Standard Features in U.S. customary units; Fact Sheet for Mandatory Non-Standard Features U.S. customary units 72 7 6.4.8A Preliminary Foundation Reports We have included costs for revising up to twenty PFR’s for the project modification. Our scope inserts new bridge APS, and minimal text change. Our scope includes responses to one round of comments from Caltrans if required. 6.4.9.10A MWD investigation at Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA) Provide geotechnical investigation and report relating to MCP alternative paralleling the CRA on a fill section. Field Investigation Our subsurface exploration will consist of drilling and sampling exploratory borings, and performing Cone Penetrometer Testing (CPT) along the MCP alignment between Warren Road on the west and Highway 79 on the east. Six hollow-stem auger / mud rotary borings will be drilled with a truck-mounted drill rig to a depth of approximately 100 feet below the existing grade or to the practical refusal, whichever occurs earlier. Above groundwater level, the drilling will be performed using either mud rotary or hollow-stem auger techniques while below groundwater only mud rotary techniques will be used. Samples will be collected from the borings at nominal 5-foot intervals. Samples will be collected primarily using the 2-inch outside diameter Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. Samples will also be obtained using the 3-inch outside diameter California split barrel sampler lined with 6-inch brass sleeves. The SPT and California samplers will be driven with a 140-pound hammer dropped a distance of 30 inches in general conformance with ASTM D 6066 and ASTM D 1586. The samples obtained will then be transported to our laboratory for testing. Six CPT’s will be performed to supplement our exploratory borings. CPT’s will be conducted to a minimum depth of 100 feet below the existing grade or to the practical refusal, whichever occurs earlier. Two of the CPT’s will be performed at locations consistent with borings so that boring and CPT data can be correlated. Down-hole shear wave velocity testing will be conducted at 10 foot intervals in 3 CPT’s. Soil samples will not be collected for CPT’s. A Kleinfelder engineer or geologist will supervise the borings and CPT’s, observe and classify soil samples, and prepare logs of borings. Groundwater, if encountered, will be measured in the open borehole at the time of drilling. Upon completion, the borings will be backfilled with soil from the excavation. Prior to field exploration, we will contact Underground Service Alert (USA) to identify potential conflicts between our planned boring locations and existing underground utilities. We will also coordinate with Metropolitan personnel to confirm that our boring locations do not impact the operation of the CRA and are located a safe distance away from the pipe. 73 8 Kleinfelder will arrange for a specialty subconsultant to perform a geophysical survey of shear wave velocity using the spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW) technique. The SASW method is not intrusive and all the work is performed at the ground surface using a seismic source and geophones. This survey will provide data regarding the stiffness of the soils beneath the site. In preparing this proposal, we assume that access to drilling locations can be obtained with a standard truck mounted rig. We also assume that Kleinfelder will be granted access for our work without cost or delay. We assume the cost for encroachment permit for all borings in MWD right-of-way will be waived by MWD. We also assume no borings will be drilled within Caltrans, Riverside County, and City right-of-ways. Therefore, the costs for Caltrans, County, and City encroachment permits are not included in this proposal. The costs for traffic control are not included in this proposal. Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing will be performed on selected samples obtained during field exploration to assess the physical characteristics of the subsurface materials. We anticipate the testing will include in-situ moisture content/density, maximum density, gradation, Plasticity index, consolidation, collapse potential, direct shear, corrosion, expansion potential, and tri-axial compression. Our testing program may be modified based on the actual subsurface materials encountered during exploration. Engineering Analysis o Develop Geotechnical Model Kleinfelder will compile and synthesize the field and laboratory data to develop a geotechnical model of the site. The model will come in the form of subsurface profiles and cross sections with engineering properties developed for the soil layers. These profiles will be used in subsequent geotechnical engineering analyses. o Conventional Settlement Analyses The geotechnical models will be used to perform conventional settlement analyses for three cross sections through the proposed MCP embankment and adjacent CRA. The purpose of the settlement analyses will be to evaluate settlement potential at the CRA due to loading imposed by the MCP embankment. Stresses changes due to embankment construction will be calculated using the Bousinesq or Westergaard method. Settlements due to shear strain and volumetric compression will be calculated using elasticity and consolidation theory, respectively. We anticipate using the computer program Settle3D by Rocscience, Inc. to perform these calculations. o Lateral Foundation Load Evaluation The MCP project will involve construction of new interchanges at Warren Road and Highway 79. The new interchanges will require vehicular bridges with foundation units adjacent to the CRA pipeline. This task will involve evaluating the potential of 74 9 lateral loads imposed on bridge foundations (i.e. from seismic response of the bridge) to impact the CRA. We assume that bridge foundation locations and loads will be provided to Kleinfelder by Jacobs for our use in this analysis. Kleinfelder will perform preliminary foundation type selection evaluations based on the load and soil conditions encountered. Based on our current understanding of the soil conditions, and bridge types and sizes under consideration, we anticipate deep foundations will be necessary for the site. We will perform analyses to evaluate the potential for lateral foundation loads to impact the CRA where it is adjacent to the foundations. Soil-structure interaction analyses will be performed using the finite element method to evaluate load transfer from the foundation to the adjacent soil. We anticipate using the finite element program OpenSeesPL for these analyses. If it is found bridge foundations have the potential to impact the CRA, we will develop preliminary recommendations for mitigation measures such as minimum setback distances for foundations, or use of isolation casing. o Embankment Analyses Kleinfelder will perform two-dimensional deformation analyses of the embankments using the finite difference program FLAC. The analyses will be performed for three representative transverse cross sections through the proposed embankment and adjacent CRA. The three cross sections will be selected to evaluate the range of displacements that could occur due to the MCP embankment construction. These analyses will be similar to the previously performed deformation analysis, except that non-linear soil properties will be more explicitly accounted for. We anticipate accounting for soil non-linearity by using either a linear elastic soil model with an iterative degradation of the soil shear modulus, or by using a fully non-linear soil model. The three cross sections locations will be selected to evaluate the range of displacements that could occur due to the embankment construction. The engineering evaluations will rely on roadway geometry and preliminary bridge layout that will be provided to Kleinfelder by Jacobs. Our scope and fee assume one roadway geometry and configuration of bridges will be evaluated. Any changes to roadway geometry or bridge layout that occur during the course of our work may require changes to our scope and fee. Report Preparation The results of our study will be presented in a draft report for review by Jacobs, RCTD, and MWD. After receipt of review comments, Kleinfelder will prepare and submit a final report. Our fee assumes a total of 12 hard copies of the draft and final reports will be needed. We will also provide an Adobe Acrobat pdf copy of the reports. 75 10 Meetings and Project Management A Kleinfelder representative will attend up to two meetings four hours in duration in Los Angeles, Orange or Riverside County. A Kleinfelder representative will also attend up to six, one to two hour long teleconference meetings. A Kleinfelder Qualified Project Manager will be assigned to manage the budget within budget and on schedule. 6.5.1A “Recirculated”Draft Project Report (RDPR) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.5.1 but applies only to revisions to the DPR directly related to the “modified project”. The “modified project” includes new project limits from I-215 to SR-79 and geometric changes for the segment between I-215 and Antelope Road for the three remaining build alternatives – Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. The entire DPR will be converted from metric units to U.S. customary units. Three submittals (Preliminary Draft, Final Draft, Final Draft for Signature) are assumed. Life Cycle Pavement Cost Analysis is not to be included in the DPR. Additional text added to give history from DEIR/DEIS, alternatives eliminated and project modified. Preliminary Materials Report and Life Cycle Cost Analysis required before completion of Final Project Report. Products: Recirculated Draft Project Report in U.S. customary units 25 copies assumed for the Preliminary Draft, 5 copies for the Final Draft and 5 copies Final Draft for Signature, 10 copies of the signed document 6.5.2 Final Project Report As a result of the environmental evaluation and the public comments, a Preferred Alternative will be selected for the project. The Consultant will incorporate comments from the DPR and prepare the Final Project Report (Final PR) based on the Preferred Alternative. The Final PR will also address any changes in the Preferred Alternative and cost estimates arising from the environmental studies, such as any environmental mitigations or avoidances. It is expected that more specific funding sources will be identified before or during the Final PR stage. Preliminary Materials Report and Life Cycle Cost Analysis required before completion of Final Project Report. Assumption: 70 copies of the Final Project Report will be needed Product: Final Project Report 76 11 6.6A New Connection Report (NCR) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.6 but applies only to a new connection at the MCP/I-215 interchange associated with the “modified project” and only one NCR will be created for a locally preferred alternative. NCR in U.S. Customary units. A new requirement in 2010 for the NCR is a Conceptual Signing Plan. It is expected that the Conceptual Signing Plan will cover signing between the I-215/MCP systems interchange and a half-mile beyond 2 local street interchanges in each direction. On I-215, that would cover 4 miles north and 3 miles south of the I-215/MCP interchange. Along MCP, that would cover 3 miles east of the I-215/MCP interchange. Approximately ten (10) Conceptual Sign plan sheet s (11”x17”) at scale 1”:200’ will be needed. Additional report copies and support of the conceptually approved NCR for NCR conceptual approval after the ROD. Products: NCR 6.7A Geometric Approval Drawings (GAD) Scope for this task is identical to original task 6.7 above but applies only to revisions to the segment between I-215 and Antelope Road for the “modified project” of the three remaining build alternatives – Alternatives 4, 5 and 9. GAD will be prepared in U.S. customary units for the preferred alternative only. The segment from Antelope Road to SR-79 is already near completion and final review by Caltrans and covered in scope item 6.7. Update to 2012 standards Additional work on sections from Antelope to SR-79 based on schedule push resulting in change in staff and new standards. Product: GAD for the Preferred Alternative only from I-215 to Antelope Road 77 1 SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR TASK ORDER NO. 7 – GIS DATA BASE SERVICES MID COUNTY PARKWAY CORRIDOR—ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND BASIC ENGINEERING AMENDMENT 7 The following scope revisions are included in this document: Amendment 5: Additional tasks that arose during the Re-evaluation phase that were funded with the Amendment 5 Budget are highlighted in italic text. These tasks did not require request for additional funds on the contract, but are noted for documentation purposes. Amendment 7: Additional tasks that are required to complete deliver an FEIR/FEIS for the project and obtain a Record of Decision are highlighted in underline text. 7.0A GIS DATA BASE SERVICES Extension in timeline of scope of services to address the modified project and all documents associated with the RDEIR/SDEIS. For this project, the Geographic Information System (GIS) will provide the base structure for data collection and organization. The GIS Team will continue to provide data organization, dissemination, and support for the PDT. There are six main tasks that the GIS team will address: 1. Development and maintenance of data library functions and distribution system 2. Update and publish base data and alignment layer; data standards to be used by project teams 3. Data needs assessment, acquisition, review, and maintenance 4. Analysis utilizing the GIS system as required to support general project needs 5. Generate maps, tables, reports, presentation graphics, and online GIS resources 6. Data archive, documentation, delivery, and training 7.1A Setup, Development, and Maintenance of Data Library and Distribution System A Project Data Control and Management Library has been established that contains the data collected or generated for the project. RBF will continue to maintain and update this system as necessary for this phase of the project work. This system, 78 2 which will be maintained and operated in conjunction with the project and document management collaboration site, will serve as a central online repository for project data. Data stored at the site will be registered to the project alignment layer developed by the Survey and Mapping Team, and meta data will be made available to provide users with pertinent information relating to the data's source, level of accuracy, date of completion, and any specific limitations in the use of the data. Additional functionality of the site will maintain a list of data downloads for notification of modifications by the data originator. Base data and data sets too large for distribution from the FTP site will be made available by CD. CD updates will be distributed as warranted throughout the Phase 2 project life. 7.2A Publish Base Data and Alignment Layer; Create Data Standards to be Used by Project Teams Meetings will be held with all teams and individuals working on the project to provide information on how to access data and to describe the data standards that have been set for graphics, feature attributes, symbology, and meta data. The GIS team will provide support to other production teams to assist in maintaining the standards in their data generation and utilization. The data standards created for the project GIS will conform to the data standards currently in use on County systems. Data standards will be determined and established per the data dictionaries provided by the governing agencies and their GIS departments. A base data set has been established and will be maintained and updated by the GIS team in conjunction with the work to be completed by the survey and mapping team, which will be used by the other team members for convergence of data sets. This base data layer will be referred to as the "Data Alignment Layer." The Data Alignment Layer will consist of points, lines, and polygons taken from various data sources at various scales and levels of accuracy. Meta data relating to these geographic features will be of primary importance and will be maintained throughout the life of the project. The datum and projection of the Data Alignment Layer will be based on the County Parcel Data, which is NAD83 California State Plane Zone 6. As new data enters the project in this phase, the project team responsible for the new data will develop the appropriate meta data attributes and align the data to the Data Alignment Layer prior to requesting that the data be placed in the project data library. Data in the project data library will be available for access by other project team members but may only be modified by the responsible team. The GIS team will be responsible for the maintenance of the data library and will provide assistance to the other project teams if required to align and register new data sets. The goal of this task is to have each final data set delivered to the client, whether engineering, planning, or environmental based, to fit the constraints of the overall project coordinate control to make it most useful for future use and assure project quality between disciplines. 79 3 7.3A Data Needs Assessment, Acquisition, Review, and Maintenance Data will be the core of all of the project tasks for each of the project teams. This task simply defines how the data will be provided and the basic format and alignment to other data. The data itself is going to be the most important component of the GIS coordination. Whether existing data is received from other sources or new data is developed during the project tasks, most of the project data will be utilized for many disciplines and all segments of the project. Therefore, the timing and availability of each data set will be important to project team managers. To address this need, the GIS team will coordinate with each project team for identification of required data, adequacy of the available data, and acquisition of the required new data layers. This task will contain the following three components: 7.3.1 Establish the anticipated additional data needs, potential new sources as requested by the other project teams, and availability of the required data sets. 7.3.2 Develop a thorough list, presenting the identified data sets, the anticipated source for the data, any additional work that must be completed prior to use of the data, and the schedule for availability of the data. 7.3.3 Collect data from its source. If the data is among the available data sets at the County or other global project sources, the data will be acquired, checked, and moved to the project data library for use. Other data sets requiring additional work will be acquired by the responsible project team and modified as necessary prior to being forwarded to the GIS team for checking and placement in the project data library. 7.4A Analysis Utilizing the GIS System Once the project data is available in the project data library, the analysis of this data by each of the project teams will be undertaken. The analysis will be completed using the GIS system as a tool for evaluation of data and for the development of new data sets. New GIS data sets and resulting analyses will be maintained in the project data library and available for the other project teams to utilize. Where necessary, the GIS team will provide GIS analysis services to the other project team members. The budget for such analyses is contained in the budget provided for the individual task item by the individual project team. Analysis will be performed using Arc/Info, ArcView, or other GIS, CAD, or modeling software as necessary to achieve the desired results. Data created through this process will follow the same rigorous testing and quality checking as original data before documentation, meta data attribution, and placement in the project data library. A specific budget has been assigned for analysis requested at the specific direction of the project director or the client. Work under this task will be performed only under such specific direction. A 80 4 summary of the budget expended and remaining will be provided with each monthly progress billing. 7.5A Generate Map, Tables, Reports, Presentation Graphics, and Online GIS Resources Mapping standards, including global project symbol libraries, line styles, color palettes, and standard map layout at various scales will be provided to the project team members for the generation of their GIS map products. These templates will be provided online with the project data library. Where necessary, the GIS team will provide GIS map design and creation services to the other project teams. The budget for such map generation is contained in the budget provided for the individual task item by the project team. Map generation will be performed using Arc/Info, ArcView, or other software as necessary to achieve the desired results. Maps created through this process will follow rigorous quality checking procedures for accuracy and completeness. Digital versions of the final map products will be made available to the other team members in the project data library where appropriate. A specific budget has been assigned for map making requested at the specific direction of the project director or the client. Work under this task will be performed only under such specific direction. A summary of the budget expended and remaining will be provided with each monthly progress billing. 7.6A Data Archive, Documentation, Delivery, and Training 7.6.1 Following completion of the project, the project data collected and generated by the project team members will be archived for delivery to the client to support future work. This archiving process will include the verification and documentation of the data structures and meta data for each data set. The data archive will consist of the creation of a permanent data backup such as DVD or CD-ROM. 7.6.2 Agency staff will be provided with training from the project GIS team with up to four two-hour training sessions. This training is to include an introduction and demonstration of the expanded GIS database, the new data structures, and uses identified in the project. Assumptions: 1. All data required for this project that originates from County government or Transportation Agencies will be provided free of charge to the Consultant within the time constraints provided in the approved schedule. Such data will be complete, current, and accurate as required for the analysis and mapping purposes designated for this project. Also, it is assumed that the data sets will have been previously registered to each County's parcel land base or the 81 5 project data alignment layer. Data layers specified in the RFP to be updated as part of this project are specifically excluded from this assumption. 2. Data requiring acquisition through purchase will be reimbursed by the client. 3. The client and the Consultant will enter into a reciprocal confidentiality agreement concerning the creation, transfer, and use of GIS data specifically pertaining to this project. Product: GIS Database 82 BLANK Activity ID Activity Description Rem Dur Start Finish Total Float Task 1 Project Management 1.0 Project Management 1.0002 Project Complete 0 24DEC14 -15 1.1 Project Management 1.1000 Task 1.1 Project Management 152 01MAR05A 02JUL14 160 1.2 Project Scheduling and Controls 1.2000 Task 1.2 Project Scheduling and Controls 151 01MAR05A 01JUL14 281 1.3 Project Meetings 1.3000 Task 1.3 Project Meetings 151 01MAR05A 01JUL14 161 Task 3 Survey / Right of Entry / Right of Way 3.4 Prepare Draft Relocation Impact Report 3.4014 Prepare Final Relocation Impact Report 50 22JAN14A 22MAR14 68 3.4015 Review/Revise Final Relocation Impact Report 30 23MAR14 21APR14 68 3.5 Prepare R.O.W. Data Sheets 3.5003 Final ROW Data Sheets, Prefer. Alt. for Final PR 96 11SEP13A 07MAY14 112 Task 4 Environmental Services 4.7 Response To Comments 4.7005 Prepare Revised Responses 62 29OCT13A 03APR14 -4 4.7007 "Resource" Agcy. Rvw.of Draft Comms. & Responses 30 04APR14 03MAY14 -4 4.7008 Transmit Responses to Public Agency Comments 13 14JUL14 26JUL14 62 4.8 Draft Final EIR/EIS 4.8001 NEPA/404 Informal Coordination Mtg. on LEDPA 0 05NOV13A 05NOV13A 4.8011 Agency Review and Comment 0 06NOV13A 25NOV13A 4.8022 PDT on Preferred Alternative 0 20NOV13A 20NOV13A 4.8002 Revise LEDPA Package & Distribute to Agencies 0 26NOV13A 04DEC13A 4.8004 Formal LEDPA Checkpoint Meeting 0 18DEC13A 18DEC13A 4.8005 Identify Preferred Alternative 0 18DEC13A 18DEC13A 4.8007 Caltrans Submit Formal LEDPA Chkpt.Ltr.to Agcy's 0 19DEC13A 20DEC13A 4.8016 Prepare and Recirculate AQ Documents 0 19DEC13A 17JAN14A 4.8006 LEDPA Checkpoint Concurrence/Agreement 14 21DEC13A 14FEB14 97 4.8050 Mail Out Noise Abatement Survey 0 13JAN14A 13JAN14A 4.8008 Submit Preferred Alternative to SCAG TCWG 0 14JAN14A 14JAN14A 4.8060 Noise Abatement Survey Process Complete 12 14JAN14A 12FEB14 106 4.8026 AQ Documents RCTC Review and LSA Revise 0 18JAN14A 24JAN14A 4.8036 Recirc. AQ NOA to Geographic for Public Noticing 0 25JAN14A 31JAN14A 4.8018 SCAG TCWG Concurrence on Preferred Altrnative 0 28JAN14A 28JAN14A 4.8046 Public Circulation AQ Documents 45 01FEB14 17MAR14 8 4.8017 Caltr.Letter-Trans.Agcy's LEDPA Chkpt.Decision 7 15FEB14 21FEB14 97 4.8009 Prepare Draft Final EIR/EIS 60 21FEB14 21APR14 8 4.8069 Prep.Resp. to Comments on Recirculated AQ Secs.21 18MAR14 07APR14 8 4.8019 GAD Approval Signature 30 22APR14 21MAY14 68 2013 2014 2015 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN J Project Complete Task 1.1 Project Management Task 1.2 Project Scheduling and Controls Task 1.3 Project Meetings Prepare Final Relocation Impact Report Review/Revise Final Relocation Impact Report Final ROW Data Sheets, Prefer. Alt. for Final PR Prepare Revised Responses "Resource" Agcy. Rvw.of Draft Comms. & Responses Transmit Responses to Public Agency Comments NEPA/404 Informal Coordination Mtg. on LEDPA Agency Review and Comment PDT on Preferred Alternative Revise LEDPA Package & Distribute to Agencies Formal LEDPA Checkpoint Meeting Identify Preferred Alternative Caltrans Submit Formal LEDPA Chkpt.Ltr.to Agcy's Prepare and Recirculate AQ Documents LEDPA Checkpoint Concurrence/Agreement Mail Out Noise Abatement Survey Submit Preferred Alternative to SCAG TCWG Noise Abatement Survey Process Complete AQ Documents RCTC Review and LSA Revise Recirc. AQ NOA to Geographic for Public Noticing SCAG TCWG Concurrence on Preferred Altrnative Public Circulation AQ Documents Caltr.Letter-Trans.Agcy's LEDPA Chkpt.Decision Prepare Draft Final EIR/EIS Prep.Resp. to Comments on Recirculated AQ Secs. GAD Approval Signature © Primavera Systems, Inc. Mid County Parkway February 01, 2014 Date Revision Checked Approved 04MAR14 01FEB14 Update 83 Sheet 2 of 4 Activity ID Activity Description Rem Dur Start Finish Total Float 4.8010 Agency Review Draft Final EIR/EIS 30 15MAY14 13JUN14 -15 4.9A Section 106 4.9024 Caltrans/FHWA Transmit DMP/MOA to Tribes 0 31OCT13A 08NOV13A 4.9025 Native American Review of DMP and MOA 0 09NOV13A 12DEC13A 4.9027 Native American Consultation 0 18NOV13A 19NOV13A 4.9028 Revise Final DMP & MOA 0 13DEC13A 27JAN14A 4.9047 Native American Consultation (2)0 16DEC13A 20DEC13A 4.9029 Caltrans/FHWA/Tribal Rvw. of Revised MOA and DMP 27 28JAN14A 27FEB14 -15 4.9039 Revise MOA & DMP per Caltr/FHWA/Tribal Comments 15 28FEB14 14MAR14 -15 4.9049 FHWA Transmits to Tribes-14 Day "Courtesy Rvw"3 15MAR14 17MAR14 -15 4.9059 Tribal "Courtesy Review" Period 14 18MAR14 31MAR14 -15 4.9031 FHWA Submits Final MOA/DMP to SHPO/ACHP 7 01APR14 07APR14 -15 4.9032 SHPO/ACHP Review MOA/DMP 30 08APR14 07MAY14 -15 4.9033 Approval of MOA by Signatories-FHWA,SHPO,Tribes 7 08MAY14 14MAY14 -15 4.9B Section 4(f) 4.9034 Prep.Draft Sec.4(f)"Req.for Concur."-CDFW/Perris 0 11SEP13A 10DEC13A 4.9044 Rev.Draft Sec.4(f)"Req.Concur."by RCTC/Cal/FHWA 0 11DEC13A 13DEC13A 4.9054 Prep.Final sec.4(f) Letters to CDFW & Perris 0 14DEC13A 26DEC13A 4.9064 FHWA Submits Sec.4(f) Letters to CDFW and Perris 0 27DEC13A 27DEC13A 4.9074 CDFW and Perris Issue Concurrence Letters 50 27DEC13A 22MAR14 98 4.9C Cost Estimate Review 6.3330 Assemble CER - Caltrans/FHWA Team 27 06JUL13A 27FEB14 6 6.3300 Prep/Issue PR Cost Est. (PPCE) for CER 46 07MAR14 21APR14 6 6.3320 Cost Estimate Review (CER)2 22APR14 23APR14 6 4.9 Final EIR/EIS 4.9001 Prepare Final EIR/EIS 30 14JUN14 13JUL14 -15 4.9002 Submit 404 Permit Application 30 14JUN14 13JUL14 -15 4.9004 Agency Review Final. EIR/EIS 30 14JUL14 12AUG14 -15 4.9005 Corps Prepares 404 Public Notice 30 14JUL14 12AUG14 239 4.9013 RCTC Action to Certify Final EIR & Aprv.Project 30 13AUG14 11SEP14 -15 4.9023 FHWA Approve Final EIS for Public Availabilty 30 13AUG14 11SEP14 -15 4.9006 FEIR/FEIS Circ./Sec.404 Public Notice Issued 30 12SEP14 11OCT14 -15 4.10A Prepare Record of Decision-FHWA 4.10.23 Prepare Draft Project Management Plan (PMP)60 22APR14 20JUN14 38 4.10.13 Prepare Initial Financial Plans (IFP)90 26SEP14 24DEC14 104 4.10.00 Task 4.10 - FHWA ROD (Summary Activity)104*12OCT14 23JAN15 -15 4.10.04 Prepare Draft ROD 14 12OCT14 25OCT14 -15 4.10.05 FHWA Reviews Draft ROD and Approves 30 26OCT14 24NOV14 -15 4.10.07 FHWA ROD Aprvl.& Publish Notice to Fed. Register 30 25NOV14 24DEC14 -15 4.10B Prepare Record of Decision - USACE 4.10.16 Prepare Draft Final HMMP 0 09AUG13A 03DEC13A 4.10.28 Prepare Updated JD 0 01OCT13A 27NOV13A 4.10.38 USACE Review and Approve Updated JD 0 28NOV13A 18DEC13A 2013 2014 2015 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN J Agency Review Draft Final EIR/EIS Caltrans/FHWA Transmit DMP/MOA to Tribes Native American Review of DMP and MOA Native American Consultation Revise Final DMP & MOA Native American Consultation (2) Caltrans/FHWA/Tribal Rvw. of Revised MOA and DMP Revise MOA & DMP per Caltr/FHWA/Tribal Comments FHWA Transmits to Tribes-14 Day "Courtesy Rvw" Tribal "Courtesy Review" Period FHWA Submits Final MOA/DMP to SHPO/ACHP SHPO/ACHP Review MOA/DMP Approval of MOA by Signatories-FHWA,SHPO,Tribes Prep.Draft Sec.4(f)"Req.for Concur."-CDFW/Perris Rev.Draft Sec.4(f)"Req.Concur."by RCTC/Cal/FHWA Prep.Final sec.4(f) Letters to CDFW & Perris FHWA Submits Sec.4(f) Letters to CDFW and Perris CDFW and Perris Issue Concurrence Letters Assemble CER - Caltrans/FHWA Team Prep/Issue PR Cost Est. (PPCE) for CER Cost Estimate Review (CER) Prepare Final EIR/EIS Submit 404 Permit Application Agency Review Final. EIR/EIS Corps Prepares 404 Public Notice RCTC Action to Certify Final EIR & Aprv.Project FHWA Approve Final EIS for Public Availabilty FEIR/FEIS Circ./Sec.404 Public Notice Issued Prepare Draft Project Management Plan (PMP) Prepare Initial Financial Plans (IFP) Task 4.10 - FHWA ROD (Summary Activity) Prepare Draft ROD FHWA Reviews Draft ROD and Approves FHWA ROD Aprvl.& Publish Notice to Fed. Register Prepare Draft Final HMMP Prepare Updated JD USACE Review and Approve Updated JD Sheet 2 of 484 Sheet 3 of 4 Activity ID Activity Description Rem Dur Start Finish Total Float 4.10.26 RCTC Review Draft Final HMMP 0 04DEC13A 10DEC13A 4.10.36 Revise Drft.Fnl.HMMP-Circulate-Concurr.Agcy.Rvw.0 11DEC13A 20DEC13A 4.10.46 Concurrent Agency Rvw.-Draft HMMP 7 23DEC13A 07FEB14 51 4.10.56 Prepare Final HMMP 30 08FEB14 09MAR14 51 4.10.06 Corps Evaluates Comments on Public Notice 30 12OCT14 10NOV14 89 4.10.08 Corps ROD 30 25DEC14 23JAN15 45 4.10.18 Corps Provides Provisional 404 Permit 30 24JAN15 22FEB15 45 4.11 MSHCP Consistency 4.11.09 Revisions per RCA and Agency Comments 0 20SEP13A 26NOV13A 4.11.11 Finalize MSHCP Consistency & DBESPs per Agency 28 13NOV13A 28FEB14 7 4.11.12 Submit JPR Application & Reports to RCA 8 03MAR14 10MAR14 7 4.11.13 RCA Rvw. JPR, Provide Comment or Agree Complete 14 11MAR14 24MAR14 7 4.11.14 RCA Sends Final JPR to Wildlife Agencies 1 25MAR14 25MAR14 7 4.11.15 Wildlife Agencies Review, Provide Comments 14 26MAR14 08APR14 7 4.11.16 Wildlife Agencies Concur on JPR 1 09APR14 09APR14 13 4.11.19 FHWA Sbmt.Aprvd.JPR to USFWS-Initiat.Sec.7Consul 7 09APR14 15APR14 7 4.11.18 USFWS Aprvs. Biological Opinion (FWS/FHWA Sec.7)60 16APR14 14JUN14 7 Task 6 Engineering 6.5 Project Report 6.5201 Engineering - Final Project Report 96 18JAN14A 07MAY14 54 6.4710A Final ROW Data Sheets 1 07MAY14 07MAY14 112 6.5202 Caltrans Approve and Sign Final PR 60 14JUN14 12AUG14 15 6.6A Supplemental New Connection Report 6.10.14 NCR Draft Final Submit to FHWA for Review 30 12OCT14 10NOV14 59 6.10.17 NCR Final FHWA Approval 30 25NOV14 24DEC14 45 6.7D GAD- I-215/MCP - D 6.7024A40 Caltrans Signature 28 19DEC13A 28FEB14 383 6.7E GAD- Redlands to Antelope - E 6.7016A40 Caltrans Signature 49 19DEC13A 21MAR14 383 6.7F GAD- Antelope to Bridge St. - F 6.7170 Seg. F - Antel. to Bridge St.-Submit & Rvw.(6th)49 25SEP13A 21MAR14 383 6.7G GAD- Bridge St. to SR79 - G 6.7210 Seg. G - Bridge St. to SR79-Submit & Rvw.(3rd)49 25SEP13A 21MAR14 383 6.70 Fact Sheets 6.70.04 Advisory-Supplemental I-215 Fact Sht. Rvw.& Aprv 28 16SEP13A 28FEB14 383 6.70.05 Mandatory-Mainline Fact Sht.Rvw.& Aprv.49 30SEP13A 21MAR14 383 6.70.06 Advisory - Mainline Fact Sheet Rvw.& Aprv.49 30SEP13A 21MAR14 383 6.70.26 SPI Report Review and Aprove 26 13JAN14A 26FEB14 406 Task 9 Post Record of Decision Tasks 9.0 Post Record of Decision Tasks 4.10.33 Prepare Final Project Management Plan (PMP)90 25DEC14 24MAR15 15 4.10.43 Submit Initial Financial Plans (IFP)1 25DEC14 25DEC14 104 4.12.01 Obtain Sec. 401 Water Quality Certif. from RWQCB 30 25MAR15 23APR15 -15 4.12.02 Obtain Sec.1600 Streambed Alt. Agree.from CDFW 30 25MAR15 23APR15 -15 2013 2014 2015 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN J RCTC Review Draft Final HMMP Revise Drft.Fnl.HMMP-Circulate-Concurr.Agcy.Rvw. Concurrent Agency Rvw.-Draft HMMP Prepare Final HMMP Corps Evaluates Comments on Public Notice Corps ROD Corps Provides Provisional 404 Permit Revisions per RCA and Agency Comments Finalize MSHCP Consistency & DBESPs per Agency Submit JPR Application & Reports to RCA RCA Rvw. JPR, Provide Comment or Agree Complete RCA Sends Final JPR to Wildlife Agencies Wildlife Agencies Review, Provide Comments Wildlife Agencies Concur on JPR FHWA Sbmt.Aprvd.JPR to USFWS-Initiat.Sec.7Consul USFWS Aprvs. Biological Opinion (FWS/FHWA Sec.7) Engineering - Final Project Report Final ROW Data Sheets Caltrans Approve and Sign Final PR NCR Draft Final Submit to FHWA for Review NCR Final FHWA Approval Caltrans Signature Caltrans Signature Seg. F - Antel. to Bridge St.-Submit & Rvw.(6th) Seg. G - Bridge St. to SR79-Submit & Rvw.(3rd) Advisory-Supplemental I-215 Fact Sht. Rvw.& Aprv Mandatory-Mainline Fact Sht.Rvw.& Aprv. Advisory - Mainline Fact Sheet Rvw.& Aprv. SPI Report Review and Aprove Prepare Final Project Management Plan (PMP) Submit Initial Financial Plans (IFP) Obtain Sec. 401 Water Quality Certif. from RWQCB Obtain Sec.1600 Streambed Alt. Agree.from CDFW Sheet 3 of 485 Sheet 4 of 4 Activity ID Activity Description Rem Dur Start Finish Total Float 4.12.03 Dsgn/Constr.Info.to USACE;Sec.404 Compliance 30 25MAR15 23APR15 -15 2013 2014 2015 OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN J Dsgn/Constr.Info.to USACE;Sec.404 Compliance Sheet 4 of 486 MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment 7 BUDGET SUMMARY Total Project Project Budget (Phase 1) Project Budget (Phase 2) Amend 7 Budget Requested Amend 7 Contingency Revised Budget (Phase 2) Total Project Budget $43,043,862 $5,030,501 $38,013,361 Budget Adjustment between Phases -$205,257 $205,257 $43,043,862 $4,825,244 $38,218,618 $2,039,550 $203,955 $40,462,123 Total Amend 7 Requested $2,243,505 Date: March 5, 2014 C:\Users\garciadf\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\NB40H0E6\_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc Amendment 7 Budget Summary ATTACHMENT 3 87 MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment 7 Budget Subtotal Current Phase 2 Budget Amendment 7 Request Revised Amend.7 Budget Firm 25 Jacobs $15,053,496 $1,025,545 $16,079,041 CH2MHill $4,105,924 $0 $4,105,924 Dudek $1,254,627 $110,485 $1,365,112 Epic $1,327,065 $86,049 $1,413,114 Geographics $308,735 $32,934 $341,669 Kleinfelder $868,860 $0 $868,860 LSA $9,420,756 $757,412 $10,178,168 MMA $853,456 $0 $853,456 MIG $39,054 $0 $39,054 O'Reilly $136,847 $0 $136,847 RBF $1,907,807 $0 $1,907,807 VRPA $2,907,323 $27,125 $2,934,448 VMS $34,667 $0 $34,667 Sub Total $38,218,618 $2,039,550 $40,258,168 $2,039,550 Contingency $0 $203,955 $203,955 Total w Contingency $38,218,618 $2,243,505 $40,462,123 Date: March 5, 2014 C:\Users\garciadf\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\NB40H0E6\_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc Budget Subtotal88 Firm: Date: March 5, 2014 Task Summary Labor Hours Labor 1.0 Project Management 4,087 $607,479 2.0 Agency & Public Involvement Process 139 $19,627 3.0 Survey, ROE, ROW 0 $0 4.0 Environmental Services 497 $194,400 5.0 Traffic Engineering 0 $0 6.0 Engineering 1,031 $128,074 7.0 GIS Data Base Services 0 $0 5,755 $949,578 Fee @ 7%$66,470 Directs $9,496 Total $1,025,545 Task Estimate: Amendment 7 Jacobs Amendment 7 89 Firm: Date: March 5, 2014 Amend 7 ODC's Months Ave/ Month Total ODC Total ODC Mileage 0 $0.55 $0.00 - Postage/Fedex 0 varies $0.00 - Telephone 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Reproduction Fees 0 varies $0.00 - Direct Mail 0 $7.00 $0.00 - Newsletter 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Display Boards Meeting Supplies 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Other- Noise Meter Usage Fees varies $0.00 - Other- GPS Unit 0 $200.00 $0.00 - Other - Other - Total ODC $0 $9,496 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 Final Docs JACOBS 90 Firm: Date: March 5,2014 Task Summary Labor Hours Labor 1.0 Project Management 0 $0 2.0 Agency & Public Involvement Process 100 $8,580 3.0 Survey, ROE, ROW 0 $0 4.0 Environmental Services 0 $0 5.0 Traffic Engineering 0 $0 6.0 Engineering 0 $0 7.0 GIS Data Base Services 0 $0 100 $8,580 Fee @ 7%$601 Directs $23,753 Total $32,934 Task Estimate: Amendment 7 Geographics Amendment 7 C:\Users\garciadf\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\NB40H0E6\_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc Geo 91 Firm: Date: March 5, 2014 Amend 7 ODC's Total ODC Mileage - Newspaper Placement $16,626.00 Postage/Fedex $950.00 Telephone - Reproduction Fees $581.00 Direct Mail $960.00 Newsletter $4,300.00 Display Boards Meeting Supplies - Other- Translation $336.00 Other-Meeting Supplies - Other-Media Placements - Other - Total ODC $23,753.00 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 Geopraphics C:\Users\garciadf\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\NB40H0E6\_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc Geo 92 Firm: Date: March 5, 2014 Task Summary Labor Hours Labor 1.0 Project Management 392 $69,951 2.0 Agency & Public Involvement Process 0 $0 3.0 Survey, ROE, ROW 0 $0 4.0 Environmental Services 5,020 $631,356 5.0 Traffic Engineering 0 $0 6.0 Engineering 0 $0 7.0 GIS Data Base Services 0 $0 5,412 $701,307 Fee @ 7%$49,092 Directs $7,013 Total $757,412 Task Estimate: Amendment 6 LSA Amendment 7 93 Firm: Date: March 5,2014 Amend 7 ODC's Months Ave/ Month Total ODC Total ODC Mileage 0 $0.55 $0.00 - Postage/Fedex 0 varies $0.00 - Telephone 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Reproduction Fees 0 varies $0.00 - Direct Mail 0 $7.00 $0.00 - Newsletter 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Display Boards Meeting Supplies 0 $0.00 $0.00 - Other- Noise Meter Usage Fees varies $0.00 - Other- GPS Unit 0 $200.00 $0.00 - Other - Other - Total ODC $0 $7,013 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 Final Docs LSA 94 Firm: Date: March 5, 2014 Task Summary Labor Hours Labor 1.0 Project Management 8 $926 2.0 Agency & Public Involvement Process 0 $0 3.0 Survey, ROE, ROW 0 $0 4.0 Environmental Services 214 $22,257 5.0 Traffic Engineering 0 $0 6.0 Engineering 0 $0 7.0 GIS Data Base Services 0 $0 222 $23,184 Fee @ 7%$1,623 Directs $2,318 Total $27,125 Task Estimate: Amendment 7 Final Docs VRPA Amendment 7 95 Firm: Date: March 5, 2014 Amend 7 ODC's Months Ave/ Month Total ODC Total ODC Mileage - Postage/Fedex $0 - Telephone - Reproduction Fees - Direct Mail - Newsletter - Display Boards Meeting Supplies - Other - Intersection Traffic Counts 0.0 $0.00 $0 - Other - Segment traffic Counts 0.0 $0.00 $0 - Other - Other - Total ODC $0 $2,318 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 Final Docs VRPA 96 Firm:Epic Date: March 5, 2014 Task Summary Labor Hours Labor 1.0 Project Management 86 $14,002 2.0 Agency & Public Involvement Process 0 $0 3.0 Survey, ROE, ROW 300 $38,278 4.0 Environmental Services 0 $0 5.0 Traffic Engineering 0 $0 6.0 Engineering 120 $17,982 7.0 GIS Data Base Services 0 $0 506 $70,261 Fee @ 7%$4,918 Directs $10,870 Total $86,049 Task Estimate: Amendment 7 Final Docs Amendment 7 97 Firm:Epic Date: March 5, 2014 Amend 7 ODC's Months Ave/ Month Total ODC Total ODC Mileage Per Mile IRS reimburs.$0 - Postage/Fedex At Cost $0 - Telephone At Cost - Reproduction Fees At Cost $0 - Direct Mail At Cost - Newsletter At Cost - Loopnet Annually $1,200.00 $0 $1,200 Win2 Data Annually $3,750.00 $0 $3,750 ECE Software Annually $4,800.00 $0 $4,800 Realtytrac.com Annually $600.00 $0 $600 Foreclosure.com Annually $520.00 $0 $520 Total ODC $0 $10,870 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 98 Firm:Dudek Date: March 5, 2014 Task Summary Labor Hours Labor 1.0 Project Management 68 $12,851 2.0 Agency & Public Involvement Process 0 $0 3.0 Survey, ROE, ROW 0 $0 4.0 Environmental Services 377 $89,450 5.0 Traffic Engineering 0 $0 6.0 Engineering 0 $0 7.0 GIS Data Base Services 0 $0 445 $102,301 Fee @ 7%$7,161 Directs $1,023 Total $110,485 Task Estimate: Amendment 7 Amendment 7 Final Docs C:\Users\garciadf\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\NB40H0E6\_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc Dudek 99 Firm:Dudek Date: March 5, 2014 Amend 7 ODC's Total ODC Mileage - Postage/Fedex Telephone Reproduction Fees Direct Mail - Newsletter - Display Boards Meeting Supplies - Other - Other - Other - Other - Total ODC $1,023 Direct Cost Estimate: Amendment 7 C:\Users\garciadf\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\NB40H0E6\_MCP Project Detail Amendment 7 030514 to rctc Dudek 100 L:\Current Design Projects\04-31-018 Mid-County Parkway\Agenda Items\MCP Amendment No. 7 Agenda Materials\Copy of _MCP Project Summary Amendment 7 030514 to rctc.xls Amend 7 Budget Summary MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment 7 BUDGET SUMMARY Project Budget Total Project Budget $43,043,862 Amendment 7 - Final Documents $2,243,505 Total Project Budget Requested $45,287,367 Date: March 4, 2014 ATTACHMENT 4 101 L:\Current Design Projects\04-31-018 Mid-County Parkway\Agenda Items\MCP Amendment No. 7 Agenda Materials\Copy of _MCP Project Summary Amendment 7 030514 to rctc.xlsAmendment 7 Budget ph1 2 detail MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment 7 BUDGET SUMMARY Project Budget (Phase 2) Project Budget (Phase 1) Total Project Budget Requested Total Project Budget $38,013,361 $5,030,501 $43,043,862 Amendment 7 - Final Documents $2,243,505 Subtotal Project $40,256,866 $5,030,501 $45,287,367 Amendment 7 - Final Documents Final Documents Subtotal =$2,039,550 Contingency =$203,955 Phase 2 Amendment 6 TOTAL budget needed =$2,243,505 Amendment 7 Requested Funds from Commission =$2,243,505 Date: February 14, 2014 102 L:\Current Design Projects\04-31-018 Mid-County Parkway\Agenda Items\MCP Amendment No. 7 Agenda Materials\Copy of _MCP Project Summary Amendment 7 030514 to rctc.xls Scope Budget Summary MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment 7 Additional Scope and Budget Final Documents TASK Title Description Amount 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND SCHEDULE Project Management for additional schedule extension for added review cycles, scope and extensive coordination with Tribal Governments and Resource Agencies. Two years extension in schedule. $754,574 2 PUBLIC OUTREACH Additional notice for Recirculated Draft EIR Air Quality and Green House Gases; Additional Public Outreach $30,180 3 RIGHT OF WAY Right of Way support for requests from public and agencies for coordination with project. Detailed right of way at Placentia IC and I-215.$40,957 4 ENVIRONMENTAL Extensive additional coordination with Tribal Governments, addtiional analysis for Bridge Design Variation, LEDPA and MSHCP consistency. Additional rounds of agency review and response to comments. Update to technical studies based on new or revised regulations. $1,003,085 6 ENGINEERING Additional Right of Way requests in support of public and agency coordination. Additional scope of work for FHWA major project deliverables and revision to engineering based on updated standards. Advanced Planning Study for SJRB DV. $156,607 Subtotal $1,985,404 ODCs $54,146 Additional Scope Budget =$2,039,550 Date: March 5, 2014 103 L:\Current Design Projects\04-31-018 Mid-County Parkway\Agenda Items\MCP Amendment No. 7 Agenda Materials\Copy of _MCP Project Summary Amendment 7 030514 to rctc.xls Requested Scope Budget Summ act MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment 7 Additional Scope and Budget Final Documents WBS Title Description Amount LSA JE Dudek VRPA Epic Geographics 4410 4(f)Section 4(f) - Additional consultation to bring all parties to concurrence on 4(f).$10,026 $10,026 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4420 Cultural Resources Cultural - 1) addition of the Cultural Landscape Study Outline to the DMP, and, 2) 13 additional meetings with Native American facilitator and Tribes. Both of these items required planning, extensive prework and presentation materials by both LSA and JE. Cultural - Potential for additional revisions to MOA or additional Native American consultation based on SHPO Task 4420 and 4700. $100,250 $100,250 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 4700 Response to Comments - Cultural Resources Cultural - Additional work for above tribal meetings and presentations $20,516 $0 $20,516 $0 $0 $0 $0 4700 Response to Comments - General and Recirculated Draft EIR Air Quality (AQ) and Green House Gases (GHG) Response to Comments - 1) Three additional review cycles of the Response to Comments (RTC). 2) Incorporation of "Reject MCP" letters (CBD form letters) received after April 19, 2013, into the Administrative Record (500-600 letters received per month). Recirculated Draft EIR Air Quality and Green House Gases (in response to RTC) - 1) preparation of the Recirculated Draft EIR Air Quality and GHG sections. 2) Outreach Materials - Website, Mailings, Newspaper Notice, Eblast. 3) Addtional response to comments on expected comments on the Recirculated document. Tasks 4700 $144,888 $107,000 $32,831 $1,492 $3,564 $0 $0 4700 Response to Comments - San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation Response to Comments - SJRB DV - Required additional analysis and meetings not anticipated in the Re-Eval phase. Continued discussions on SJRB DV impacted the schedule for the LEDPA and MSHCP DBESP.Includes a re-look at analysis done in summer 2011 by Dudek. Includes meeting preparation, presentations and documents for discussion. Additonal Task to add to scope,for a report for project files of SJRB DV analysis by Dudek. Task 4700 $34,544 $0 $0 $34,544 $0 $0 $0 4700 Response to Comments - Jurisdictional Delineation (JD), Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) and Section 404 Permit Application Response to Comments - JD - Updated JD required due to expiration of JD approved in April 2008 (new report required, not just updated forms, plus research to address concern raised by USFWS regarding potential ag wetland), HMMP - More detail is required per updated USACE guidelines than when this task was first budgeted in 2004, required engineers to work with LSA to review drainage and opportunities to create waters for a no net loss of waters, 404 Permit Application - Permit application not included in original scope. Task 4700 and Task 4111. Continued HMMP. $117,808 $93,090 $24,718 $0 $0 $0 $0 subtotal 4700 $317,755 $200,090 $78,065 $36,035 $3,564 $0 $0 4800 Draft Final EIR/EIS - Cultural and 4f additional Draft Final EIR/EIS - Cultural - Additonal work required for completion of Section 106 during the Draft Final EIR/EIS $31,975 $24,958 $7,017 $0 $0 $0 $0 4111 MSHCP - San Jacinto River Bridge Design Variation SJRB DV - Required additional analysis and meetings not anticipated in the Re-Eval phase. Continued discussions on SJRB DV impacted the schedule for the LEDPA and MSHCP DBESP.Includes a re-look at analysis done in summer 2011 by Dudek, again in 2013. Includes meeting preparation, presentations and documents for discussion. Additonal Task to add to scope,for a report for project files of SJRB DV analysis by Dudek. Task 4111. $246,345 $179,459 $66,886 $0 $0 $0 $0 4111 MSHCP - JPR and Mitigation Revision to JPR and mitigation discussions and documentation.$59,676 $0 $0 $59,676 $0 $0 $0 subtotal 4111 $306,021 $179,459 $66,886 $59,676 $0 $0 $0 4900 Final EIR/EIS Additional round of review, additional traffic, response to public comment $137,289 $75,035 $42,003 $0 $20,251 $0 $0 4101 Record of Decision Record of Decision - Additional support for documentation required for the ROD $99,769 $85,733 $14,036 $0 $0 $0 $0 subtotal 4 ENVIRONMENTAL $1,003,085 $675,551 $208,007 $95,712 $23,815 $0 $0 6320 Right of Way Data Sheets Right of Way - Engineering support for requests from public and working with local agencies, additional support for details on Placentia Ave IC $28,074 $0 $28,074 $0 $0 $0 $0 6320 Right of Way Data Sheets Right of Way - Extra analysis and data for CER participation $19,241 $0 $0 $0 $0 $19,241 $0 subtotal 6320 $47,314 $0 $28,074 $0 $0 $19,241 $0 6330 Cost Estimates - FHWA Major Project Deliverables - CER, Advanced Planning Study for SJRB DV Cost Estimate Review (CER)- A CER is now required by FHWA to be completed in the PA/ED phase. This requires update and reformat of the cost esitmate to FHWA specifications and a one week discussion with FHWA reviewing staff. The Project Management Plan (PMP) and Initial Financial Plan (IFP) are also new FHWA requirements, however they are not submitted until after the ROD. This request for budget expects that the team will need to provide assistance to RCTC to provide project information for their completion of these two deliverables after the ROD.Advanced Planning Study for SJRB DV. Task 6330. $66,753 $0 $66,753 $0 $0 $0 $0 6700 GAD - Update to latest standards and requirements Update to latest standards and requirements- Due to elapsed time, update to standards for all documents. Since 2004, FHWA/Caltrans template has had six updates, requiring update to environmental documents EIR/EIS. GAD's required to be updated for 2012 standards. GAD review and revise for Segments F and G, requiring much more time, since more time than assumed transpired since reviewers were involved. Re-evaluation phase substantially longer than assumed in schedule. Results in change in agency staff and standards. Task 6. $42,540 $0 $42,540 $0 $0 $0 $0 subtotal 6 ENGINEERING $156,607 $0 $137,367 $0 $0 $19,241 $0 2600 Public Outreach - Recirculated Draft EIR Air Quality (AQ) and Green House Gases (GHG) Recirculated Draft EIR Air Quality and Green House Gases (in response to RTC) - 1) preparation of the Recirculated Draft EIR Air Quality and GHG sections. 2) Outreach Materials - Website, Mailings, Newspaper Notice, Eblast. 3) Addtional response to comments on expected comments on the Recirculated document. Task 2 $14,926 $0 $10,336 $0 $0 $0 $4,590 2600 Public Outreach Public Outreach - Additional items for briefings with Officials and Agency leads.$15,253 $0 $10,663 $0 $0 $0 $4,590 subtotal 2 PUBLIC OUTREACH $30,180 $0 $21,000 $0 $0 $0 $9,180 3300 Right of Way Studies Right of Way - SJRB, Response to Comments, ROW requests for items near Placentia Right of Way - Support for requests from public and working with local agencies, additional support for details on Placentia Ave IC $40,957 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,957 subtotal 3 RIGHT OF WAY $40,957 $0 $0 $0 $0 $40,957 $0 Task 1 Project Management - Schedule - Final Phase Schedule Extention Final Phase - The original scope document assumed 12 months for final phase, current document assumes 19 months. Slip from April 2014 to Nov 2014 assume 7 months. Task 1. $317,427 $37,424 $280,003 $0 Task 1 Project Management - Schedule - Re-eval phase remaining Schedule Extension Re-Eval Phase - Extension from Re-Eval phase. Schedule cost that were not able to be accomodated by Re-eval phase contingency funds or efficiency of budget leading to re-allocation. Remaing $130k to be allocated, from $360k for 9 months at $40k. Balance was taken care of by Re-eval contingency or reallocation. Task 1 $144,982 $0 $130,000 $0 $14,982 Task 1 Project Management - Schedule - Schedule Extension Final Phase - Potential for additional 6 months in schedule. Task 1 $277,424 $37,424 $240,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Task 1 Project Management Subconsultants Task 1 management of additional scope items $14,742 $0 $0 $13,751 $991 $0 0 subtotal 1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT $754,574 $74,848 $650,003 $13,751 $991 $14,982 $0 Subtotal $1,985,404 $750,398 $1,016,376 $109,462 $24,806 $75,180 $9,180 LSA JE Dudek VRPA Epic Geographics ODCs $54,146 $7,013 $9,169 $1,023 $2,318 $10,870 $23,753 Additional Scope Budget =$2,039,550 $757,411 $1,025,545 $110,485 $27,124 $86,050 $32,933 $2,039,550 Date: March 5, 2014 104 L:\Current Design Projects\04-31-018 Mid-County Parkway\Agenda Items\MCP Amendment No. 7 Agenda Materials\Copy of _MCP Project Summary Amendment 7 030514 to rctc.xls Contingency % Subtotal MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT Amendment 7 Percent Contingency Subtotal 10% of requested budget =$203,955 $203,955 Date: March 4, 2014 105 Agreement No. 04-31-018-07 AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FEDERAL FUNDING/ASSISTANCE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES 1.PARTIES AND DATE This Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement for Professional Engineering and Environmental Services is made and entered into as of this ______ day of ___________, 2014, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (“Commission”) and JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. ("Consultant"), a Delaware corporation. 2.RECITALS 2.1 The Commission and Jacobs Civil, Inc. have entered into Agreement No. 04-31-018-00 (Master Agreement), dated February 3, 2004, for the purpose of providing professional engineering and environmental services in connection with the Mid County Parkway Project (Project). 2.2 The Commission and Jacobs Civil, Inc. have entered into an Amendment No. 1 to the Master Agreement, dated May 6, 2005, for the purpose of providing for additional compensation in order to include tasks required to complete Phase 2 activities for the Project, which included the development and completion of the Project Report and Environmental Document. 2.3 The Commission and Jacobs Civil, Inc. have entered into an Amendment No. 2 to the Master Agreement, dated January 11, 2006, for the purpose of providing additional compensation in order to include three (3) new alternative alignments identified during the Value Analysis Study process required as part of the Phase 2 Project activities. 2.4 The Commission and Jacobs Civil, Inc. have entered into an Amendment No. 3 to the Master Agreement, dated November 14, 2007, for the purpose of revising the existing indemnification language in the Master Agreement given recently adopted California Civil Code Section 2782.8 (AB 573) as it relates to design professionals, and providing additional compensation in order to increase the Scope of Services, to include an RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 1 ATTACHMENT 5 106 additional Scope of Services, and to provide additional compensation as follows: A. To authorize compensation for cultural investigation as detailed in Task 4 for the not to exceed amount of $499,997.00; and B. To authorize compensation for Geometric Drawings as detailed in Task 6 for the not to exceed amount of $2,895,116.00; and C. To authorize additional compensation in the amount of $168,004.00 to Jacobs Civil, Inc. for services to be provided by its subconsultant, LSA. This additional authorization is being made to adjust the prior use of a multiple that was understated in error. Jacobs Civil, Inc, following the discovery and application of the correct multiplier, has compensated LSA at the correct rate. This authorization of additional compensation is being made to address the resulting shortfall that resulted from the accelerated work-off of allotted funds as a result of the error. 2.5 The Commission and Jacobs Civil, Inc. have entered into an Amendment No. 4 to the Master Agreement, dated January 1, 2010 for the purpose of extending the term and providing additional compensation in order to include additional Services required to complete the Project, including Services required to supplement and/or revise the engineering and environmental technical studies for the modified Mid County Parkway Project, coordinate and review the technical documents with agencies, reassess impacts, and release a Re-circulated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS for public review and comment, as further set forth in the revised versions of the Scope of Services for Task 1 through Task 7. 2.6 Consultant, the parent company of Jacobs Civil, Inc., and Jacobs Civil, Inc., have entered that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement, dated May 31, 2010, for the assignment to and assumption of all rights, duties and obligations of Jacobs Civil, Inc. in the Master Agreement, as amended by Amendments Nos. 1 through 4, by Consultant. All references to "Consultant" in the Master Agreement, as heretofore amended, shall be interpreted as referring to Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 2.7 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 5 to the Master Agreement, dated November 16, 2010 for the purpose of extending the term of the Master Agreement and to amend the Mater Agreement in order to include additional Services required to complete the Project, including the revision of the environmental technical reports, development of a Re-circulated Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS environmental document, modification of the engineering design in support of the Project Report and conduct of another series of public RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 2 107 meetings/hearings for public review and comment, and to provide additional compensation therefore. 2.8 The Commission and the Consultant have entered into an Amendment No. 6 to the Master Agreement, dated December 31, 2012 for the purpose of extending the term of the Master Agreement to December 31, 2016. 2.9 The parties now desire to amend the Master Agreement in order to perform additional studies and design support for the completion of the Final Re-circulated Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (REIR/SEIS) and Project Report for the Project. 3. TERMS 3.1 The Scope of Services of the Master Agreement is hereby amended to include Services, as that term is defined in the Master Agreement, required for completion of the Project, and as more particularly identified and described in the revised Scope of Services for Tasks 1 through Task 7, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. Those items identified in the attached Scope of Services as applicable to Amendment No. 7 shall be included under this Amendment. 3.2 The Services described in this Amendment and the attached Exhibit "A" shall be performed expeditiously, within the term of the Master Agreement, and in accordance with the Schedule of Services contained in the Master Agreement. 3.3 The maximum compensation for Services performed pursuant to this Amendment shall not exceed Two Million Two Hundred Forty-Three Thousand Five Hundred Four Dollars ($2,243,504) as further set forth in the budget summary provided in Exhibit "B" attached to this Amendment No. 7 and incorporated herein by reference. The Work shall be performed at the rates set forth in the Master Agreement. 3.4 The total contract value for the Master Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 through this Amendment No. 7, shall not exceed Forty- Five Million Two Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty- Six Dollars ($45,287,366) 3.5 Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of the Master Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1 through 6, including without limitation the indemnity and insurance provisions, shall remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment. RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 3 108 [Signatures on following page] RVPUB\HSHANE\714371.1 4 109 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AMENDMENT NO. 7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FEDERAL FUNDING/ASSISTANCE MID COUNTY PARKWAY PROJECT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement on the date first herein above written. RIVERSIDE COUNTY JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION INC. By:___________________________ By: __________________________ Marion Ashley, Chair Signature __________________________ Name __________________________ Title APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: _____________________________ Best, Best & Krieger LLP General Counsel 5 110 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES [Attached behind this page] Exhibit A 17336.00000\1514236.2 111 EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION [Attached behind this page] Exhibit B 17336.00000\1514236.2 112 AGENDA ITEM 7E RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Mark Lancaster, Right of Way Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Agreements for On-Call Right of Way Engineering and Surveying Services WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Award the following agreements to provide on-call right of way engineering and surveying services for a three-year term, and two one-year options to extend the agreement, in an amount not to exceed an aggregate value of $750,000; a) Agreement No. 14-31-043-00 with Huitt-Zollars, Inc; b) Agreement No. 14-31-044-00 with Parsons Brinckerhoff; and c) Agreement No. 14-31-045-00 with RBF Consulting, a Company of Michael Baker Corporation (RBF); 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreements, including option years, on behalf of the Commission; and 3) Authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute task orders awarded to contractors under the terms of the agreements. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Right of way engineering and surveying companies provide boundary maps, monumentation maps, survey control maps, records of survey, parcel or appraisal maps, lot line adjustments, and legal descriptions and plat maps, among other services. These companies also meet the requirements of Caltrans in providing base mapping and pre-construction and post-construction monumentation. The Commission utilizes these services when acquiring property for projects or to determine property boundaries on property already owned by the Commission. Often, the Commission will call on these companies to stake or mark the areas of a property that is proposed to be acquired, obtaining useful information for the Commission’s appraisers, right of way agents, and the property owners. Agenda Item 7E 113 Procurement Process Pursuant to Government Code 4525 et seq, selection of architect engineer and related services shall be on the basis of demonstrated competence and on professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required. Therefore, staff used the qualification method of selection for the procurement of these services. Evaluation criteria included elements such as qualifications of firm, qualifications of personnel, understanding and approach, and the ability to respond to the requirements set forth under the terms of a request for qualifications (RFQ). RFQ No. 14-31-043-00 for on-call right of way engineering and surveying services was released by staff on November 15, 2013. A public notice was advertised in the Press Enterprise, and the RFQ was posted on the Commission’s PlanetBids website, which is accessible through the Commission’s website. Using data from PlanetBids, postcards were sent to 107 firms, 18 of which are located in Riverside County. Using PlanetBids, 52 firms downloaded the RFQ, 12 of these firms are located in Riverside County. Staff responded to all questions submitted by potential proposers prior to the November 27 clarification deadline date. Fifteen firms – Bush & Associates, Inc.; Calvada Surveying, Inc.; David Evans & Associates, Inc.; Guida Surveying, Inc.; Hernandez, Kroone & Associates; Huitt-Zollars, Inc.; Hunsaker & Associates; Ludwig Engineering Associates, Inc.; Mid-Valley Engineering; Parsons Brinckerhoff; Project Design Consultants; RBF Consulting; Towill, Inc.; VA Consulting, Inc.; and West Land Group, Inc. – submitted statements of qualifications (SOQ) prior to the 2:00 p.m. submittal deadline on December 19. The Commission received one SOQ after the 2:00 p.m. deadline, and it was returned unopened. Fourteen of the fifteen firms submitted responsive and responsible SOQs. Utilizing the evaluation criteria set forth in the RFQ, the fourteen firms were evaluated and scored by an evaluation committee comprised of Commission and Caltrans staff. Based on the evaluation committee’s assessment of the written proposals and pursuant to the terms of the RFQ, the evaluation committee short listed and invited five firms to the interview phase of the evaluation and selection process. Interviews of the short listed firms – David Evans & Associates, Inc. (Ontario); Huitt-Zollars, Inc. (Ontario); Parsons Brinckerhoff (San Bernardino); Project Design Consultants (San Diego); and RBF Consulting (Ontario) – were conducted on February 18, 2014. The evaluation committee conducted a subsequent evaluation of each firm, based on both written and interview components presented to the evaluation committee by each proposer. Accordingly, the evaluation committee recommends contract award to Huitt-Zollars, Inc., Parsons Brinckerhoff, and RBF Consulting for on-call right of way engineering and surveying services, as these firms earned the highest total evaluation scores. The multiple award, on-call, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity task order type contracts do not guarantee work to any of the awardees; therefore, no funds are guaranteed to any consultant. Pre-qualified consultants will be selected for specific tasks based on information contained in their proposal. Services will be provided through the Commission’s issuance of Agenda Item 7E 114 contract task orders to the consultants on an as-needed basis. The Commission’s standard form professional services agreement will be entered into with the consultants subject to any changes approved by the Executive Director, and pursuant to legal counsel review. Staff oversight of the contract will work to maximize the effectiveness of the consultants and minimize costs to the Commission. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year: FY 2013/14 FY 2014/15+ Amount: $ 20,000 $ 730,000 Source of Funds: Measure A, Federal and State Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 332402 81402 221 33 81402 622402 81402 262 31 81402 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/17/2014 Attachment: Standard Form On-Call Professional Services Agreement Agenda Item 7E 115 AGREEMENT NO. _ _-_ _-_ _ _-_ _ PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FHWA AND/OR FTA FUNDING/ASSISTANCE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT WITH [CONSULTANT] FOR ON-CALL ON-CALL RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING & SURVEYING SERVICES 1.0 PARTIES AND DATE. This Agreement is made and entered into this ___ day of _______, 2014, by and between the RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION ("the Commission") and [NAME OF FIRM] ("Consultant"), a [LEGAL STATUS OF CONSULTANT, e.g., Delaware corporation]. 2.0 RECITALS. 2.1 On November 8, 1988 the voters of Riverside County approved Measure A authorizing the collection of a one-half percent (1/2 %) retail transactions and use tax (the "Tax") to fund transportation programs and improvements within the County of Riverside, and adopting the Riverside County Transportation Improvement Plan (the "Plan"). 2.2 Pursuant to Public Utility Code Sections 240000 et seq., the Commission is authorized to allocate the proceeds of the Tax in furtherance of the Plan. 2.3 On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved an extension of the Measure A tax for an additional thirty (30) years for the continued funding of transportation and improvements within the County of Riverside. 2.4 A source of funding for payment for professional services provided under this Agreement may be federal funds from the United States Department of Transportation. This Commission may withhold payment of any federal funds hereunder until the certification shown in Exhibit “F” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, is executed. 2.5 Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional services required by the Commission on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement and in the task order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement and executed by the Commission and the Consultant (“Task Order”). Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing on-call right of way engineering 17336.02100\8386485.1 116 and surveying services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California (if necessary), and is familiar with the plans of the Commission. 2.6 The Commission desires to engage Consultant to render such services on an on-call basis. Services shall be ordered by Task Order(s) to be issued pursuant to this Agreement for future projects as set forth herein (each such project shall be designated a “Project” under this Agreement). 3.0 TERMS. 3.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant shall furnish all technical and professional services, including labor, material, equipment, transportation, supervision and expertise, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional on-call right of way engineering and surveying services necessary for the Project ("Services"). The Services are more generally described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Services shall be more particularly described in the individual Task Orders issued by the Commission’s Executive Director or designee. No Services shall be performed unless authorized by a fully executed Task Order. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the relevant Task Order, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations. 3.2 Commencement of Services. The Consultant shall commence work within five (5) days of receiving a fully executed Task Order from Commission. 3.2.1 In the event federal funding will be used for any Task Order, and to the extent Caltrans procedures apply in connection therewith, issuance of a “Notice to Proceed” on the Task Order or written authorization by the Commission’s designated project manager may be contingent upon completion and approval of a pre-award audit. Any questions raised during the pre-award audit for the Task Order shall be resolved before the Commission will consider approval of the Task Order. Any federal aid provided under a Task Order is contingent on meeting all federal requirements and could be withdrawn, thereby entitling the Commission to terminate the Task Order, if the procedures are not completed. Consultant’s files shall be maintained in a manner to facilitate Federal and State process reviews. In addition, the applicable federal agency, or Caltrans acting on behalf of a federal agency, may require that prior to performance of any work for which federal reimbursement is requested and provided, that said federal agency or Caltrans must give to Commission an “Authorization to Proceed”. If any post-Task Order award audit recommendations are received by the Commission from Caltrans, Consultant shall make all necessary adjustments to conform to the audit recommendations. Refusal by Consultant to incorporate the interim audit or post-Task Order award recommendations of Caltrans will be considered a breach of the Task Order and this Agreement and cause for termination or suspension of the Services. 3.3 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date first set forth above or the date of issuance of the Notice to Proceed by the Commission, whichever 2 17336.02100\8386485.1 117 occurs first, to the later of [INSERT AGREEMENT EXPIRATION DATE], or the date on which all Services under a Task Order issued prior to the foregoing date have been completed, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. 3.4 Commission's Representative. The Commission hereby designates the [INSERT NAME OR TITLE], or his or her designee, to act as its Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Commission’s Representative"). Commission’s Representative shall have the authority to act on behalf of the Commission for all purposes under this Agreement. Commission's Representative shall also review and give approval, as needed, to the details of Consultant's work as it progresses. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the Commission’s Representative or his or her designee. 3.5 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates [INSERT NAME OR TITLE], or his or her designee, to act as its Representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant’s Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to act on behalf of Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement. The Consultant’s Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his professional skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement and as described in the relevant Task Order. Consultant shall work closely and cooperate fully with Commission's Representative and any other agencies which may have jurisdiction over, or an interest in, the Services. Consultant's Representative shall be available to the Commission staff at all reasonable times. Any substitution in Consultant's Representative shall be approved in writing by Commission's Representative. 3.6 Substitution of Key Personnel. Consultant has represented to the Commission that certain key personnel will perform and coordinate the Services under this Agreement. Should one or more of such personnel become unavailable, Consultant may substitute other personnel of at least equal competence upon written approval by the Commission. In the event that the Commission and Consultant cannot agree as to the substitution of the key personnel, the Commission shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement for cause, pursuant to the provisions of Section 3.14. The key personnel for performance of this Agreement are: [INSERT NAME(S)] 3.7 Preliminary Review of Work. All reports, working papers, and similar work products prepared for submission in the course of providing Services under this Agreement shall be submitted to the Commission's Representative in draft form, and the Commission may require revisions of such drafts prior to formal submission and approval. In the event plans and designs are to be developed as part of the Project, final detailed plans and designs shall be contingent upon obtaining environmental clearance as may be required in connection with Federal funding. In the event that Commission's Representative, in his sole discretion, determines the formally submitted work product to be not in accordance with the standard of care established under this contract, 3 17336.02100\8386485.1 118 Commission's Representative may require Consultant to revise and resubmit the work at no cost to the Commission. 3.8 Appearance at Hearings. If and when required by the Commission, Consultant shall render assistance at public hearings or other meetings related to the Project or necessary to the performance of the Services. However, Consultant shall not be required to, and will not, render any decision, interpretation or recommendation regarding questions of a legal nature or which may be construed as constituting a legal opinion. 3.9 Standard of Care; Licenses. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform all Services, duties and obligations required by this Agreement to fully and adequately complete the Project. Consultant shall perform the Services and duties in conformance to and consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California during the term of this Agreement. Consultant warrants that all employees and subcontractors shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Consultant further represents and warrants to the Commission that its employees and subcontractors have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the Commission, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant’s failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein, and shall be fully responsible to the Commission for all damages and other liabilities provided for in the indemnification provisions of this Agreement arising from the Consultant’s errors and omissions. Any employee of Consultant or its sub-consultants who is determined by the Commission to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the Commission, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project. 3.10 Opportunity to Cure. Commission may provide Consultant an opportunity to cure, at Consultant's expense, all errors and omissions which may be disclosed during Project implementation. Should Consultant fail to make such correction in a timely manner, such correction may be made by the Commission, and the cost thereof charged to Consultant. 3.11 Inspection of Work. Consultant shall allow the Commission's Representative to inspect or review Consultant's work in progress at any reasonable time. 3.12 Final Acceptance. Upon determination by the Commission that Consultant has satisfactorily completed the Services required under this Agreement and within the term set forth in Section 3.3, the Commission shall give Consultant a written 4 17336.02100\8386485.1 119 Notice of Final Acceptance. Upon receipt of such notice, Consultant shall incur no further costs hereunder, unless otherwise specified in the Notice of Final Acceptance. Consultant may request issuance of a Notice of Final Acceptance when, in its opinion, it has satisfactorily completed all Services required under the terms of this Agreement. In the event copyrights are permitted under this Agreement, then in connection with Federal funding, it is hereby acknowledged and agreed that the United States Department of Transportation shall have the royalty-free non-exclusive and irrevocable right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, the work for governmental purposes. 3.13 Laws and Regulations. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. For example, and not by way of limitation, Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all implementing regulations, design standards, specifications, previous commitments that must be incorporated in the design of the Project, and administrative controls including those of the United States Department of Transportation. Compliance with Federal procedures may include completion of the applicable environmental documents and approved by the United States Department of Transportation. For example, and not by way of limitation, a signed Categorical Exclusion, Finding of No Significant Impact, or published Record of Decision may be required to be approved and/or completed by the United States Department of Transportation. For Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with Services. If the Consultant performs any work knowing it to be contrary to such laws, rules and regulations and without giving written notice to the Commission, Consultant shall be solely responsible for all costs arising therefrom. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its officials, directors, officers, employees and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with such laws, rules or regulations. 3.14 Termination. 3.14.1 Notice; Reason. Commission may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, at any time by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof (“Notice of Termination”). Such termination may be for Commission's convenience or because of Consultant's failure to perform its duties and obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the failure of Consultant to timely perform Services pursuant to the Schedule of Services described in Section 3.15 of this Agreement. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. 3.14.2 Discontinuance of Services. Upon receipt of the written Notice of Termination, Consultant shall discontinue all affected Services as directed in the Notice or as otherwise provided herein and shall deliver to the Commission all Documents and Data, as defined in this Agreement, as may have been prepared or accumulated by Consultant in performance of the Services, whether completed or in progress. 5 17336.02100\8386485.1 120 3.14.3 Effect of Termination For Convenience. If the termination is to be for the convenience of the Commission, the Commission shall compensate Consultant for Services fully and adequately provided through the effective date of termination. Such payment shall include a prorated amount of profit, if applicable, but no amount shall be paid for anticipated profit on unperformed Services. Consultant shall provide documentation deemed adequate by Commission's Representative to show the Services actually completed by Consultant prior to the effective date of termination. This Agreement shall terminate on the effective date of the Notice of Termination. 3.14.4 Effect of Termination for Cause. If the termination is for cause, Consultant shall be compensated for those Services which have been fully and adequately completed and accepted by the Commission as of the date the Commission provides the Notice of Termination. In such case, the Commission may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise. Further, Consultant shall be liable to the Commission for any reasonable additional costs incurred by the Commission to revise work for which the Commission has compensated Consultant under this Agreement, but which the Commission has determined in its sole discretion needs to be revised, in part or whole, to complete the Project because it did not meet the standard of care established in Section 3.9. Termination of this Agreement for cause may be considered by the Commission in determining whether to enter into future agreements with Consultant. 3.14.5 Cumulative Remedies. The rights and remedies of the Parties provided in this Section are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this Agreement. 3.14.6 Procurement of Similar Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated, in whole or in part, as provided by this Section, the Commission may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it deems appropriate, services similar to those terminated. 3.14.7 Waivers. Consultant, in executing this Agreement, shall be deemed to have waived any and all claims for damages which may otherwise arise from the Commission's termination of this Agreement, for convenience or cause, as provided in this Section. 3.15 Schedule and Progress of Services. 3.15.1 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services expeditiously, within the term of this Agreement, and in accordance with any specific schedule that shall be set forth in the Task Order (“Schedule of Services”). Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel to perform the Services in conformance with such conditions. In order to facilitate Consultant's conformance with each Schedule, the Commission shall respond to Consultant's submittals in a timely manner. Upon request of Commission's Representative, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the relevant Schedule of Services. 6 17336.02100\8386485.1 121 3.15.2 Modification of the Schedule. Consultant shall regularly report to the Commission, through correspondence or progress reports, its progress in providing required Services within the scheduled time periods. Commission shall be promptly informed of all anticipated delays. In the event that Consultant determines that a schedule modification is necessary, Consultant shall promptly submit a revised Schedule of Services for approval by Commission's Representative. 3.15.3 Trend Meetings. Consultant shall conduct trend meetings with the Commission’s Representative and other interested parties, as may be requested by the Commission. These trend meetings will encompass focused and informal discussions concerning scope, schedule, and current progress of Services, relevant cost issues, and future Project objectives. Consultant shall be responsible for the preparation and distribution of meeting agendas to be received by the Commission and other attendees no later than three (3) working days prior to the meeting. 3.15.4 Progress Reports. As part of its monthly invoice, Consultant shall submit a progress report, in a form determined by the Commission, which will indicate the progress achieved during the previous month in relation to the relevant Schedule of Services, as applicable. If applicable, submission of such progress report by Consultant shall be a condition precedent to receipt of payment from the Commission for each monthly invoice submitted. 3.16 Delay in Performance. 3.16.1 Excusable Delays. Should Consultant be delayed or prevented from the timely performance of any act or Services required by the terms of the Agreement by reason of acts of God or of the public enemy, acts or omissions of the Commission or other governmental agencies in either their sovereign or contractual capacities, fires, floods, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes or unusually severe weather, performance of such act shall be excused for the period of such delay. 3.16.2 Written Notice. If Consultant believes it is entitled to an extension of time due to conditions set forth in subsection 3.16.1, Consultant shall provide written notice to the Commission within seven (7) working days from the time Consultant knows, or reasonably should have known, that performance of the Services will be delayed due to such conditions. Failure of Consultant to provide such timely notice shall constitute a waiver by Consultant of any right to an excusable delay in time of performance. 3.16.3 Mutual Agreement. Performance of any Services under this Agreement may be delayed upon mutual agreement of the Parties. Upon such agreement, Consultant's Schedule of Services shall be extended as necessary by the Commission. Consultant shall take all reasonable steps to minimize delay in completion, and additional costs, resulting from any such extension. 3.17 Status of Consultant/Subconsultants; Assignment; Transfer. 7 17336.02100\8386485.1 122 3.17.1 Independent Contractor. The Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. Commission retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee, agent or representative of the Commission. Consultant retains the right to perform similar or different services for others during the term of this Agreement. Any additional personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services and as required by law. Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such personnel, including but not limited to, social security taxes, income tax withholdings, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance. 3.17.2 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, hypothecate, or transfer, either directly or by operation of law, this Agreement or any interest herein, without the prior written consent of the Commission. Any attempt to do so shall be null and void, and any assignees, hypothecates or transferees shall acquire no right or interest by reason of such attempted assignment, hypothecation or transfer. 3.17.3 Subcontracting. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work or Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of the Commission. If Consultant wishes to use a firm as a subcontractor which is not specified in the proposal upon which this Agreement was awarded, prior written approval must be obtained from the Commission. The Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 3.18 Ownership of Materials/Confidentiality. 3.18.1 Documents & Data. This Agreement creates an exclusive and perpetual license for Commission to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sub-license any and all copyrights and designs embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement (“Documents & Data”). Consultant shall require all subcontractors to agree in writing that Commission is granted an exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subcontractor prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that Consultant has the legal right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or provided to Consultant by the Commission. Commission shall not be limited in any way in its use of the Documents & Data at any time, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement shall be at Commission’s sole risk. 8 17336.02100\8386485.1 123 3.18.2 Intellectual Property. In addition, Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest (including copyright, patent, trade secret and other proprietary rights) in all plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, materials, data, computer programs or software and source code, enhancements, documents, and any and all works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium or expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or other data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer media (“Intellectual Property”) prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement as well as any other such Intellectual Property prepared or developed by or on behalf of Consultant under this Agreement. The Commission shall have and retain all right, title and interest in Intellectual Property developed or modified under this Agreement whether or not paid for wholly or in part by Commission, whether or not developed in conjunction with Consultant, and whether or not developed by Consultant. Consultant will execute separate written assignments of any and all rights to the above referenced Intellectual Property upon request of Commission. Consultant shall also be responsible to obtain in writing separate written assignments from any subcontractors or agents of Consultant of any and all right to the above referenced Intellectual Property. Should Consultant, either during or following termination of this Agreement, desire to use any of the above-referenced Intellectual Property, it shall first obtain the written approval of the Commission. All materials and documents which were developed or prepared by the Consultant for general use prior to the execution of this Agreement and which are not the copyright of any other party or publicly available and any other computer applications, shall continue to be the property of the Consultant. However, unless otherwise identified and stated prior to execution of this Agreement, Consultant represents and warrants that it has the right to grant the exclusive and perpetual license for all such Intellectual Property as provided herein. Commission further is granted by Consultant a non-exclusive and perpetual license to copy, use, modify or sub-license any and all Intellectual Property otherwise owned by Consultant which is the basis or foundation for any derivative, collective, insurrectional, or supplemental work created under this Agreement. 3.18.3 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents and Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of Commission, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use Commission's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services 9 17336.02100\8386485.1 124 or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of Commission. 3.19 Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of or incident to alleged negligent acts, omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, agents, consultants, and contractors arising out of or in connection with the performance of the Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of consequential damages, expert witness fees, and attorneys' fees and other related costs and expenses. Consultant shall defend, at Consultant's own cost, expense and risk, any and all such aforesaid suits, actions or other legal proceedings of every kind that may be brought or instituted against Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Consultant shall pay and satisfy any judgment, award or decree that may be rendered against Commission or its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers, in any such suit, action or other legal proceeding. Consultant shall reimburse Commission and its directors, officials, officers, employees, consultants, agents, and/or volunteers, for any and all legal expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney’s fees, incurred by each of them in connection therewith or in enforcing the indemnity herein provided. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Commission, its directors, officials officers, employees, consultants, agents, or volunteers. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant’s Services are subject to Civil Code Section 2782.8, the above indemnity shall be limited, to the extent required by Civil Code Section 2782.8, to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant. Consultant’s obligations as set forth in this Section 3.19 shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement. 3.20 Insurance. 3.20.1 Time for Compliance. Consultant shall not commence work under this Agreement until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the Commission that it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section. 3.20.2 Minimum Requirements. Consultant shall, at its expense, procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the Agreement by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Consultant shall also require all of its subcontractors to procure and maintain the same insurance for the duration of the Agreement. Such insurance shall meet at least the following minimum levels of coverage: 10 17336.02100\8386485.1 125 A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as the latest version of the following: (1) General Liability: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001); (2) Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form number CA 0001, code 1 (any auto); and (3) if Consultant has employees, Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. B. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: (1) General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit; (2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage; and (3) Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ Compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California. Employer’s Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 3.20.3 Professional Liability. Consultant shall procure and maintain, and require its sub-consultants to procure and maintain, for a period of five (5) years following completion of the Project, errors and omissions liability insurance appropriate to their profession. Such insurance shall be in an amount not less than $2,000,000 per claim. 3.20.4 [Reserved] 3.20.5 Insurance Endorsements. The insurance policies shall contain the following provisions, or Consultant shall provide endorsements on forms approved by the Commission to add the following provisions to the insurance policies: A. General Liability. The general liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the Services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work; and (2) the insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self- insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. B. Automobile Liability. The automobile liability policy shall be endorsed to state that: (1) the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be covered as additional insureds with respect to the ownership, operation, maintenance, use, loading or unloading of any auto owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant or for which the Consultant is responsible; and (2) the 11 17336.02100\8386485.1 126 insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents, or if excess, shall stand in an unbroken chain of coverage excess of the Consultant’s scheduled underlying coverage. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not be called upon to contribute with it in any way. C. Workers’ Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents for losses paid under the terms of the insurance policy which arise from work performed by the Consultant. D. All Coverages. Each insurance policy required by this Agreement shall be endorsed to state that: (A) coverage shall not be suspended, voided or canceled except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the Commission; and (B) any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies, including breaches of warranties, shall not affect coverage provided to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents. 3.20.6 Deductibles and Self-Insurance Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the Commission. If the Commission does not approve the deductibles or self-insured retentions as presented, Consultant shall guarantee that, at the option of the Commission, either: (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees and agents; or (2) the Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims and administrative and defense expenses. 3.20.7 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating no less than A: VIII, licensed to do business in California, and satisfactory to the Commission. 3.20.8 Separation of Insureds; No Special Limitations. All insurance required by this Section shall contain standard separation of insureds provisions. In addition, such insurance shall not contain any special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the Commission, its directors, officials, officers, employees, and agents. 3.20.9 Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish Commission with original certificates of insurance and endorsements effecting coverage required by this Agreement on forms satisfactory to the Commission. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the Commission before work commences. The Commission reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 12 17336.02100\8386485.1 127 3.20.10 Other Insurance. At its option, the Commission may require such additional coverage(s), limits and/or the reduction of deductibles or retentions it considers reasonable and prudent based upon risk factors that may directly or indirectly impact the Project. In retaining this option Commission does not warrant Consultant’s insurance program to be adequate. Consultant shall have the right to purchase insurance in addition to the insurance required in this Section. 3.21 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed. Safety precautions as applicable shall include, but shall not be limited to: (A) adequate life protection and lifesaving equipment and procedures; (B) instructions in accident prevention for all employees and subcontractors, such as safe walkways, scaffolds, fall protection ladders, bridges, gang planks, confined space procedures, trenching and shoring, equipment and other safety devices, equipment and wearing apparel as are necessary or lawfully required to prevent accidents or injuries; and (C) adequate facilities for the proper inspection and maintenance of all safety measures. 3.22 Fees and Payment. 3.22.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Compensation shall be on the basis of direct costs plus a fixed fee as further set forth in Exhibit “C”. The total compensation per Task Order shall be set forth in the relevant Task Order, and shall not exceed said amount without written approval of the Commission’s Executive Director. 3.22.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit a monthly itemized statement which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The statement shall describe the amount of Services and supplies provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the Statement. Charges specific to each Milestone listed in the Schedule of Services shall be listed separately on an attachment to each statement. Each statement shall be accompanied by a monthly progress report and spreadsheets showing hours expended for each task for each month and the total Project to date. Each statement shall include a cover sheet bearing a certification as to the accuracy of the statement signed by the Consultant's Project Manager or other authorized officer. 3.22.3 Additional Work. Any work or activities that are in addition to, or otherwise outside of, the Services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall only be performed pursuant to a separate agreement between the parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Commission’s Executive Director may make a 13 17336.02100\8386485.1 128 change to the Agreement, other than a Cardinal Change. For purposes of this Agreement, a Cardinal Change is a change which is “outside the scope” of the Agreement; in other words, work which should not be regarded as having been fairly and reasonably within the contemplation of the parties when the Agreement was entered into. An example of a change which is not a Cardinal Change would be where, in a contract to construct a building there are many changes in the materials used, but the size and layout of the building remains the same. Cardinal Changes are not within the authority of this provision to order, and shall be processed by the Commission as “sole source” procurements according to applicable law, including the requirements of FTA Circular 4220.1D, paragraph 9(f). A. In addition to the changes authorized above, a modification which is signed by Consultant and the Commission’s Executive Director, other than a Cardinal Change, may be made in order to: (1) make a negotiated equitable adjustment to the Agreement price, delivery schedule and other terms resulting from the issuance of a Change Order, (2) reflect definitive letter contracts, and (3) reflect other agreements of the parties modifying the terms of this Agreement (“Bilateral Contract Modification”). B. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for any change, without written authorization from the Commission’s Executive Director as set forth herein. In the event such a change authorization is not issued and signed by the Commission’s Executive Director, Consultant shall not provide such change. 3.22.4 No Payment Prior to Approval of Work. No payment shall be made to Consultant prior to approval of any work, nor for work performed prior to approval and execution of this Agreement. 3.22.5 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by the Commission's Representative. 3.22.6 Subcontracts. All subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain the provisions of this Section 3.22 and the attached Exhibit “C”. 3.23 Prohibited Interests. 3.23.1 Solicitation. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. 3.23.2 Conflict of Interest. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of the Commission, during the term of his or her service with the Commission, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. 14 17336.02100\8386485.1 129 3.23.3 Conflict of Employment. Employment by the Consultant of personnel currently on the payroll of the Commission shall not be permitted in the performance of this Agreement, even though such employment may occur outside of the employee's regular working hours or on weekends, holidays or vacation time. Further, the employment by the Consultant of personnel who have been on the Commission payroll within one year prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, where this employment is caused by and or dependent upon the Consultant securing this or related Agreements with the Commission, is prohibited. 3.23.4 Covenant Against Contingent Fees. As required in connection with federal funding, the Consultant warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement, and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or formation of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability pursuant to Section 3.14, or at its discretion to deduct from the Agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 3.23.5 Covenant Against Expenditure of Local Agency, State or Federal Funds for Lobbying. The Consultant certifies that to the best of his/ her knowledge and belief no state, federal or local agency appropriated funds have been paid, or will be paid by or on behalf of the Consultant to any person for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any state or federal agency; a Member of the State Legislature or United States Congress; an officer or employee of the Legislature or Congress; or any employee of a Member of the Legislature or Congress, in connection with the award of any state or federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, or the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any state or federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. A. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid, or will be paid to any person for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency; a Member of Congress; an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress; in connection with this Agreement, the Consultant shall complete and submit the attached Exhibit "I", Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with the attached instructions. B. The Consultant's certification provided in this section is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this Agreement was entered into, and is a prerequisite for entering into this Agreement pursuant to Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code. Failure to comply with the restrictions on expenditures, or the disclosure and certification requirements set forth in Section 1352, Title 31, US. Code may result in a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. 15 17336.02100\8386485.1 130 C. The Consultant also agrees by signing this Agreement that he/she shall require that the language set forth in this Section 3.23.5 be included in all Consultant subcontracts which exceed $100,000, and that all such subcontractors shall certify and disclose accordingly. 3.24 Accounting Records. In accordance with State and Federal law, Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred and fees charged under this Agreement. As required in connection with federal funding, the Federal Acquisition Regulations in Title 48, CFR 31 shall be the governing factors regarding allowable elements of cost. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of the Commission, the State, the State Auditor, or any duly authorized representative of the Federal government having jurisdiction under Federal or State laws or regulations (including the basis of Federal funding in whole or in part) during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of any and all ledgers and books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and any other records or documents created pursuant to this Agreement. All such information shall be retained by Consultant for at least three (3) years following termination of this Agreement. Following final settlement of the contract accounts with the United States Department of Transportation under this Agreement, such records and documents may be microfilmed at the option of the Commission, but in any event shall be retained for said three (3) year period after processing of the final voucher by the United States Department of Transportation. Subcontracts in excess of $25,000 shall contain this provision. 3.24.1 The Consultant also agrees to comply with Federal procedures in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments. 3.24.2 Any costs for which payment has been made to the Consultant that are determined by subsequent audit to be unallowable under 48 CFR, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, Chapter 1, Part 31 et seq. or under 49 CFR, Part 18, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, are subject to repayment by the Consultant to the Commission. 3.24.3 Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this contract that is not disposed of by agreement shall be reviewed by the Commission’s Chief Financial Officer. Not later than thirty (30) days after issuance of the final audit report, Consultant may submit a request in writing for review of unresolved audit issues by the Commission’s Chief Financial Officer. Neither the pendency of an audit dispute nor its consideration by the Commission will excuse Consultant from full and timely performance in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Consultants and subconsultant contracts, including cost proposals and indirect cost rates (ICR), are subject to audits or reviews including a contract audit, an incurred cost audit or a certified public accountant ICR audit workpaper review. If selected for audit or review, the contract, cost proposal and ICR and related workpapers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Part 31 16 17336.02100\8386485.1 131 and other related laws and regulations. In the instance of a certified public accountant ICR audit workpaper review, it is the Consultant’s responsibility to ensure federal, state and Commission officials are allowed full access to the certified public accountant’s workpapers. The contract, cost proposal and ICR shall be adjusted by Consultant and approved by the Commission to conform to the audit or review recommendations. Consultant agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the Agreement by this reference if directed by the Commission at its sole discretion. Refusal by Consultant to abide by the requirements of this Section shall be deemed a material breach of this Agreement and shall be cause for termination of the Agreement and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs. 3.25 Funding Requirements. It is mutually understood between the parties hereto that this Agreement may have been entered into prior to the appropriation of funds in order to avoid delays. This Agreement is valid and enforceable only if sufficient funds are made available to the Commission and may be terminated in the sole discretion of the Commission in the event funding is unavailable or reduced. This Agreement is subject to any additional restrictions, limitations, conditions or statutes enacted by the Federal government, the State or any public agency with jurisdiction that may affect the provisions, terms or funding of this Agreement in any manner. It is mutually agreed that if sufficient funds are not appropriated, this Agreement may be amended to reflect any reduction in funds. 3.26 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. 3.27 Employment Adverse to the Commission. Consultant shall notify the Commission, and shall obtain the Commission's written consent, prior to accepting work to assist with or participate in a third-party lawsuit or other legal or administrative proceeding against the Commission during the term of this Agreement. 3.28 Right to Employ Other Consultants. Commission reserves the right to employ other consultants in connection with the Project. 3.29 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed with the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Riverside County. 3.30 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys' fees and, all other costs of such actions. 3.31 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. 17 17336.02100\8386485.1 132 3.32 Headings. Article and Section Headings, paragraph captions or marginal headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall have no effect in the construction or interpretation of any provision herein. 3.33 Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose: CONSULTANT: COMMISSION: [INSERT CONTACT INFORMATION] Riverside County Transportation Commission 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Attn: Executive Director Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty- eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid, and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service. 3.34 Conflicting Provisions. In the event that provisions of any attached exhibits conflict in any way with the provisions set forth in this Agreement, the language, terms and conditions contained in this Agreement shall control the actions and obligations of the Parties and the interpretation of the Parties' understanding concerning the performance of the Services. 3.35 Amendment or Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties. 3.36 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties relating to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior negotiations, agreements or understandings. 3.37 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 3.38 Provisions Applicable When Federal Department of Transportation Funds Are Involved. When funding for the Services provided by this Agreement are provided, in whole or in part, from the United States Department of Transportation, Consultant shall also fully and adequately comply with all applicable federal requirements including, as applicable and without limitation, the provisions included in Exhibits “D” and “E” (Federal Department of Transportation Requirements and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) DBE program requirements, and the Federal Transit 18 17336.02100\8386485.1 133 Administration Requirements) and shall complete, as applicable, the forms included in Exhibits “G”, “H”, and “I”. 3.39 Additional State Law Provisions. 3.39.1 Prevailing Wages. By its execution of this Agreement, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000 et seq. (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Copies of the prevailing rate of per diem wages are on file at the Commission’s offices. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant’s principal place of business and at the project site. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the Commission, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 3.39.2 Eight-Hour Law. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Labor Code, eight hours of labor shall constitute a legal day’s work, and the time of service of any worker employed on the work shall be limited and restricted to eight hours during any one calendar day, and forty hours in any one calendar week, except when payment for overtime is made at not less than one and one-half the basic rate for all hours worked in excess of eight hours per day (“Eight-Hour Law”), unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law. Consultant shall forfeit to Commission as a penalty, $50.00 for each worker employed in the execution of this Agreement by him, or by any sub-consultant under him, for each calendar day during which such workman is required or permitted to work more than eight hours in any calendar day and forty hours in any one calendar week without such compensation for overtime violation of the provisions of the California Labor Code, unless Consultant or the Services are not subject to the Eight-Hour Law. 3.39.3 Employment of Apprentices. This Agreement shall not prevent the employment of properly indentured apprentices in accordance with the California Labor Code, and no employer or labor union shall refuse to accept otherwise qualified employees as indentured apprentices on the work performed hereunder solely on the ground of race, creed, national origin, ancestry, color or sex. Every qualified apprentice shall be paid the standard wage paid to apprentices under the regulations of the craft or trade in which he or she is employed and shall be employed only in the craft or trade to which he or she is registered. If California Labor Code Section 1777.5 applies to the Services, Consultant and any subcontractor hereunder who employs workers in any apprenticeable craft or trade shall apply to the joint apprenticeship council administering applicable standards for a certificate approving Consultant or any sub-consultant for the 19 17336.02100\8386485.1 134 employment and training of apprentices. Upon issuance of this certificate, Consultant and any sub-consultant shall employ the number of apprentices provided for therein, as well as contribute to the fund to administer the apprenticeship program in each craft or trade in the area of the work hereunder. The parties expressly understand that the responsibility for compliance with provisions of this Section and with Sections 1777.5, 1777.6 and 1777.7 of the California Labor Code in regard to all apprenticeable occupations lies with Consultant 3.40 Rebates, Kickbacks or Other Unlawful Consideration. Consultant warrants that this Agreement was not obtained or secured through rebates, kickbacks or other unlawful consideration, either promised or paid to any Commission employee. For breach or violation of this warranty, the Commission shall have the right in its sole discretion: (1) to terminate the Agreement without liability; (2) to pay only for the value of the work actually performed; or (3) to deduct from the contract price; or (4) otherwise recover the full amount of such rebate, kickback or other unlawful consideration. 3.41 No Waiver. Failure of Commission to insist on any one occasion upon strict compliance with any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant or condition, nor shall any waiver or relinquishment of any rights or powers hereunder at any one time or more times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment of such other right or power at any other time or times. 3.42 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification and confidentiality obligations, shall survive any such expiration or termination. 3.43 No Third Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 3.44 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 3.45 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original. 3.46 Subpoenas or Court Orders. Should Consultant receive a subpoena or court order related to this Agreement, the Services or the Project, Consultant shall immediately provide written notice of the subpoena or court order to the Commission. Consultant shall not respond to any such subpoena or court order until notice to the Commission is provided as required herein, and shall cooperate with the Commission in responding to the subpoena or court order. 20 17336.02100\8386485.1 135 3.47 Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 21 17336.02100\8386485.1 136 SIGNATURE PAGE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGREEMENT FOR ON-CALL [DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES] SERVICES WITH [CONSULTANT] IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement was executed on the date first written above. RIVERSIDE COUNTY [INSERT CONSULTANT] TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION By: __________________________ By: ____________________________ Marion Ashley, Chair Signature ____________________________ Name ____________________________ Title Approved as to Form: Attest: By: ____________________________ By: ________________________ Best Best & Krieger LLP Its: Secretary General Counsel 22 17336.02100\8386485.1 137 MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES [Attached behind this page] Model Agreement - Exhibit A 17336.02100\8386485.1 138 MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "B" SAMPLE TASK ORDER FORM [Attached behind this page] Model Agreement - Exhibit B 17336.02100\8386485.1 139 Sample Task Order Form RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TASK ORDER Task Order No. _______ Contract: [INSERT NAME OF CONTRACT] Consultant: [INSERT NAME OF CONSULTANT] The Consultant is hereby authorized to perform the following work subject to the provisions of the Contract identified above: List any attachments: (Please provide if any.) Dollar Amount of Task Order: Not to exceed $_____,_____.00 Completion Date: _____________, 201___ The undersigned consultant hereby agrees that it will provide all equipment, furnish all materials, except as may be otherwise noted above, and perform all services for the work above specified in accordance with the Contract identified above and will accept as full payment therefore the amount shown above. Riverside County Transportation Commission Consultant Dated: _________________ Dated: _________________ By: ________________________ By:________________________ Project Manager Model Agreement - Exhibit B - 1 17336.02100\8386485.1 140 MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "C" COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT [Attached behind this page] Model Agreement - Exhibit C 17336.02100\8386485.1 141 COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT For the satisfactory performance and completion of the Services under this Agreement, the Commission will pay the Consultant compensation as set forth herein. 1. ELEMENTS OF COMPENSATION. Compensation for the Services will be comprised of the following elements: 1.1 Direct Labor Costs; 1.2 Fixed Fee; and 1.3 Additional Direct Costs. 1.1 DIRECT LABOR COSTS. Direct Labor costs shall be paid in an amount equal to the product of the Direct Salary Costs and the Multiplier which are defined as follows: 1.1.1 DIRECT SALARY COSTS Direct Salary Costs are the base salaries and wages actually paid to the Consultant's personnel directly engaged in performance of the Services under the Agreement. (The range of hourly rates paid to the Consultant's personnel appears in Section 2 below.) 1.1.2 MULTIPLIER The Multiplier to be applied to the Direct Salary Costs to determine the Direct Labor Costs is _____, and is the sum of the following components: 1.1.2.1 Direct Salary Costs ____ 1.1.2.2 Payroll Additives ____ The decimal ratio of Payroll Additives to Direct Salary Costs. Payroll Additives include all employee benefits, allowances for vacation, sick leave, and holidays, and company portion of employee insurance and social and retirement benefits, all federal and state payroll taxes, premiums for insurance which are measured by payroll costs, and other contributions and benefits imposed by applicable laws and regulations. Model Agreement - Exhibit C - 1 17336.02100\8386485.1 142 1.1.2.3 Overhead Costs ____ The decimal ratio of allowable Overhead Costs to the Consultant firm's total direct salary costs. Allowable Overhead Costs include general, administrative and overhead costs of maintaining and operating established offices, and consistent with established firm policies, and as defined in the Federal Acquisitions Regulations, Part 31.2. Total Multiplier ____ (sum of 1.1.2.1, 1.1.2.2, and 1.1.2.3) 1.2 FIXED FEE. A Fixed Fee may be set forth in each Task Order to be paid to Consultant for Consultant’s complete and satisfactory performance of the Services set forth in such Task Order. In such case, Commission shall pay the Fixed Fee in monthly installments based upon the percentage of the Services completed at the end of each billing period, as determined in the sole discretion of the Commission’s Representative, or his or her designee. Consultant shall not be entitled to and shall forfeit any portion of the Fixed Fee not earned as provided herein. 1.3 ADDITIONAL DIRECT COSTS. Additional Direct Costs directly identifiable to the performance of the services of this Agreement shall be reimbursed at the rates below, or at actual invoiced cost. Rates for identified Additional Direct Costs are as follows: ITEM REIMBURSEMENT RATE Per Diem _______ Car mileage _______ Rental Car _______ Travel _______ Photocopies (Black & White) _______ Photocopies (Color) _______ Photographs/ other reprographic Services _______ Postage/Shipping _______ Courier Service _______ Other Rentals, supplies, purchases _______ Model Agreement - Exhibit C - 2 17336.02100\8386485.1 143 Travel by air and travel in excess of 100 miles from the Consultant's office nearest to the Commission's office must have the Commission's prior written approval to be reimbursed under this Agreement. 2. DIRECT SALARY RATES Direct Salary Rates, which are the range of hourly rates to be used in determining Direct Salary Costs in Section 1.1.1 above, are given below and are subject to the following: 2.1 Direct Salary Rates shall be applicable to both straight time and overtime work, unless payment of a premium for overtime work is required by law, regulation or craft agreement, or is otherwise specified in this Agreement. In such event, the premium portion of Direct Salary Costs will not be subject to the Multiplier defined in Paragraph 1.1.2 above. 2.2 Direct Salary Rates shown herein are in effect for one year following the effective date of the Agreement. Thereafter, they may be adjusted annually to reflect the Consultant's adjustments to individual compensation. The Consultant shall notify the Commission in writing prior to a change in the range of rates included herein, and prior to each subsequent change. POSITION OR CLASSIFICATION RANGE OF HOURLY RATES 2.3 The above rates are for the Consultant only. All rates for subconsultants to the Consultant will be in accordance with the Consultant's cost proposal. Model Agreement - Exhibit C - 3 17336.02100\8386485.1 144 3. INVOICING. 3.1 Each month the Consultant shall submit an invoice for Services performed during the preceding month. The original invoice shall be submitted to the Commission's Executive Director with two (2) copies to the Commission's Project Coordinator. 3.2 Charges shall be billed in accordance with the terms and rates included herein, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Commission's Representative. 3.3 Base Work shall be charged separately, and the charges for each task and Milestone listed in the Scope of Services, shall be listed separately. The charges for each individual assigned by the Consultant under this Agreement shall be listed separately on an attachment to the invoice. 3.4 A charge of $500 or more for any one item of Additional Direct Costs shall be accompanied by substantiating documentation satisfactory to the Commission such as invoices, telephone logs, etc. 3.5 Each copy of each invoice shall be accompanied by a Monthly Progress Report and spreadsheets showing hours expended by task for each month and total project to date. 3.6 Each invoice shall indicate payments to DBE subconsultants or supplies by dollar amount and as a percentage of the total invoice. 3.7 Each invoice shall include a certification signed by the Consultant's Representative or an officer of the firm which reads as follows: I hereby certify that the hours and salary rates charged in this invoice are the actual hours and rates worked and paid to the employees listed. Signed _____________________________ Title _____________________________ Date _____________________________ Invoice No. ________________________ 4. PAYMENT 4.1 The Commission shall pay the Consultant within four to six weeks after receipt by the Commission of an original invoice. Should the Commission Model Agreement - Exhibit C - 4 17336.02100\8386485.1 145 contest any portion of an invoice, that portion shall be held for resolution, without interest, but the uncontested balance shall be paid. 4.2 The final payment for Services under this Agreement will be made only after the Consultant has executed a Release and Certificate of Final Payment. Model Agreement - Exhibit C - 5 17336.02100\8386485.1 146 SUBCONSULTANT RATES Firm Name Position/Title Direct Salary Rates1 Model Agreement - Exhibit C - 6 17336.02100\8386485.1 147 MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "D" FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FHWA AND CALTRANS REQUIREMENTS [Attached behind this page] Model Agreement - Exhibit D 17336.02100\8386485.1 148 MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "E" FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS [Attached behind this page] Model Agreement - Exhibit E 17336.02100\8386485.1 149 MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "F" Certificate of Consultant [Forms on following pages] Model Agreement - Exhibit F 17336.02100\8386485.1 150 MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "G" DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) FORMS/COMMITMENTS [Forms on following pages] Model Agreement - Exhibit G 17336.02100\8386485.1 151 MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT "H" DISCLOSURE OF LOBBYING ACTIVITIES [Attached behind this page] Model Agreement - Exhibit H 17336.02100\8386485.1 152 MODEL AGREEMENT - EXHIBIT “I” CERTIFICATION OF OFFEROR REGARDING DEBARMENT, SUSPENSION AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITY MATTERS [Attached behind this page] Model Agreement - Exhibit I 17336.02100\8386485.1 153 AGENDA ITEM 7F RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Audit Ad Hoc Committee Josefina Clemente, Transit Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2009/10 Through Fiscal Year 2011/12 State Triennial Performance Audit Results for the Commission and the Transit Operators AUDIT AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1)Receive and file the FY 2009/10 through FY 2011/12 state triennial performance audit results for the Commission; and 2)Receive and file the FY 2009/10 through FY 2011/12 state triennial performance audit results for the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside, Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA), Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), and SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine). BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In accordance with state law (California Public Utilities Code Section 99246), the Commission is required every three years to arrange for performance audits of its activities, as well as the activities of the transit operators to which it allocates Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds. At its March 2013 meeting, the Commission approved the selection of Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) to conduct the triennial performance audits for FYs 2009/10, 2010/11, and 2011/12, which included the Commission and the seven public transit operators consisting of the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Corona, and Riverside, PVVTA, RTA, and SunLine. The Commission’s Commuter Rail Program is not included in the audit as this is part of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority triennial performance audit review. All audits have been completed and reports were transmitted to Caltrans on January 22, 2014, as required by TDA. DISCUSSION: TDA Triennial Performance Audit of the Commission PMC’s charge in the Commission’s triennial performance audit process was to: •Assess the Commission’s compliance with TDA regulations; Agenda Item 7F 154 •Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission activities related to transportation planning, programming, regional coordination, grant management, and oversight; and •Review the Commission’s actions and progress on the implementation of prior triennial performance audit recommendations. The Commission’s 2013 Triennial Performance Audit, which is attached, finds the Commission is in compliance with all TDA requirements and in some cases exceeds those requirements. The audit also finds the recommendations of the 2010 audit have either been implemented or the implementation is in progress. Generally, the results of the triennial performance audit of the Commission are positive. The identified findings describe the Commission’s success working in the aftermath of the financial and economic downturn and acknowledge the Commission for the successful completion of several major projects during the audit period. The findings further conclude the Commission satisfactorily complied with all TDA legislative mandates for regional transportation planning agencies. The following recommendations were made as a result of the 2013 Triennial Performance Audit of the Commission: 1.The Commission should ensure that transit operators complete and submit separate State Controller reports for general public transit and for specialized services. 2.The Commission should continue to make efforts to improve the Productivity Improvement Program by providing greater context to the performance data in a user friendly manner and highlight the connectivity aspects of public transit. 3.The Commission should ensure the annual transit needs hearing is rotated among transit system jurisdictions to engage local transit constituents in Riverside County. 4.The Commission should develop a flow chart outlining the implementation of public affairs and communication services to enhance current communication protocol, provide checks of information, and identify gaps in communication processes. Currently, three public operators – RTA, SunLine, and the city of Beaumont – prepare a combined transit operators financial transaction report for their entire system. As these operators provide public transit and specialized services, it is required by TDA that separate reports are submitted to the State Controller. Staff will work with these transit operators to comply with Recommendation No. 1 to complete and submit separate reports for general public transit and specialized services. For Recommendation No. 2, staff has been working with a consultant to develop the first annual performance report designed as a countywide reporting structure that will emphasize both qualitative and quantitative elements, as well as the connectivity aspect of available public services in the county. Recommendation No. 3 ensures all communities are engaged in identifying potential transit needs throughout the county. Staff endeavors to rotate the locations where the annual unmet needs hearings are held in the Agenda Item 7F 155 county. During the last two years, the public hearings were held in the Banning and Beaumont areas as well as in the city of Riverside. Staff intends to hold the next public hearing somewhere between the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley areas. Lastly, regarding Recommendation No. 4, staff is working internally to review the Commission’s current public affairs and social media outreach structure to identify additional tools and methods to deliver a more effective and timely communication program. TDA Triennial Performance Audit of the Public Transit Operators The TDA requires an operator receiving TDA funds be audited for efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of the operation. The major elements of performance audits of transit operators include review of compliance requirements, transit operator functions, and performance indicators. The auditor is also required to follow up on prior performance review recommendations and assesses progress made. PMC outlined audit findings and made recommendations for each of the public transit operators. Generally, the transit operators’ reports show that the operators are providing services effectively and within the requirements of state law, with a few exceptions as noted in each operator report. Highlights of recommendations for each transit operator are summarized as follows: City of Banning 1.Consider purchasing a dispatching and scheduling software program. 2.Provide cross-training opportunities for city transit administration staff. 3.Update bus schedules to show connectivity with other transit services and provide a weblink from Banning transit website to the city of Beaumont’s transit website. City of Beaumont 1.Submit separate State Controller reports for general public transit and specialized service. 2.Ensure the timely completion and submittal of the annual State Controller transit operators and financial transactions reports. City of Corona 1.Enforce the no-show policy. 2.Consider utilization of SB 821 Local Transportation Funds Article 3 funds for construction and improvements of the city of Corona’s bicycle and pedestrian facilities. City of Riverside 1.Implement the no-show policy. 2.Aim at meeting goal of 100 percent preventive maintenance schedule adherence with the completion of a dedicated new maintenance shop for Riverside Special Services (RSS). 3.Reprogram older unused grant funds awarded to RSS. Agenda Item 7F 156 Riverside Transit Agency 1.Revise calculation for full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) reported to the State Controller’s Office. 2.Submit separate State Controller reports for general public transit and specialized service for elderly and disabled. 3.Improve on-time performance of directly operated fixed route service. SunLine Transit Agency 1.Develop desktop procedures ensuring completion of the annual State Controller’s transit operators financial transactions reports. 2.Submit separate State Controller reports for general public transit and specialized service. 3.Monitor rates of vehicle failures and revenue miles between failures. Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency 1.Exempt both Fare Revenue and Operating cost from new services in the fiscal audit. 2.Develop a succession plan for the finance manager position. Staff and transit operators will be tracking progress on implementing the above recommendations. As part of the annual Short Range Transit Plan updates, the operators describe the current implementation status of each of their recommendations from the most recent TDA triennial performance audits. Staff will also continue to work with the transit agencies to assist in developing better administrative practices to ensure any negative findings found in the recent audits are not repeated in the next triennial performance audit period. Attachments: 1)City of Banning 2)City of Beaumont 3)Commission 4)City of Corona 5)City of Riverside 6)Riverside Transit Agency 7)SunLine Transit Agency 8)Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency Posted on the Commission Website Agenda Item 7F 157 November 2013 2013 ATTACHMENT 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i Section I ......................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 Overview of the Transit System ..............................................................................................1 Section II .....................................................................................................................................6 Operator Compliance Requirements .......................................................................................6 Section III .................................................................................................................................. 11 Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations .................................................................... 11 Section IV .................................................................................................................................. 14 TDA Performance Indicators ................................................................................................. 14 Section V ................................................................................................................................... 23 Review of Operator Functions ............................................................................................... 23 Operations ........................................................................................................................ 23 Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 25 Planning ............................................................................................................................ 25 Marketing .......................................................................................................................... 26 General Administration and Management ......................................................................... 27 Section VI .................................................................................................................................. 28 Findings ................................................................................................................................ 28 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 31 Executive Summary PMC - i Executive Summary The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for the City of Banning Transit covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12. The audit includes a review of the following areas: Compliance with TDA Requirements Status of Prior Audit Recommendations Transit System Performance Trends Detailed Functional Review From the review, recommendations were developed to improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the City of Banning Transit. Compliance with TDA Requirements The City has fully complied with six out of the eight applicable requirements. The City was in partial compliance with regard to the timely submittal of the Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller, and meeting the farebox requirement in two of three years. Three additional compliance requirements did not apply to Banning (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio, exclusive urbanized farebox recovery ratio, and the utilization of federal funds). Status of Prior Audit Recommendations Of the five prior audit recommendations, Banning satisfactorily implemented three recommendations and partially implemented one recommendation. The recommendation that was not implemented concerns the utilization of dispatching and scheduling software, which has been carried forward in this audit for implementation. System Performance Trends 1. Operating costs systemwide decreased 9.1 percent during the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. By mode (using unaudited data), fixed route services saw its operating costs decrease by 15.3 percent during the period. The decreases reflect the cutback in service hours earlier in the audit period, which saw the elimination in Sunday service and reduced weekday hours. In contrast, Dial-a-Ride operating costs increased 56.6 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012. Executive Summary PMC - ii ii 2. Ridership decreased 21.2 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership saw a decrease of 21.4 percent, while Dial-a-Ride ridership decreased 18.7 percent. Systemwide ridership between FYs 2009 and 2010 decreased by 26.2 percent due primarily to the economic downturn and service cuts. Systemwide ridership fell from 173,351 in FY 2009 to a low of 127,932 in FY 2010 before rebounding to 136,563 in FY 2012. The rebound in ridership is attributed to the reinstatement of daily service and an improving economic outlook. 3. The provision of revenue hours and miles varied according to mode as well as systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route revenue hours decreased 3.2 percent, whereas vehicle service miles increased 36 percent. DAR revenue hours and miles decreased 34 and 36 percent, respectively between FY 2009 and FY 2012. Given the changes in service provision, systemwide vehicle service hours decreased 7.4 percent and vehicle service miles increased 23.6 percent. 4. Operating cost per passenger increased 15.4 percent systemwide based on audited data. On a modal basis, cost per passenger increased 7.8 percent on fixed route during the audited period and increased 92.7 percent on Dial-a-Ride over the same timeframe. The indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness. 5. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, decreased 1.8 percent systemwide based on audited data. In contrast, this indicator decreased 12.5 percent on the fixed route whereas Dial-a-Ride saw its cost per hour increase 137.2 percent between FY 2009 and FY 2012. 6. The systemwide fare recovery ratio exhibited a slight decrease of 2.7 percent from 11.75 percent in FY 2009 to 11.44 percent in FY 2012 based on audited data. Farebox recovery decreased 15.8 percent during FY 2011 yet increased 15.6 percent in FY 2012. Farebox for fixed route increased 1.8 percent, while Dial-a-Ride saw a decrease of 25.1 percent. Total systemwide passenger revenues increased 10 percent attributed to the 17.4 percent increase in Dial-a-Ride passenger revenues. Fixed-route revenues decreased 13.7 percent. Functional Review 1. The City resumed direct operation of its transit system after having had Professional Transit Management/Veolia Transportation, Inc. (PTM/Veolia) serve as contract operator. PTM is a subsidiary of Veolia Transportation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. PTM was selected by the City in April 2008 and operated the system for three years. 2. Cutbacks during prior years had resulted in the elimination on Sunday service and reduced service hours during the remainder of the week. Service on two of the three Executive Summary PMC - iii iii fixed-routes was restored to seven days a week. Banning also expanded evening service to Cabazon during the week on Route 1. 3. A fare increase was adopted for most fare categories and took effect on April 2, 2012. A decline in passenger trips was attributed to the fare increase as well as to the economic recession. Ridership has been mainly comprised of the transit-dependent such as low- income, underemployed and senior residents. 4. Drivers and non-exempt employees are represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 47. The current three-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is in effect through June 30, 2014. There are 13 employees, which encompass 11 fixed route and 2 Dial-a-Ride drivers. There has been no turnover reported during the audit period. 5. The City of Banning prepares a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) on an annual basis. Performance data from TransTrack Manager is also included in the SRTP to provide an annual comparison. Banning must meet at least 4 out of 7 discretionary performance indicators. There is one mandatory indicator which is the farebox recovery ratio set at 10 percent. Recommendations Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #1 Consider purchasing a dispatching and scheduling software program. This recommendation is carried over from the prior audit. Banning Transit conducts its dispatching and scheduling functions manually. The Office Specialist assigned to this task records all information by hand or typewriter. Although funding had been identified to purchase dispatching and scheduling software, the City has yet to purchase such a system. The annual TDA fiscal audit shows balances for State Proposition 1B funds that could be a source of funds in addition to TDA. The acquisition and utilization of such software would improve operations, reservations and for tracking “No- Shows.” In addition, such software could aid in scheduling more efficient Dial-a-Ride trips that could improve productivity measures such as cost per passenger and cost per hour. It is suggested that the City review Beaumont’s dispatching software (Schedule View) as a sample system in a similar jurisdiction, and consider a system for implementation. High Priority Executive Summary PMC - iv iv Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #2 Provide Cross Training Opportunities for City Transit Administrative Staff. Day-to-day administration, operational oversight and dispatch management of the City’s transit system has been under the direction the Community Services/Recreation Director and the Office Specialist. Provided that the City has resumed direct operations of the transit system as a cost-saving measure, a strong City transit administrative staff must remain in tact. In particular, the Office Specialist has provided dispatch and direct operations management for 20 years. Both the Office Specialist and Community Services/Recreation Director possess institutional knowledge about the transit system and the inter- connectivity with Beaumont Transit, RTA and SunLine Transit. It is suggested that the City identify and cross train additional support staff for lead dispatch and operations management duties to safeguard the future management of the system. High Priority #3 Update Local Bus Schedules to Show Connectivity with Other Transit Services. The current Banning bus schedules do not identify the bus stop locations or run times for connecting bus services to and from Banning Transit and other transit providers including Beaumont Transit, RTA, and SunLine Transit. RTA Routes 31 and 35 make a stop at Banning Kmart/Sun Lakes Boulevard for trips to and from San Jacinto, Hemet Valley Mall, Riverside County Regional Medical Center, and Moreno Valley Mall. Beaumont Transit Route 2 makes a stop at the Banning Civic Center for trips to and from Beaumont and Cabazon. SunLine Transit Commuter Link 220 stops at the Beaumont WalMart. While the Banning bus schedules describe the fare policy for RTA services, the schedules should at a minimum depict the location of the transfer stops on the bus map for improved customer service and transit connectivity options within the City. Medium Priority #4 Provide Weblink from Banning Transit website to Beaumont Transit. As part of the cooperative effort to implement the Pass Area Transit Plan, cross marketing of each jurisdiction’s services on the internet should be made. While Beaumont Transit’s website provides a link to Banning Transit’s website, there is no link from Banning to Beaumont. Developing a link will further promote the coordination between the transit systems in the Pass Area and provide the customer with more complete access to all area public transit services. Medium Priority Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 1 1 Section I Introduction California’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that a triennial performance audit be conducted of public transit entities that receive TDA revenues. The performance audit serves to ensure accountability in the use of public transportation revenue. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for the City of Banning Transit covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12. The purpose of the performance audit is to evaluate the City’s effectiveness and efficiency in its use of TDA funds to provide public transportation in its service area. This evaluation is required as a condition for continued receipt of these funds for public transportation purposes. In addition, the audit evaluates the City’s compliance with the conditions specified in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC). This task involves ascertaining whethe r the transit agency is meeting the PUC’s reporting requirements. Moreover, the audit includes calculations of transit service performance indicators and a detailed review of the transit administrative functions. From the analysis that has been undertaken, a set of recommendations has been made which is intended to improve the performance of transit operations. In summary, this TDA audit affords the opportunity for an independent, constructive and objective evaluation of the organization and its operations that otherwise might not be available. The methodology for the audit included in-person interviews with management, collection and review of agency documents, data analysis, and on-site observations. The Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators a nd Regional Transportation Planning Entities published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was used to guide in the development and conduct of the audit. Overview of the Transit System The City of Banning has provided public trans portation service since April 1973, which expanded to two routes in September 1985. The current transit system is comprised of three fixed route services and a dial-a-ride system that is limited to seniors and persons with disabilities, including ADA certified riders. The newest of the three fixed routes, the Cabazon service, extends from Banning east to the unincorporated area of Cabazon and began in July 1995. This route was extended in January 2000 to provide a route deviation to serve a remote residential area in eastern Cabazon. The City provides transfer opportunities with Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and Beaumont Transit. RTA runs three intercity services that connect with the local transit system at a Kmart on Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 2 2 Highland Springs Road. Connections with Beaumont Transit can be made at the Kmart and at San Gorgonio Hospital. Several Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) exist between Banning Transit and local transit agencies. The City has two MOUs with RTA. One provides support by RTA for Banning to o perate the Cabazon service that extends beyond the city limits to reduce duplication of service. The second MOU concerns the transfer policy between the two systems. In addition, an MOU was established in December 2002 between the Cities of Banning and Bea umont to provide a conduit for integrating the two municipal systems in their joint efforts to develop a regional Pass Transit system. The Cities of Banning and Beaumont have continued their coordination efforts to implement the Pass Area Transit Plan, which would provide a seamless transit service to the residents of the two communities. The jointly developed service plan included the Cities of Banning and Beaumont, unincorporated areas of Cherry Valley and Cabazon, and commercial area of the Morongo In dian Reservation. The Pass Transit System consists of two independent, but well coordinated transit systems under a single brand identity and fare structure. The coordinated service area of Pass Transit includes the aforementioned cities and communities. This coordinated transit system allows for Dial-a-Ride vehicles to cross jurisdictions and a common trunk line that serves both cities and the Cabazon area east of Banning. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, Banning’s population is 29,603 which grew 25.6 percent since the 2000 U.S. Census. The senior citizen population, comprised of residents aged 65 and over, is 25.88 percent. The 2013 population for Banning is estimated to be 30,170 as reported by the State Department of Finance. The city covers a 23.10 square mile area. Major highway connections serving Banning are Interstate 10 (I-10) and State Route (SR)-243. I-10 is the main east-west highway connecting Beaumont with Banning and the Coachella Valley to the east and the Inland Empire to the west. SR-243 connects the city with Idyllwild and SR-74 to the south. Major arterial streets traversing Banning include 8th Street, Highland Springs Avenue, Ramsey Street, Sunset Avenue and Wilson Street. System Characteristics Banning Transit operates both fixed-route and demand responsive transit services. The fixed- route operates Monday through Friday from 6:20 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and weekends from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Route 1 operates extended hours Monday through Friday from 7:00 p.m. to 10:45 p.m. Dial-a-Ride service operates Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Banning Transit does not operate on New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. The transit system operates on a limited schedule (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) on Martin Luther King, Jr’s Birthday, President ’s Day, Veteran’s Day and the Friday following Thanksgiving. Banning Transit fixed route services during the audit period are summarized in Table I-1. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 3 3 Table I-1 Banning Transit Fixed Route Services Route Description Frequency/Operation Key Time points Route 1 Cabazon Approximately every 2 hours (Monday through Friday from 6:15 a.m. to 10:45 p.m.; Saturday & Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) San Gorgonio Hospital Beaumont City Hall Gas Company Outlet Malls Cabazon Community Center Casino Cabazon Banning Police Department Wal-Mart K-Mart Route 5 Northern Approximately every 1 hour, 15-20 minutes (Monday through Friday from 6:05 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; Saturday & Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) Gas Company - Ramsey Indian School Lane Community Center Banning Library Armory Stater’s Wal-Mart K-Mart San Gorgonio Hospital Sunset Route 6 Southern Approximately every 1 hour, 20-25 minutes (Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.) Sunset & Ramsey MSJC College Banning High School Gas Company - Ramsey Post Office Sunset Stater’s Wal-Mart K-Mart San Gorgonio Hospital Source: City of Banning Banning Transit honors flag stops in residential areas at the corners of the route only. In commercial areas, the bus will only stop at designated marked stops. Dial-a-Ride Dial-A-Ride offers curb-to-curb demand responsive transit service to persons with disabilities, the frail elderly, and senior citizens age 60 years and older who reside ¼-mile from any Banning Transit fixed-route. Priority service is given to passengers certified under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Accessibility of the ADA paratransit service is within ¾-mile of the fixed- route service. Regular hours of operation for Dial-a-Ride are Monday through Friday from 8:00 Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 4 4 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Persons with ADA certification can access Dial-a-Ride by advance reservation within the city of Banning and into the Beaumont area during expanded service days and hours. Such service operates Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 6:45 p.m.; Saturday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:45 p.m.; and Sunday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. For weekend rides, there must be at least 3-ADA certified passengers in order to transport. Reservations for service can be made as early as 21 days in advance but no later than 3:00 p.m. the day prior to the trip. Dial-a-Ride does not operate on New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Dial-a-Ride operates on a limited schedule for ADA certified passengers only with a 24-hour advance reservation on Martin Luther King, Jr’s Birthday, Presidents Day, Veteran’s Day and the Friday following Thanksgiving . Fares Banning Transit’s fares are structured based on passenger, route and service type. Multi-trip passes are also available for purchase. Day passes are only available for purchase from the driver while monthly passes are available for purchase at the Banning Community Center. A fare increase became effective in April 2012. The fare structures during the audit period are summarized in Table I-2. Table I-2 Banning Transit Fare Schedule Fare Category Fares Prior to April 2012 Fares After April 2012 General Public $1.00 $1.15 Youth (Ages 17 and Under) $0.75 $1.00 Seniors (Ages 65 and Older) $0.55 $0.65 Persons with Disabilities (ADA or Medicare Card) $0.55 $0.65 Military Veterans (with photo ID) N/A $0.65 Child (46” tall or under accompanied by full-fare paying adult) N/A $0.25 Zone Charge (One Way to/from Cabazon Route 1) $0.25 $0.25 10-Ticket Book – General Public $9.00 $10.35 10-Ticket Book - Seniors/Disabled/Veterans $5.40 $5.85 Day Pass – General Public $3.00 $3.00 Day Pass - Seniors/Disabled/Veterans $1.80 $1.80 Monthly Pass – General Public $34.00 $36.00 Monthly Pass – Youth $20.50 $25.00 Monthly Pass – Seniors/Disabled/Veterans $20.50 $21.50 Dial-a-Ride (one-way) $1.50 $2.00 Dial-a-Ride 10-Ride Pass $18.00 Source: City of Banning Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 5 5 Fleet There were 12 vehicles in the transit fleet during the audit period comprised of 7 fixed-route and 5 demand response vehicles. Vehicles operated on the fixed-route are fueled by compressed natural gas (CNG), whereas vehicles operated on Dial-a-Ride are gasoline fueled. In addition, Banning Transit operates 4 support vehicles. All vehicles in revenue service are wheelchair accessible with tie-downs in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Table I-3 summarizes the Banning Transit fleet. Table I-3 Banning Transit Fleet Year Make/Model Quantity Fuel Type Service Mode Seating Capacity 1998 El Dorado Transmark 2 CNG Fixed-Route 33 (2 W/C) 2001 El Dorado Transmark 1 CNG Fixed-Route 33 (1 W/C) 2001 El Dorado Aerotech 1 Gasoline Dial-a-Ride 12 (1 W/C) 2003 El Dorado Aerotech 1 Gasoline Dial-a-Ride 12 (1 W/C) 2004 El Dorado Transmark 2 CNG Fixed-Route 33 (1 W/C) 2008 Ford Econoline 1 Gasoline Dial-a-Ride 14 (1 W/C) 2010 El Dorado 2 CNG Fixed-Route 31 (2 W/C) 2010 El Dorado Aerotech 240 2 Gasoline Dial-a-Ride 16 (1 W/C) Total 12 Source: City of Banning, TransTrack Manager Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 6 6 Section II Operator Compliance Requirements This section of the audit report contains the analysis of the City’s ability to comply with state requirements for continued receipt of TDA funds. The evaluation uses the guidebook, Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, September 2008 (third edition), which was developed by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to assess transit operators. The guidebook contains a checklist of eleven measures taken from relevant sections of the Public Utilities Code and the California Code of Regulations. Each of these requirements is discussed in the table below, including a description of the system’s efforts to comply with the requirements. In addition, the findings from the compliance review are described in the text following the table. Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The transit operator has submitted annual reports to the RTPA based upon the Uniform System of Accounts and Records established by the State Controller. Report is due 90 days after end of fiscal year (Sept. 28/29), or 110 days (Oct. 19/20) if filed electronically (Internet). Public Utilities Code, Section 99243 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: October 18, 2010 FY 2011: December 21, 2011 FY 2012: October 18, 2012 The FY 2011 Transit Operators Financial Transaction Reports for both general and specialized services were submitted after the statutory deadline for the fiscal year. Conclusion: Partial compliance. The operator has submitted annual fiscal and compliance audits to the RTPA and to the State Controller within 180 days following the end of the fiscal year (Dec. 27), or has received the appropriate 90- day extension by the RTPA allowed by law. Public Utilities Code, Section 99245 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: March 28, 2011 FY 2011: January 18, 2012 FY 2012: March 6, 2013 Conclusion: Complied. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 7 7 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The CHP has, within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim submitted by an operator, certified the operator’s compliance with Vehicle Code Section 1808.1 following a CHP inspection of the operator’s terminal. Public Utilities Code, Section 99251 B The City participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. Inspections were conducted at the City of Banning located at 173 East Lincoln Street. Inspection dates applicable to the audit period were: July 22 & 23, 2009; July 13 & 15, 2010; July 12 & 13, 2011 and July 10 & 11, 2012. All inspections conducted were rated satisfactory. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s claim for TDA funds is submitted in compliance with rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA for such claims. Public Utilities Code, Section 99261 As a condition of approval, the City of Banning’s annual claims for Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance are submitted in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by RCTC. Conclusion: Complied. If an operator serves urbanized and non-urbanized areas, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to the ratio determined by the rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA. Public Utilities Code, Section 99270.1 This requirement is not applicable, as Banning Transit only serves a non-urbanized area. Conclusion: Not Applicable. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 8 8 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The operator’s operating budget has not increased by more than 15% over the preceding year, nor is there a substantial increase or decrease in the scope of operations or capital budget provisions for major new fixed facilities unless the operator has reasonably supported and substantiated the change(s). Public Utilities Code, Section 99266 Percentage increase in the City of Banning’s transit operating budget: FY 2010: -13.7% FY 2011: +18.5% FY 2012: -2.5% The increase in the FY 2011 budget was attributed to higher payroll and compensation due to the hire of additional full time drivers. Source: City of Banning Transit Fund Budgets for FYs 2009- 2012. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s definitions of performance measures are consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247, including (a) operating cost, (b) operating cost per passenger, (c) operating cost per vehicle service hour, (d) passengers per vehicle service hour, (e) passengers per vehicle service mile, (f) total passengers, (g) transit vehicle, (h) vehicle service hours, (i) vehicle service miles, and (j) vehicle service hours per employee. Public Utilities Code, Section 99247 The City of Banning’s definition of performance is consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247. A review of TransTrack performance data reports generated during the audit period indicates that correct performance data are being collected. Conclusion: Complied. If the operator serves an urbanized area, it has maintained a ratio of fare Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.12, 99270.1 This requirement is not applicable, as Banning Transit only serves a non-urbanized Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 9 9 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-fifth (20 percent), unless it is in a county with a population of less than 500,000, in which case it must maintain a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs of at least equal to three-twentieths (15 percent), if so determined by the RTPA. area. Conclusion: Not Applicable. If the operator serves a rural area, or provides exclusive services to elderly and disabled persons, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-tenth (10 percent). Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.4, 99268.5 Operating ratios for Banning Transit using audited data were as follows: FY 2010: 11.76% FY 2011: 9.90% FY 2012: 11.44% Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits Conclusion: Partial Compliance. The current cost of the operator’s retirement system is fully funded with respect to the officers and employees of its public transportation system, or the operator is implementing a plan approved by the RTPA which will fully fund the retirement system within 40 years. Public Utilities Code, Section 99271 To be eligible for TDA funds, the annual TDA claims form requires a sign-off from the transit claimant to comply with standard assurances, one of which is that the City of Banning’s retirement system is funded. City staff’s retirement is funded through the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Conclusion: Complied. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 10 10 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts If the operator receives state transit assistance funds, the operator makes full use of funds available to it under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 before TDA claims are granted. California Code of Regulations, Section 6754(a)(3) As a recipient of State Transit Assistance Funds, the City of Banning does not utilize federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as amended (other than those funds that are passed through RCTC). Conclusion: Not Applicable. Findings and Observations from Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to Banning, the operator fully complied with six out of the eight applicable requirements. The City was in partial compliance with regard to the timely submittal of the Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller, and meeting the farebox requirement in two of three years . Three additional compliance requirements did not apply to Banning (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio, exclusive urbanized farebox recovery ratio, and the utilization of federal funds). 2. The City participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. The CHP inspection reports submitted for review were found to be satisfactory. 3. The operating budget exhibited notable changes during the audit period. Banning saw an 18.5 percent increase in its operating budget for FY 2011 attributed to higher payroll and compensation costs due to the hire of additional full time drivers. The budget decreased 13.7 percent in FY 2010 and 2.5 percent in FY 2012. 4. Based on the available data from the Annual Fiscal and Compliance Audits, the City’s farebox recovery ratio remained above the required 10 percent in two of three audit years. In one year, FY 2011, the farebox ratio was just under 10 percent. The average farebox during the triennial period was 11.03 percent. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 11 11 Section III Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations The City of Banning’s efforts to implement the recommendations made in the prior triennial audit are examined in this section of the report. For this purpose, each prior recommendation for the agency is described, followed by a discussion of the City of Banning’s efforts to implement the recommendation. Conclusions concerning the extent to which the recommendations have been adopted by the agency are then presented. Prior Recommendation 1 Need to develop and enforce employee policies and rules specific to providing consistent transit service. Actions taken by the City of Banning This recommendation concerns the development of a Transit Operations Procedures Manual that could be utilized during driver trainings as well as serve as a referenc e to enforce standardized policies. In its response at the time the recommendation was made, the City was in the process of updating the Transit Operations Procedure Manual and that a complete update would be completed by November 2010. Driver training would be in accordance with the updated procedures contained in the manual. According to the Community Services/Recreation Director, the Transit Operations Procedures Manual is still being finalized. The delay is attributed to budgetary constraints and mana gement changes at the City, including the change in transit operations from an outside contractor to in- house staff. Nevertheless, driver accountability is addressed at the monthly safety meetings in the interim. Conclusion This recommendation has been partially implemented. Prior Recommendation 2 Need to conduct daily reconciliation of farebox revenues with passenger counts. Actions taken by the City of Banning The prior performance audit found that daily farebox revenue reconciliation procedures still had yet to be adopted. In response, transit staff started working with the Finance Department to develop methods and procedures for reconciling farebox revenues with daily passenger counts. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 12 12 At the end of each shift, the Office Specialist and lead driver pull out the vaults from the buses and transport them to City Hall by car. The vaults are taken to the Finance Department, which has a key to the vaults. Fare revenues are counted by two Finance Department staff in a safe room and reconciled with the trip sheets. Pass and ticket sales are also noted on the trip sheets. The Finance staff is also able to determine any significant overages or shortages during the reconciliation process. Conclusion This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 3 Need to consider purchasing a dispatching and scheduling software program. Actions taken by the City of Banning The prior performance audit noted that the City did not utilize dispatching and scheduling software for its Dial-a-Ride operations. The acquisition and utilization of such software would improve operations, reservations, as well as maximize the efficiency of available resources. The Office Specialist who manages dispatch and daily operations records the information manually. Although funding had been identified to purchase dispatching and scheduling software , the City has yet to purchase and implement it. Meanwhile, dispatching and scheduling functions continue to be conducted manually. For a relatively small system, manual dispatch and scheduling could still be effective; however, off-the-shelf transit scheduling and dispatch software is available that is intended to create greater scheduling efficiencies, increase the tracking of operational data, and increase labor productivity. Conclusion This recommendation has not been implemented and has been carried forward for full implementation. Prior Recommendation 4 Need to maintain supporting documentation for the fixed route and Dial-a-Ride service in order to maintain a proper audit trail. Actions taken by the City of Banning During the prior performance audit, the City was not able to provide supporting documentation requested by the prior auditor for verification of operational data. It was recommended that Banning implement procedures to properly maintain the source documentation for fixed-route Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 13 13 and Dial-a-Ride service on a daily and monthly basis in order to maintain a proper audit trail of the data used in calculating performance indicators. In response to this recommendation, Banning now maintains hard copies of performance data, documents communications and utilizes video footage from the on-board vehicle cameras. The City uses more of TransTrack’s capability to input and store data as well. These procedures will also be incorporated into the updated Transit Operations Procedures Manual. Conclusion This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 5 Need to ensure that cash receipts for pass sales are reconciled to the number of passes issued. Actions taken by the City of Banning The prior audit found that Banning did not have a procedure to reconcile the cash receipts for pass sales to the number of passes issued. Daily reconciliation of pass sales is seen as a safeguard to detect unauthorized issuance of passes or other discrepancies and strengthens overall internal controls of the pass sales. The City has since taken the necessary steps to ensure pass sales are adequately tracked and reconciled. Pass sales are recorded on a computer daily and tracked on a log. In addition, transit vouchers used by County Social Services and Inland Regional Center clients are also tracked and checked against the driver trip sheets. Conclusion This recommendation has been implemented. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 14 14 Section IV TDA Performance Indicators This section reviews Banning Transit’s performance in providing transit service to the community in an efficient and effective manner. TDA requires that at least five specific performance indicators be reported, which are contained in the following tables. Farebox recovery ratio is not one of the five specific indicators but is a requirement for continued TDA funding. Therefore, farebox calculation is also included. Two additional performance indicators, operating cost per mile and average fare per passenger, are included as well. Findings from the analysis are contained in the section following the tables. Tables IV-1 through IV-3 provide the performance indicators for Banning Transit systemwide, fixed route and dial-a-ride. Charts are also provided to depict the trends in the indicators. It is noted that the systemwide operating costs and fare revenues are based on audited figures, while fixed route and dial-a-ride costs and fare revenues are unaudited. The annual fiscal audits do not provide a modal breakdown. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 15 15 Table IV-1 Banning Transit TDA Performance Indicators Systemwide Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009-2012 Operating Cost $1,272,344 $1,220,116 $1,240,257 $1,156,840 -9.1% Total Passengers 173,351 127,932 128,244 136,563 -21.2% Vehicle Service Hours 14,434 14,468 13,387 13,369 -7.4% Vehicle Service Miles 239,439 233,761 215,531 295,939 23.6% Employee FTE's 17 16 15 15 -11.8% Passenger Fares $120,315 $124,107 $120,261 $132,349 10.0% Operating Cost per Passenger $7.34 $9.54 $9.67 $8.47 15.4% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $88.15 $84.33 $92.65 $86.53 -1.8% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $5.31 $5.22 $5.75 $3.91 -26.4% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 12.0 8.8 9.6 10.2 -14.9% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.72 0.55 0.60 0.46 -36.3% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 849.1 904.3 892.5 891.3 5.0% Average Fare per Passenger $0.69 $0.97 $0.94 $0.97 39.6% Fare Recovery Ratio 11.75% 11.76% 9.90% 11.44% -2.7% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits; State Controller's Reports; TransTrack Manager Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 16 16 Table IV-2 Banning Transit TDA Performance Indicators Fixed Route Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009-2012 Operating Cost $1,163,057 $1,106,023 $1,111,207 $985,656 -15.3% Total Passengers 162,198 118,394 120,018 127,499 -21.4% Vehicle Service Hours 12,456 12,774 11,934 12,063 -3.2% Vehicle Service Miles 198,293 199,700 186,568 269,633 36.0% Employee FTE's 13 13 12 12 -7.7% Passenger Fares $137,944 $125,329 $114,215 $119,052 -13.7% Operating Cost per Passenger $7.17 $9.34 $9.26 $7.73 7.8% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $93.37 $86.58 $93.11 $81.71 -12.5% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $5.87 $5.54 $5.96 $3.66 -37.7% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 13.0 9.3 10.1 10.6 -18.8% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.82 0.59 0.64 0.47 -42.2% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 958.2 982.6 994.5 1,005.3 4.9% Average Fare per Passenger $0.85 $1.06 $0.95 $0.93 9.8% Fare Recovery Ratio 11.86% 11.33% 10.28% 12.08% 1.8% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: State Controller's Reports; TransTrack Manager Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 17 17 Table IV-3 Banning Transit TDA Performance Indicators Dial-a-Ride Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009-2012 Operating Cost $109,288 $114,093 $129,050 $171,184 56.6% Total Passengers 11,153 9,538 8,226 9,064 -18.7% Vehicle Service Hours 1,978 1,694 1,453 1,306 -34.0% Vehicle Service Miles 41,146 34,061 28,963 26,306 -36.1% Employee FTE's 4 3 3 3 -25.0% Passenger Fares $11,331 $18,194 $8,582 $13,297 17.4% Operating Cost per Passenger $9.80 $11.96 $15.69 $18.89 92.7% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $55.25 $67.35 $88.82 $131.08 137.2% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $2.66 $3.35 $4.46 $6.51 145.0% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 5.6 5.6 5.7 6.9 23.1% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.34 27.1% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 494.5 564.7 484.3 435.3 -12.0% Average Fare per Passenger $1.02 $1.91 $1.04 $1.47 44.4% Fare Recovery Ratio 10.37% 15.95% 6.65% 7.77% -25.1% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: State Controller's Reports; TransTrack Manager Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 18 18 Graph IV-1 Operating Costs Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-2 Ridership Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 19 19 Graph IV-3 Operating Cost Per Passenger Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-4 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 20 20 Graph IV-5 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-6 Fare Recovery Ratio Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 21 21 Findings from Verification of TDA Performance Indicators 1. Operating costs systemwide decreased 9.1 percent during the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. By mode (using unaudited data), fixed route services saw its operating costs decrease by 15.3 percent during the period. The decreases reflect the cutback in service hours earlier in the audit period, which saw the elimination in Sunday service and reduced weekday hours. In contrast, Dial-a-Ride operating costs increased 56.6 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012. 2. Ridership decreased 21.2 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership saw a decrease of 21.4 percent, while Dial-a-Ride ridership decreased 18.7 percent. Systemwide ridership between FYs 2009 and 2010 decreased by 26.2 percent due primarily to the economic downturn and service cuts. Systemwide ridership fell from 173,351 in FY 2009 to a low of 127,932 in FY 2010 before rebounding to 136,563 in FY 2012. The rebound in ridership is attributed to the reinstatement of daily service and an improving economic outlook. 3. The provision of revenue hours and miles varied according to mode as well as systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route revenue hours decreased 3.2 percent, whereas vehicle service miles increased 36 percent. DAR revenue hours and miles decreased 34 and 36 percent, respectively between FY 2009 and FY 2012. Given the changes in service provision, systemwide vehicle service hours decreased 7.4 percent and vehicle service miles increased 23.6 percent. 4. Operating cost per passenger increased 15.4 percent systemwide based on audited data. On a modal basis, cost per passenger increased 7.8 percent on fixed route during the audited period and increased 92.7 percent on Dial-a-Ride over the same timeframe. The indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness. 5. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, decreased 1.8 percent systemwide based on audited data. In contrast, this indicator decreased 12.5 percent on the fixed route whereas Dial-a-Ride saw its cost per hour increase 137.2 percent between FY 2009 and FY 2012. 6. Passengers per vehicle service hour systemwide decreased 14.9 percent. In concert with the systemwide trend, fixed route experienced decrease of 18.8 percent over the audit period. Passengers per hour on Dial-a-Ride increased 23.1 percent. Systemwide, the number of passengers per service hour fluctuated during the period decreasing from 12 passengers in FY 2009 to 8.8 passengers in FY 2010 and rebounding to 10.2 passengers in FY 2012. 7. The systemwide fare recovery ratio exhibited a slight decrease of 2.7 percent from 11.75 percent in FY 2009 to 11.44 percent in FY 2012 based on audited data. Farebox recovery Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 22 22 decreased 15.8 percent during FY 2011 yet increased 15.6 percent in FY 2012. Farebox for fixed route increased 1.8 percent, while Dial-a-Ride saw a decrease of 25.1 percent. Total systemwide passenger revenues increased 10 percent attributed to the 17.4 percent increase in Dial-a-Ride passenger revenues. Fixed-route revenues decreased 13.7 percent. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 23 23 Section V Review of Operator Functions This section provides an in-depth review of various functions within the Banning Transit System. The review highlights accomplishments, issues and/or challenges that were determined during the audit period. The following functions were reviewed at the City of Banning: Operations Maintenance Planning Marketing General Administration and Management Within some departments are sub-functions that require review as well, such as Grants Administration that falls under General Administration. Operations The Banning Transit system operates in coordination with Beaumont Transit under a cooperative branding and marketing agreement. This agreement has allowed for a common service brand, coordinated scheduling and connections to regional commuter services. While this agreement remained in place, Banning Transit underwent changes affecting its operations, scheduling and fares. During the audit period, the City resumed direct operation of its transit system after having contracted the service to Professional Transit Management/Veolia Transportation, Inc. (PTM). PTM is a subsidiary of Veolia Transportation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. PTM was selected by the City in April 2008 and operated the system for three years. Cutbacks during prior years had resulted in the elimination of Sunday service and reduced service hours during the remainder of the week. Service on two of the three fixed-routes was restored to seven days a week. Banning also expanded evening service to Cabazon during the week on Route 1. A decline in passenger trips toward the very end of the audit period was attributed to the fare increase for most fare categories that took effect on April 2, 2012, as well as continued implications from the economic recession. Ridership is comprised primarily of the transit- dependent such as low-income, underemployed and senior residents. The system receives approximately $20,000 in monthly pass revenue from County social service programs. The City sees potential growth opportunities for transit with the new County courthouse complex currently under construction next to City Hall, which will also feature a small college campus. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 24 24 Also, the Sun Lakes Country Club is an active adult/retirement community comprised of 3,300 homes and a golf course located in southwest Banning along Highland Springs Avenue near major regional shopping centers. There is a 15-minute pick up window for Dial-a-Ride scheduling. "No Shows" occur when the rider is not ready, forgets, fails to call and cancel in advance or refuses their ride when the driver arrives. If three "No Shows" accumulate in a 60 day period, a 30 day suspension will result. Once the rider is reinstated, if an additional three "No Shows" occur within another 60 days the suspension will be extended to 45 days. After the third infraction of three "No Shows" the suspension is for 60 days. If an individual continues to misuse the program, a reinstatement fee may be charged. “No-Shows” are tracked manually on a “No-Shows” log, which records the day and time of the scheduled pick up, passenger name, details, and the fare amount owed. Route planning has focused on interconnectivity with other regional systems. Banning Transit schedules are coordinated with Beaumont Transit as well as with intercity and commuter services provided by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) and the SunLine Transit Agency. Driver trip sheets for both service modes include sections for recording the passenger count and fare categories, fuel mileage, hours and mileage. Both actual and revenue hours and mileage are recorded and segregated. Performance data is entered into TransTrack Manager on a monthly basis. Communications and dispatching rely on both electronic and manual methods. Banning utilizes Motorola push-talk radios provided by Verizon for communication between the drivers and dispatch. Dispatch functions are conducted manually consisting of typewritten schedules and manifests by the Office Specialist. The City has not yet upgraded its dispatching and scheduling through the implementation of a software program. Vehicles are equipped with five surveillance cameras. Farebox revenues are counted and reconciled daily. Vehicles are equipped with Diamond vaulted fareboxes. At the end of each shift, the Office Specialist and lead driver pull out the vaults from the buses and transport them to City Hall by car. The vaults are taken to the Finance Department, which has a key to the vaults. Fare revenues are counted by two Finance Department staff in a safe room and reconciled with the trip sheets. Pass and ticket sales are also noted on the trip sheets. The Finance staff is also able to determine any significant overages or shortages during the reconciliation process. Personnel Banning Transit personnel are City employees. Drivers and non-exempt employees are represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 47. The current three-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is in effect through June 30, 2014. There are 13 employees, which encompass 11 fixed route and 2 Dial-a-Ride drivers. Of the 11 fixed route drivers, five are full-time and six are part-time. The Office Specialist is also the dispatcher and a reserve part-time driver. There has been no turnover reported during the audit period. The average length of employment has been six years with some drivers having 10 or more years of Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 25 25 service. The Community Service/Recreation Director has indicated that the City would be creating two new full-time positions and reducing part-time employee hours. Driver candidates are required to have at the time of application a valid Class B California driver license with air brake and passenger endorsements. In addition, drivers must have one of the following certifications: Verification of Transit Training (VTT), School Bus Driver or School Pupil Activity Bus (SPAB) Certification. Drivers undergo a background investigation and must successfully complete periodic physical examinations as required by federal transportation regulations. The lead driver is a certified trainer and conducts safety meetings on a monthly basis. Accruals for vacation and sick time commence on the first day of employment for full-time employees. Employees with one to four years of service accrue 10 vacation days and up to 20 vacation days with 10 or more years of service. Employees accrue 3.69 hours of sick time off per 80 hour pay period. Full-time employees and their dependents are provided employer-paid health insurance benefits. The City contributes $947.00 per month to each represented employee toward medical and dental insurance. Maintenance Vehicle maintenance is the responsibility of the City’s Fleet Maintenance Division and is performed at the City Yard located at 176 East Lincoln Street. The facility is equipped with three service bays and a CNG station open to the general public. Vehicles in need of repair are red tagged. One of the City mechanics is trained on CNG and is dedicated to the transit system. Vehicles operated on the fixed-route are CNG-powered whereas the Dial-a-Ride vehicles are gasoline-powered. Drivers perform a pre-trip inspection before each run and note any areas that need maintenance attention. Vehicle maintenance is performed on a 3,000 mile or 45 day inspection schedule in accordance with the State’s General Public Paratransit Vehicle (GPPV) regulations. Additional preventive maintenance is conducted every 15,000 miles and annually at 36,000 miles. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is responsible for certifying Banning’s maintenance facilities and for inspecting vehicles on an annual basis. Inspections conducted during the audit period were rated satisfactory. Roadcalls are tracked and recorded in TransTrack Manager. The monthly roadcalls report provided by the city does not contain a legend to help discern the type of incidents incurred. Nevertheless, the City reported relatively few roadcalls during the audit period. Most mechanical issues are from broken pins in the wheelchair lift mechanisms. Planning The City of Banning prepares a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) on an annual basis. The SRTP covers a three-year planning horizon and includes a system overview; services and performance analysis for each route and service provided, service changes, and financial and capital plans. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 26 26 Performance data from TransTrack Manager is also included in the SRTP to provide an annual comparison. Banning must meet at least 4 out of 7 discretionary performance indicators. There is one mandatory indicator which is the farebox recovery ratio set at 10 percent. Table V-2 provides a summary of annual performance targets systemwide for the audit period. Table V-2 Banning Transit Performance Targets Performance Indicators FY 2009-10 Target FY 2010-11 Target FY 2011-12 Target Farebox Recovery >=10.00% >=10.00% >=10.00% Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour <=$84.89 <=$79.68 <=$82.23 Subsidy Per Passenger >=$6.44 & <=$8.72 >=$6.50 & <=$8.80 >=$6.51 & <=$8.81 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile >=$2.48 & <=$3.36 >=$2.43 & <=$3.29 >=$2.55 & <=$3.45 Subsidy Per Hour >=$61.84 & <=$83.66 >=$59.02 & <=$79.86 >=$62.19 & <=$84.15 Subsidy Per Mile >=$3.77 & <=$5.11 >=$3.65 & <=$4.93 >=$3.86 & <=$5.22 Passengers Per Revenue Hour >=8.16 & <=11.04 >=7.74 & <=10.47 >=8.08 & <=10.93 Passengers Per Revenue Mile >=0.50 & <=0.68 >=0.48 & <=0.64 >=0.50 & <=0.68 Source: City of Banning, TransTrack Manager For the FY 2009-10 SRTP, Banning met all its performance indicator targets. For the FY 2010-11 SRTP, Banning met only 3 out of 7 performance indicator targets and for the FY 2011-12 SRTP, Banning met 5 out of 7 performance indicator targets. In addition to the annual SRTP process, Banning has embarked on a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) of its transit system. The COA is focusing primarily on route performance and improvements that would increase productivity as well as introduction of tools that would allow for greater operational efficiencies. Marketing Banning utilizes several media approaches in marketing its transit services. Printed brochures and marketing collateral are published in-house. Ride Guide brochures are published for each of the three fixed routes in the system identifying key local bus stops although there is no identification of connections to RTA intercity service on the bus map. The City is making effort to enhance marketing outreach and bus schedule materials including streamlining the format of the Ride Guide, and equipping bus stops with schedule cassettes. Overall, the Pass Transit branding and the cooperative agreement with the City of Beaumont ha s worked well according to the Community Services/Recreation Director. The City of Banning Web Site (http://www.ci.banning.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=161) contains a page devoted to the transit program. The transit page provides general information, fares and modal links to the fixed-route and Dial-a-Ride services as well as links to a customer survey and trip planning tools. The trip planner interactive tool is powered by Google Transit. Social media approaches are still under consideration and would have to be coordinated through the City’s Information Technology (IT) department. Currently, the website does not provide a direct weblink to the Beaumont Transit website. As part of the cooperative efforts to implement the Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 27 27 Pass Area Transit Plan, the Banning Transit website should include a link to Beaumont’s transit website. To note, the Beaumont Transit website already includes such a link to Banning Transit. Community outreach has included the City’s annual parade and a recent disaster preparedness expo. The City is considering outreach to local mobile home and retirement communities. Complaints of the system by the public are fielded by dispatch and follow a set of procedures that include the completion of an incident report. A copy of the report is given to the Community Services/Recreation Director and the lead driver for follow up. General Administration and Management The City of Banning was incorporated February 6, 1913 as a General Law City and currently operates under a Council/Manager form of government. The five-member City Council serves as the City’s principal legislative body and each councilmember is elected for a four-year term. The Mayor and the Mayor Pro-Tem are elected from the City Council and serve one-year terms. The City Council meets the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 5:00 p.m. in the Banning City Council Chambers. The chief administrative officer for the City is the City Manager, who is appointed by the City Council. The City Manager oversees and coordinates City departments and services including Community Services. Transit services are managed under the purview of the Community Services Department located at the Banning Community Center at 789 North San Gorgonio Avenue. The Community Services/Recreation Director oversees transit operations and staff. The Director is assisted by an Office Specialist who has worked with transit for 20 years. Both the Community Services/Recreation Director and the Office Specialist have institutional knowledge of the transit system, and given that the entire service has since been taken in -house, there is further need to ensure the continued strong management of the service by the City . Grants Management Grant funding allocated toward the transit system has been derived from local and state sources. The primary source of transit funding support is derived from the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). The City submits the annual TDA claim for funds to RCTC. TDA claims are based on the City’s annual budget projections and the financial element of the SRTP. The City’s LTF allocation was $1,131,215 in FY 2010; $998,274 in FY 2011; and $1,130,537 in FY 2012. The City also received state Proposition 1B (PTMISEA/TSSSDRA) funds for vehicle purchases and bus shelter upgrades, and is current on its Proposition 1B reporting requirements . According to the financial audits, a balance of Proposition 1B funds remains to be spent. In addition, Banning does not utilize federal transit funding for operating expenses, thus avoiding federal transit grant reporting requirements. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 28 28 Section VI Findings The following summarizes the major findings obtained from this Triennial Audit covering fiscal years 2010 through 2012. A set of recommendations is then provided. Triennial Audit Findings 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to Banning, the operator fully complied with six out of the eight applicable requirements. The City was in partial compliance with regard to the timely submittal of the Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller, and meeting the farebox requirement in two of three years . Three additional compliance requirements did not apply to Banning (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio, exclusive urbanized farebox recovery ratio, and the utilization of federal funds). 2. The City participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. The CHP inspection reports submitted for review were found to be satisfactory. 3. The operating budget exhibited notable changes during the audit period. Banning saw an 18.5 percent increase in its operating budget for FY 2011 attributed to higher payroll and compensation costs due to the hire of additional full time drivers. The budget decreased 13.7 percent in FY 2010 and 2.5 percent in FY 2012. 4. Based on the available data from the Annual Fiscal and Compliance Audits, the City’s farebox recovery ratio remained above the required 10 percent in two of three audit years. In one year, FY 2011, the farebox ratio was just under 10 percent. The average farebox during the triennial period was 11.03 percent. 5. Of the five prior audit recommendations, Banning satisfactorily implemented three recommendations and partially implemented one recommendation. The recommendation that was not implemented concerns the utilization of dispatching and scheduling software, which has been carried forward in this audit for implementation. 6. Operating costs systemwide decreased 9.1 percent during the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. By mode (using unaudited data), fixed route services saw its operating costs decrease by 15.3 percent during the period. The decreases reflect the cutback in service hours earlier in the audit period, which saw the elimination in Sunday service and reduced weekday hours. In contrast, Dial-a-Ride operating costs increased 56.6 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 29 29 7. Ridership decreased 21.2 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership saw a decrease of 21.4 percent, while Dial-a-Ride ridership decreased 18.7 percent. Systemwide ridership between FYs 2009 and 2010 decreased by 26.2 percent due primarily to the economic downturn and service cuts. Systemwide ridership fell from 173,351 in FY 2009 to a low of 127,932 in FY 2010 before rebounding to 136,563 in FY 2012. The rebound in ridership is attributed to the reinstatement of daily service and an improving economic outlook. 8. The provision of revenue hours and miles varied according to mode as well as systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route revenue hours decreased 3.2 percent, whereas vehicle service miles increased 36 percent. DAR revenue hours and miles decreased 34 and 36 percent, respectively between FY 2009 and FY 2012. Given the changes in service provision, systemwide vehicle service hours decreased 7.4 percent and vehicle service miles increased 23.6 percent. 9. Operating cost per passenger increased 15.4 percent systemwide based on audited data. On a modal basis, cost per passenger increased 7.8 percent on fixed route during the audited period and increased 92.7 percent on Dial-a-Ride over the same timeframe. The indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness. 10. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, decreased 1.8 percent systemwide based on audited data. In contrast, this indicator decreased 12.5 percent on the fixed route whereas Dial-a-Ride saw its cost per hour increase 137.2 percent between FY 2009 and FY 2012. 11. The systemwide fare recovery ratio was relatively stable based on audited data. Revenues for farebox include passenger fares, interest earnings, and city supplement that are used to help achieve the 10 percent farebox standard. The ratio decreased to 9.90 percent during FY 2011 and was slightly below the standard, yet increased back over the standard in FY 2012. Farebox for fixed route increased 1.8 percent, while Dial-a-Ride saw a decrease of 25.1 percent. Total systemwide passenger revenues increased 10 percent attributed to the 17.4 percent increase in Dial-a-Ride passenger revenues. Fixed-route revenues decreased 13.7 percent. 12. The City resumed direct operation of its transit system after having contracted the service to Professional Transit Management/Veolia Transportation, Inc. (PTM). PTM is a subsidiary of Veolia Transportation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. PTM was selected by the City in April 2008 and operated the system for three years. 13. Cutbacks during prior years had resulted in the elimination of Sunday service and reduced service hours during the remainder of the week. Service on two of the three fixed -routes was restored to seven days a week. Banning also expanded evening service to Cabazon during the week on Route 1. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 30 30 14. A fare increase was adopted for most fare categories and took effect on April 2, 2012. A decline in passenger trips toward the very end of the audit period was attributed to the fare increase as well as continued implications from the economic recession. Ridership is comprised primarily of the transit-dependent such as low-income, underemployed and senior residents. 15. Drivers and non-exempt employees are represented by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 47. The current three-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is in effect through June 30, 2014. There are 13 employees , 11 of whom operate the fixed route and 2 who are Dial-a-Ride drivers. There has been no turnover reported during the audit period. 16. The City of Banning prepares a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) on an annual basis. Performance data from TransTrack Manager is also included in the SRTP to provide an annual comparison. Banning must meet at least 4 out of 7 discretionary performance indicators. There is one mandatory indicator which is the farebox recovery ratio set at 10 percent. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 31 31 Recommendations 1. Consider purchasing a dispatching and scheduling software program. (High Priority) This recommendation is carried over from the prior audit. Banning Transit conducts its dispatching and scheduling functions manually. The Office Specialist assigned to this task records all information by hand or typewriter. Although funding had been identified to purchase dispatching and scheduling software, the City has yet t o purchase such a system. The annual TDA fiscal audit shows balances for State Proposition 1B funds that could be a source of funds in addition to TDA. The acquisition and utilization of software would improve operations, reservations and for tracking “No-Shows.” In addition, such software could aid in scheduling more efficient Dial-a-Ride trips that could improve productivity measures such as cost per passenger and cost per hour. It is suggested that the City review Beaumont’s dispatching software (Schedule View) as a sample system in a similar jurisdiction, and consider a system for implementation. 2. Provide Cross Training Opportunities for City Transit Administrative Staff. (High Priority) Day-to-day administration, operational oversight and dispatch management of the City’s transit system has been under the direction the Community Services/Recreation Director and the Office Specialist. Provided that the City has resumed direct operations of the transit system as a cost-saving measure, a strong City transit administrative staff must remain in tact. In particular, the Office Specialist has provided dispatch and direct operations management for 20 years. Both the Office Specialist and Community Services/Recreation Director possess institutional knowledge about the transit system and the inter-connectivity with Beaumont Transit, RTA and SunLine Transit. It is suggested that the City identify and cross train support staff for lead dispatch and operations management duties to safeguard the future management of the system. 3. Update Local Bus Schedules to Show Connectivity with Other Transit Services. (Medium Priority) The current Banning bus schedules do not identify the bus stop locations or run times for connecting bus services to and from Banning Transit and other transit providers including Beaumont Transit, RTA, and SunLine Transit. RTA Routes 31 and 35 make a stop at Banning Kmart/Sun Lakes Boulevard for trips to and from San Jacinto, Hemet Valley Mall, Riverside County Regional Medical Center, and Moreno Valley Mall. Beaumont Transit Route 2 makes a stop at the Banning Civic Center for trips to and from Beaumont and Cabazon. SunLine Transit Commuter Link 220 stops at the Beaumont WalMart. While the Banning bus schedules describe the fare policy for RTA services, the schedules should at a minimum depict the location of the transfer stops on the bus map for improved customer service and transit connectivity options within the City. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Banning Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 32 32 4. Provide Weblink from Banning Transit Website to Beaumont Transit. (Medium Priority) As part of the cooperative effort to implement the Pass Area Transit Plan, cross marketing of each jurisdiction’s services on the internet should be made. While Beaumont Transit’s website provides a link to Banning Transit’s website, there is no link from Banning to Beaumont. Developing a link will further promote the coordination between the transit systems in the Pass Area and provide the customer with more complete access to all area public transit services. November 2013 ATTACHMENT 2 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i Section I ......................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 Overview of the Transit System ..............................................................................................1 Section II .....................................................................................................................................7 Operator Compliance Requirements .......................................................................................7 Section III .................................................................................................................................. 13 Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations .................................................................... 13 Section IV .................................................................................................................................. 14 TDA Performance Indicators ................................................................................................. 14 Section V ................................................................................................................................... 23 Review of Operator Functions ............................................................................................... 23 Operations ........................................................................................................................ 23 Maintenance ..................................................................................................................... 25 Planning ............................................................................................................................ 26 Marketing .......................................................................................................................... 27 General Administration and Management ......................................................................... 27 Section VI .................................................................................................................................. 30 Findings ................................................................................................................................ 30 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 33 Executive Summary PMC - i Executive Summary The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for the City of Beaumont Transit covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12. The audit includes a review of the following areas: Compliance with TDA Requirements Status of Prior Audit Recommendations Transit System Performance Trends Detailed Functional Review From the review, recommendations were developed to improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the City of Beaumont Transit. Compliance with TDA Requirements The City fully complied with six out of the eight applicable requirements. The City was not in compliance with regard to the submittal of the annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller and was in partial compliance with the timely submittal of its annual fiscal and compliance audits. Three additional compliance requirements did not apply to Beaumont (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio, exclusive urbanized farebox recovery ratio, and the utilization of federal funds). Status of Prior Audit Recommendations The prior audit recommendation regarding the need to complete and submit the State Controllers Reports in a timely manner was not implemented and has been carried forward in this audit for full implementation. System Performance Trends 1. Operating costs systemwide increased 5.1 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data (full costs of system). By mode, fixed route services saw its operating costs increase by 7.3 percent during the period. In contrast, Dial-a- Ride operating costs decreased 1.6 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012. Executive Summary PMC - ii ii 2. Ridership increased 86.9 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership increased 118.1 percent, while Dial-a-Ride ridership decreased 17 percent. Systemwide ridership between FYs 2009 and 2010 increased by 44.5 percent due primarily to the Beaumont Unified School District’s discontinuation of transportation services for middle and high school students. Systemwide ridership rose from 98,013 in FY 2009 to 141,629 in FY 2010. Fixed-route ridership increased 59.2 percent from between FY 2009 and FY 2010. 3. The provision of revenue hours and miles varied according to mode yet increased systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route revenue hours increased 14.5 percent, whereas vehicle service miles increased 8.8 percent. DAR revenue hours and miles decreased 20.7 and 28 percent, respectively between FY 2009 and FY 2012. Given the system realignment, systemwide vehicle service hours increased 3.8 percent and vehicle service miles decreased 0.5 percent. 4. Operating cost per passenger decreased 43.8 percent systemwide based on audited data. Cost per passenger decreased 50.8 percent on fixed route during the audit period, yet increased by 18.6 percent on Dial-a-Ride. This indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness , which reflects the significant increases in ridership compared to the increases in costs . 5. The systemwide fare recovery ratio exhibited an overall increase based on audited data. The farebox figures include exemptions of fare revenues and operating costs from new services as calculated in the annual fiscal audits. Farebox for fixed route increased 47.6 percent, while Dial-a-Ride saw a decrease of 8.4 percent. Farebox recovery for fixed route showed a significant spike during FY 2010 and attaining a ratio of 34.6 percent. Total systemwide revenues increased 41.5 percent over the same period. Fixed route passenger revenues increased 77.2 percent whereas Dial-a-Ride fare revenues decreased 9.8 percent. Functional Review 1. In August 2009, the City was informed by the Beaumont Unified School District that its middle and high school transportation services would be eliminated in FY 2010. Beaumont Transit responded by increasing service to meet the demand from students who relied on the District’s transportation services. 2. The City took over operations of the service from McDonald Transit Associates due to escalating costs approaching $32,000 monthly. The City ended its contract with McDonald on January 15, 2010, and the service was brought in-house. There are 14 employees comprising the Transit Operations Manager, Customer Service Coordinator, 2 mechanics and 10 drivers. Three employees including the Customer Service Coordinator and 2 drivers are part-time. 3. CHP terminal inspections conducted during the audit period were rated satisfactory with the exception of an unsatisfactory rating in April 2011 due to non-compliance with the Executive Summary PMC - iii iii Controlled Substance & Alcohol Testing Program. The terminal status was upgraded to satisfactory on July 23, 2012 after this issue was addressed. 4. All buses are equipped with five surveillance cameras and Motorola radio systems. The radio system underwent an upgrade as part of an overall upgrade of the City’s communication system spearheaded by the City Police Department. The upgrade to a five- channel trunked 800 Megahertz (MHz) system has allowed the Beaumont Police and other City departments to be on the same frequency with other county, state and federal public safety agencies in the event of a major emergency. 5. The City retained a GIS consultant to design a systemwide map to include all routes in the Pass service area. The City offers a text messaging service, which allows for mobile phone users to text "BMTtransit" to 90210 to receive text updates regarding Beaumont Transit. Beaumont also provides Quick Response (QR) Codes at bus stops for smart phone users to download transit information. 6. In an effort to encourage more youth riders, the City implemented the Pass Transit Youth Scholarship in January 2010. The scholarship is available for junior high and high school students on a bi-annual basis who reside in Beaumont Unified School District boundaries. Recommendations Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #1 Ensure the timely completion and submittal of the annual State Controller Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports. This recommendation is carried over from the prior performance audit. For the current audit review period, the City did not complete or provide copies of its annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports for review for all three years. Pursuant to PUC 99243 (a), “the operators shall prepare and submit annual reports of their operation to the transportation planning agencies having jurisdictions over them and to the Controller within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year.” If the report is filed in electronic format as mandated by the State Controller, the report shall be furnished within 110 day after the close of the fiscal year. It is recommended that internal procedures be developed that provide the timeline and staff assignments to complete the annual report. The desktop procedures should be made available across finance department staff and made part of a finance orientation package in the event of turnover in the department. High Priority Executive Summary PMC - iv iv Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #2 Prepare and submit separate State Controller Reports for general public transit and specialized service. Beaumont’s annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller has historically combined information for both general public (Pass Transit Fixed Route) and specialized service for seniors and persons with disabilities (ADA-certified and non-certified). Although the State Controller’s Office has not provided notice to the City, written instructions by the State to prepare this particular report require separate reporting of these modes. In the General Instruction Form completed by the City, a selection must be made as to which mode of transit is represented in the report. The options are general public use or elderly/disabled. The Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report Instructions contain the following passages under the General Instruction Form: Transit operators providing two types of service, (general public use and transit service exclusively for the elderly/handicapped) must complete a separate report for each type of service. … a separate report must be filed for each type of service provided: General Public Use Service or Specialized Service exclusive for elderly and/or handicapped. For example, if an agency has received Article 4 and Article 8(c) monies to provide General Public Use Service, the agency should submit one report. If that agency has also received Article 4 monies to provide Specialized Service for the elderly and/or handicapped, then a report must be submitted for the Specialized Service operations. The submission of separate reports to the State Controller will demonstrate Beaumont’s pro-active approach to compliance with State reporting instructions. High Priority Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 1 1 Section I Introduction California’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that a triennial performance audit be conducted of public transit entities that receive TDA revenues. The performance audit serves to ensure accountability in the use of public transportation revenue. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for the City of Beaumont Transit covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011- 12. The purpose of the performance audit is to evaluate the City’s effectiveness and efficiency in its use of TDA funds to provide public transportation in its service area. This evaluation is required as a condition for continued receipt of these funds for public transportation purposes. In addition, the audit evaluates the City’s compliance with the conditions specified in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC). This task involves ascertaining whether the transit agency is meeting the PUC’s reporting requirements. Moreover, the audit includes calculations of transit service performance indicators and a detailed review of the transit administrative functions. From the analysis that has been undertaken, a set of recommendations has been made which is intended to improve the performance of transit operations. In summary, this TDA audit affords the opportunity for an independent, constructive and objective evaluation of the organization and its operations that otherwise might not be available. The methodology for the audit included in-person interviews with management, collection and review of agency documents, data analysis, and on-site observations. The Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Entities published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was used to guide in the development and conduct of the audit. Overview of the Transit System The City of Beaumont has provided public transportation service since 1975. The current transit system is comprised of both fixed route and dial-a-ride services. Fixed route service began as a single 15-mile route in 1979 out of growing demand for its general public dial-a-ride service that could not meet the demand. This route served the City of Beaumont and the unincorporated community of Cherry Valley located to the north. Dial-A-Ride is limited to elderly and ADA passengers. However, a combination of dial-a-ride and fixed route deviations are available to the general public to provide passengers who are outside the ¼ mile border of each bus route connection to the fixed route system. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 2 2 The Cities of Beaumont and Banning have continued their coordination efforts to implement the Pass Area Transit Plan, which provides a seamless transit service to the residents of the two communities. The jointly developed service plan included the Cities of Banning and Beaumont, unincorporated areas of Cherry Valley and Cabazon, and commercial area of the Morongo Indian Reservation. The Pass Transit System consists of two independent, but well coordinated transit systems under a single brand identity and fare structure. The coordinated service area of Pass Transit includes the aforementioned cities and communities. This coordinated transit system allows for Dial-a-Ride vehicles to cross jurisdictions and a common trunk line that serves both cities and the Cabazon area east of Banning. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, Beaumont’s population is 36,877 which grew 223.9 percent since the 2000 U.S. Census. The senior citizen population, comprised of residents aged 65 and over, is 10.55 percent. The 2013 population for Beaumont is estimated to be 39,776 as reported by the State Department of Finance. The city covers a 30.91 square mile area. Major highway connections serving Beaumont are Interstate 10 (I-10) State Routes (SR)-60 and 79. I-10 is the main east-west highway connecting Beaumont with Banning and the Coachella Valley to the east and the Inland Empire to the west. SR-60 connects Beaumont with Moreno Valley and Riverside to the west and SR-79 connects the city with Hemet to the south. Major arterial streets traversing Beaumont include 1st Street, 6th Street, 8th Street, Beaumont Avenue, Highland Springs Avenue, and Oak Valley Parkway. System Characteristics Beaumont Transit operates both fixed-route and demand responsive transit services. The fixed- route is comprised of nine local and one commuter route. Local routes serve Beaumont, Banning, Cherry Valley and Cabazon. The commuter route provides service between Beaumont and Calimesa, the San Bernardino Metrolink station and the Loma Linda VA Hospital. The system operates daily from 5:45 a.m. to 7:15 p.m. Beaumont Transit does not operate on New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Limited service is offered on other holidays. Beaumont Transit’s fixed route services during the audit period are summarized in Table I-1. Table I-1 Beaumont Transit Fixed Route Services Route Destination Frequency/Operation Key Time points Route 2 Beaumont - Cabazon Every 2 Hours (Daily from 5:45 a.m. to 7:15 p.m.) Cougar Way @ Beaumont Avenue Chatigny Recreation Center Wal-Mart Gas Company Cabazon Comm. Center Casino Morongo Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 3 3 Route Destination Frequency/Operation Key Time points Route 3 Beaumont High – Wal-Mart Every 60 minutes (Monday through Friday from 6:24 a.m. to 6:02 p.m.) Beaumont High School Cougar Way/Orchard Park Chatigny Recreation Center Noble Creek Apartments Wal-Mart San Gorgonio Hospital Route 4 Downtown Beaumont Every 60 minutes (Monday through Friday from 7:22 a.m. to 7:13 p.m.; Weekends from 8:06 a.m. to 4:52 p.m.) Pennsylvania & 8th Street Wal-Mart San Gorgonio Hospital Three Rings Ranch Park Beaumont Library Cougar Way @ Beaumont Avenue Chatigny Recreation Center Route 7 Tournament Hills – Fairway Canyon Two AM trips & Seven PM trips (Monday through Friday from 6:35 a.m. to 5:37 p.m.) Oak Valley Parkway & Gateway Palmer & Morris Palmer & Trevino Champions & Bay Hill Monte Verde & Morgan Beaumont High School Cougar Way @ Beaumont Avenue Oak Valley & Rite Aid Route 9 Seneca Springs – Cherry Valley Three AM trips & One PM trip (Monday through Friday from 6:35 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. when school is in session) Manzanita Parkway @ Brownie Way Seneca Springs Park Pennsylvania Avenue @ 8th Street Cougar Way @ Beaumont Avenue Beaumont High School Route 11 (Continues as Route 4) Banning to Penn/8th Street One AM Trip (Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 7:22 a.m.) Cherry Valley Healthcare Beaumont Civic Center Three Rings Ranch Park Beaumont Avenue & 12th Street Route 17 Tournament Hills – Fairway Canyon Two AM trips & Three PM trips (Monday through Friday from 6:35 a.m. to 3:43 p.m. when school is in session) Cherry Valley Blvd. & Sanders Palmer & Trevino Champions & Bay Hill Monte Verde & Morgan Beaumont High School Cougar Way & Beaumont Avenue Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 4 4 Route Destination Frequency/Operation Key Time points Chatigny Recreation Center Oak Valley & Rite Aid Route 25 Beaumont Avenue & Cougar Way/Wal- Mart Every 40 minutes (Daily from 6:50 a.m. to 6:05 p.m.) Cougar Way/Orchard Park Wells Fargo Bank Staters/Food-4-Less Wal-Mart Beaumont Civic Center Beaumont High School Route 40 Stewart Park – Wednesday Concert Series Every 60 minutes (Wednesday during concert season from 4:00 p.m. to 9:57 p.m.) Noble Creek Apartments Ring Ranch Park Cherry Valley Market Orchard Ranch Apartments Stewart Park Concert Area CommuterLink 120 Beaumont Wal-Mart – San Bernardino Metrolink Three Bi-directional AM trips & Three PM trips (Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 7:05 p.m.) Beaumont Wal-Mart Beaumont Civic Center Calimesa Stater Brothers Loma Linda VA Hospital San Bernardino Metrolink Source: City of Beaumont Dial-a-Ride Dial-A-Ride offers complementary demand response curb-to-curb service to passengers certified under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), seniors (ages 65 years old and older) and persons with disabilities. Dial-a-ride service operates daily between the hours of 8 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Reservations are required at least 24-hours and up to a month in advance on a first-come, first-served basis. A $2.00 cancellation fee is charged in the event of a no-show or insufficient notice of a cancelled trip. Fares Beaumont Transit’s fares are structured based on passenger, route and service type. Multi-trip passes are also available for purchase. A fare increase was approved in April 2012. The fare structures during the audit period are summarized in Table I-2. Table I-2 Beaumont Transit Fixed-Route Fare Schedule Fare Category Fares Prior to April 2012 Fares After April 2012 General Public $1.00 $1.15 Youth (Grades K-12) $0.75 $1.00 Seniors (Ages 65 and Older) $0.55 $0.65 Persons with Disabilities (ADA or Medicare Card) $0.55 $0.65 Military Veterans (with photo ID) N/A $0.65 Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 5 5 Fare Category Fares Prior to April 2012 Fares After April 2012 Child (46” tall or under accompanied by full-fare paying adult) N/A $0.25 Zone Deviations (One Way to/from Route) $0.25 $0.25 CommuterLink 120 – General Public $1.75 $3.00 CommuterLink 120 – Youth/Seniors/Disabled/Veterans $1.25 $2.00 10-Tripper Punch Pass (Youth) N/A $10.00 10-Ticket Book – General Public $9.00 $10.35 10-Ticket Book - Seniors/Disabled/Veterans $5.40 $5.85 Day Pass – General Public $3.00 $3.00 Day Pass - Youth N/A $3.00 Day Pass - Seniors/Disabled/Veterans $1.80 $1.80 Monthly Pass – General Public $34.00 $36.00 Monthly Pass – Youth $20.50 $25.00 Monthly Pass – Seniors/Disabled/Veterans $20.50 $21.50 Source: City of Beaumont, FY 2011-12 to 2013-14 SRTP Active military personnel with proper identification and students holding the GoPass are able to ride free. All jurors summoned to serve in Banning courthouses are able to ride free on Beaumont Transit Route 2, directly to and from the Courthouse, by showing their c urrent and valid juror summons badge to the bus driver. Table I-3 Beaumont Transit Dial-a-Ride Fare Schedule Fare Category Fares Prior to April 2012 Fares After April 2012 One-Way $1.00 $1.15 Companion N/A $3.00 Personal Care Attendant (with ID) $1.70 Free No-Show (Collected during the next ride) $1.35 $2.00 Child (46” tall or under accompanied by full-fare paying adult) N/A $3.00 10-Ride Punch Card $12.15 $18.00 Source: City of Beaumont, FY 2011-12 to 2013-14 SRTP Fleet There were 14 vehicles in the transit fleet during the audit period comprised of 9 fixed-route and 5 Dial-a-Ride vehicles. Most vehicles in the fleet are wheelchair accessible with tie -downs in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Table I-3 summarizes the Beaumont Transit fleet. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 6 6 Table I-4 Beaumont Transit Fleet Year Make/Model Quantity Fuel Type Service Mode Seating Capacity 2000 Goshen II Ford E-450 1 Diesel Demand Response 16 (1 W/C) 2000 Bluebird CSRE 3204 1 Diesel Fixed-Route 30 (1 W/C) 2001 Goshen 1 Gasoline Fixed-Route 14 (1 W/C) 2001 Goshen II Ford E-450 1 Gasoline Demand Response 16 (1 W/C) 2002 Bluebird 1 CNG Fixed-Route 35 (0 W/C) 2005 El Dorado 1 Gasoline Fixed-Route 14 (2 W/C) 2009 GMC C-5500 1 CNG Fixed-Route 28 (1 W/C) 2009 STR 1 CNG Fixed-Route 28 (2 W/C) 2010 Ford E-450 3 Gasoline Demand Response 16 (1 W/C) 2010 GMC 5500 1 Gasoline Fixed-Route 28 (1 W/C) 2012 STR 1 Diesel Fixed-Route 30 (1 W/C) Total 14 Source: TransTrack, City of Beaumont Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 7 7 Section II Operator Compliance Requirements This section of the audit report contains the analysis of the City’s ability to comply with state requirements for continued receipt of TDA funds. The evaluation uses the guidebook, Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operat ors and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, September 2008 (third edition), which was developed by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to assess transit operators. The guidebook contains a checklist of eleven measures taken from relevant sections of the Public Utilities Code and the California Code of Regulations. Each of these requirements is discussed in the table below, including a description of the system’s efforts to comply with the requirements. In addition, the findings from the compliance review are described in the text following the table. Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The transit operator has submitted annual reports to the RTPA based upon the Uniform System of Accounts and Records established by the State Controller. Report is due 90 days after end of fiscal year (Sept. 28/29), or 110 days (Oct. 19/20) if filed electronically (Internet). Public Utilities Code, Section 99243 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: Report Available on State Controller website, but not from the City. Auditor could not verify submittal date. FY 2011: Report Unavailable FY 2012: Report Unavailable The City reported that it had not completed and submitted its annual State Controller Report for FYs 2011 and 2012. Conclusion: Not in compliance. The operator has submitted annual fiscal and compliance audits to the RTPA and to the State Controller within 180 days following the end of the fiscal year (Dec. 27), or has received the appropriate 90- day extension by the RTPA allowed by law. Public Utilities Code, Section 99245 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: December 20, 2010 FY 2011: January 31, 2012 FY 2012: April 1, 2013 The Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audit for FY 2012 was submitted slightly after the 90-day extension allowed Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 8 8 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts by law. Conclusion: Partial compliance. The CHP has, within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim submitted by an operator, certified the operator’s compliance with Vehicle Code Section 1808.1 following a CHP inspection of the operator’s terminal. Public Utilities Code, Section 99251 B The City participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. Inspections were conducted at the City of Beaumont Fleet Maintenance facility located at 550 California Avenue. Inspection dates applicable to the audit period were: February 25, 2009; March 17, 2009; April 6 & 7, 2010; April 5 & 6, 2011; April 20 & 21, 2011; March 21, 2012 and July 23, 2012. The City of Beaumont received an unsatisfactory rating by the CHP during the April 2011 inspections due to non- compliance with the Controlled Substance & Alcohol Testing Program. The terminal status was upgraded to satisfactory on July 23, 2012 after this issue was addressed. All other inspections conducted were rated satisfactory. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s claim for TDA funds is submitted in Public Utilities Code, Section 99261 As a condition of approval, the City of Beaumont’s annual Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 9 9 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts compliance with rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA for such claims. claims for Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance are submitted in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by RCTC. Conclusion: Complied. If an operator serves urbanized and non-urbanized areas, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to the ratio determined by the rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA. Public Utilities Code, Section 99270.1 This requirement is not applicable, as Beaumont Transit only serves a non-urbanized area. Conclusion: Not Applicable. The operator’s operating budget has not increased by more than 15% over the preceding year, nor is there a substantial increase or decrease in the scope of operations or capital budget provisions for major new fixed facilities unless the operator has reasonably supported and substantiated the change(s). Public Utilities Code, Section 99266 Percentage increase in the City of Beaumont’s transit operating budget: FY 2010: +41.7% FY 2011: 0.0% FY 2012: +5.9% The increase in the FY 2010 budget was attributed to major service expansion to accommodate the local student population in response to the school district’s decision to eliminate transportation services. Source: City of Beaumont Budgets for FYs 2009-2012. Conclusion: Complied. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 10 10 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The operator’s definitions of performance measures are consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247, including (a) operating cost, (b) operating cost per passenger, (c) operating cost per vehicle service hour, (d) passengers per vehicle service hour, (e) passengers per vehicle service mile, (f) total passengers, (g) transit vehicle, (h) vehicle service hours, (i) vehicle service miles, and (j) vehicle service hours per employee. Public Utilities Code, Section 99247 The City of Beaumont’s definition of performance is consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247. A review of trip sheets generated during the audit period indicates that correct performance data are being collected. Conclusion: Complied. If the operator serves an urbanized area, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-fifth (20 percent), unless it is in a county with a population of less than 500,000, in which case it must maintain a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs of at least equal to three-twentieths (15 percent), if so determined by the RTPA. Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.12, 99270.1 This requirement is not applicable, as Beaumont Transit only serves a non-urbanized area. Conclusion: Not Applicable. If the operator serves a rural area, or provides exclusive services to elderly and disabled persons, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-tenth (10 percent). Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.4, 99268.5 Operating ratios for Beaumont Transit using audited data and excluding new or expanded service were as follows: Fixed Route Dial-a-Ride FY 2010: 34.57% 16.27% FY 2011: 17.05% 18.49% FY 2012: 12.52% 14.59% Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 11 11 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits Conclusion: Complied. The current cost of the operator’s retirement system is fully funded with respect to the officers and employees of its public transportation system, or the operator is implementing a plan approved by the RTPA which will fully fund the retirement system within 40 years. Public Utilities Code, Section 99271 To be eligible for TDA funds, the annual TDA claims form requires a sign-off from the transit claimant to comply with standard assurances, one of which is that the City of Beaumont’s retirement system is funded. City staff’s retirement is funded through the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Conclusion: Complied. If the operator receives state transit assistance funds, the operator makes full use of funds available to it under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 before TDA claims are granted. California Code of Regulations, Section 6754(a)(3) As a recipient of State Transit Assistance Funds, the City of Beaumont does not utilize federal funds (other than those funds that are passed through RCTC). Conclusion: Not Applicable. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 12 12 Findings and Observations from Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to Beaumont, the operator fully complied with six out of the eight applicable requirements. The City was not in compliance with regard to the submittal of the annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller and was in partial compliance with the timely submittal of its annual fiscal and compliance audits. Three additional compliance requirements did not apply to Beaumont (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio, exclusive urbanized farebox recovery ratio, and the utilization of federal funds). 2. Beaumont met its farebox recovery standard of 10 percent during the audit period, although service expansion during the audit period allows for two full fiscal years of exemption. The farebox recovery ratios for fixed-route services were 34.57 percent in FY 2010, 17.05 percent in FY 2011; and 12.52 percent in FY 2012. Without the exemptions, fixed route would have had higher farebox ratios, an indication of the relative success of the expanded services. The Dial-a-Ride farebox recovery ratios were 16.27 percent in FY 2010, 18.49 percent in FY 2011; and 14.59 percent in FY 2012. 3. The City of Beaumont participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program and received vehicle inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. Inspections conducted during the audit period were rated satisfactory with the exception of inspections conducted in April 2011, which were rated unsatisfactory due to non- compliance with the Controlled Substance & Alcohol Testing Program. The terminal status was upgraded to satisfactory on July 23, 2012 after this issue was addressed. 4. The operating budget exhibited notable changes during the audit period. Beaumont saw a 41.7 percent increase in its operating budget for FY 2010. The FY 2012 increase was attributed to increased service demand in response to the elimination of local school transportation services. The budget remained unchanged in FY 2011 and increased by 5.9 percent in FY 2012. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 13 13 Section III Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations The City of Beaumont’s efforts to implement the recommendations made in the prior triennial audit are examined in this section of the report. For this purpose, each prior recommendation for the agency is described, followed by a discussion of the City of Beaumont’s efforts to implement the recommendation. Conclusions concerning the extent to which the recommendations have been adopted by the agency are then presented. Prior Recommendation 1 Need to ensure that the State Controllers Reports are completed and submitted in a timely manner. Actions taken by the City of Beaumont The prior performance audit found that the City’s completion and submittal of its annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports to the State Controller for two fiscal years were beyond the statutory timeline. In addition, the City was unable to provide the report for FY 2007 and the date of submission could not be verified. In its response to this recommendation, the City stated that it would make every effort to file its State Controllers Reports in a timely manner. For the current audit review period, the City did not complete or provide copies of its annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports. Pursuant to PUC 99243 (a), “the operators shall prepare and submit annual reports of their operation to the transportation planning agencies having jurisdictions over them and to the Controller within 90 days of th e end of the fiscal year.” If the report is filed in electronic format as mandated by the State Controller, the report shall be furnished within 110 day after the close of the fiscal year. Conclusion This recommendation has not been implemented and is carried forward for full implementation. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 14 14 Section IV TDA Performance Indicators This section reviews Beaumont Transit’s performance in providing transit service to the community in an efficient and effective manner. TDA requires that at least five specif ic performance indicators be reported, which are contained in the following tables. Farebox recovery ratio is not one of the five specific indicators but is a requirement for continued TDA funding. Therefore, farebox calculation is also included. Two additional performance indicators, operating cost per mile and average fare per passenger, are included as well. Findings from the analysis are contained in the section following the tables. Tables IV-1 through IV-3 provide the performance indicators for Beaumont Transit systemwide, fixed route and dial-a-ride. Charts are also provided to depict the trends in the indicators. Full- time Equivalent (FTE) data are not available for FYs 2011 and 2012 due to non-completion of the State Controller Report. It is noted that the systemwide and modal operating costs and fare revenues are based on audited figures. Total operating costs and fare revenues are shown in the tables and include the exempted services to illustrate overall expenses and revenue for the transit system. The exempted services are then excluded from expenses and revenue to generate the farebox recovery ratios as allowed by TDA and shown in the audit figures. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 15 15 Table IV-1 Beaumont Transit TDA Performance Indicators Systemwide Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009- 2012 Operating Cost $1,378,287 $1,336,326 $1,233,380 $1,448,568 5.1% Operating Costs Related to New Services/Expansion $368,390 $635,545 $282,579 $366,589 -0.5% Adjusted Operating Cost $1,009,897 $700,781 $950,801 $1,081,979 7.1% Total Passengers 98,013 141,629 169,665 183,176 86.9% Vehicle Service Hours 16,028 16,841 15,856 16,644 3.8% Vehicle Service Miles 252,401 235,662 228,901 251,192 -0.5% Employee FTE's 13 11 n/a n/a n/a Passenger Fares $133,239 $257,418 $215,229 $188,568 41.5% Fare Revenue Related to New Services/Expansion $22,043 $66,540 $48,899 $46,110 109.2% Adjusted Passenger Fare Revenue $111,196 $190,878 $166,330 $142,458 28.1% Operating Cost per Passenger $14.06 $9.44 $7.27 $7.91 -43.8% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $85.99 $79.35 $77.78 $87.03 1.2% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $5.46 $5.67 $5.39 $5.77 5.6% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 6.1 8.4 10.7 11.0 80.0% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.39 0.60 0.74 0.73 87.8% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 1,232.9 1,531.0 n/a n/a n/a Average Fare per Passenger $1.36 $1.82 $1.27 $1.03 -24.3% Farebox Recovery Ratio (1) 11.01% 27.24% 17.49% 13.17% 19.6% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.90% 2.90% 1.60% 5.40% Operating costs exclude depreciation. (1) Audited farebox recovery data exclude new routes and service extensions for fixed-route. Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits; RCTC TransTrack Manager; State Controller's Reports Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 16 16 Table IV-2 Beaumont Transit TDA Performance Indicators Fixed Route Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009- 2012 Operating Cost $1,035,159 $1,055,596 $941,931 $1,110,877 7.3% Operating Cost Related to New Services/Expansion $368,390 $635,545 $282,579 $366,589 -0.5% Adjusted Operating Cost $666,769 $420,051 $659,352 $744,288 11.6% Total Passengers 75,372 120,014 148,988 164,390 118.1% Vehicle Service Hours 11,177 12,231 12,097 12,799 14.5% Vehicle Service Miles 188,880 182,431 183,214 205,445 8.8% Employee FTE's 8 8 n/a n/a n/a Passenger Fares $78,585 $211,745 $161,327 $139,284 77.2% Fare Revenue Related to New Services/Expansion $22,043 $66,540 $48,899 $46,110 109.2% Adjusted Passenger Fare Revenue $56,542 $145,205 $112,428 $93,174 64.8% Operating Cost per Passenger $13.73 $8.80 $6.32 $6.76 -50.8% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $92.62 $86.31 $77.86 $86.79 -6.3% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $5.48 $5.79 $5.14 $5.41 -1.3% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 6.7 9.8 12.3 12.8 90.5% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.40 0.66 0.81 0.80 100.5% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 1,397.1 1,528.8 n/a n/a n/a Average Fare per Passenger $1.04 $1.76 $1.08 $0.85 -18.7% Farebox Recovery Ratio w/exemptions (1) 8.48% 34.57% 17.05% 12.52% 47.6% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.90% 2.90% 1.60% 5.40% Operating costs exclude depreciation. (1) Audited farebox recovery data exclude new routes and service extensions for fixed-route. Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits; RCTC TransTrack Manager; State Controller's Reports Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 17 17 Table IV-3 Beaumont Transit TDA Performance Indicators Dial-a-Ride Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009- 2012 Operating Cost $343,128 $280,730 $291,449 $337,691 -1.6% Total Passengers 22,641 21,615 20,677 18,786 -17.0% Vehicle Service Hours 4,851 4,610 3,759 3,845 -20.7% Vehicle Service Miles 63,521 53,231 45,687 45,747 -28.0% Employee FTE's 5 3 n/a n/a n/a Passenger Fares $54,654 $45,673 $53,902 $49,284 -9.8% Operating Cost per Passenger $15.16 $12.99 $14.10 $17.98 18.6% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $70.73 $60.90 $77.53 $87.83 24.2% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $5.40 $5.27 $6.38 $7.38 36.7% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 4.7 4.7 5.5 4.9 4.7% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.36 0.41 0.45 0.41 15.2% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 970.2 1,536.6 n/a n/a n/a Average Fare per Passenger $2.41 $2.11 $2.61 $2.62 8.7% Farebox Recovery Ratio 15.93% 16.27% 18.49% 14.59% -8.4% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.90% 2.90% 1.60% 5.40% Operating costs exclude depreciation. Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits; RCTC TransTrack Manager; State Controller's Reports Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 18 18 Graph IV-1 Operating Costs (without exemptions) Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-2 Ridership Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 19 19 Graph IV-3 Operating Cost Per Passenger Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-4 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 20 20 Graph IV-5 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-6 Fare Recovery Ratio (with fixed route exemptions) Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 21 21 Findings from Verification of TDA Performance Indicators 1. Operating costs systemwide increased 5.1 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data (full costs of system). By mode, fixed route services saw its operating costs increase by 7.3 percent during the period. In contrast, Dial-a-Ride operating costs decreased 1.6 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012. 2. Ridership increased 86.9 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership increased 118.1 percent, while Dial-a-Ride ridership decreased 17 percent. Systemwide ridership between FYs 2009 and 2010 increased by 44.5 percent due primarily to the Beaumont Unified School District’s discontinuation of transportation services for middle and high school students. Systemwide ridership rose from 98,013 in FY 2009 to 141,629 in FY 2010. Fixed-route ridership increased 59.2 percent from between FY 2009 and FY 2010. 3. The provision of revenue hours and miles varied according to mode yet increased systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route revenue hours increased 14.5 percent, whereas vehicle service miles increased 8.8 percent. DAR revenue hours and miles decreased 20.7 and 28 percent, respectively between FY 2009 and FY 2012. Given the system realignment, systemwide vehicle service hours increased 3.8 percent and vehicle service miles decreased 0.5 percent. 4. Operating cost per passenger decreased 43.8 percent systemwide based on audited data. Cost per passenger decreased 50.8 percent on fixed route during the audit period, yet increased by 18.6 percent on Dial-a-Ride. This indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness, which reflects the significant increases in ridership compared to the increases in costs . 5. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, increased 1.2 percent systemwide based on audited data. This indicator decreased 6.3 percent on the fixed route yet increased 24.2 percent on Dial-a-Ride. 6. Passengers per vehicle service hour systemwide exhibited a notable increase of 80 percent. The fixed route indicator exceeded the systemwide figure and saw an increase of 90.5 percent over the audit period. Passengers per hour on Dial-a-Ride increased 4.7 percent. Systemwide, the number of passengers per service hour increased from 6.1 passengers in FY 2009 to 11 passengers in FY 2012. On fixed route, this indicator increased from 6.7 passengers per hour in FY 2009 to 12.8 passengers per hour in FY 2012. 7. The systemwide fare recovery ratio exhibited an overall increase based on audited data. The farebox figures include exemptions of fare revenues and operating costs from new services as calculated in the annual fiscal audits. Farebox for fixed route increased 47.6 percent, while Dial-a-Ride saw a decrease of 8.4 percent. Farebox recovery for fixed route Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 22 22 showed a significant spike during FY 2010 and attaining a ratio of 34.6 percent. Total systemwide revenues increased 41.5 percent over the same period. Fixed route passenger revenues increased 77.2 percent whereas Dial-a-Ride fare revenues decreased 9.8 percent. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 23 23 Section V Review of Operator Functions This section provides an in-depth review of various functions within Beaumont Transit System. The review highlights accomplishments, issues and/or challenges that were determined during the audit period. The following functions were reviewed at the City of Beaumont: Operations Maintenance Planning Marketing General Administration and Management Within some departments are sub-functions that require review as well, such as Grants Administration that falls under General Administration. Operations Beaumont Transit saw significant changes in its transit service provision during the audit period. The City assumed direct operations of the service, expanded routes, and added vehicles and other improvements during the audit period. Fort Worth, Texas-based McDonald Transit Associates had operated the transit system under contract for a number of years. Due to escalating costs approaching $32,000 monthly, the City decided to end its contract with McDonald on January 15, 2010. In August 2009, the City was informed by the Beaumont Unified School District that its middle and high school transportation services would be eliminated in FY 2010. Beaumont Transit responded by increasing service to meet the demand from students who relied on the District’s transportation services. The response included the addition of two additional fixed routes and tripper services. A tripper bus was added to Route 7 in August 2010 to increase ridership and accommodate students traveling to and from area schools. Beaumont added a total of five routes during the audit period. During FY 2011, two more routes (Routes 10 and 11) were added to meet the growing service demand. In addition, new development south of I-10 has also generated increased ridership. The city has seen new commercial development take shape with the opening of a Wal-Mart Supercenter and Home Depot along East 2nd Street as well as the Oak Valley Town Center. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 24 24 Route 8 was discontinued and converted to Commuter Link Route 120. In the course of the route conversion, Beaumont Transit added the Loma Linda University Medical Center as a stop along the route. Most routes consist of hourly headways; with the most productive routes consisting of 20 to 30 minute headways. From the expanded service, Beaumont acquired 10 new vehicles, auctioned 3 vehicles and sold one vehicle during the audit period. The most productive routes in order of passenger trips generated have been Routes 7, 4 and 2. These three routes serve major traffic generators in the service area such as ho spitals, schools and shopping centers. Route 7 serves Beaumont High School, two middle schools, the Oak Valley Shopping Center and the community of Cherry Valley located to the north. Route 4 serves the Wal-Mart Supercenter, Stater Brothers/Walgreens, the 2nd Street Marketplace and various school campuses and apartment complexes. Route 2 is the main east -west truck route and runs between Beaumont and the Cabazon Outlet Mall. All buses are equipped with five surveillance cameras and Motorola radio systems. The radio system underwent an upgrade as part of an overall upgrade to the City’s communication system spearheaded by the City Police Department. The upgrade to a five-channel trunked 800 Megahertz (MHz) system has allowed the Beaumont Police and other City departments to be on the same frequency with other county, state and federal public safety agencies in the event of a major emergency. In addition, the new radio system has allowed for better reception in more remote areas of the service area. Three peak vehicles are utilized on Dial-a-Ride. ADA-certified passengers have priority over other eligible riders on Dial-a-Ride including non-ADA passengers and seniors. The City uses a self- certification process with professional verification and accepts ADA certification by Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). This allows Beaumont to work under the umbrella of RTA’s ADA policy as a provider of ADA paratransit. There have been no ADA denials reported. Also, the City charges the standard Dial-a-Ride fare for “No-Shows” which is an optional practice allowable by Federal law in-lieu of suspensions. Beaumont utilizes Schedule View software in the scheduling of Dial-a-Ride trips, generating manifest and tracking “No-Shows.” Driver trip sheets for both service modes include sections for recording the passenger count and fare categories, fuel mileage, revenue hours and miles and yard hours and miles. The “yard” hours and miles include deadhead hours and mileage. Vehicles are equipped with Diamond vaulted fareboxes. At the end of each shift, drivers pull out the vaults but do not handle the revenues. The vaults are placed in a locked cabinet in the office of the Transit Operations Manager overnight. Fare revenues are counted the following day and reconciled with the trip sheets. The Transit Operations Manager prepares the deposit slips and the revenues are picked up by the Police Department and transported to the bank for deposit. The Finance Department receives a copy of the deposit record and matches it up with the deposit slip for comparison. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 25 25 Personnel By bringing transit operations in-house, Beaumont Transit personnel transitioned from a contracted staff to City employees. There are 14 employees, which include the Transit Operations Manager, Customer Service Coordinator, 2 mechanics and 10 drivers. Three employees including the Customer Service Coordinator and 2 drivers are part -time. The Transit Operations Manager fills the role of dispatcher. Staff turnover and attrition has been minimal with only one retirement. The City hired 4 new drivers in 2013 to serve growing demand. Drivers and non- exempt employees are represented by Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 721. Prospective drivers are recruited through job postings at City Hall and on the City’s website as well as through newspaper classified advertising. Candidates are required to submit an H -6 print out from the Department of Motor Vehicles as well as undergo an interview, background checks , Department of Transportation medical clearance and fingerprinting. Drivers are required to have Class B license with a passenger endorsement. School bus operator experience is considered a plus. Training consists of 40 hours behind-the-wheel instruction. There is no classroom training; however, drivers attend an orientation session as well as monthly safety meetings. Maintenance Vehicle maintenance is conducted on an A-B-C preventative maintenance inspection (PMI) schedule in accordance with federal and state protocols. Based on the PMI, vehicles are serviced at the A interval every 6,000 miles or 3 months; at the B interval every 12,000 miles or 6 months; and at the C interval every 24,000 miles or 9 months. Bus vehicle maintenance occurs at the City Fleet Maintenance facility located at 550 North California Avenue where transit operations are also based. The garage has 3 service bays ; however, the service bays cannot accommodate the vehicles due to their size. Therefore, a portable lift is used to service the vehicles outside. Two full-time City mechanics are assigned to transit vehicle maintenance. The CNG vehicles are fueled at stations located at the Beaumont Unified School District’s transportation yard and at the City of Banning corporate yard. These facilities are the only CNG stations in the service area large enough to meet the transit system’s demand. The California Highway Patrol is responsible for certifying Beaumont’s maintenance facilities and for inspecting vehicles on an annual basis. Inspections conducted during the audit period were rated satisfactory with the exception of inspections conducted in April 2011 which were rated unsatisfactory due to non-compliance with the Controlled Substance & Alcohol Testing Program. The terminal status was upgraded to satisfactory on July 23, 2012 after this issue was addressed. Roadcalls are tracked manually by dispatch. The number of roadcalls incurred during the audit period is summarized in Table V-1 below: Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 26 26 Table V-1 Beaumont Transit Roadcalls Year FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Total Roadcalls 22 18 16 56 Source: City of Beaumont The number of roadcalls decreased 27 percent during the period in spite of increased service demand which is a positive indicator. The decrease is attributed to the acquisition of newer vehicles that have lowered incidences of maintenance issues. A review of the fleet maintenance plan is part of the scope of the new Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) study which commenced in March 2013. Planning The City of Beaumont prepares a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) on an annual basis. The SRTP covers a three-year planning horizon and includes a system overview; services and performance analysis for each route and service provided; service changes; and financial and capital plans. Under the Existing Service and Route Performance chapter, a series of recommendations for service improvements is presented for each route or program. Performance data from TransTrack Manager is also included in the SRTP to provide an annual comparison. Beaumont must meet at least 4 out of 7 discretionary performance indicators. There is one mandatory indicator which is the farebox recovery ratio set at 10 percent. Table V-2 provides a summary of annual performance targets systemwide for the audit period. Table V-2 Beaumont Transit Performance Targets Performance Indicators FY 2009-10 Target FY 2010-11 Target FY 2011-12 Target Farebox Recovery >=10.00% >=10.00% >=10.00% Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour <=$74.25 <=$79.27 <=$62.88 Subsidy Per Passenger >=$9.09 & <=$12.29 >=$7.34 & <=$9.92 >=$4.44 & <=$6.00 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile >=$4.19 & <=$5.67 >=$3.53 & <=$4.77 >=$2.18 & <=$2.94 Subsidy Per Hour >=$55.11 & <=$74.55 >=$60.21 & <=$81.47 >=$47.80 & <=$64.68 Subsidy Per Mile >=$3.99 & <=$5.39 >=$4.34 & <=$5.88 >=$3.32 & <=$4.50 Passengers Per Revenue Hour >=5.19 & <=7.02 >=6.97 & <=9.43 >=9.18 & <=12.42 Passengers Per Revenue Mile >=0.37 & <=0.51 >=0.50 & <=0.68 >=0.64 & <=0.86 Source: City of Beaumont, TransTrack Manager According to the FY 2009-10 SRTP, Beaumont met all its performance indicator targets. For the FY 2010-11 SRTP, Beaumont also met and exceeded its performance indicator targets and for the FY 2011-12 SRTP, Beaumont only met 3 out of 7 performance indicator targets. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 27 27 Marketing Beaumont utilizes several media approaches in marketing its transit services. Printed schedules are available but are not widely distributed to save on cost. With this in mind, the City has relied primarily on electronic media to promote transit. The City of Beaumont website (http://www.ci.beaumont.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=90) contains a page devoted to the transit program. The transit page provides general information, fares and modal links to the fixed -route, commuter and Dial-a-Ride services as well as links to other regional transit services and trip planning tools. The trip planner interactive tool is powered by Google Transit. The City retained a GIS consultant to design a systemwide map to include all routes in the Pass service area. The City offers a text messaging service, which allows for mobile phone users to text "BMTtransit" to 90210 to receive text updates regarding Beaumont Transit. Beaumont also provides Quick Response (QR) Codes at bus stops for smart phone users to download transit information. With regard to social media, the City has both a Facebook page and a Twitter feed. The City issued a press release in November 2011 announcing monthly T.E.A.M. meetings on the first Wednesday of each month from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. T.E.A.M. stands for transportation, education, awareness and marketing. The intent of the meetings is to answer the public’s questions, provide educational materials and to receive comments from the public. The City uses the input received at the T.E.A.M. meetings to make route changes and improvements to the transit system. In an effort to encourage more youth riders, the City implemented the Pass Transit Youth Scholarship in January 2010. The scholarship is available for junior high and high school students on a bi-annual basis who reside in Beaumont Unified School District boundaries. The aim of this scholarship is to increase students’ knowledge of public transportation and stress the importance of community service. The scholarship is based on grade-point average (GPA), community involvement, and a recommendation from school faculty members. The Transit Operations Manager is the primary point of contact for complaints and whose email link is posted on the Web page. Most complaints received by the City were from the parents of student riders after the school district announced that school transportation for junior and senior high school students would be discontinued. In response, the City engaged the community in a public outreach campaign designed to educate students and their parents on how to use the system as well as implement a youth bus pass. Other complaints received from the general public have been negligible. General Administration and Management The City of Beaumont was incorporated November 18, 1912 as a General Law City and currently operates under a Council/Manager form of government. The five-member City Council serves as the City’s principal legislative body and each councilmember is elected for a four-year term. The Mayor and the Mayor Pro-Tem are elected from the City Council and serve one-year terms but no more than two consecutive terms. The City Council meets the first and third Tuesdays of each Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 28 28 month at 6:00 p.m. at the Beaumont Civic Center. The Council is reported to be supportive of the transit service. The City government is structured into three “super departments” overseen by the City Manager. Those departments are Community Services, Public Safety Services and Administrative Services. Transit services are placed under Administrative Services and overseen by the Resources Director. The Transit Operations Manager and part-time Customer Service Coordinator report to the Resources Director. The City’s annual TDA claim and transit budget are based on the prior year’s budget and the Finance Director’s analysis of the SRTP projections. Costs for service expansion are estimated and include projected employee compensation and benefit increases. The Finance Director is tasked with completion and submittal of the City’s TDA claim and external reports such as the Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller. As described in earlier sections of the audit report, the City has not completed the State Controller Report for the past two fiscal years. The prior performance audit had also indicated issues with timely completion and submittal of these reports. Grants Management Grant funding allocated toward the transit system has been derived from local and state sources. The primary source of transit funding support is derived from the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). The City submits the annual TDA claim for funds to RCTC. TDA claims are based on the City’s annual budget and the financial element of the SRTP. Reserve allocations for LTF and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds are included as separate line items on the claim form. The City’s LTF allocation was $1,078,650 in FY 2010; $1,018,000 in FY 2011; and $1,260,000 in FY 2012. According to the TDA fiscal audits the City’s deferred capital balance for TDA has been applied toward the purchase and installation of onboard security cameras, passenger amenities and bus shelters. The capital balance has been drawn down to zero. The City also received state Proposition 1B (PTMISEA) funds for vehicle purchases and bus shelter upgrades. RCTC served as the pass-through agency for Proposition 1B funds received by the City. Beaumont does not utilize federal transit funding for operating expenses. The Finance Director tracks the financial element of the SRTP and provides quarterly reporting to RCTC through the capital tracking report. A Management Analyst in Administrative Services updates the grant spreadsheet and the Resources Director is responsible for capital project management and procurement with approval of the Finance Director. The Management Analyst initiates grant application process and prepares the reporting. Beaumont’s purchasing guidelines generally involve piggybacking with other agencies’ bidding process. The City Procurement Officer is authorized to procure profes sional services and to issue task orders at a cost not to exceed $10,000 without prior approval of the City Council . For contracts of more than $10,000, approval is required from the City Council. The City utilizes Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 29 29 competitive procurement procedures that involve the release of a Request for Proposals, solicitation of proposals and an evaluation. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 30 30 Section VI Findings The following summarizes the major findings obtained from this Triennial Audit covering fiscal years 2010 through 2012. A set of recommendations is then provided. Triennial Audit Findings 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to Beaumont, the operator fully complied with six out of the eight applicable requirements. The City was not in compliance with regard to the submittal of the annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller and was in partial compliance with the timely submittal of its annual fiscal and compliance audits. 2. Beaumont met its farebox recovery standard of 10 percent during the audit period, although service expansion during the audit period allows for two full fiscal years of exemption. The farebox recovery ratios for fixed-route services were 34.57 percent in FY 2010, 17.05 percent in FY 2011; and 12.52 percent in FY 2012. Without the exemptions, fixed route farebox would have been lower in FY 2010 and about the same in FYs 2011 and 2012 but still meeting the farebox requirement each year, an indication of the relative success of the expanded services. The Dial-a-Ride farebox recovery ratios were 16.27 percent in FY 2010, 18.49 percent in FY 2011; and 14.59 percent in FY 2012. 3. The City of Beaumont participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program and received vehicle inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. Inspec tions conducted during the audit period were rated satisfactory with the exception of inspections conducted in April 2011, which were rated unsatisfactory due to non-compliance with the Controlled Substance & Alcohol Testing Program. The terminal status wa s upgraded to satisfactory on July 23, 2012 after this issue was addressed. 4. The operating budget exhibited notable changes during the audit period. Beaumont saw a 41.7 percent increase in its operating budget for FY 2010. The FY 2012 increase was attributed to increased service demand in response to the elimination of local school transportation services. The budget remained unchanged in FY 2011 and increased by 5.9 percent in FY 2012. 5. The prior audit recommendation regarding the need to complete and submit the State Controllers Reports in a timely manner was not implemented and has been carried forward in this audit for full implementation. 6. Operating costs systemwide increased 5.1 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data (full costs of system). By mode, fixed route Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 31 31 services saw its operating costs increase by 7.3 percent during the period. In contrast, Dial-a- Ride operating costs decreased 1.6 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012. 7. Ridership increased 86.9 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership increased 118.1 percent, while Dial-a-Ride ridership decreased 17 percent. Systemwide ridership between FYs 2009 and 2010 increased by 44.5 percent due primarily to the Beaumont Unified School District’s discontinuation of transportation services for middle and high school students. Systemwide ridership rose from 98,013 in FY 2009 to 141,629 in FY 2010. Fixed-route ridership increased 59.2 percent from between FY 2009 and FY 2010. 8. The provision of revenue hours and miles varied according to mode yet increased systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route revenue hours increased 14.5 percent, whereas vehicle service miles increased 8.8 percent. DAR revenue hours and miles decreased 20.7 and 28 percent, respectively between FY 2009 and FY 2012. Given the system realignment, systemwide vehicle service hours increased 3.8 percent and vehicle service miles decreased 0.5 percent. 9. Operating cost per passenger decreased 43.8 percent systemwide based on audited data. Cost per passenger decreased 50.8 percent on fixed route during the audit period, yet increased by 18.6 percent on Dial-a-Ride. This indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness, which reflects the significant increases in ridership compared to the increases in costs. 10. In August 2009, the City was informed by the Beaumont Unified School District that its middle and high school transportation services would be eliminated in FY 2010. Beaumont Transit responded by increasing service to meet the demand from students who relied on the District’s transportation services. 11. The City took over operations of the service from McDonald Transit Associates due to escalating costs approaching $32,000 monthly. The City ended its contract with McDonald on January 15, 2010, and the service was brought in-house. There are 14 transit employees comprising the Transit Operations Manager, Customer Service Coordinator, 2 mechanics and 10 drivers. Three employees including the Customer Service Coordinator and 2 drivers are part-time. 12. All buses are equipped with five surveillance cameras and Motorola radio systems. The radio system underwent an upgrade as part of an overall upgrade of the City’s communication system spearheaded by the City Police Department. The upgrade to a five-channel trunked 800 Megahertz (MHz) system has allowed the Beaumont Police and other City departments to be on the same frequency with other county, state and federal public safety agencies in the event of a major emergency. 13. The City retained a GIS consultant to design a systemwide map to include all routes in the Pass service area. The City offers a text messaging service, which allows for mobile phone users to text "BMTtransit" to 90210 to receive text updates regarding Beaumont Transit. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 32 32 Beaumont also provides Quick Response (QR) Codes at bus stops for smart phone users to download transit information. 14. In an effort to encourage more youth riders, the City implemented the Pass Transit Youth Scholarship in January 2010. The scholarship is available for junior high and high school students on a bi-annual basis who reside in Beaumont Unified School District boundaries. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 33 33 Recommendations 1. Ensure the timely completion and submittal of the annual State Controller Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports. (High Priority) This recommendation is carried over from the prior performance audit. For the current audit review period, the City did not complete or provide copies of its annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports for review for all three years. Pursuant to PUC 99243 (a), “the operators shall prepare and submit annual reports of their operation to the transportation planning agencies having jurisdictions over them and to the Controller within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year.” If the report is filed in electronic format as mandated by the State Controller, the report shall be furnished within 110 day after the close of the fiscal year. It is recommended that internal procedures be developed that provide the timeline and staff assignments to complete the annual report. The desktop procedures should be made available across finance department staff and made part of a finance orientation package in the event of turnover in the department. 2. Prepare and submit separate State Controller Reports for general public transit and specialized service. (High Priority) Beaumont’s annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller has historically combined information for both general public (Pass Transit Fixed Route) and specialized service for seniors and persons with disabilities (ADA-certified and non-certified). Although the State Controller’s Office has not provided notice to the City, written instructions by the State to prepare this particular report require separate reporting of these modes. In the General Instruction Form completed by the City, a selection must be made as to which mode of transit is represented in the report. The options are general public use or elderly/disabled. The Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report Instructions contain the following passages under the General Instruction Form: Transit operators providing two types of service, (general public use and transit service exclusively for the elderly/handicapped) must complete a separate report for each type of service. … a separate report must be filed for each type of service provided: General Public Use Service or Specialized Service exclusive for elderly and/or handicapped. For example, if an agency has received Article 4 and Article 8(c) monies to provide General Public Use Service, the agency should submit one report. If that agency has also received Article 4 monies to provide Triennial Performance Audit of City of Beaumont Transit – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 34 34 Specialized Service for the elderly and/or handicapped, then a r eport must be submitted for the Specialized Service operations. The submission of separate reports to the State Controller will demonstrate Beaumont’s pro- active approach to compliance with State reporting instructions. January 2014 ATTACHMENT 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... i Section I .......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction – Initial Review of RTPA Functions ........................................................... 1 Audit Methodology ..................................................................................................... 8 Section II ......................................................................................................................... 9 RTPA Compliance Requirements .................................................................................. 9 Section III ...................................................................................................................... 18 Prior Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations ............................................... 18 Section IV ...................................................................................................................... 22 Detailed Review of RTPA Functions ........................................................................... 22 Administration, Management and Coordination .................................................... 22 Transportation Planning and Programming............................................................ 25 TDA Claimant Relationships and Oversight ............................................................ 34 Public Information and External Affairs .................................................................. 37 Section V ....................................................................................................................... 40 Special Analysis ......................................................................................................... 40 Section VI ...................................................................................................................... 62 Findings ..................................................................................................................... 62 Triennial Audit Recommendations ............................................................................. 65 Triennial Performance Audit i RCTC Executive Summary The PMC team was retained by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) to conduct its Transportation Development Act (TDA) performance audit for Fiscal Years (FY) 2009- 10 through 2011-12. As a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), RCTC is required by Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99246 to prepare and submit an audit of its performance on a triennial basis to the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to continue to receive TDA funding. TDA funds are used for RCTC administration and planning, and distributed to local jurisdictions for motorized and non-motorized forms of transportation. This performance audit is intended to describe how well RCTC is meeting its administrative and planning obligations under TDA, as well as its organizational management and efficiency. To gather information for the TDA performance audit, PMC conducted interviews with agency staff and the transit operators within RCTC’s jurisdiction, reviewed various documents, and evaluated RCTC’s responsibilities, functions, and performance of the TDA guidelines and regulations. Below are findings from the analysis: 1. RCTC has satisfactorily complied with all State legislative mandates for Regional Transportation Planning Agencies. Management continues to be firmly committed to the intent of the Commission’s enabling legislation that called for a relatively small staff to carry out its growing responsibilities in planning, programming and project delivery. 2. The TDA mandate for RCTC to analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for the transit operators is strengthened through implementation of several activities including the approval of Short Range Transit Plans for each operator, performance monitoring on a regular basis using TransTrack, and assessment of productivity through the P roductivity Improvement Program (PIP). RCTC has been working with the operators to update the PIP as an evaluation tool and design of a new county-wide reporting structure. 3. RCTC ensures the submittal of required annual Transit State Controller Reports by the transit operators. The Controller’s Instructions for the report specify that an operator prepares separate reports for general public transit and for specialized se rvices for elderly and disabled. Only one of the four applicable operators (City of Banning) currently prepares both reports, whereas the others each submit one combined report for their entire respective systems. RCTC should verify that the other three operators (RTA, SunLine Transit, and City of Beaumont) comply with the Controller instructions and submit separate State Controller reports for general public transit and for specialized services. Triennial Performance Audit ii RCTC 4. The SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Adopted Policies were updated in January 2011 to include three additional provisions for the LTF reimbursement process. The provisions were added in response to recommendations made in the prior performan ce audit. 5. RCTC has responded to and fully implemented four of the five prior performance audit recommendations. The remaining prior recommendation is in progress of being fully implemented relating to resolving the local transportation funds account for local street and road expenditures in the City of Blythe. 6. Commencing with the renewal of Measure A in 2010, the agency’s implementation of its strategic plan has played a key role in the success to administer the highway capital program as well as major transit programs such as the Perris Valley Commuter Rail Line. RCTC has been able to accomplish this level of activity by using Measure A’s revenue stream and RCTC’s track record of delivering projects to issue bonds at favorable interest rates and also to compete successfully for awards of federal and state transportation funds including a loan from the TIFIA program. 7. Ensuring the efficient distribution and expenditure of transit funds is a critical element of RCTC’s oversight role. To strengthen its ability to coordinate efficient and effective transit service, RCTC established the Transit Operator Working Group (TOWG) comprised of the county transit operators. The coordination of services and operations is intended to reduce redundancy, enable transfers, identify deficiencies in connectivity and the means in which to resolve them and therefore, provide a more efficient transit system for the people of Riverside County. RCTC coordinates the annual update to the SRTP through the TOWG as the means to justify transit service and capital expenditures. 8. In May 2012, RCTC finalized an update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County. This document brings current the 2008 Coordinated Plan and is significant as the updated plan helps support and provide guidance and rationale for additional funding requests by public transit providers as well as by human services partners. 9. A Local Transportation Fund reserve policy and funding disbursement policy are in place to ensure that operator budgets do not exceed available funds. The reserve policy sets aside 10 percent of apportionments that could be drawn down pending approval of a request by an operator and a budget and SRTP amendment. The Commission also holds an annual call for projects to administer LTF non-motorized funding, as well as a biennial call for projects to disburse federal transit funds for specialized transportation services. 10. To ensure efficient use of existing capital funds, the Commission adopted revised policies in March 2010, requiring all operators to spend down existing TDA capital balances prior to requesting additional TDA capital funds. In order for the public transit operators to claim LTF and/or STA funds, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services Triennial Performance Audit iii RCTC and capital projects contained in the SRTPs. The requested allocations are consistent with the approved SRTPs, and the funds are explicitly for the projects stated in the approved plans. 11. As no TDA has been allocated to streets and roads since 2009, RCTC received confirmation in a letter from Caltrans in May 2010 that the Commission must still conduct at least one transit public hearing in compliance with the law and involve the Citizens Advisory Committee. A meeting was held in Banning in May 2011 to solicit comments for FY 2011-12. The Commission should ensure that the annual public hearing is rotated in a manner such that a meeting is held in each of the transit operator jurisdictions in the County to assist the operators and their communities in identifying potential transit needs. 12. Given the broad and relatively unique dispersion of public information and outreach duties among staff located in different departments, RCTC makes an effort to ensure strong internal coordination for consistent messaging and distribution of information to the public and media. This is especially critical given the heightened use and speed of technology and on-line public information distribution combined with RCTC’s increased use of separate websites for major project development efforts. RCTC should continue to review the current communications and outreach structure and its internal and external activity flow as public outreach strategies become even more critical to the success of all RCTC programs . Four recommendations are provided to improve RCTC’s administration and management of TDA and its organization. Each recommendation is described in detail in the last chapter of this audit, and is summarized below: Performance Audit Recommendations: 1. Ensure transit operators complete and submit separate State Controller Reports for general public transit and for specialized services. There is a requirement guiding the Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report that the transit operator prepares separate reports for general public transit and for specialized services. The requirement is contained in the State Controller Instructions, and on the report cover sheet. Only one of the four applicable operators (City of Banning) currently prepares both reports whereas the others each submit one combined report for their entire respective systems. RCTC should verify that the other three operators (RTA, SunLine Transit, and City of Beaumont) comply with the requirement and submit separate State C ontroller reports for general public transit and for specialized services. 2. Update PIP procedures and reporting tool for transit performance metrics. Toward the end of the audit period, RCTC conducted a comprehensive review of the PIP to ensure that policy, criteria, and targets are both fair and achievable by the operators in light of the current economic conditions. In response, RCTC has been working with a consultant Triennial Performance Audit iv RCTC to develop a new reporting tool that provides greater context to the performance da ta in a user friendly manner and highlights the connectivity aspects of public transit, among other presentation elements. Under development is the State of Transit Performance Measurement Program designed to be a county-wide reporting structure that will present transit impacts from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective based on PIP analysis and other metric factors. RCTC should document the method and procedures for developing an updated performance measurement program. 3. Rotate annual transit needs hearings among transit system jurisdictions . RCTC should ensure that the annual public hearing is rotated in a manner such that a meeting is held in or near each of the transit operator jurisdictions in the County on a regular basis (e.g. every two or three years) to assist the operators and their communities identify potential transit needs. Also, given that the majority of CAC members reside in Western Riverside County, the Commission should give consideration to attracting additional potential members from Eastern Riverside County through expansion of the existing CAC. Representatives from both Western and Eastern Riverside County would then attend a public hearing in their respective areas of the County to engage their local transit constituents. 4. Develop a chart outlining the implementation of public affairs and communications services. Although the Commission does not have a separate public affairs department, as depicted in personnel organization charts, RCTC makes concerted effort to ensure strong internal coordination among staff and its external partners for consistent messaging and updated distribution of information to the public and media given the heightened use and speed of on-line public communication and creation of separate websites by RCTC for major infrastructure projects. RCTC should continue to review the current communications and outreach structure and its internal and external activity flow as public outreach strategies become even more critical to the success of all RCTC progra ms (highway and transit). This includes a suggestion for RCTC staff to develop a flow chart that maps out the strategies and processes undertaken to deliver and update each communication program (e.g. monthly and annual newsletters, social media feeds, website development and maintenance, etc.) and identify the timelines for key decision points, cross departmental communication, and responsible staff for consistent and timely messaging. The chart could be used by staff to enhance current communications prot ocols and provide checks of information and identify any gaps in the communication process. Triennial Performance Audit 1 RCTC Section I Introduction – Initial Review of RTPA Functions The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC or Commission) retained PMC, in association with CH2M Hill, to conduct its Transportation Development Act (TDA) performance audit covering the most recent triennial period, Fiscal Years (FY) 200 9-10 through 2011-12. As a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), RCTC is required by Public Utilities Code (PUC) Sections 99246 to prepare and submit an audit of its performance on a triennial basis to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in order to continue to receive TDA funding. This performance audit, as required by TDA, is intended to describe how well RCTC is meeting its administrative and planning obligations under TDA. Overview of RCTC RCTC was established by state legislative statute (AB 1276, Chapter 1333) in September 1976. The Commission was initially governed by a board of seven Commiss ioners representing the interests of communities within Riverside County. Today, RCTC’s membership totals 34 Commissioners comprising elected official from each of the county’s 28 incorporated cities, all five county supervisors and a non-voting ex-officio member from Caltrans, District 8 appointed by the Governor. The member jurisdictions include the following entities: Table I-1 RCTC Member Jurisdictions County of Riverside City of Eastvale City of Norco City of Banning City of Hemet City of Palm Desert City of Beaumont City of Indian Wells City of Palm Springs City of Blythe City of Indio City of Perris City of Calimesa City of Jurupa Valley City of Rancho Mirage City of Canyon Lake City of Lake Elsinore City of Riverside City of Cathedral City City of La Quinta City of San Jacinto City of Coachella City of Menifee City of Temecula City of Corona City of Moreno Valley City of Wildomar City of Desert Hot Springs City of Murrieta Riverside County is geographically located in Southern California, stretching nearly 200 miles across. The County is bordered by San Bernardino County on the north, Orange County on the west, San Diego and Imperial Counties on the south, and the Colorado River on the east. Riverside County was created in 1893 from parts of San Bernardino and San Diego Counties. Triennial Performance Audit 2 RCTC The county derives its name from the City of Riverside, christened when the upper canal of the Santa Ana River reached it in 1871. The county’s geography encompasses over 7,200 square miles and is traversed by 886 miles of highways and 2,600 miles of County-maintained roadways. Based upon the 2010 U.S. Census, the county’s population was about 2.2 million residents. This marks an increase of about 42 percent from the Census 2000 County po pulation and currently ranks fourth largest in the State. The most populous cities in the County in 2013 include Riverside (311,955), Moreno Valley (198,129), Corona (156,823), Murrieta (105,832), and Temecula (104,879). Against this backdrop of rapid population growth, Riverside County’s econ omy has become increasingly diverse and robust. This is attributed to the economy’s construction and industrial capacity. Interstate 10 (I-10), 15 (I-15) and 215 (I-215) corridors, and State Routes 60 and 91 are major development corridors for employment centers and trade. However, recovery in the local Inland Empire economy has been slow. The unemployment rate remains relatively high although it has been decreasing while the housing market continues to be challenged. The economic and population trends have created the need to plan and implement a myriad of transportation projects with investments in highway capacity, toll road development, rail transit, and express bus service that links all of it together. RCTC has been a conduit for financing a number of local projects. In just four years inclusive of 2011 through 2014, more than $4 billion in construction spending will be devoted to transportation projects constructed by RCTC, the County of Riverside, local ci ties, or the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). RCTC has committed itself to be an effective facilitator of mobility throughout the county. Role of RCTC When RCTC was established by the State Legislature in 1976 as part of a reform of transportation planning and programming throughout Southern California, its mission was to plan and program transportation improvements for Riverside County. To this end, RCTC was designated a regional transportation planning agency (RTPA) for state transpor tation planning and programming purposes. RCTC is responsible for setting policies, establishing priorities, and coordinating activities among the County’s various transit operators and other agencies. The Commission also programs and/or reviews the allocation of federal, state, and local funds for highway, transit, rail, non -motorized travel (bicycle and pedestrian), and other transportation activities. The Commission serves as the tax authority and implementation agency for the voter approved Measure A Transportation Improvement Program. Measure A was originally approved by the County’s electorate in 1988 and imposed a half cent sales tax to fund specific programs that commenced in July 1989. The 1989 Measure A was approved for 20 years and expired on June Triennial Performance Audit 3 RCTC 30, 2009. On November 5, 2002, the voters of Riverside County approved the renewal of Measure A beginning in July 2009 through June 2039. The Commission also provides motorist aid services designed to expedite traffic flow. These services include the Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (SAFE), a program that provides call box service for motorists; the Freeway Service Patrol (FSP), a roving tow truck service to assist motorists with disabled vehicles on the main highways of the County durin g peak rush hour traffic periods; and Inland Empire 511 (IE511), a traveler information system. These services are provided at no charge to motorists and are funded through a $1 surcharge on vehicle registrations. RCTC is legally responsible for allocating Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds, the major source of funds for transit in the County. In addition, the Commission has been designated as the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for the County. As the CMA, the Commission coordinates with local jurisdictions in the establishment of congestion mitigation procedures for the County’s roadway system. RCTC also received State and Federal Tolling Authority to pursue major projects that include tolled roadways. Organizational Structure As noted above, RCTC’s governing body comprises 33 voting members and one non-voting member from Caltrans, District 8. The Board has six total committees to assist in providing policy recommendations in its decision -making process. The revised Administrative Code of RCTC includes four committees comprised of members of the board. Two additional committees are composed of non -board members. During the audit period, the Plans and Programs Committee was split into two, one representing the Eastern portion of the County and the other representing the Western portion , to help advance the project delivery process. The committees consist of the following: Committee Purpose and Function Executive Committee Reviews and makes final decisions on personnel issues and office operational matters. The committee is composed of the Chair, Vice Chair, Second Vice Chair, Past Chair, four representatives from cities in Western and Eastern Riverside County, and three members of the Board of Supervisors. The Executive Committee meets the second Wednesday of the month. Budget and Implementation Committee Oversees budgetary and financial matters of the Commission as well as construction contracts, grant allocations, and motorist assistance programs. Composed of up to 15 regular members of the Commission selected by the Chair, with at least 9 members being from Western Riverside County and at Triennial Performance Audit 4 RCTC Committee Purpose and Function least 4 members from Eastern Riverside County. The committee provides oversight on annual budget development and oversight, competitive state and federal grant programs, countywide communications and outreach programs, countywide strategic plan, legislation, short range transit plans (SRTP), and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. This committee meets the fourth Monday of the month. Eastern Riverside County Programs and Projects Oversees transportation capital projects in the Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys. Composed of all regular members of the Commission representing the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley area cities and, at the discretion of the Chair, one or both of the Supervisors representing some or all of those areas. The committee provides policy direction on transportation projects and programs that impact the Coachella Valley and Palo Verde Valley areas of the county. The subject matter may include, but is not limited to air quality, capital projects, communications and outreach programs, specific transit projects, intermodal programs, motorist services, new corridors, regional agencies/regional planning, Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) related to the Coachella and Palo Verde Valleys, and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. This committee meets the first Monday of the month. Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Oversees transportation capital projects in Western Riverside County. Composed of up to 12 Western Riverside County regular members of the Commission. The committee provide policy direction on subject matter that may include, but is not limited to: air quality, capital projects, communications and outreach programs, specific transit projects, intermodal programs, motorist services, new corridors, regional agencies/regional planning, Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program related to Western Riverside County, and other areas as may be prescribed by the Commission. This committee meets the fourth Monday of the month. Triennial Performance Audit 5 RCTC Committee Purpose and Function Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (non-board member) Comprised of citizen members appointed by the Commission. Also meets the statutory requirement for the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council. This committee reviews Short Range Transit Plans and transit coordination issues, and participates in the transit needs hearings. The committee meets as scheduled. Technical Advisory Committee (non-board member) Comprised of city and county public works directors or city managers. This committee meets on the third Monday of every other month. In addition, the Commission Chair or the Chairs of the policy committees have the authority to create ad hoc committees on specific is sues. Ad hoc committees are legally required to be temporary and focused on a single issue and are not required to meet on a regular basis. Prior to hearing by the full Commission, business items related to RCTC’s transportation programs are reviewed by the appropriate committees. Committee members are allowed opportunities to examine the items in detail prior to making recommendations to the full Commission. This provides a formal process for staff to communicate its analyses of policies, programs and projects with its board members, and also enables Commissioners to make informed public policy decisions. Documentation provided by RCTC shows that during the audit period, RCTC has provided detailed staff reports on a regular basis to its committees. The RCTC organization chart during the audit period is shown in Figure I-1. Triennial Performance Audit 6 RCTC Figure I-1 Organization Chart Source: RCTC CAFR Triennial Performance Audit 7 RCTC According to the annual Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, RCTC’s annual revenue for the fiscal years covered by this performance audit ranged from $227.3 million in FY 2010 to $240.6 million in FY 2011, and to $280.5 million in FY 2012.1 The revenues include both program revenue and general revenue including Measure A and TDA. TDA revenues increased as a result of the state’s reinstatement of the State Transit Assistance funds and an increase in Local Transportation fund revenues due to the modest economic recovery in the region. RCTC’s annual expenditures ranged from $179.6 million in FY 2010 to $218.9 million in FY 2011, and to $230.8 million in FY 2012.2 This increase was due to expenditures for major programs such as highway, local streets and roads, and transit. During this period, general government expenses increased which includes RCTC salaries and benefits. General government expenses were $7.0 million in FY 2010, $8.4 million in FY 2011, and $7.8 million in FY 2012 . It is recognized that RCTC increased its staffing levels from 39 to 41 FTEs between FYs 2010 and 2012 to manage its growing programs, in particular Capital Project Development and Delivery. 1 Annual CAFR, Statement of Activities. 2 Ibid. Triennial Performance Audit 8 RCTC Audit Methodology To gather information for this performance audit, PMC accomplished the following activities: Document Review: PMC conducted an extensive review of documents including various RCTC files and internal reports, committee agendas and public documents. Interviews: PMC interviewed RCTC Executive and Management staff as well as the transit operators under RCTC’s jurisdiction. Analysis: PMC evaluated the responses from the interviews a s well as the documents reviewed about RCTC’s responsibilities, functions and performance to TDA guidelines and regulations. Additional research was conducted in audit areas that required further analysis. Special Analysis: Conducted special analysis on transit capital grant programs and management at the request of RCTC. The remainder of this report is divided into five sections. In Section II, PMC provides a review of the compliance requirements of the TDA administrative process. Section III describes RCTC’s responses to the recommendations provided in the previous performance audit. In Section IV, PMC provides a detailed review of RCTC’s functions, while Section V details the findings from the special analysis on transit capital grants. The last section summarizes our findings and recommendations. Triennial Performance Audit 9 RCTC Section II RTPA Compliance Requirements Fourteen key compliance requirements are suggested in the “Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Entities” which was developed by Caltrans to assess RCTC’s conformance with TDA . Our findings concerning RCTC’s compliance with State legislative requirements are summarized in Table II -1. TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts All transportation operators and city or county governments which have responsibility for serving a given area, in total, claim no more than those Local Transportation Fund (LTF) monies apportioned to that area. Public Utilities Code, Section 99231 RCTC accounts for its claimants’ areas of apportionment and has not allowed those claimants to claim more than what is apportioned for their area. RCTC makes this finding in each adopted resolution approving LTF claims. RCTC has an adopted LTF reserve and funding disbursement policy for the apportionments. RCTC allocates LTF based on population to determine each claimant’s apportionments, according to law. Mid- year projections of LTF provide updated apportionment data to the claimants. Conclusion: Complied. The RTPA has adopted rules and regulations delineating procedures for the submission of claims for facilities provided for the exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles. Public Utilities Code, Sections 99233.3 and 99234 RCTC has an adopted set of policies governing the Article 3 (SB 821) Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program. Initial policies were adopted in December 1986 with additional policies enacted over time, the latest update in January 2011. An evaluation committee comprised of three non-project proposal submitting Technical Advisory Committee members and up to three additional evaluators annually evaluate proposed projects according to seven evaluation criteria. The evaluation committee will allocate funds to projects Triennial Performance Audit 10 RCTC TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts in order of highest ranking to lowest ranking until all Article 3 funds have been allocated. Conclusion: Complied. The RTPA has established a social services transportation advisory council. The RTPA must ensure that there is a citizen participation process which includes at least an annual public hearing. Public Utilities Code, Sections 99238 and 99238.5 RCTC has established a Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) required under PUC 99238. The SSTAC also serves as the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC). With all TDA being spent on transit in the County since 2009, Caltrans provided clarification in a letter dated May 2010 that only one public hearing is required anywhere in the County to carry out the citizen participation process under PUC 99238.5. Starting in 2011, RCTC has since held at least one public hearing annually. The committee comprises 11 members who collectively exceed the minimum membership requirements for a SSTAC under PUC 99238. The TDA statute enables RCTC to add additional members at its discretion. Two of the members are active in community transit interests. Bylaws of the CAC/SSTAC were enacted in May 2001. Per a decision made by the CAC and RCTC in May 2010 to modify the CAC/SSTAC by-laws, the Chair and Vice- Chair of the committee serve two years rather than one. The SSTAC participates on a number of issues including the annual unmet transit needs hearings, coordination of specialized transportation services, oversight in administering TDA funds, review of SB-821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program, participation in the Triennial Performance Audit 11 RCTC TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts Universal Call for Projects for Specialized Transit, and review of Short Range Transit Plans. The committee generally meets as scheduled. Several of the existing CAC/SSTAC members have been on the committee for many years. Several members fulfill multiple required positions such as holding membership as a social service provider for seniors and disabled, and also providing disabled services while being a transit user. Conclusion: Complied The RTPA has annually identified, analyzed and recommended potential productivity improvements which could lower the operating costs of those operators which operate at least 50 percent of their vehicle service miles within the RTPA’s jurisdiction. Recommendations include, but are not limited to, those made in the performance audit. A committee for the purpose providing advice on productivity improvements may be formed. The operator has made a reasonable effort to implement improvements recommended by the RTPA, as determined by the RTPA, or else the Public Utilities Code, Section 99244 The Commission meets this requirement through the adoption and approval of the Short Range Transit Plans (SRTP) which detail the operating and capital costs for planned transit services for both bus and commuter rail. The Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) was designed to assist in the SRTP process and meet state PUC requirements by establishing objective criteria for assessing productivity improvement opportunities. The program is part of the Commission’s comprehensive effort to work with the county’s eight public transit operators to improve system efficiency, provide better service and manage costs. To accomplish this, the PIP establishes both mandatory and discretionary performance targets that are evaluated against the operator’s actual performance. The PIP requires all operators to meet a single mandatory target and seven discretionary targets. Conclusion: Complied Triennial Performance Audit 12 RCTC TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts operator has not received an allocation which exceeds its prior year allocation. The RTPA has ensured that all claimants to whom it allocates Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds submits to it and to the state controller an annual certified fiscal and compliance audit within 180 days after the end of the fiscal year (December 27). The RTPA may grant an extension of up to 90 days as it deems necessary (March 26). Public Utilities Code, Section 99245 For the audit period, RCTC received most of the fiscal and compliance audits from the claimants by the established dates set by the State Controller. Fiscal audits by only a few claimants were issued after the time extension. RCTC suspended TDA payments until the audit reports were issued. The delay was due to the fact that the fiscal auditors were awaiting approval by the RCTC Chief Financial Officer on the reports which was delayed due to heavy workload as well as resolution of open items. The audit work was substantially done, but the report issuance process had been delayed. Conclusion: Complied The RTPA has designated an independent entity to conduct a performance audit of operators and itself (for the current and previous triennium). For operators, the audit was made and calculated the required performance indicators, and the audit report was transmitted to the entity that allocates the operator’s TDA monies and to the RTPA within 12 months after the end of the triennium. If an operator’s audit was not transmitted by the start of the second fiscal year following the last fiscal year of the triennium, TDA Public Utilities Code, Sections 99246 and 99248 For the current three year period, RCTC has retained PMC to conduct the performance audit of RCTC and the seven transit operators. Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio & Associates, P.C. was retained to conduct the previous audit of RCTC for the three fiscal years that ended June 30, 2009. Mayer Hoffman McCann, P.C. conducted the previous audits of the transit operators. Conclusion: Complied Triennial Performance Audit 13 RCTC TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts funds were not allocated to that operator for that or subsequent fiscal years until the audit was transmitted. The RTPA has submitted a copy of its performance audit to the Director of the California Department of Transportation. In addition, the RTPA has certified in writing to the Director, that the performance audits of the operators located in the area under its jurisdiction have been completed. Public Utilities Code, Section 99246(c) RCTC submitted a written letter to Caltrans, dated September 28, 2010, certifying compliance with this requirement. The letter was enclosed with the FY 2006/07-2008/09 performance audit of RCTC and a statement that the operator performance audits were completed. Conclusion: Complied The performance audit of the operator providing public transportation service shall include a verification of the operator’s operating cost per passenger, operating cost per vehicle service hour, passengers per vehicle service mile, and vehicle service hours per employee, as defined in Section 99247. The performance audit shall include, but not be limited to, consideration of the needs and types of passengers being served and the employment of part-time drivers and the contracting with common carriers of persons operating under a franchise or license to provide services during peak hours, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 99260.2 Public Utilities Code, Section 99246(d) The performance audit of each transit operator in Riverside County includes all required elements. Conclusion: Complied Triennial Performance Audit 14 RCTC TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The RTPA has established rules and regulations regarding revenue ratios for transportation operators providing services in urbanized and new urbanized areas. Public Utilities Code, Section 99270.1 and 99270.2 There are two transit operators under RCTC’s jurisdiction, RTA and SunLine Transit, that serve both urbanized and non-urbanized areas. RCTC developed rules and regulations with Caltrans approval for determining the minimum fare ratios for these operators. The formula methodology and fare ratio calculations are annually submitted to Caltrans for concurrence by April 1 preceding the fiscal year for which the calculation takes place. Conclusion: Complied The RTPA has adopted criteria, rules and regulations for the evaluation of claims under Article 4.5 of the TDA and the determination of the cost- effectiveness of the proposed community transit services. Public Utilities Code, Section 99275.5 RCTC utilizes Measure A local transportation sales tax revenues as well as federal funds under the Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) and New Freedom (NF) programs to fund specialized community transit services. As such, Article 4.5 funds are not apportioned. Conclusion: Not Applicable State transit assistance funds received by the RTPA are allocated only for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes. Public Utilities Code, Sections 99310.5 and 99313.3 and Proposition 116 RCTC allocates State Transit Assistance (STA) funds for transit purposes only. To ensure efficient use of existing capital funds, the Commission adopted revised policies in March 2010 requiring all operators to spend down existing TDA capital balances prior to requesting additional TDA capital funds. Conclusion: Complied The amount received pursuant to Public Utilities Code, Section 99314.3; by each RTPA for state transit assistance is Public Utilities Code, Section 99314.3 RCTC allocates operator revenue-based STA funds to the operators in accordance with the amounts published by the State Controller’s Office. Triennial Performance Audit 15 RCTC TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts allocated to the operators in the area of its jurisdiction as allocated by the State Controller’s Office. Conclusion: Complied If TDA funds are allocated to purposes not directly related to public or specialized transportation services, or facilities for exclusive use of pedestrians and bicycles, the transit planning agency has annually: Consulted with the Social Services Transportation Advisory Council (SSTAC) established pursuant to Public Utilities Code, Section 99238; Identified transit needs, including: o Groups that are transit-dependent or transit disadvantaged, o Adequacy of existing transit services to meet the needs of groups identified, and o Analysis of potential alternatives to provide transportation services; Adopted or re-affirmed definitions of “unmet transit needs” and “reasonable to meet;” Identified the unmet transit needs and those needs that are reasonable to meet; Adopted a finding that there are no unmet transit Public Utilities Code, Section 99401.5 Since 2009, all TDA funds are used exclusively for public transit in Riverside County. Per a clarification letter issued by Caltrans in May 2010, RCTC continues to hold an annual public hearing to solicit transit comments in compliance with law. Conclusion: Complied Triennial Performance Audit 16 RCTC TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts needs that are reasonable to meet; or that there are unmet transit needs including needs that are reasonable to meet. If a finding is adopted that there are unmet transit needs, these needs must have been funded before an allocation was made for streets and roads. The RTPA has caused an audit of its accounts and records to be performed for each fiscal year by the county auditor, or a certified public accountant. The RTPA must transmit the resulting audit report to the State Controller within 12 months of the end of each fiscal year, and must be performed in accordance with the Basic Audit Program and Report Guidelines for California Special Districts prescribed by the State Controller. The audit shall include a determination of compliance with the transportation development and accompanying rules and regulations. Financial statements may not commingle the state transit assistance fund, the local transportation fund, or other revenues or funds of any city, county or other agency. The RTPA must maintain fiscal and accounting records and supporting papers for at least California Administrative Code, Section 6662 The accounting firm of McGladrey, LLP provided the independent auditor’s report of RCTC for FYs 2010 through 2012. The Audited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports were submitted to the State Controller within 12 months of the end of each fiscal year. RCTC also maintains fiscal and accounting records and supporting papers for at least four years following the fiscal year close. Conclusion: Complied Triennial Performance Audit 17 RCTC TABLE II-1 RCTC Compliance Requirements Matrix RCTC Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts four years following the fiscal year close. Findings and Observations from RTPA Compliance Requirements Matrix RCTC has satisfactorily complied w ith all State legislative mandates for Regional Transportation Planning Agencies. The TDA mandate for RCTC to analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for the transit operators is strengthened through implementation of several activities including the approval of SRTPs for each operator, performance monitoring on a regular basis using TransTrack, and assessment of productivity through the PIP. RCTC has been working with the operators to update the PIP as an evaluation tool. Although not contained in the RTPA compliance matrix, PUC 99243 specifies submittal of the annual State Controller Report by each operator. The Controller’s Instructions for the report specify that an operator prepares separate reports for general public transit and for specialized services for elderly and disabled, and to submit the two reports to the State Controller and the Transportation Planning Agency (RCTC). Only one of the four applicable operators (City of Banning) currently prepares both reports, whereas the others each submit one combined report for their entire respective systems. RCTC s hould verify that the other three operators (RTA, SunLine Transit, and City of Beaumont) comply with the requirement and submit separate State Controller reports for general public transit and for specialized services . As follow up, a recommendation is made in the performance audit of each of these operators to comply with this provision. The SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Adopted Policies were updated in January 2011 to include three additional provisions for the LTF reimbursement process. They are: (1) agencies receiving an award is reimbursed in arrears only upon proof of satisfactory project completion; (2) if an agency provides a local match commitment on a project and the project is completed under budget, the agency will be reimburs ed at the matching ratio in effect at the time of project selection and approval; (3) agencies awarded funds will not be reimbursed for any project cost overruns. Triennial Performance Audit 18 RCTC Section III Prior Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations This chapter describes the RCTC ’s response to the recommendations included in the prior triennial performance audit. For this purpose, each prior recommendation for the agency is described, followed by a discussion of the agency’s efforts to implement the recommendation. Conclusions concerning the extent to which the recommendations have been adopted by the agency are then presented. Prior Recommendation 1 RCTC should revise the performance measures and reporting cycle for the commuter rail program to be consistent with the measures in use and data provided by Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) for Metrolink service. Actions taken by RCTC: The recommendation had three parts for implementation. The first part recommended that RCTC utilize the same schedule of performance reporting as SCRRA which is on a quarterly basis. This reduces RCTC staff from estimating data on a monthly basis for the TransTrack program and in between the SCRRA reporting intervals. Staff instead requests quarterly reporting from Metrolink and enters the data into TransTrack for consistency. The quarterly reports are aggregated into an annual presentation to the Commission concurrent with the annual funding recommendation for Metrolink services as part of the regular budget process. The second part recommended that RCTC change the farebox recovery goal for its Metrolink service from 40 percent to 20 percent to be consistent with SCRRA’s performance standard. The PIP continues to show a farebox recovery target of 40 percent which is a hi gher standard. The third part recommended that RCTC receive the TDA Triennial Performance Audit of Metrolink operations. RCTC staff regularly requests copies of the audits and will continue to do so. Conclusion: This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 2 RCTC should update the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Program Policies and Procedures. Triennial Performance Audit 19 RCTC Actions taken by RCTC: As discussed in the prior section, the bicycle and pedestrian facility program policies were updated in 2011 to reflect the prior performance audit recommendations. They included maintaining the same match requirements despite a lower project cost, and providing evidence of project completion prior to reimbursement including providing photo documentation. Regarding the issue of pedestrian/bicycle bias in light of few bicycle projects being selected in the prior triennial period, an evaluation committee comprised of three members of each of the Commission's Technical Advisory Committee and Citizens Advis ory Committee considers seven factors when scoring and ranking the applications. The factors include: Use; Safety; Importance as Transportation Alternative; Missing Link, Extension, or Connectivity; Matching Funds; Population Equity; and Physical Accessibility Enhancement. Through the SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Call for Projects, the majority of the awarded projects have been sidewalk improvements and construction. Conclusion: This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 3 RCTC should develop a comprehensive procedure manual for the transit productivity improvement program including calculations of performance measures, data sources, use of TransTrack, etc. Actions taken by RCTC: The PIP is designed to be used as a tool to review transit services to ensure compliance with the farebox recovery ratio and to provide effective transit services . To be in compliance with the PIP, a bus operator needs to meet or exceed the required fare box recovery ratio and meet or exceed four of seven discretionary targets. RCTC staff developed a procedure manual in October 2011 detailing the current PIP process, thereby implementing the recommendation. The procedure manual is contained under the overall directions provided by the TransTrack instructional guide. Procedures are provided on calculating PIP targets and inputting them into TransTrack which collects and calculates the performance indicators for each of the transit operators . As a module within TransTrack, RCTC is able to develop spreadsheets comparing operator performance against the PIP targets as well as make adjustments. The data is also used for the Short Range Transit Plan Data Input & Reporting process. More recently, RCTC has been working to change the PIP in response to performance metrics from bus services since the economic recession and its impact on transit operator performance. Staff indicated that the PIP, as is currently configured, has its limitations as a stand -alone tool to Triennial Performance Audit 20 RCTC accurately assess transit performance i n relation to economic and policy conditions guiding transit operator decisions over the last several years. As a result, the manual will need to be updated to include the new reporting tools based on the State of Transit Performance Program that is currently being finalized by a consultant. Conclusion: This recommendation has been implemented. A follow up recommendation is made to complete an update to the manual based on the State of Transit Performance Program. Prior Recommendation 4 RCTC should closely monitor transit operators’ compliance with PUC Section 99271, which requires transit operators to fully fund the current cost of its retirement system or have a plan approved by the transportation planning agency, which will fully fund the system within 40 years. Actions taken by RCTC: At the time the prior performance audit was developed, CalPERS was determining that it would likely raise contribution rates for its pension plans due to declining investments . RCTC has continued to monitor the transit operators’ com pliance regarding retirement system funding through the annual operator financial audit process. Each financial audit describes the retirement system funding condition. For municipal systems, the excess, if any, of the actuarially computed value of vested benefits over the amounts available in the pension fund would be a liability of the City as a whole, not of the Transit Services Fund. The RCTC CFO provides sign off of the fiscal audit for each operator prior to final issuance. Conclusion: This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 5 RCTC should work with the City of Blythe to resolve the city’s continued use of the local transportation funds account for local streets and road expenditures that are not funded by the Commission under Article 8. This would eliminate the unnecessary required annual Article 8 audit expenditures that has been paid by the Commission for the last seven years. Action taken by RCTC: Following the completion of the FY 2009-10 Article 8 audit of the city, RCTC initiated discussions with the city to close this fund due to lack of Article 8 funding. RCTC staff indicated that this Triennial Performance Audit 21 RCTC issue is on-going and has been working with the city to resolve the practice of assigning expenditures to the Article 8 account and address the resulting fund deficit. Conclusion: This recommendation is in progress of being implemented. Triennial Performance Audit 22 RCTC Section IV Detailed Review of RTPA Functions In this section, a detailed assessment of RCTC’s functions and performance as a RTPA during this audit period is provided. Adapted from Caltrans’ Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Entities , RCTC’s activities can be divided into the following activities: Administration, Management and Coordination Transportation Planning and Programming TDA Claimant Relationships and Oversight Public Information and External Affairs Administration, Management and Coordination RCTC develops policy goals and objectives each fiscal year as part of the budget process that are consistent with the Commission’s overall strategic direction. The Commission Policy Goals and Objectives provide an opportunity to match the Commission’s spending priorities in a manner that implements the promises made to the citizens of Riverside County in both Measure A Expenditure Plans and that fulfills other Commission responsibilities. The Commission’s seven long-term policy goals are: • Promote mobility; • Mitigate and address the impact of goods movement; • Encourage economic development; • Ensure improved system efficiencies; • Foster environmental stewardship; • Support transportation choices through intermodalism and accessibility; and • Prioritize public and agency communications. Triennial Performance Audit 23 RCTC RCTC continued to balance its growing responsibilities as a transportation planning and programming agency with project delivery and implementation. With the original Measure A program having wrapped up and Measure A renewal commencing during the audit period, RCTC’s overall strategy has focused on project delivery and getting projects into construction. The increased development and delivery of projects programmed through Measure A renewal, combined with the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), remains a priority of the agency together with multimodal planning, rail development, goods movement, and toll lane implementation. Just prior to this audit period, RCTC received both State Tolling Authority and Federal Tolling Authority for the toll projects. The Commission also obtained design-build authorization for the SR-91 corridor improvement project through passage of legislation (AB 2098, September 2010). With this increased responsibility, staffing (including contract managers) only grew marginally from 39 to 41 employees over the past three years to manage the agency’s programs (see Table IV-1). Budgeted positions have increased to 46 after the audit time period. Promotions were made to fill vacancies in procurements , finance and staff analyst positions. A new capital projects position was also added. Management continues to be firmly committed to the intent of the Commission’s enabling legislation that called for a small staff. Table IV-1 Staff Summary by Department FY 2010-12 FY 09/10 FY 10-11 FY 11-12 Executive Management 0.3 0.4 0.2 Administration 4.3 4.2 4.5 Legislative Affairs and Communications 2.2 1.9 2.3 Finance 6.7 5.5 6.9 Planning and Programming 5.8 5.3 4.8 Rail Maintenance and Operations 2.7 3.2 3.4 Public and Specialized Transit 2.6 2.6 2.6 Commuter Assistance 2.2 1.8 1.8 Motorist Assistance 0.4 1.2 0.8 Capital Project Development and Delivery 11.8 12.9 13.7 TOTAL 39.0 39.0 41.0 Source: FY 2012 RCTC Budget Capital Project Development Commencing with the renewal of Measure A in 2010, the agency’s implementation of its strategic plan has played a key role in the success to administer the highway capital program as well as other programs such as for transit in Riverside County. The management of the Measure’s Expenditure Program, including program management for rail extension, has continued to be accomplished with the assistance of the Bechtel Infrastructure Corporation. Bechtel provides program management and construction management services for highway Triennial Performance Audit 24 RCTC and rail infrastructure including the Perris Valley Line commuter rail extension project which is a significant Measure A transit project. Bechtel assists RCTC in forming and managing contracts between RCTC and its consultants and contractors. Almost $2 billion in investment creating approximately 28,500 jobs will be delivered by seven RCTC projects in Western Riverside County over a six year period from 2010 (beginning of audit period) through 2016. Two of the measure’s projects have been completed, three more are under construction, and two additional projects have commenced. RCTC has been able to accomplish this level of activity by using Measure A’s revenue stream and RCTC’s track record of delivering projects to issue bonds at favorable interest rates and also to compete successfully for awards of federal and state transportation funds including a loan from the TIFIA program. The I-215 South project was completed as well as the State Route 74/I -215 interchange. Close to 120,000 vehicles in total travel on these highway segments. Under construction are the I-215 Central project, SR 60/I-215 East Junction Project, and the SR 91 HOV project. The two additional major projects are the 91 Corridor Improvement Project and the Perris Valley Commuter Rail Line. RCTC executive management worked to obtain approvals from the FTA, railroads, and the community related to the development of the Perris Valley Line. The RCTC Rail division c ontinues with the planning and management of capital improvements at the commuter rail stations in Riverside County, including security and rehabilitation projects, parking requirements , and the initial construction of the Perris Valley Line. Internal Controls As a means to improve internal coordination and communication among RCTC service lines and achieve greater efficiencies, the agency worked to develop and implement several computer programs. They included implementation of EDEN enterprise resource planning system in September 2009, implementation of InfoWorks records retention system in 2010, FundTrack database implementation in 2009, and eRooms collaborative project teamroom in 2009. The TransTrack transit performance monitoring system was fully functional during the prior triennial period. RCTC has also continued to implement a centralized procurements process in order to strengthen controls and ensure consistency in the application of procurement policies and procedures and adherence to applicable laws and regulations. The agency is committed to maintaining a strong electronic records management system that provides storage and accessibility of the Commission’s actions and documents , and the retention capability for incoming and internally created records. RCTC has integrated several of the software systems to enable greater functionality and benefit to all staff in the management of accounting and project information while automating a paperless workflow system. For example, EDEN is being integrated with the toll road software program Cofiroute to track toll revenues and handle back office system operations, reporting Triennial Performance Audit 25 RCTC and customer service. Ultimately, these improvements result in enhanced customer service to its members and project delivery to the community. On-going process improvement underlies the agency’s action to continue the replacement of its financial software system in order to better integrate project accounting needs and improve accounting efficiency. An independent audit is conducted annually on the Commission’s accounting books and records. The Commission is also responsible for ensuring that audits of Measure A and TDA funding recipients are completed and reviewed for compliance and other matters in a timely manner. An internal audit program has been maintained to identify improvements in controls and procedures as well as best practice s; however, it became inactive in FY 2014. Personnel Management Personnel benefits and rights are stipulated in the RCTC Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual, updated in April 2012. According to the staff report to the Board, the changes to the manual did not reflect a change in the benefits but instead were language changes made to conform the document to legal requirements. Language changes, edits and additions were made to 19 sections of the manual due to federal, state, or local regulations, or operational changes. The Commission’s practice is to conduct a compensation program review every two years to ensure fair compensation is established to attract and retain the most qual ified employees. During FY 2008-09, the Commission opted to postpone the compensation program review due to the slowdown in the economy and decline in sales tax revenues. During the entire audit period from FY 2010 to FY 2012, there was no annual merit increases for staff. Merit increases and cost of living adjustments have since been re-introduced after the audit period with improving economic condition. To help further advance its project delivery component and streamline operations, the RCTC organization chart was modified between FY 2010-11 and FY 2011-12. According to the organizational changes shown in the RCTC Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), the main change was to the reporting structure where both the Project Delivery Director and Toll Program Director report directly to the Executive Director, while all other departments report through the Deputy Executive Director. This is different from the prior chain of reporting where all departments had the same line of executive management reporting. Transportation Planning and Programming This functional area addresses planning functions required of RCTC, including development of the Federal Transportation Improvement Program and the Congestion Management Program, Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program, and Transit Planning including the Short Range Triennial Performance Audit 26 RCTC Transit Planning process. Additional transportation programs administered by the agency are also discussed, including the Commuter Assistance Program. Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) RCTC is responsible for preparing the Federal T ransportation Improvement Program (FTIP) for Riverside County projects that have been approved for federal and state funding. Federal fund sources that RCTC programs include Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ), Surface Transportation Program, Transportation Activities Program (TAP)funding, and transit formula and discretionary revenue by the Federal Transit Administration. State fund sources include SB 821, State Transit Assistance, and State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. Federal reg ulations require that all projects fund ed with state and federal funds be included in a FTIP in order to receive the funds. In addition, projects that are regionally significant, but are locally funded are also required to be included in the FTIP. RCTC submits the county FTIP to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), the Metropolitan Planning Organizatio n (MPO) for the six -county region (Orange, Los Angeles, Imperial, Riverside , San Bernardino, and Ventura counties). SCAG is responsible for ensuring that the FTIP is consistent with the long range Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), and adopted air plans. SCAG is the responsible agency for submittal of the FTIP to federal agencies for approval. The FTIP is generally updated every two-years with amendments occurring between updates. Project evaluation criteria is developed in conjunction with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) prior to each Call for Projects. Criteria are modified to meet the specific eligibility requirements for each fund source per state and federal guidelines. RCTC has used the following criteria for past calls for projects for CMAQ, STP, and STIP funds: 1. Emphasis on Measure A 2. Regional Significance 3. Economic Development 4. Project Readiness 5. Air Quality 6. Safety 7. Congestion Mitigation 8. Matching Funds Triennial Performance Audit 27 RCTC 9. System Continuity 10. Geographic Balance The 2008 RTIP, including amendments, provided by staff showed a total transit program cost of $977 million for the six year period of FYs 2008-09 through 2013-14. The revenues to support the transit program include Federal, FTA, State and Local sources. The related 2011 FTIP covering FYs 2010-11 through 2015-16 showed a total transit program cost of $962 million. During the audit period, RCTC had generally stayed with the existing project list in light of the economic downturn. However, with slightly improved economic conditions and in maintaining consistency with the relatively new SCAG RTP/SCS, RCTC initiated a Call for Projects process in June 2013 (outside audit period) for about $150 million. Programming staff are highly involved with SCAG committees and served on several subgroups during the SCAG RTP process including finance, transportation modeling, plans and programs, and sustainability. RCTC program staff provide d primary liaison for the RTP review. Staff also serve in key statewide positions such as the Statewide RTPA moderator that provide additional opportunities to interface with the CTC and Caltrans. Programming staff also have responsibility for the TUMF which comprises $59 million in programmed arterial roadway projects. RCTC implements the Regional Arterial Program consisting of 24 projects located throughout western Riverside County. RCTC receives 48.1 percent of all fees to fund these regional projects. About 3.8 percent is allocated to transit projects programmed by the Riverside Transit Agency. Congestion Management Program RCTC is the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Riverside County. As a CMA, RCTC is responsible for developing a program that better links land use, transportation and air quality that prompt growth management strategies thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality. The Congestion Management Plan (CMP) is updated in consultation with the Technical Advisory Committee, which consists of local agencies, the County of Riverside, transit agencies, and subregional agencies. During the audit period, the CMP was developed in December 2011 by a consultant and identified deficiencies in the County transportation network that inhibit these growth strategies. The CMP involves the monitoring of congestion along a designated system that includes all highway facilities and selected major arterials. The system is monitored to ensure that the level of service along these roadways do not fall below the adopted level of service. Should a roadway fall to a deficient level of service, a deficiency plan would be required to identify mitigation measures including a cost and schedule of the recommended mitigation measures. During preparation of the 2011 CMP, deficiencies were found on the CMP System Triennial Performance Audit 28 RCTC based upon the year’s monitoring effort. These segments are monitored to determine if the deficiencies reflect temporary or permanent conditions. If it is determined that deficiencies are permanent and not related to construction or other activities along a segment or elsewhere, a deficiency plan will be required to address the deficiency. Specific model enhancements will be reflected in the 2013 CMP following completion of modeling activity by SCAG that incorporates elements of SB 375 – Sustainable Communities Strategy. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program As an important piece of the County transportation system, non -motorized transportation is encouraged by RCTC. In its efforts, the agency administers an annual Call for Projects process for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Article 3 of the TDA provides two percent of funding for the implementation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. RCTC has an adopted set of policies governing the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program which were updated in January 2011 upon implementing a prior performance audit recommendation. An evaluation committee comprised of three non-project proposal submitting Technical Advisory Committee members and up to three additional evaluators annually evaluate proposed projects according to seven evaluation criteria. These criteria include the following: 1. Use of the Facility 2. Safety 3. Importance as a Transportation Alternative 4. Missing Link, Extension or Connectivity 5. Matching Funds 6. Population Equity 7. Physical Accessibility Enhancement An average weighted score is given to each project to determine funding priorities. During the audit period, the following allocations were made according to the Commission agenda actions taken: FY 2010: $1,204,397 FY 2011: $2,598,871 FY 2012: $1,094,143 Triennial Performance Audit 29 RCTC The allocations are based on two percent of TDA fund apportionments, as allowed by law, plus carryover funds from prior years. Expenditures on bicycle and pedestrian facilities per the CAFR were as follows: FY 2010: $ 317,048 FY 2011: $1,940,499 FY 2012: $1,389,567 An unclaimed balance exists because not all projects that are selected to receive funding are ready for construction. Agencies receiving an award is reimbursed in arrears only upon proof of satisfactory project comp letion, including but not limited to the RCTC claim form for the fiscal year in which the project was awarded, the RCTC supplemental claim form, and photographs of the completed project. The adopted Commission policy states that agencies will have up to two years to complete the project or award a construction contract, or the agency may request an extension of time to complete the project if there are uncontrollable delays in the coordination of the project with another agency. Any unused allocations after this time are reprogrammed into the next year’s revenues. Transit Planning including the Short Range Transit Planning Process RCTC has the responsibility of oversight in both the funding and operations of Riverside County’s public and specialized transit operators. The Commission is responsible for the coordination of transit among all of the operators in the County to ensure an efficient delivery of services. In this capacity, the agency has provided a regional perspective to facilitating the provision of public transit by the seven transit operators and SCRRA. Transit Operators Working Group Ensuring the efficient distribution and expenditure of funds is a crit ical element of RCTC’s oversight role. To strengthen its ability to coordinate efficient and effective transit service, RCTC established the Transit Operator Working Group in 2009 comprised of the county transit operators. The coordination of services and operations is intended to reduce redundancy, enable transfers, identify deficiencies in connectivity and the means in which to resolve them and therefore, provide a more efficient transit system for the people of Riverside County. The mission critical elements of the TOWG are: • To inform the County’s public transit operators, as a group, of new policy, policy interpretations and other critical information affecting all operators. Triennial Performance Audit 30 RCTC • To develop appropriate common statements, among the transit operators, p roviding a mechanism to craft common messages and develop a common voice around key issues of interest to public transit providers. • To provide a forum for input from the County’s public transit operators and dialog with RCTC concerning matters affecting public transit. • To share service and operational information to improve the delivery of public transportation services in Riverside County. • To confer and coordinate on key issues where opportunity for collaboration, coordination or even consolidation will further public transportation services in Riverside County. • To hold at least one annual joint meeting with the Citizens’ Advisory Committee. The TOWG meets regularly during the annual SRTP kick-off in February and then as necessary to discuss transit policy issues. Agendas cover several components including operator reports; revenue forecasts for local, state and federal funds; SRTP timelines and outlines; and current transit program activities such as grant funding opportunities, call for projec ts, and upcoming audits. The TOWG meetings also enable RCTC to offer assistance with completing the TDA claims. One-on-one assistance is provided to the claimants when requested. SRTP Process Each operator is required to prepare and deliver an SRTP to RCTC that outlines the planned service for the next three years. The SRTP provides the justification for the operator to receive TDA funds for both capital and operating expenditures. Actual and projected performance data from TransTrack are included in the SRTP to provide metrics of service delivery. The SRTP also provides the basis for services and capital projects that are programmed in TIP documents that are approved by RCTC, SCAG and federal grant awarding agencies like the FTA for capital grants. RCTC coordinates the annual update to the SRTP through the TOWG. A schedule is prepared by RCTC to guide the process for the coming year. Draft SRTPs are due in April with formal adoption of the plans by the Commission in June. A follow-up debriefing meeting with the TOWG can also be held to discuss potential improvements to the Short Range Transit Plan for the following year. Productivity Improvement Program RCTC has made effort to improve upon the Productivity Improvement Program designed to meet PUC Section 99244 which requires the Commission to annually identify, analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for transit operators . As further means to provide analysis of operator performance , the agency uses TransTrack data management software to standardize the reporting of key performance data by the operators in determining Triennial Performance Audit 31 RCTC compliance with the PIP. TransTrack has provided value in terms of enabling RCTC to track operator performance by route, analyze new services and service extensions, and calculate the performance information for the PIP. Toward the end of the audit period, RCTC conducted a comprehensive review of the PIP to ensure that policy, criteria, and targets are both fair and achievable by the operators in light of the current economic conditions. Staff indicated that the PIP, as is currently configured, has its limitations as a stand-alone tool to accurately assess transit performance in relation to economic and policy conditions guiding transit operator decisions over the last several years. They included significant transit service reductions, route adjustments and realignments, services operated during major freeway construction, and more recently re-introduced service. The PIP measures also do not account for promoting connectivity among transit modes and with other operators in meeting regional transit principles. In response, RCTC has been working with a consultant to develop a new reporting tool that provides greater context to the performance data in a user friendly manner and highlights the connectivity aspects of public transit, among other presentation elements. Under development is the State of Transit Performance Measurement Program designed to be a county-wide reporting structure that will present transit impacts from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective based on PIP analysis and other metric factors. Regional Transit Goals The 2008 Transit Vision serves as an overarching document for a 10-year conceptual plan identifying capital and operating needs. Collectively, the projects in the Transit Vision minimize increases in congestion and travel time. The goal is to promote mobility and economic growth while minimizing community and environmental impacts. As the elements of the Transit Vision become reality, each project- whether a new bus line, rail car, coordinated signal, carpool lane, or pavement repair project – will contribute to a better county transportation network. To support the Transit Vision, the Commission has continued to implement the recommended action items: 1) Continue the existing funding formula for TDA funds to the transit operators by geography; 2) Establish and allocate the Western Riverside County Measure A Public Transit Account formula for Commuter Rail, Intercity Bus Service, Public Bus Operators, and Specialized Transit Services; and 3) Approve a timeline for the TDA and Measure A funding formulas to be reviewed in FY 2018-19 with proposed changes to be implemented in FY 2020- 21. Regional transit goals as part of the transit visioning process are being developed and coordinated with the timing of completion of the SRTPs and Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COAs) by the transit operators. COAs are updated every five years, as opposed to annually for SRTPs, and provide an in-depth analysis of the performance and route structure of the transit system in response to the evolving mobility needs of the county's residents, workers, Triennial Performance Audit 32 RCTC and visitors. Operations and capital projections by the COA are also for a longer term horizon than for a SRTP. Coordinated Plan In May 2012, RCTC finalized an update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County. This document brings current the 2008 Coordinated Plan. Required for update every four years, this augments but does not replace the extensive work done for Riverside County’s first coordinated plan. These Coordinated Plans are intended to promote mobility by identifying needs and transportation service gaps of three targeted populations: older persons, persons with disabilities, and persons of limited means. The Coordinated Plan does not provide for funding, but helps to guide funding decisions, specifically those related to FTA 5316-Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC), 5317-New Freedom program and the 5310 Capital Program for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. The 2012 Coordinated Transportation Plan Update was reviewed by Caltrans’ Division of Mass Transportation (DMT) with comments that the document exceeds minimum expectations for coordinated plans in articulating the existing state of transportation in areas serv ed and for populations served. All projects awarded under the 2009 Specialized Transit Call for Projects using these funds concluded their two-year terms on June 30, 2011. A 2011 Specialized Transit Call for Projects was held by RCTC to further these programs that rely on consistency with the Coordinated Plan. The plan also helps support and provide rationale for additional funding requests, both by public transit providers and by its human services partners. Commuter Assistance Program The focus of the Commuter Assistance Program is to improve mobility throughout the transportation system by encouraging commuters to make a mode -shift decision away from solo vehicle commuting. RCTC offers a comprehensive list of programs and outreach under the umbrella of Commuter Assistance which helps foster more efficient use of the transportation system, reduces congestion and vehicle emissions. In a partnership with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), the Commuter Assistance Program provides assistance to all of the Inland Empire through the www.IE511.org website (a one-stop shop for commuters) and its ride-matching functionality. The IE 511 program is the primary tool for commuter and travel assistance and is available online, through a custom smart phone App for both iPhone and Android, and by telephone. IE511.org and 511 phone service is a one-stop phone and web service for transportation information in the Inland Empire. Both the website and telephone service are owned and operated through the partnership of RCTC and SANBAG. Through MOU’s with the participating agencies, RCTC is reimbursed for managing the regional trip planning program. Among its services, the traveler system provides information and links to the transit systems in both Riverside and San Triennial Performance Audit 33 RCTC Bernardino Counties including bus and Metrolink, and a southern California interactive trip planner powered by GoogleTransit. IE511 provides: Real-time traffic information with incidents and driving times for Southern California Links to construction information for Southern California Links to CHP incident information for Southern California Bus/Rail trip planning for Southern California Links to Southern California bus/rail providers Specialized Transit information for Riverside and San Bernardino counties Rideshare information for Riverside and San Bernardino counties Park & Ride lot map and information for Southern California Carpool lane map for Southern California Employer services for Riverside and San Bernardino county businesses interested in rideshare programs Critical to the success of these programs are employer partnerships. The Commuter Assistance Program provides free rideshare services to employers through its Core Rideshare Program such as transportation surveys, ridematching, marketing materials, and offering the various rideshare incentives and programs to employees. Local employers benefit from having a low cost tax free benefit they can offer employees. Large companies who must meet air quality mandates can take advantage of programs that help them fulfill their requirements. The employers are a cost effective channel for access to groups of commuters with similar commute patterns and for implementing RCTC’s rideshare programs. Commuters can go online and find a ridematch, acces s bus/rail information, and traveler information to help them make travel decisions and assist RCTC in its mobility enhancement/congestion avoidance goals. RCTC manages the site and its ridematching functionality. In addition, the Commuter Exchange, a 40 foot mobile information center with interactive rideshare displays and collateral, is another mode of outreach that attends public events, school a nd employer functions to increase the publics awareness of ridesharing programs available to them. To provide facilities to support ridesharing, RCTC partners with Caltrans and property owners to lease space for park and ride lots. These park and ride lease arrangements supplement large state owned park and ride facilities throughout the county. The leases are annual and renewable, allowing for adjustments as needed. RCTC provides the financial resources for the lease while Caltrans assumes liability and provides the signage. The commuter assistance program is funded by Measure A. Triennial Performance Audit 34 RCTC TDA Claimant Relationships and Oversight This functional area addresses RCTC’s interaction with the transit operators in Riverside County and its administration of the provisions of TDA. The sub -functions described include costs to administer the program, technical and managerial assistance to operators, TDA claims processing and the unmet transit needs process. RCTC Administration and Planning The uses of LTF revenues apportioned to Riverside County flow through a priority process prescribed in state law. Prior to apportionment of funds to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program and the transit operators, the Commission is able to claim LTF revenues for administration of the fund and for transportation planning and programming purposes. By law, the Commission is limited to three percent of local transportation funds for planning and programming. The limit does not apply to fund administration, but RCTC has been responsible in the amount its claims which has remained the same for the triennial period. The Commission also allocates revenues to SCAG for planning purposes as a member. It is worth noting that the amount apportioned to SCAG increased starting in FY 2012 from $115,300 to $534,750. The higher amount, as described in the statute, is based on a formula of ¾ of 1 percent of the County’s total annual LTF. In FY 2009-10, mid-year adjustments were made downward from original projections due to the struggling economy in the Inland Empire region. In FYs 2011 and 2012, mid-year adjustments were made upward from original projections. During the audit years of 2010 through 2012, RCTC claimed the following amounts: Table IV-2 LTF Allocated for RCTC Administration and Planning and Programming Fiscal Year LTF Administration of LTF Planning and Programming Total 2010 $57,781,222 $700,000 $1,733,437 $2,433,437 2011 $66,309,497 $700,000 $1,989,285 $2,689,285 2012 $71,300,600 $700,000 $2,139,018 $2,839,018 Note: LTF total includes carryover. Source: Riverside County Annual Mid-Year LTF Revenue Projections. In FY 2010, the total amount claimed by RCTC was about 4.21 percent of LTF apportioned to the County. In FY 2011, the amount was 4.05 percent, and for FY 2012, the amount was 3.98 percent. The slight decline in percentage is due to the fixed amount claimed by the Commission for administration relative to increases in total revenue. Triennial Performance Audit 35 RCTC Technical and Managerial Assistance to Operators RCTC provides an array of administrative and technical services to the operators. Assistance to the operators is offered through meetings, phone and email correspondence and site visits. Examples of technical and managerial assistance include meetings to prepare the Short Range Transit Plan and discuss policy and technical issues, release of TDA apportionment data, allocation of local Measure A funds, federal revenue estimates, monitoring of various funding programs, and administration of TDA claims. The Commission also holds an annual call for projects to administer LTF non -motorized funding, as well as call for projects to disburse federal transit funds for specialized transportation services. An LTF reserve policy and funding disbursement policy are in place to ensure that operator budgets do not exceed available funds. The reserve policy sets aside 10 percent of apportionments that could be drawn down pen ding approval of a request by an operator and a budget and SRTP amendment. The funding disbursement policy generally provides a timeline on the LTF allocation where two-twelfths (16.67 percent) of the operating funds are disbursed the first month and the remaining allocation (83.33 percent) disbursed over the next eleven months. Commission staff also provide assistance in the planning and programming of federal grants, as the transit operators are eligible for various FTA grant programs. RCTC provides the conduit between the operators and SCAG in procuring certain capital grants such as FTA urbanized grants that must pass through SCAG, as the designated recipient of the funds. The Commission must develop and approve a Program of Projects (POP) for each urbanized area and conduct a public hearing prior to an operator submitting its Section 5307 grant application to FTA. A separate POP is developed for rural Section 5311 funds. Projects must be included in an approved RTIP before the operators can access federal transit funds which include Section 5309 discretionary funds. RCTC tracks the status of capital grants through the quarterly grant tracking program in which each operator submits a quarterly report detailing the status of existing open grants. To ensure efficient use of existing capital funds, the Commission adopted revised policies in March 2010, requiring all operators to spend down existing TDA capital balances prior to requesting additional TDA capital funds. In order for the public transit operators to claim LTF and/or STA funds, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the SRTPs. The requested allocations are consistent with the approved SRTPs, and the funds are explicitly for the projects stated in the approved plans. TDA Claim Processing On an annual basis during this audit period, RCTC was responsible for managing the allocation of between $57.8 and $71.3 million in Local Transportation Fund revenues for transit, and between $6.7 and $7.9 million in State Transit Assistance funds. Triennial Performance Audit 36 RCTC RCTC prepares and distributes several documents during the TDA claims process. The documents include the findings of apportionment by population area and a packet providing claimants with the necessary forms and funding in formation needed to prepare TDA claims. The claims are prepared by each operator, adopted by the operator’s governing board or council, and must include a signoff on the implementation of a number of TDA requirements. These requirements are contained in the “Standards Assurances For Applicants” and includes compliance with revenue ratios, attachment of specific documentation, and submittal of compliance audits and reports. Each submitting claimant certifies that all conformance requirements are satisfied to receive both LTF and STA funds. Once the claims are processed and funds are allocated by RCTC, operators can amend claims during the fiscal year as actual transit service is delivered. State Transit Assistance Funds are claimed under the procedures and formulas established in the TDA statute. RCTC is required to make annual findings prior to allocation of STA funds to the transit operators. These findings are part of the Standard Assurances checklist and is integrated with the claims for LTF revenues. During the triennial period, there was approximately $11 million in STA reserve funds at the beginning of FY 2009-10 with a substantial amount (60%) from this fund balance utilized for capital projects in FY 2009-10. At the end of FY 2009-10, there was approximately $5.4 million in STA unallocated reserve funds. In FY 2010-11, only $5,730 of this fund balance was utilized by Palo Verde Valley for a capital project. Through the fuel tax swap legislation signed into law by the Governor in March 2010, Riversid e County received about $12.8 million of the $400 million statewide allocation for FYs 2009 -10 and 2010-11. There was approximately $18 million in STA unallocated reserve funds projected at the end of FY 2010-11. Additional revenues of $9.5 million were anticipated in FY 2011-12 for a total available amount of $27.5 million. About $8 million of this fund balance was utilized by Riverside County operators for various capital projects in FY 2011 -12, and following the Commission’s capital fund spend down policy. Prior to approving the STA allocations, the Commission adopted a resolution as specified in the TDA statutes. Unmet Transit Needs The unmet transit needs process that adhere to the statute are required where claims can be made for streets and roads. Since 2009, no TDA funds in Riverside County have gone to streets and roads; therefore, the formal unmet transit needs process under PUC Section 99401 is no longer conducted. RCTC received confirmation in a letter from Caltrans in May 2010 that the Commission must still conduct at least one transit public hearing within its jurisdiction in compliance with Section 99238.5. The meetings can be scheduled anywhere within the county. The Citizens Advisory Committee, which serves as the statutorily required Social Services Transportation Advisory Council, participates on the hearing panel during the meeting and in the review of the comments. While not as formal as the unmet transit needs process, t he purpose of the hearing is to receive comments from the public on whether there are Triennial Performance Audit 37 RCTC reasonable transit needs that are not being met in Riverside County. A meeting was held in Banning in May 2011 to solicit comments for FY 2011-12. As a good practice measure, the Commission should ensure that the annual public hearing is rotated in a manner such that a meeting is held in or near each of the transit operator jurisdictions in the County to assist the operators and their communities identify potential transit needs. Also, given that the majority of CAC members reside in Western Riverside County, the Commission should give consideration to attracting more potential members from Eastern Riverside County through expansion of the existing CAC. Representatives from both Western and Eastern Riverside County would then attend a public hearing in their respective areas of the County to engage their local transit constituents. Public Information and External Affairs RCTC has developed a comprehensive outreach effort to elicit support for its mission and to educate the public of its role in the delivery and maintenance of transportation infrastructure. The outreach program is divided into two roles: legislative affairs and media relations. The legislative affairs efforts involve the utilization of lobbyists to ensure that adequate funding is maintained for transportation projects. As part of its mission in providing transportation projects services to Riverside County, RCTC plays an active role in Washington D.C. and Sacramento in advocating transportation-friendly policies. At the beginning of every year the Commission adopts a Federal and a State Legislative Program that sets forth basic positions on transportation policy issues. RCTC also works with SANBAG to establish a unified front in advocating for transportation legislation on behalf of the entire Inland Empire. However, it is noted that the two counties also differentiate from one another on other fronts when appropriate, such as for local needs. RCTC’s media relations efforts are conveyed through RCTC’s website, publications and public presentations. During the triennial period, the Commission provided extensive public outreach support as part of the project development process for the Mid County Parkway, Perris Valley Line, SR-91 and I-15 corridor improvement projects, the 60/215 East Junction, and the I-215 Central project. RCTC held widely attended grand opening events for the 74/215 interchange, the I-215 corridor improvement south segment project, and the 91 HOV project groundbreaking. Support is provided to the Commission’s Rail Department in the development of various marketing materials and advertisements including weekend and holiday tra in services, as well as in the promotion of goods movement in the region. RCTC also upgraded a new Commissioner orientation program that enhances Commissioner knowledge and participation in agency projects and activities. RCTC’s website, (http://www.rctc.org/), provides the primary portal to the activities of the agency. Over the years content has been added to the website which is divided among eight main sections containing latest news, meeting agendas and minutes, planning documents, Triennial Performance Audit 38 RCTC project delivery, funding sources, and publications. The website also contains information about commuter assistance programs through the IE511 managed by RCTC. The main website provides users the ability to click on links that will provide further details on projects. For example, the Projects section lists each of the highway and rail projects and links to more information about each project. In addition, several major construction projects have an additional link to their own separate project websites like corridor improvements along I-15, SR-79, SR-91, I-215, and the MidCounty Parkway, as well as the Perris Valley Commuter Rail Line. The separate websites are still managed by RCTC but have their own respective format and design. The Commission provides information to the public through various channels including: 1) participation at public meetings, chambers of commerce, industry associations, and service clubs; 2) production and provision of resource materials and fact sheets; 3) maintenance and enhancement of the Commission’s website; and 4) development of social media, newspaper press releases, radio and television interviews, and cable television spots. Broad distribution of the On the Move, an e-mail monthly newsletter highlighting actions of the Commission and emerging topics, continues as part of the Commission’s communications efforts. Updates and expansion of the Commission’s contact database including e-mail addresses supports distribution of the Commission’s public information materials. The newsletter provides information regarding current projects and RCTC’s role in their implementation, and highlights major initiatives such as Measure A funded projects as well as the agency’s other accomplishments and those of its transit partners. A media news section containing transportation-related articles from local media is also provided. The newsletter is distributed and posted on the RCTC website which retains newsletters for the past three years . The annual report under the same title highlights the yearly activities of the agency and is one of the most widely distributed sources of Commission information. RCTC also maintains a speaker’s bureau where Commissioners and staff actively make presentations throughout the county on transportation issues. The newsletter lists the events and dates of the presentations. Responsibilities for public outreach and communication are delegated to different staff in different departments. From a functional perspective, communications is grouped under Legislative Affairs & Communications including legislative advocacy, public information and media relations. From a staff organization perspective as depicted in the staff organization chart in the RCTC budget, the communication function is divided among staff within varying disciplines and located in different departments. For instance, the Goods Movement Manager has several public outreach duties, in addition to goods movement responsibilities, including website management, production of the RCTC Annual Report and monthly newsletters. The Community Relations Manager has a particular focus on capital projects outreach being under the Project Development Department. The Government Relations Manager maintains legislative responsibilities while the Deputy Executive Director, who formerly served as the Commission’s Public Affairs Director, retains Triennial Performance Audit 39 RCTC responsibility to manage public affairs including addressing social media outreach, communications with the news media, and preparation of text for Commission materials, presentations, and speeches. The previous performance audit made note about the dual role of the Deputy Executive Director serving as Deputy Executive as well as public affairs management, and suggested for RCTC to review this structure in the future. Given the broad and relatively unique dispersion of public information and outreach duties among staff located in different departments, RCTC makes effort to ensure strong internal coordination for consistent messaging and and updated distribution of information to the public and media. This is especially critical given the heightened use and speed of technology and on-line public information distribution, combined with RCTC’s increased use of separate websites for major project development efforts. As a minor example of the need to maintain information updates, on the current RCTC website, there is description under Toll Lanes that RCTC is working on an agreement with the Federal Highway Administration for Federal Tolling Authority ; however, RCTC received this authority back in 2009. RCTC should continue to review the current communications and outreach structure and its internal and external activity flow as public outreach strategies become even more critical to the success of all RCTC programs. For example, for internal purposes a suggestion would be for RCTC staff to develop a chart that maps out the strategies and processes undertaken to deliver and update each communication program (e.g. newsletters, social media feeds, website development and maintenance, etc.) and identify the timelines for key decision points, cross departmental communication, and responsible staff for consistent and timely messaging. Triennial Performance Audit 40 RCTC Section V Capital Projects Management At the request of RCTC, a special section of this Triennial Performance Audit is provided which evaluates Capital Projects Management. This section reviews the degree to which RCTC and the transit operators are being efficient and effective in their approach to the allocation of capital funds and the timeliness of completing capital projects. This section also provides a review of best practices for project management, procurement, and cost/progress reporting. With existing RCTC policy that does not permit allocation of new capital revenues until older capital fund balances are spent down, the transit agencies have made progress to close out older fund balances. Commission staff provide assistance in the planning and programming of federal transit grants. As described earlier, RCTC provides the conduit between the operators and SCAG in procuring certain capital grants such as FTA urbanized grants that must pass through SCAG, as the designated recipient of the funds. The Commission must develop and approve a separate POP for urbanized and rural areas, and the projects must be included in the approved RTIP produced by RCTC. For certain revenues, RCTC conducts a Call for Projects process to solicit project applications, score the projects, and select those t hat receive funding. RCTC tracks the status of capital grants through the quarterly grant tracking program in which each operator submits a quarterly report detailing the status of existing open grants. The planning and eventual funding of capital transit projects , by statute, must be conducted through RCTC’s management and approval of Short Range Transit Plans for the Riverside County transit operators. The SRTP is intended to serve three purposes: Identifies the transit services and capital improvements required to meet the transit needs of Riverside County over a three year period and the proposed sources of funding to carry out the plan Serves as a management tool for the operators to guide their activities over the next year Provides justification for operating and capital assistance for grant applications to be submitted to state and federal funding agencies To assist the transit operators, RCTC provides the following information to the transit operators: Guidelines for developing the SRTP Estimated revenues for the upcoming fiscal year Triennial Performance Audit 41 RCTC Schedule for plan development Technical assistance Each of the transit operators prepares an SRTP for their respective agency. RCTC ensures that the projected costs for the combined operations for each apportionment area are commensurate with revenue estimates. RCTC is responsible for approving the plans for all of the operators and must ensure that the SRTPs are consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan developed by SCAG. RCTC also has the responsibility for determination or approval of the location, staging, scheduling and capacity of all capital development projects, and for the selection an d approval of appropriate mass transit hardware and technology. Once RCTC approves and adopts the SRTP's, the operators are charged with following through with implementation of the plans. Any deviation from the plan must be immediately reported to, and if the change is substantive, a plan amendment must be approved by RCTC. The allocation of funds for the upcoming fiscal year is based on approved SRTPs. Transit Operator Capital Projects Management Management of capital projects by the transit operators generally entails maintenance of tracking files of the status of their grant projects. The annual audited financial statements of the transit operators generally show trends of spending down TDA capital funds which reduce their level of unearned revenue related to capital assistance , or a statement is included indicating the intended use of the unearned revenue (e.g. vehicle acquisition, facilities, etc). The capital project management process employed by the largest operator, RTA, provides insight to the techniques used by a large operator. The following describes the practices by RTA to manage its capital program. RTA selects and prioritizes its capital projects through its annual budgeting process, which begins in February of each year and continues through June. RTA’s Finance Department works closely with other RTA departments to identify these capital projects and to prioritize and determine which projects must be funded in the short -term versus those that can be deferred. The delivery of major capital projects, such as vehicle replacements and facility upgrades, are scheduled first. Smaller capital projects are then scheduled based on funding availability. The economic recession starting in 2008 and the associated reduced funding levels did require some of the smaller projects to be deferred. Funding was already in place for t he larger capital projects. RTA assigns a project manager to each capital project who is responsible for tracking and reporting delivery of that project. Tracking is done through close communication with other RTA staff and with contractors. For large-scale projects including facility design and Triennial Performance Audit 42 RCTC construction, RTA also coordinates closely with RCTC and with the appropriate cities. During the audit period, RTA had no instances of a capital project that ran behind schedule or went over budget. Projects are tracked quarterly in the Capital Projects Tracking Report. Funding is broken down by project and by funding source. The report tracks allocated, spent, and remaining funding. The report table also includes allocation year, project number, name, element (revenue vehicle acquisition, maintenance, debt service, etc.), anticipated completion date, updated completion date, project status/milestone, and whether the project is completed. For reporting purposes, a higher project-level summary may be valuable to track performance and progress, especially as project funding spans several fiscal years. RTA is aware of RCTC’s policy of making sure that available TDA capital funds are drawn down first before additional TDA capital funding is requested. Some of the agency’s capital funding from prior years has not been drawn down yet, but that the amount of this funding was s mall and there is a plan in place to utilize this funding in the near future. Major Capital Projects Major RTA capital projects include: Purchase of 97 CNG 40’ buses from Gillig Corporation. In FY 2012, RTA awarded Gillig a $52 million contract. The purchase was accomplished without debt. Purchase of contracted fixed route, Dial-A-Ride, and support vehicles. Construction of two transit centers. In September 2009, RTA opened the Corona Transit Center. In January 2010, RTA with RCTC and the City of Perris opened the Perris Station. Safety and security enhancements at the operational and maintenance facilities. Improvements included security lighting upgrades, walls and fencing, security signage, fire alarm enhancements, facility video surveillance, and emergency supplies. Facility maintenance and rehabilitation improvements. In FY 2012, RTA installed new roofs, painted facilities, and completed other facility maintenance projects. These improvements had been delayed due to the recession. Upcoming major RTA capital projects include: Replacement of ITS systems (Automated Vehicle Locator (AVL), Automated Passenger Counter (APC), real-time web and text-based system, and transit signal priority) on directly operated fixed route buses and installment of a similar syst em on contracted fixed route buses so that the experience for the customer is seamless between directly operated and contracted fixed route service. Procurement of new scheduling software. Construction of the Temecula-Murrieta Twin Cities transit center. Triennial Performance Audit 43 RCTC Grant Applications RTA uses a variety of local, state, and federal funding sources. Local funding sources include the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), a development fee administered by RCTC to fund projects in Western Riverside County. Of the funds generated, 2.6% is allocated for regional transit projects programmed by RTA. These funds are used to help leverage state and federal funding. TDA provides two major sources of state funding: the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) and the State Transit Assistance (STA). An additional state funding source is Proposition 1B: “the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006” that includes the Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancemen t Account Program (PTMISEA) and Security funds. Federal funding sources include Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Sections 5307 (Urbanized Area Formula Grants, 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization, 5309 Bus and New Starts (now Capital Investment Program), 5311 Formula Grants for Rural Areas, 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JAR C), 5317 New Freedom Program, and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP -21), signed into law on July 6, 2012 by President Obama, has changed several of the FTA funding sources. For example, Section 5309 Bus and New Starts is now the Capital Investment Program. In addition, all projects seeking Section 5309 funds must be evaluated and rated according to the crite ria specified in law either as a New Starts project, a Small Starts project, or a Core Capacity project. Under previous authorizing laws, projects seeking less than $25 million in funds could be exempt from evaluation and rating. MAP-21 also eliminates Sections 5316 JARC and 5317 New Freedom funds. Section 5316 JARC has been combined with Sections 5307 and 5311 Formula Grants. For discontinued programs, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU) requirements continue to apply for the obligated funds. RTA recently added a Government Affairs Representative position to the Marketing Department. The new position will help RTA leverage additional state and federal funding. This person is in contact with local, state, and federal officials and agencies and informs RTA of upcoming grant opportunities. RTA receives notices of funding availability from various funding sources including FTA, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and RCTC. The government affairs representative assists the other departments with applications, including determining whether the identified project is eligible for the grant. To improve competitiveness, RTA engages stakeholders in the grant application process. RTA requests a Board Resolution and a letter of support from the cities impacted by the project for all grant applications even if not required. Triennial Performance Audit 44 RCTC Best Practices of Capital Project Management from other Transit and Transportation Agencies Procurements Joint Procurements FTA encourages its grantees to enter into state and local agreements for the procurement of common goods and services in order to foster greater economy and efficiency. Joint procurements of rolling stock and piggybacking (assignment of options) help smaller operators obtain better pricing by combining their requirements into larger purchases. FTA recently has come out with new clarification on joint procurements and piggybacking on March 8, 2013. Transit agencies must limit their joint procurement to the amount of property and services required to meet each of their reasonably expected needs, and are prohibited from improperly expanding the procurement to include excess capacity simply for the purpose of assigning contract rights to others at a later date. Accordingly, FTA permits the assignment of unneeded contract rights to another transit agency —piggybacking—only when a recipient has unintentionally acquired more goods or options than it needs to support its transit system. Joint procurements with smaller agencies would prov ide an opportunity for cost savings. RCTC, RTA, and other transit agencies considering joint procurements or piggybacking should refer to Common Grant Rule, 49 C.F.R. Part 18, and FTA Circular 4220.1F for guidance. Purchases and transfers of used vehicles from other transit operators can provide an option for supplementing existing fleet. These used vehicles can also minimize the cost for the piloting of new routes. For example, in June 2013, the RTA Board approved the transfer of two surplus Caltrans Type II vehicles to the City of Beaumont for support and expansion of service of Pass Transit Commuter Link Route 120, starting July 1st, 2013. The new pilot route will transport passengers between Beaumont and the San Bernardino Metrolink Station with stops i n Calimesa and the Loma Linda Veterans Administration (VA) Hospital in Loma Linda. Consolidating infrastructure can also help minimize costs. Because of extensive investment needed for compressed natural gas (CNG) technology and fueling stations, RTA’s ma intenance facilities in Riverside and Hemet have become fueling stations for CNG vehicles operated by several agencies including Omnitrans and the City of Riverside. Preparation of Specifications Whether an agency is procuring capital assets or contractor/vendor services, technical specifications are extremely important to ensure satisfactory performance. Typical design specifications may include dimensions, materials used, commonly and competitively available components, and non-proprietary methods of manufacturing. Performance specifications may include useful life, reliability in terms of average intervals between failure, and capacity. Triennial Performance Audit 45 RCTC Specifications enable an agency to ensure a contractor’s performance is in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders. As RCTC and RTA undergo new procurements for new assets, they must be careful in scoping their needs and expectations. Long-Term Procurement Planning A long-term procurement plan identifies the major procurements projected over the next two to five years. Asset management has emerged as an important tool in management and procurement of transit agency assets as it helps forecast rehabilitation and replacement needs. MAP-21 will require grantees to establish and use an asset management system to develop capital asset inventories and condition assessments, and report on the condition of their system as a whole. Fleet and capital expansion plans can also help forecast procurement needs for new assets. Cost and Progress Reporting Transit and transportation agencies with large capital programs typically have more robust processes to monitor and track capital project performance than smaller agencies. The processes used by other agencies with larger capital programs should be scaled to meet the needs of RCTC and RTA. Each agency must identify the level of detail and reporting frequency necessary to enable it to properly monitor its projects, while at the same time recognizing the costs and impacts on day-to-day activities. Project-level reporting provides an implementing agency, and in the case of RCTC as an oversight agency, with a status update (costs, budgets, progress, etc.) that enables risks and obstacles to be identified. State Departments of Transport ation (DOTs), sales tax transportation authorities, and large transit agencies have the most sophisticated processes for monitoring projects due to the size of projects, and in the case of sales tax authorities , the necessary transparency required for public support. Several of the reporting fields used by other transit and transportation agencies to track progress would likely not be necessary for RCTC and RTA to monitor their capital projects. Description with location, map, and photos : For agencies with a large number of capital projects, a description of the project and support documentation can help with providing a context of a project. Project benefits: For capital programs funded by sales tax measures, providing the benefits of a project can help reiterate the importance and effectiveness of project to retain public support. Triennial Performance Audit 46 RCTC Schedule and Milestones: For large projects, this may include a percent complete. For smaller projects this may just identify the stage of the project (planning, design, construction, operation) and expected completion date or planned advertising date. Financial data: Costs may be broken down by phase. Generally, project -level reporting compares original forecasted costs against current forecasted costs or funding budgeted against spent. RTA’s Capital Projects Tracking Report to an extent provides this information. However, for project-level reporting, funds allocated, spent, and remaining would be compared side-by-side. Project status: An agency may report whether a project is on schedule and/or on budget. For larger projects, an agency may report percent complete and provide a performance status bar. Status changes to scope, schedule, and cost: In addition to documenting any status changes, an agency may also document any challenges. These are helpful in identifying project risks. Watch lists: Based on project status and other identified risks, projects may be placed on a watch list. For each project on the watch list, an agency generally provides strategies to address risks. Reporting Examples for Larger Transit and Transportation Agencies Reporting examples for larger transit and transportation agencies with developed performance monitoring processes are provided below. This information may help RCTC , RTA and SunLine to identify collaboratively those that would be most helpful for them to monitor and track capital projects. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) M2 Dashboard – Attachment A OCTA’s M2 Dashboard provides concise visual summary of current progre ss and planned schedule for M2 projects. Meanwhile, the Quarterly Reports stored in the Resource Library and Project Pages on the website provide additional more detailed information. District of Columbia DOT (DDOT) Project Details Dashboard – Attachment B DDOT’s Dashboard provides a cumulative summary of the implementation of DDOT’s capital projects by identifying percent of projects on time and on budget as well as the budget spent. The user can then obtain information for specific wards and projects. P roject-level details are available for each project, including project description, location, map, percent on time and on budget, project financial data (budgeted vs. spent), contractor, agencies involved, and last update date. Triennial Performance Audit 47 RCTC Kansas DOT (KDOT) T Works Project Website – Attachment C KDOT’s T Works Project Website enables the user to search for projects by county, highway route, and keyword. A map along with a list enables the user to select a specific project. Standard simplified project related informat ion is provided in the list, including cost, highway route, type of project (expansion, modernization, preservation, etc.), county, description, and start date. Once a project is selected, additional project -level information is provided on new webpage, including the location, length of the project, scheduled end date, map, and breakdown of project costs by construction, design, right -of-way, utilities, and inspection. Los Angeles Metro Measure R Project Tracker – Attachment D The Measure R project tracker provides project information, including project name, description, funding, status, and location (region/city). Select projects have links to project - specific webpages that include project overview, fact sheet, links to related articles, map, construction notices, upcoming meetings, depending on project phase and needs. Nevada DOT (NDOT) Project Update from the NDOT Annual Report – Attachment E NDOT reports major projects status updates quarterly and as part of its annual report. Summary sheets are available for each of the projects. The summary sheets include project description, benefits, schedule for each phase of the project, costs by phase, risks, performance status bar (percent complete), status changes (scope, schedule, cost, etc.), and additiona l financial information (funding expended, funding sources, etc.). New York MTA Capital Program Dashboard – Attachment F The New York MTA maintains a list of capital construction and other major projects on its website. The list identifies the phase of t he project and compares original and current budgets as well as start and expected completion dates. Providing original and current budgets and schedules improves transparency and accountability. Each project then has its own webpage that provides additional project details, including project description, milestones, percent complete, original and current budgets, percent change in budget, budget scope history, and map. Washington Transportation Improvement Board Performance Management Dashboard – Attachment G Washington TIB Performance Management Dashboard provides cumulative information on its main webpage. The Dashboard tracks spending and revenue by month and lists the overall status and phase of the projects. Each county’s a webpage provides more deta iled information and identifies the number of projects that are at risk and the responsible agency. Each agency’s Triennial Performance Audit 48 RCTC webpage then lists its projects with additional detailed tabs for the chosen project, including project summary, project information, project funding, project description, project pictures, project delays, and project payments tabs. Washington DOT (WSDOT) Gray Notebook Project Capital Project Delivery Program – Attachment H WSDOT’s Gray Notebook includes a chapter on its Capital Project Delive ry Programs. This chapter provides cumulative and project-level information. It identifies the number of projects completed and underway; percent and number of projects within scope, on time, on budget, and on time and budget; original (baseline) and current budgets; and percent of total program over or under budget. The chapter also provides details about projects awarded and advertised for construction; information for completed projects (description, benefits, highlights/challenges, budget performance, and schedule performance); and a project watch list that identifies projects with schedule and budget concerns. Project risks and status updates for projects on the watch list are identified and updated quarterly. Triennial Performance Audit 49 RCTC Attachment A: OCTA Measure M2 Dashboard Website: http://www.octa.net/Measure-M/Schedules/ Triennial Performance Audit 50 RCTC Attachment B: District of Columbia DOT Project Details Dashboard Website: http://dashboard.ddot.dc.gov/ddotdashboard/#Projects Triennial Performance Audit 51 RCTC Triennial Performance Audit 52 RCTC Attachment C: Kansas DOT T Works Project Website Website: http://kdotapp.ksdot.org/TWorks/Projects/CurrentProjects Triennial Performance Audit 53 RCTC Triennial Performance Audit 54 RCTC Attachment D: Los Angeles Metro Measure R Project Tracker Website: http://www.metro.net/projects/progress_tracker/ Triennial Performance Audit 55 RCTC Triennial Performance Audit 56 RCTC Attachment E: Nevada DOT Project Update from the Annual Report Triennial Performance Audit 57 RCTC Attachment F: New York MTA Capital Program Dashboard Website: http://www.mta.info/capitaldashboard/10_14/CapitalDashBoard7.html Triennial Performance Audit 58 RCTC Triennial Performance Audit 59 RCTC Attachment G: Washington Transportation Improvement Board Performance Management Dashboard Website: http://www.tib.wa.gov/TIBDashboard/ Triennial Performance Audit 60 RCTC Triennial Performance Audit 61 RCTC Attachment H: Washington DOT Gray Notebook Project Capital Project Delivery Programs Website: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/GrayNotebook/navigateGNB.htm Triennial Performance Audit 62 RCTC Section VI Findings and Recommendations The following summarizes the major findings obtained from the Triennial Audit covering FY’s 2010 through 2012. A set of audit recommendations is then provided. Findings 1. RCTC has satisfactorily complied with all State legislative mandates for Regional Transportation Planning Agencies. Management continues to be firmly committed to the intent of the Commission’s enabling legislation that called for a relatively small staff to carry out its growing responsibilities in planning, programming and project delivery. 2. The TDA mandate for RCTC to analyze and recommend potential productivity improvements for the transit operators is strengthened through implementation of several activities including the approval of Short Range Transit Plans for each operator, performance monitoring on a regular basis using TransTrack, and assessment of productivity through the P roductivity Improvement Program (PIP). RCTC has been working with the operators to update the PIP as an evaluation tool and design of a new county-wide reporting structure. 3. RCTC ensures the submittal of required annual Transit State Controller Reports by the transit operators. The Controller’s Instructions for the report specify that an operator prepares separate reports for general public transit and for specialized services for elderly and disabled. Only one of the four applicable operators (City of Banning) currently prepares both reports, whereas the others each submit one combined report for their entire respective systems. RCTC should verify that the other three operators (RTA, SunLine Transit, and City of Beaumont) comply with the Controller instructions and submit separate State Controller reports for general public transit and for specialized services. 4. The SB 821 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program Adopted Policies were updated in January 2011 to include three additional provisions for the LTF reimbursement process. The provisions were added in response to recommendations made in the prior performan ce audit. 5. RCTC has responded to and fully implemented four of the five prior performance audit recommendations. The remaining prior recommendation is in progress of being fully implemented relating to resolving the local transportation funds account for local street and road expenditures in the City of Blythe. Triennial Performance Audit 63 RCTC 6. Commencing with the renewal of Measure A in 2010, the agency’s implementation of its strategic plan has played a key role in the success to administer the highway capital program as well as major transit programs such as the Perris Valley Commuter Rail Line. RCTC has been able to accomplish this level of activity by using Measure A’s revenue stream and RCTC’s track record of delivering projects to issue bonds at favorable interest rates and also to compete successfully for awards of federal and state transportation funds including a loan from the TIFIA program. 7. Ensuring the efficient distribution and expenditure of transit funds is a critical element of RCTC’s oversight role. To strengthen its ability to coordinate efficient and effective transit service, RCTC established the Transit Operator Working Group (TOWG) comprised of the county transit operators. The coordination of services and operations is intended to reduce redundancy, enable transfers, identify deficiencies in connectivity and the means in which to resolve them and therefore, provide a more efficient transit system for the people of Riverside County. RCTC coordinates the annual update to the SRTP through the TOWG as the means to justify transit service and capital expenditures. 8. In May 2012, RCTC finalized an update to the Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Coordination Plan for Riverside County. This document brings current the 2008 Coordinated Plan and is significant as the updated plan helps support and provide guidance and rationale for additional funding requests by public transit providers as well as by human services partners. 9. A Local Transportation Fund reserve policy and funding disbursement policy are in place to ensure that operator budgets do not exceed available funds. The reserve policy sets aside 10 percent of apportionments that could be drawn down pending approval of a request by an operator and a budget and SRTP amendment. The Commission also holds an annual call for projects to administer LTF non-motorized funding, as well as a biennial call for projects to disburse federal transit funds for specialized transportation services. 10. To ensure efficient use of existing capital funds, the Commission adopted revised policies in March 2010, requiring all operators to spend down existing TDA capital balances prior to requesting additional TDA capital funds. In order for the public transit operators to claim LTF and/or STA funds, the Commission must allocate funds to support the transit services and capital projects contained in the SRTPs. The requested allocations are consistent with the approved SRTPs, and the funds are explicitly for the projects stated in the approved plans. 11. As no TDA has been allocated to streets and roads since 2009, RCTC received confirmation in a letter from Caltrans in May 2010 that the Commission must still conduct at least one transit public hearing in compliance with the law and involve the Citizens Advisory Committee. A meeting was held in Banning in May 2011 to solicit comments for FY 2011-12. Triennial Performance Audit 64 RCTC The Commission should ensure that the annual public hearing is rotated in a manner such that a meeting is held in each of the transit operator jurisdictions in the County to assist the operators and their communities in identifying potential transit needs. 12. Given the broad and relatively unique dispersion of public information and outreach duties among staff located in different departments, RCTC makes an effort to ensure strong internal coordination for consistent messaging and distribution of information to the public and media. This is especially critical given the heightened use and speed of technology and on-line public information distribution combined with RCTC’s increased use of separate websites for major project development efforts. RCTC should continue to review the current communications and outreach structure and its internal and external activity flow as public outreach strategies become even more critical to the success of all RCTC programs. Triennial Performance Audit 65 RCTC Triennial Audit Recommendations 1. Ensure transit operators complete and submit separate State Controller Reports fo r general public transit and for specialized services. There is a requirement guiding the Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report that the transit operator prepares separate reports for general public transit and for specialized services. The requirement is contained in the State Controller Instructions, and on the report cover sheet. Only one of the four applicable operators (City of Banning) currently prepares both reports whereas the others each submit one combined report for their entire respective systems. RCTC should verify that the other three operators (RTA, SunLine Transit, and City of Beaumont) comply with the requirement and submit separate State Controller reports for general public transit and for specialized services. Separate recommendations are made in the respective transit operator performance audits regarding this reporting procedure. Although the State Controller’s Office has not provided notice to an operator, the submission of separate reports to the State Controller will demonstrate RCTC’s and each operator’s pro-active approach to compliance with State reporting instructions. 2. Update PIP procedures and reporting tool for transit performance metrics. Toward the end of the audit period, RCTC conducted a comprehensive review of the PIP to ensure that policy, criteria, and targets are both fair and achievable by the operators in light of the current economic conditions. The PIP, as is currently configured, has its limitations as a stand-alone tool to accurately assess transit performance in relation to economic and policy conditions guiding transit operator decisions over the last several years. In response, RCTC has been working with a consultant to develop a new repo rting tool that provides greater context to the performance data in a user friendly manner and highlights the connectivity aspects of public transit, among other presentation elements. Under development is the State of Transit Performance Measurement Program designed to be a county-wide reporting structure that will present transit impacts from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective based on PIP analysis and other metric factors. RCTC should document the method and procedures for developing an updated performance measurement program. 3. Rotate annual transit needs hearings among transit system jurisdictions. RCTC should ensure that the annual public hearing is rotated in a manner such that a meeting is held in or near each of the transit operator jurisdictions in the County on a regular basis (e.g. every two or three years) to assist the operators and their communities identify potential transit needs. Also, given that the majority of CAC members reside in Western Riverside County, the Commission should give consideration to attracting additional potential members from Eastern Riverside County through expansion of the existing CAC. Representatives from both Western and Eastern Riverside County would then Triennial Performance Audit 66 RCTC attend a public hearing in their respective areas of the County to engage their local transit constituents. 4. Develop a chart outlining the implementation of public affairs and communications services. The Deputy Executive Director retains responsibility to manage public affairs including addressing social media outreach and presentations. The previous performance audit made note about the dual role of the Deputy Executive Director serv ing as Deputy Executive as well as public affairs management, and suggested for RCTC to review this structure in the future. Although the Commission does not have a separate public affairs department, as depicted in personnel organization charts, RCTC makes concerted effort to ensure strong internal coordination among staff and its external partners for consistent messaging and updated distribution of information to the public and media given the heightened use and speed of on-line public communication and creation of separate websites by RCTC for major infrastructure projects. RCTC should continue to review the current communications and outreach structure and its internal and external activity flow as public outreach strategies become even more critical to the success of all RCTC programs (highway and transit). This includes a suggestion for RCTC staff to develop a flow chart that maps out the strategies and processes undertaken to deliver and update each communication program (e.g. monthly and annual newsletters, social media feeds, website development and maintenance, etc.) and identify the timelines for key decision points, cross departmental communication, and responsible staff for consistent and timely messaging. The chart could be used by staff to enhance current communications protocols and provide checks of information and identify any gaps in the communication process. January 2014 ATTACHMENT 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i Section I ......................................................................................................................................1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 Overview of the Transit System ...........................................................................................1 Section II .....................................................................................................................................5 Operator Compliance Requirements ....................................................................................5 Section III .................................................................................................................................. 10 Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations ................................................................. 10 Section IV .................................................................................................................................. 12 TDA Performance Indicators .............................................................................................. 12 Section V ................................................................................................................................... 21 Review of Operator Functions ........................................................................................... 21 Operations ................................................................................................................... 21 Maintenance ................................................................................................................ 23 Planning ....................................................................................................................... 24 Marketing .................................................................................................................... 24 General Administration and Management.................................................................... 25 Section VI .................................................................................................................................. 26 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 28 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 31 Executive Summary PMC - i Executive Summary The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for the City of Corona Transit Service covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12. The audit includes a review of the following areas: Compliance with TDA Requirements Status of Prior Audit Recommendations Transit System Performance Trends Detailed Functional Review From the review, recommendations were developed to improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the City of Corona Transit Service. Compliance with TDA Requirements The City has fully complied with all nine applicable requirements. Two additional compliance requirements are not applicable to Corona (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio, and rural area farebox recovery ratio). Status of Prior Audit Recommendations Of the two prior audit recommendations, Corona implemented the recommendation regarding the compatibility of the data contained in the TransTrack Manager and NTD reports. The other recommendation regarding the electronic submittal of the contractor’s monthly performance report was not implemented and is considered no longer applicable. System Performance Trends 1. Operating costs systemwide decreased 2.3 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. By mode (using unaudited data), fixed route services saw its operating costs decrease by 3 percent during the period. In Dial-A-Ride operating costs decreased by a modest 1.5 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012, which was below the increase in the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the same period. 2. Ridership decreased 5.9 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership decreased 7.1 percent, while Dial-A-Ride ridership decreased 2.9 percent. Systemwide Executive Summary PMC - ii ii ridership remained fairly stable with modest increases reported in FY 2010 and FY 2012. Systemwide ridership fell from 229,793 in FY 2010 to a low of 210,721 in FY 2011 before rebounding to 215,068 in FY 2012. The systemwide trends are also reflected at the modal level. 3. The provision of vehicle service hours and miles decreased systemwide as well as for both modes during the audit period. Fixed route vehicle service hours and miles decreased 21.5 and 22.6 percent, respectively. Dial-A-Ride vehicle service hours and miles exhibited smaller decreases of 9.4 and 4.8 percent, respectively . Overall, systemwide vehicle service hours decreased 15.8 percent and vehicle service miles decreased 13.7 percent. 4. Operating cost per passenger increased 3.9 percent systemwide based on audited data. Cost per passenger increased 4.4 percent on fixed route during the audit period and increased 1.4 percent on Dial-A-Ride. The indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness. 5. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, increased 16.1 percent systemwide based on audited data. This indicator increased 23.5 percent on t he fixed route whereas Dial-A-Ride saw its cost per hour increase 8.7 percent. 6. The systemwide fare recovery ratio exhibited a slight 3.8 percent decrease from 21.0 percent in FY 2009 to 20.21 percent in FY 2012 based on audited data. Corona’s farebox recovery is inclusive of advertising revenues, interest and local support. Overall, the systemwide farebox recovery remained fairly stable. Without local support revenues, systemwide farebox recovery increased 23.4 percent from 13.5 percent in FY 2009 to 16.6 6 percent in FY 2012. Farebox for fixed route decreased 9.3 percent inclusive of local support revenues and increased 9.5 percent without local revenues factored in. Dial-A-Ride saw an increase of 47.8 percent without local support and saw an increase of 2.5 percent with local support. Total systemwide revenues increased 20.6 percent while passenger revenues including auxiliary support exhibited a 5.9 percent decrease. Functional Review 1. The City adopted a fare increase that was implemented in July 2010 as well as a schedule reduction of 25 percent. These measures were implemented to address the rise in operating costs and reduction of non-productive services. Early morning and late evening trips were eliminated, which adjusted fixed-route and DAR operating hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 2. Corona has embarked on a multi-year effort to improve accessibility at bus stops with the assistance of state and federal grant funds. Such improvements have included curb cuts, concrete improvements and upgraded setbacks adjacent to the library and Senior Center. The City is considering increasing the space encompassing bus stops and shelters in conformance with ADA requirements. 3. Transit services continued to be operated under contract by Transportation Concepts. Executive Summary PMC - iii iii During the spring of 2013, the contract was place out to competitive bid. The prior contract was extended 8 months prior to the rebidding process. Transportation Concepts was awarded the new contract, which has a 3-year base term and one 2-year option. The new service contract includes separate hourly cost rates between fixed route and demand response service modes. In addition, the contract allowed for additional service such as a morning eastbound Red Line trip and an afternoon school tripper. 4. Transportation Concepts has subcontracted with a local vendor, Corona Fleet Services, to provide maintenance. Vehicle maintenance follows the industry standard of 45 days or 3,000 miles which conform to the State’s GPPV regulations. To allow a scheduling cushion, Transportation Concepts schedules each preventative maintenance inspection (PMI) every 43 days or 2,900 miles. Transportation Concepts plans to begin maintaining vehicles in the second year of the base term. 5. Corona’s transit services are marketed in electronic and print formats. The City’s website contains a dedicated page with information about the transit system. Printed brochures are available for both service modes. The colored tri-fold brochures provide a service area map with fare, schedule and service hour information. Other types of printed materials include brochures targeted to students and area shoppers, which identify school sites and retail businesses adjacent to the fixed routes. Brochures are published in-house by the City. 6. The City’s public transit operations are contained under the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department overseen by the Assistant Public Works Director. The Transportation Planning Manager and Transportation Engineering Technician oversee the daily administration of the transit system. Recommendations Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #1 Enforce the No-Show Policy. The City reports that its rate of “No-Shows” has averaged around 8 percent on its Dial-A-Ride service which is above general industry norms. Since the City’s Dial-A-Ride is open to general public ridership and is not limited to senior and ADA-certified individuals, the number of trips has steadily increased. No-Shows affect the timeliness and efficiency of service delivery in the areas of service hours and on-time performance. Staff has indicated that it does not enforce its No-Show policy. It is recommended that the City implement a series of measures consisting of written notification, education and awareness, and eventual potential suspensions for repeat violators. It is High Priority Executive Summary PMC - iv iv Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline advised that the City and the contract operator take the necessary steps to formalize the No- Show policy and include the policy in transit brochures and on the website. #2 Consider Utilization of SB 821 LTF Article 3 Funds toward transit accessibility improvements. In efforts to improve community access including to bus stops and shelters, the City of Corona has embarked on improvements to bikeways and walkways around the City. The City has utilized STA and ARRA funds to fund these improvements. Another potential source of funding that the City might consider would be to propose related projects for SB-821 LTF Article 3 funds through RCTC. RCTC solicits applications for funds through a Call for Projects that are scored according to specific criteria and may be used for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There are adopted policies by RCTC for this program including local match commitments and timely use of the funds. Non-motorized projects to improve accessibility could include engineering expenses leading to construction; right-of-way acquisition; construction and reconstruction; bicycle and pedestrian facilities and signage to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); bicycle route improvements and installation of bicycle facilities such as secure bicycle parking, benches, and other amenities adjacent to transit terminals. Medium Priority Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 1 1 Section I Introduction California’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that a triennial performance audit be conducted of public transit entities that receive TDA revenues. The performance audit serves to ensure accountability in the use of public transportation revenue. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for the City of Corona Transit Service covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12. The purpose of the performance audit is to evaluate the City’s effectiveness and efficiency in its use of TDA funds to provide public transportation in its service area. This evaluation is required as a condition for continued receipt of these funds for public transportation purposes. In addition, the audit evaluates the City’s compliance with the conditions specified in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC). This task involves ascertaining whether the transit agency is meeting the PUC’s reporting requirements. Moreover, the audit includes calculations of transit service performance indicators and a detailed review of the transit administrative functions. From the analysis that has been undertaken, a set of recommendations has been made which is intended to improve the performance of transit operations. In summary, this TDA audit affords the opportunity for an independent, constructive and objective evaluation of the organization and its operations that otherwise might not be available. The methodology for the audit included in-person interviews with management, collection and review of agency documents, data analysis, and on-site observations. The Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Entities published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was used to guide in the development and conduct of the audit. Overview of the Transit System The City of Corona has provided general public Dial-A-Ride service since April 1977. In February 2001, the city began operating fixed route service under the brand “Corona Cruiser” in response to its rapid growth in population and to provide better connectivity to other transi t services. The City of Corona has had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) since January 1994 to provide complementary Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit to RTA’s buses that travel through the city. The City also has formal fare transfer agreements with RTA and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) who operates the Metrolink rail service. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 2 2 Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, Corona’s population is 152,374 which grew 21.9 percent since the 2000 U.S. Census. The senior citizen population, comprised of residents aged 65 and over, is 7.34 percent. The 2013 population for Corona is estimated to be 156,823 as reported by the State Department of Finance. The city covers a 38.83 square mile area. Major highway connections serving Corona are Interstate 15 (I-15) State Routes (SR)-71 and 91. I- 15 is the main north-south highway connecting Corona with Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga to the north and southwestern Riverside County and San Diego to the south. SR-91 connects Corona with Riverside to the east and Orange County to the west. SR-71 connects the city with Chino Hills and Pomona to the northwest. Major arterial streets traversing Corona include Sixth Street, Grand Boulevard, Magnolia Avenue, Main Street and West Ontario Avenue. System Characteristics Corona operates both fixed-route and demand responsive transit services for the general public. The fixed route service is comprised of two lines and branded under the name Corona Cruiser . The system operates Monday through Friday from 6:42 a.m. to 7:09 p.m. and Saturday from 8:52 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. The transit system does not operate on Sunday as well as on the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. The Corona Cruiser fixed route services during the audit period are summarized in Table I-1. Table I-1 Corona Transit Fixed Route Services Route Frequency/Operation Key Time points Blue Line Every 60 minutes (Monday through Friday from 6:42 a.m. to 7:09 p.m.; Saturday from 8:52 a.m. to 3:50 p.m.) Wal-Mart @ McKinley Magnolia @ McKinley Magnolia @ Rimpau Magnolia @ Fullerton Mountain Gate Park Corona Library North Main Metrolink Station Fender Museum River Run Apartments Red Line Every 54 minutes (Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:05 p.m.; Saturday from 9:08 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.) Target @ Cajalco Wal-Mart @ California Centennial High School Rimpau @ Magnolia E. Grand @ E. Sixth Street North Main Metrolink Station Tenth @ Lincoln El Tapatio @ W. Sixth Street Source: City of Corona Transit Services Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 3 3 Dial-A-Ride The Corona Dial-A-Ride is a general public demand-response service designed to provide curb-to- curb transportation for area residents. The Dial-A-Ride service area encompasses the City of Corona, satellite locations in Norco and the unincorporated Riverside County communities of Home Gardens, Coronita and El Cerrito. Dial-A-Ride offers complementary and priority service to passengers certified under the ADA. ADA certification is provided through the RTA. Reservations are accepted from one to 14 days in advance. Dial-A-Ride service operates the same days and hours as the Corona Cruiser. Dial-A-Ride does not operate on Sunday as well as on the following holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas. Fares City of Corona Transit Service fares are structured based on passenger, mode and media type. Fares were increased in July 2010. To incentivize public transit usage and reduce emissions, Corona uses AB 2766 funds to subsidize the cost of multi-day passes on the Corona Cruiser. Tickets and passes are available on-line or in person at the City Corporation Yard, City Hall and the Corona Library. The fare structures during the audit period are summarized in Table I-2. Table I-2 Corona Transit Fare Schedule Fare Category Fixed Route Dial-A-Ride Per Ride Day Pass 15-Day Pass 31-Day Pass Adult/General $1.50 $4.00 $17.50 $35.00 $4.00 Student (K-12 Grade) $1.50 $4.00 $12.25 $24.50 N/A Senior (60+)/Disabled $0.70 $2.00 $8.05 $16.10 $2.50 ADA Certified $0.70 $2.00 $8.05 $16.10 $2.50 Medicare Card Holders $0.70 $2.00 $8.05 $16.10 $2.50 Children (46” tall or under) $0.25 N/A N/A N/A $0.50 Buddy Fare N/A N/A N/A N/A $1.25 Metrolink N/A N/A N/A N/A $4.00 Source: City of Corona Transit Services The Buddy Fare on Dial-A-Ride allows for two or more seniors or persons with disabilities to ride for half fare when traveling between the same locations. Fleet There were 14 vehicles in the transit fleet during the audit period; four utilized exclusively on the fixed-route and the remaining 10 vehicles utilized on both service modes. All vehicles in the fleet are wheelchair accessible with tie-downs in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 4 4 of 1990 (ADA). Four 2007 El Dorado AeroElite 320 vehicles are fueled by CNG and operate solely on the fixed routes. Table I-3 summarizes the Corona Transit fleet. Table I-3 Corona Transit Fleet Year Make/Model Quantity Fuel Type Seating Capacity 2001 Ford Goshen E450 1 Gasoline 16 (2 W/C) 2003 Ford Goshen 2 Gasoline 16 (2 W/C) 2004 Ford Goshen 3 Gasoline 16 (2 W/C) 2005 El Dorado Aerotech 2 Gasoline 14 (2 W/C) 2007 El Dorado AeroElite 320 4 CNG 26 (2 W/C) 2007 El Dorado Aerotech 220 2 Gasoline 12 (2 W/C) Total 14 Source: City of Corona The City took delivery of ten 2012 El Dorado Aerotech 240 vehicles in the fall of 2012. The 2012 vehicles are configured for 16 passengers and 2 wheelchairs. Four vehicles operate on CN G and the remaining 6 vehicles are gasoline powered. Eight vehicles acquired prior to 2007 were retired as the newer vehicles were placed into service. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 5 5 Section II Operator Compliance Requirements This section of the audit report contains the analysis of the City’s ability to comply with state requirements for continued receipt of TDA funds. The evaluation uses the guidebook, Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, September 2008 (third edition), which was developed by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to assess transit operators. The guidebook contains a checklist of eleven measures taken from relevant sections of the Public Utilities Code and the California Code of Regulations. Each of these requirements is discussed in the table below, including a description of the system’s efforts to comply with the requirements. In addition, findings from the compliance review are described following the table. Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The transit operator submitted annual reports to the RTPA based upon the Uniform System of Accounts and Records established by the State Controller. Report is due 90 days after end of fiscal year (Sept. 28/29), or 110 days (Oct. 19/20) if filed electronically (Internet). Public Utilities Code, Section 99243 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: October 14, 2010 FY 2011: October 12, 2011 FY 2012: October 15, 2012 Conclusion: Complied. The operator has submitted annual fiscal and compliance audits to the RTPA and to the State Controller within 180 days following the end of the fiscal year (Dec. 27), or has received the appropriate 90-day extension by the RTPA allowed by law. Public Utilities Code, Section 99245 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: March 28, 2011 FY 2011: September 15, 2011 FY 2012: February 26, 2013 Conclusion: Complied. The CHP has, within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim submitted by an operator, certified the operator’s compliance with Vehicle Code Public Utilities Code, Section 99251 B The City participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 6 6 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts Section 1808.1 following a CHP inspection of the operator’s terminal. claim. Inspections were conducted at the City of Corona Corporation Yard at 735 West Corporation Yard Way. Inspection dates applicable to the audit period were: May 5 & 6, 2009; June 2, 2010; June 29, 2011; and July 11, 2012. All inspections conducted were rated satisfactory. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s claim for TDA funds is submitted in compliance with rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA for such claims. Public Utilities Code, Section 99261 As a condition of approval, the City of Corona’s annual claims for Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance are submitted in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by RCTC. Conclusion: Complied. If an operator serves urbanized and non-urbanized areas, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to the ratio determined by the rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA. Public Utilities Code, Section 99270.1 This requirement is not applicable, as Corona Transit only serves an urbanized area. Conclusion: Not Applicable. The operator’s operating budget has not increased by more than 15% over the preceding year, nor is there a Public Utilities Code, Section 99266 Percentage increase in the City of Corona’s transit operating budget: Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 7 7 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts substantial increase or decrease in the scope of operations or capital budget provisions for major new fixed facilities unless the operator has reasonably supported and substantiated the change(s). FY 2010: -0.4% FY 2011: -7.3% FY 2012: +0.9% Source: City of Corona Transit Services Fund Budgets for FYs 2009-2012. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s definitions of performance measures are consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247, including (a) operating cost, (b) operating cost per passenger, (c) operating cost per vehicle service hour, (d) passengers per vehicle service hour, (e) passengers per vehicle service mile, (f) total passengers, (g) transit vehicle, (h) vehicle service hours, (i) vehicle service miles, and (j) vehicle service hours per employee. Public Utilities Code, Section 99247 The City of Corona’s definition of performance is consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247. A review of internal performance data reports and trip sheets generated during the audit period indicates that correct performance data are being collected. Conclusion: Complied. If the operator serves an urbanized area, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-fifth (20 percent), unless it is in a county with a population of less than 500,000, in which case it must maintain a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs of at least equal to three- twentieths (15 percent), if so determined by the RTPA. Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.12, 99270.1 Operating ratios for Corona Transit using audited data were as follows: FY 2010: 20.82% FY 2011: 20.08% FY 2012: 20.21% Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits Conclusion: Complied. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 8 8 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts If the operator serves a rural area, or provides exclusive services to elderly and disabled persons, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-tenth (10 percent). Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.4, 99268.5 This requirement is not applicable, as Corona Transit only serves an urbanized area and provides general public dial-a- ride. Conclusion: Not applicable. The current cost of the operator’s retirement system is fully funded with respect to the officers and employees of its public transportation system, or the operator is implementing a plan approved by the RTPA which will fully fund the retirement system within 40 years. Public Utilities Code, Section 99271 To be eligible for TDA funds, the annual TDA claims form requires a sign-off from the transit claimant to comply with standard assurances, one of which is that the City of Corona’s retirement system is funded. The City contracts with a private operator, Transportation Concepts, while the City staff’s retirement is funded through the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Conclusion: Complied. If the operator receives state transit assistance funds, the operator makes full use of funds available to it under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 before TDA claims are granted. California Code of Regulations, Section 6754(a)(3) As a recipient of State Transit Assistance Funds, the City of Corona is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as amended. FY 2010: $473,602 FY 2011: $ -0- FY 2012: $ 11,166 Source: National Transit Database. Conclusion: Complied. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 9 9 Findings and Observations from Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to the City of Corona Transit Service, the operator fully complied with all nine applicable requirements. Two additional compliance requirements are not applicable to Corona (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio, and rural area farebox recovery ratio). 2. The City participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. The CHP inspection reports submitted for review were found to be satisfactory. 3. The City of Corona Transit Fund operating budget exhibited slight fluctuations during the audit period. The budget decreased 0.4 percent in FY 2010 and 7.3 percent in FY 2011. For FY 2012, the budget saw a small increase of 0.9 percent. 4. Based on the available data from the Annual Fiscal and Compliance Audits, the City’s systemwide farebox recovery ratio remained above the required 20 percent during the review period. The average farebox during the triennial period was 20.37 percent. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 10 10 Section III Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations The City of Corona’s efforts to implement the recommendations made in the prior triennial audit are examined in this section of the report. For this purpose, each prior recommendation for the agency is described, followed by a discussion of the City of Corona’s efforts to implement the recommendation. Conclusions concerning the extent to which the recommendations have been adopted by the agency are then presented. Prior Recommendation 1 Work with the contract operator to electronically submit the monthly performance report that is compatible with the City computer system. Actions taken by the City of Corona The City attempted to implement this recommendation but encountered several obstacles. The main obstacles to implementation have included issues involving the City’s firewall protection software and server compatibility. Lack of support from previous management also slowed progress to implement the recommendation. Moreover, parallel testing of the mobile data terminals on board the vehicles during upgrades to Routematch software did not have desired results such as not being able to distinguish between transit modes. The City still maintains the Access database used to transfer the performance dat a from the contract operator. Paper generated reports from the contractor are still preferred by city transit staff which in turn enters the data into the City system. The data entry helps city transit staff to keep on top of operator performance. Conclusion This recommendation has not been implemented and is no longer applicable as the City continues to prefer paper reports over unproven electronic methods. Prior Recommendation 2 Need to ensure financial and statistical data reported in TransTrack database agrees with same information reported in the NTD report. Actions taken by the City of Corona This recommendation was prompted by variances observed in the data reported in TransTrack Manager and the National Transit Database (NTD) reports. Specifically this concerned variances in the operating expense and passenger trip data for FY 2008-09. Operational statistical data has Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 11 11 usually been consistent; however, the City had found it challenging to have the financial data be consistent between the two reports due to the timing of when the annual fiscal and compliance audit is compiled and submitted. In response, the City has implemented procedures to ensure that financial and statistical data agree in both the TransTrack and NTD reports. Financial and performance data in the annual NTD and the TransTrack year-end close out draws upon the audited financial statement and annual performance data are reviewed for accuracy. A review of TransTrack reports found in the annual Short-Range Transit Plans indicates consistency with the data contained in the NTD and annual fiscal and compliance audits. Conclusion This recommendation has been implemented. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 12 12 Section IV TDA Performance Indicators This section reviews Corona Transit Service’s performance in providing transit service to the community in an efficient and effective manner. TDA requires that at least five specific performance indicators be reported, which are contained in the following tables. Farebox recovery ratio is not one of the five specific indicators but is a requirement for continued TDA funding. Therefore, farebox calculation is also included. Two additional performance indicators, operating cost per mile and average fare per passenger, are included as well. Findings from the analysis are contained in the section following the tables. Tables IV-1 through IV-3 provide the performance indicators for Corona Transit Service systemwide, fixed route and Dial-A-Ride. Charts are also provided to depict the trends in the indicators. It is noted that the systemwide operating costs and fare revenues are based on audited figures, while fixed route and Dial-A-Ride costs and fare revenues are unaudited. The annual fiscal audits do not provide a modal breakdown. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 13 13 Table IV-1 Corona Transit TDA Performance Indicators Systemwide Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009-2012 Operating Cost (1) $1,971,504 $2,031,211 $1,849,630 $1,926,753 -2.3% Total Passengers 228,627 229,793 210,721 215,068 -5.9% Vehicle Service Hours 34,147 34,372 28,527 28,748 -15.8% Vehicle Service Miles 433,599 442,700 364,347 374,232 -13.7% Employee FTE's 34 35 29 29 -14.7% Passenger Fares $266,093 $258,217 $297,780 $321,032 20.6% Local Support Revenues $147,880 $164,764 $73,712 $68,319 -53.8% Total Fare Revenues $413,973 $422,981 $371,492 $389,351 -5.9% Operating Cost per Passenger $8.62 $8.84 $8.78 $8.96 3.9% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $57.74 $59.09 $64.84 $67.02 16.1% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $4.55 $4.59 $5.08 $5.15 13.2% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 6.7 6.7 7.4 7.5 11.7% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.53 0.52 0.58 0.57 9.0% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 1,004.3 982.1 983.7 991.3 -1.3% Average Fare per Passenger $1.16 $1.12 $1.41 $1.49 28.3% Fare Recovery Ratio 13.50% 12.71% 16.10% 16.66% 23.4% Fare Recovery Ratio With Local Support (2) 21.00% 20.82% 20.08% 20.21% -3.8% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits; NTD; State Controller's Reports (1) TDA operating costs are audited data minus depreciation (2) Fare Recovery Ratio is the sum of fares plus local funds, interest and other revenue divided by operating cost. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 14 14 Table IV-2 Corona Transit TDA Performance Indicators Fixed Route Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009-2012 Operating Cost (1) $981,913 $989,079 $907,827 $952,248 -3.0% Total Passengers 165,505 165,104 152,568 153,783 -7.1% Vehicle Service Hours 18,106 18,286 14,225 14,218 -21.5% Vehicle Service Miles 216,681 215,553 167,939 167,690 -22.6% Employee FTE's 13 13 11 10 -23.1% Passenger Fares $143,700 $143,322 $150,927 $149,097 3.8% Local Support Revenues $76,001 $74,291 $31,599 $44,089 -42.0% Total Fare Revenues $219,701 $217,613 $182,526 $193,186 -12.1% Operating Cost per Passenger $5.93 $5.99 $5.95 $6.19 4.4% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $54.23 $54.09 $63.82 $66.97 23.5% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $4.53 $4.59 $5.41 $5.68 25.3% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 9.1 9.0 10.7 10.8 18.3% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.76 0.77 0.91 0.92 20.1% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 1,392.8 1,406.6 1,293.2 1,421.8 2.1% Average Fare per Passenger $0.87 $0.87 $0.99 $0.97 11.7% Fare Recovery Ratio 14.63% 14.49% 16.63% 15.66% 7.0% Fare Recovery Ratio with Local Support (2) 22.37% 22.00% 20.11% 20.29% -9.3% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: NTD; State Controller's Reports; TransTrack Manager (1) Costs are unaudited since annual fiscal & compliance audits do not include costs by mode. (2) Fare Recovery Ratio is the sum of fares plus local funds, interest and other revenue divided by operating cost. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 15 15 Table IV-3 Corona Transit TDA Performance Indicators Dial-A-Ride Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009-2012 Operating Cost (1) $989,591 $1,026,825 $941,801 $974,503 -1.5% Total Passengers 63,122 64,689 58,153 61,285 -2.9% Vehicle Service Hours 16,041 16,086 14,302 14,530 -9.4% Vehicle Service Miles 216,918 227,147 196,408 206,542 -4.8% Employee FTE's 21 22 18 19 -9.5% Passenger Fares $111,096 $114,895 $146,853 $161,731 45.6% Local Support Revenues $83,176 $90,473 $42,112 $34,433 -58.6% Total Fare Revenues $194,272 $205,368 $188,965 $196,164 1.0% Operating Cost per Passenger $15.68 $15.87 $16.20 $15.90 1.4% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $61.69 $63.83 $65.85 $67.07 8.7% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $4.56 $4.52 $4.80 $4.72 3.4% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.2 7.2% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.29 0.28 0.30 0.30 2.0% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 763.9 731.2 794.6 764.7 0.1% Average Fare per Passenger $1.76 $1.78 $2.53 $2.64 49.9% Fare Recovery Ratio 11.23% 11.19% 15.59% 16.60% 47.8% Fare Recovery Ratio with Local Support (2) 19.63% 20.00% 20.06% 20.13% 2.5% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: NTD; State Controller's Reports; TransTrack Manager (1) Costs are unaudited since annual fiscal & compliance audits do not include costs by mode. (2) Fare Recovery Ratio is the sum of fares plus local funds, interest and other revenue divided by operating cost. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 16 16 Graph IV-1 Operating Costs Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-A-Ride Graph IV-2 Ridership Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-A-Ride Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 17 17 Graph IV-3 Operating Cost Per Passenger Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-A-Ride Graph IV-4 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-A-Ride Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 18 18 Graph IV-5 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-A-Ride Graph IV-6 Fare Recovery Ratio Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-A-Ride Note: Systemwide and modal farebox ratios include local support revenues. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 19 19 Findings from Verification of TDA Performance Indicators 1. Operating costs systemwide decreased 2.3 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. By mode (using unaudited data), fixed route services saw its operating costs decrease by 3 percent during the period. In Dial-A-Ride operating costs decreased by a modest 1.5 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012, which was below the increase in the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the same period. 2. Ridership decreased 5.9 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership decreased 7.1 percent, while Dial-A-Ride ridership decreased 2.9 percent. Systemwide ridership remained fairly stable with modest increases reported in FY 2010 and FY 2012. Systemwide ridership fell from 229,793 in FY 2010 to a low of 210,721 in FY 2011 before rebounding to 215,068 in FY 2012. The systemwide trends are also reflected at the modal level. 3. The provision of vehicle service hours and miles decreased systemwide as well as for both modes during the audit period. Fixed route vehicle service hours and miles decreased 21.5 and 22.6 percent, respectively. Dial-A-Ride vehicle service hours and miles exhibited smaller decreases of 9.4 and 4.8 percent, respectively. Overall, systemwide vehicle service hours decreased 15.8 percent and vehicle service miles decreased 13.7 percent. 4. Operating cost per passenger increased 3.9 percent systemwide based on audited data. In contrast, cost per passenger increased 4.4 percent on fixed route during the audit period and increased 1.4 percent on Dial-A-Ride. The indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness. 5. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, increased 16.1 percent systemwide based on audited data. This indicator increased 23.5 percent on the fixed route whereas Dial-A-Ride saw its cost per hour increase 8.7 percent. 6. Passengers per vehicle service hour systemwide exhibited an increase of 11.7 percent. In keeping with that trend, fixed route experienced an increase of 18.3 percent over the audit period. Passengers per hour for Dial-A-Ride increased by a modest 7.2 percent. Systemwide, the number of passengers per service hour showed steady gains during the period increasing from 6.7 passengers in FY 2009 to 7.5 passengers in FY 2012. On the fixed route, this indicator increased from 9.1 pas sengers in FY 2009 to 10.8 passengers in FY 2012. 7. The systemwide fare recovery ratio exhibited a slight 3.8 percent decrease from 21.0 percent in FY 2009 to 20.21 percent in FY 2012 based on audited data. Corona’s farebox recovery is inclusive of advertising revenues, interest and local support. Overall, the systemwide farebox recovery remained fairly stable. Without local support revenues, Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 20 20 systemwide farebox recovery increased 23.4 percent from 13.5 percent in FY 2009 to 16.66 percent in FY 2012. Farebox for fixed route decreased 9.3 percent inclusive of local support revenues and increased 9.5 percent without local revenues factored in. Dial-A- Ride saw an increase of 47.8 percent without local support and saw an increase of 2.5 percent with local support. Total systemwide revenues increased 20.6 percent while passenger revenues including auxiliary support exhibited a 5.9 percent decrease. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 21 21 Section V Review of Operator Functions This section provides an in-depth review of various functions within the City of Corona Transit Service. The review highlights accomplishments, issues and/or challenges that were determined during the audit period. The following functions were reviewed at the City of Corona: Operations Maintenance Planning Marketing General Administration and Management Within some departments are sub-functions that require review as well, such as Grants Administration that falls under General Administration. Operations The City of Corona Transit Service is comprised of two fixed-routes and a general public Dial-A- Ride service. The Dial-A-Ride operates the same hours as the fixed route service. The transit system serves to augment the Riverside Transit Agency’s (RTA) routes in Corona, which are more commuter oriented. Corona Cruiser has been averaging 11 to 12 passengers an hour whereas Dial-A-Ride has been averaging 4 passengers an hour. The City adopted a fare increase that was implemented in July 2010 as well as a schedule reduction of 25 percent. These measures were implemented to address the rise in operating costs and to reduce non-productive services. Early morning and late evening trips were eliminated, which adjusted fixed route operating hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There have been other adjustments made to the fixed routes in the interest of safety and service efficiencies. The westbound terminus of the Blue Line involves the vehicle making a tight U -turn. The City displaced two stops and removed one stop at Cota Street to address the circulation issue. In addition, a deviation was added down 6th Street along the westbound run to avoid the truck bottleneck at the on-ramp to I-15. On the Red Line, a stop on Taber Street was eliminated and access to the Metrolink Park and Ride lot was improved. Prior to implementation, these changes and the rise in Dial-A-Ride costs were discussed before the Public Services Committee. The Public Services Committee is c omprised of two council members, the City Manager (or representative), Assistant City Manager and department heads. This committee also reviews the Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP). The Transportation Now (T- NOW) committee also addresses transit issues in Corona. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 22 22 Dial-A-Ride saw an increase in the number of student riders due to reductions to school bus service. The City also implemented a morning eastbound trip and an afternoon tripper run on the Red Line to serve schools. Corona has embarked on a multi-year effort to improve accessibility at bus stops with the assistance of state and federal grant funds. Such improvements have included curb cuts, concrete improvements and upgraded setbacks adjacent to the library and Senior Center. The City is considering increasing the space encompassing bus stops and shelters in conformance with ADA requirements. Transit services continued to be operated under contract by Transportation Concepts. During the spring of 2013, the contract was place out to competitive bid. The prior contract was extended 8 months prior to the rebidding process. The City allowed bidders 40 days to develop and submit proposals. There was also an extensive outreach process to encourage the submittal of competitive proposals. RCTC staff served on the evaluation committee. Transportation Concepts was awarded the new contract, which has a 3-year base term and one 2-year option. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) encourages 5-year term contracts. The new service contract includes separate hourly rates between fixed route and demand response service modes. The City provides the transit vehicles and office space for the contract operator. The contractual relationship has been characterized as being cooperative with daily communication conducted between City and contract staff. Under the new contract, maintenance will be brought in-house by the contractor. Dispatching procedures are a combination of electronic and manual methods. Before the start of each run, drivers clock-in and receive the daily manifest. The drivers perform a pre-trip inspection and note the beginning mileage. Communication between the driver and dispa tch is conducted through a mobile data terminal (MDT) or “Ranger.” Mileage is manually reported and entered into an Access spreadsheet. The contractor’s administrative assistant or project manager inputs the data and submits to the City for review. An estimated 8 percent of Dial-A-Ride trips are “No-Shows”. The frequency of “No-Shows” is above general industry norms. The City’s No-Show policy is informal and has not been enforced to discourage this type of behavior. It is suggested that the City in conjunction with the contract operator address this issue, which affects service efficiencies. This includes enforcing the no show policy such as sending notifications and warnings to passengers who fail to show for their ride and potential take away of ride privileges for progressive no shows. On-time performance is tracked through the Dial-A-Ride trip sheets. There is a 15-minute pick up window that is monitored by dispatch. For the fixed-route, drivers make calls into dispatch at designated timepoints, generally about four per route. On-time performance is also tracked through RouteMatch while City transit staff makes field observations. On-time performance for all service modes averaged above 95 percent although expansion to State Route 91 and construction along Main Street will affect schedule adherence. Corona’s on-time performance for Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 23 23 the audit period is summarized in Table V-1: Table V-1 Corona Transit Service On-Time Performance FY 2009-10 FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 Blue Line 97.71% 97.22% 97.97% Red Line 97.61% 97.10% 97.09% Dial-A-Ride 96.30% 96.38% 96.29% Source: City of Corona Corona uses manual fare drop boxes. Drivers verify on the spot that proper fares are placed into the farebox. After each run has been completed, the farebox vaults are secured in the dispatch office. Revenues are counted the following day by two contract staff comprised of an administrative assistant and project manager. After the count is completed and reconciled, the revenues are transported to Bank of America for deposit into the City’s account. The City reports that the fare variance between expected and actual is low. Personnel Transit operations are contracted out to Irvine-based Transportation Concepts, which employs 29 staff in Corona. Personnel consist of the Project Manager, 20 full-time drivers, 1 part-time driver, 4 dispatchers, 1 administrative clerk, 1 trainer and 1 utility worker. Drivers are required to have a Class B license with General Public Paratransit Vehicle (GPPV) certification and a passenger endorsement. Fixed route drivers are Verification Transit Training (VTT)-certified. Route assignments are subject to an annual bid based on seniority. Contract employees are non-union. In response to service cutbacks, hours for full-time employees were reduced to either 36 or 37 per week. Split shifts were also implemented. The contract operator reported minimal turnover during the audit period. In 2012, there were two retirements and one termination. New drivers undergo 40 hours of classroom training as well as GPPV training. Further training consists of 40 hours behind-the-wheel training and 16 hours of cadet training involving the trainee riding along with an experienced driver. Supervised ride checks are conducted every 6 months, which are supplemented with monthly safety meetings and weekly unobserved ride checks. Sensitivity training emphasizes equal treatment of all passengers. Maintenance During the audit period, Transportation Concepts subcontracted with a local vendor, Corona Fleet Services, to provide maintenance. Corona Fleet Services is located at 1248 Magnolia Avenue, Corona. Vehicle maintenance follows the industry standard of 45 days or 3,000 miles which conform to the State’s GPPV regulations. To allow a scheduling cushion, Transportation Concepts schedules each preventative maintenance inspection (PMI) every 43 days or 2,900 miles. In addition, Transportation Concepts provides maintenance of bus stops and shelters. Under the new service contract, maintenance will be brought in-house by the contractor in part because Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 24 24 timely maintenance was impacted by slow procurement of parts by the maintenance subcontractor. The City is proposing the installation of two maintenance bays at the corporation yard to provide room for the contractor. Fueling is the responsibility of the City, which has a CNG fueling facility at the Corporation Yard where the El Dorado AeroElite buses are fueled. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is responsible for certifying the transit system’s maintenance facilities and for inspecting vehicles on an annual basis. Corona Transit vehicles have received satisfactory terminal inspections from the CHP. The last CHP inspection was conducted in July 2012. Planning The City of Corona prepares a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) on an annual basis. The SRTP covers a three-year planning horizon and includes a system overview; services and performance analysis for each route and service provided, service changes, and financial and capital plans. Under the services and performance chapter, a series of recommendations for service improvements is presented for each route or program. Performance data from TransTrack Manager is also included in the SRTP to provide an annual comparison. Corona must meet at least 4 out of 7 discretionary performance indicators. There is one mandatory indicator which is the farebox recovery ratio set at 20 percent. Table V-2 Corona Transit Performance Targets Performance Indicators FY 2009-10 Target FY 2010-11 Target FY 2011-12 Target Farebox Recovery >=20.00% >=20.00% >=20.00% Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour <=$59.39 <=$58.32 <=$64.91 Subsidy Per Passenger >=$5.81 & <=$7.85 >=$5.92 & <=$8.00 >=$5.98 & <=$8.08 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile >=$1.37 & <=$1.85 >=$1.39 & <=$1.89 >=$1.41 & <=$1.91 Subsidy Per Hour >=$39.02 & <=$52.79 >=$39.24 & <=$53.08 >=$43.76 & <=$59.20 Subsidy Per Mile >=$3.05 & <=$4.13 >=$3.06 & <=$4.14 >=$3.44 & <=$4.66 Passengers Per Revenue Hour >=5.7 & <=7.7 >=5.61 & <=7.59 >=6.21 & <=8.40 Passengers Per Revenue Mile >=0.45 & <=0.61 >=0.44 & <=0.60 >=0.49 & <=0.67 Source: City of Corona SRTP, TransTrack Manager For the FY 2009-10 SRTP, Corona met all 7 performance indicator targets. For the FY 2010-11 and 2011-12 SRTP, Corona met 6 out of 7 performance indicator targets except for the operating cost per hour. Marketing Corona’s transit services are marketed in electronic and print formats. The City’s website contains a dedicated page with information about the transit system. The page (http://www.discovercorona.com/City-Departments/Public-Works/Public-Services-and- Information/Corona-Cruiser.aspx) includes information about fares, routes, service hours and tips in both English and Spanish. Brochures and schedules are available as PDF downloads. Towards Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 25 25 the bottom of the webpage are the Title VI and ADA disclosures regarding passenger accommodation and non-discrimination. Printed brochures are available for both service modes. The colored tri-fold brochures provide a service area map with fare, schedule and service hour information. Other types of printed collateral include brochures targeted to students and area shoppers, which identify school sites and retail businesses adjacent to fixed routes. Brochures are published in-house. Corona Cruiser offers free rides on both of its fixed routes on the day after Thanksgiving to accommodate “Black Friday” shoppers. The “Black Friday” promotional flyers identify the major retail businesses located along each route. Creative marketing events have included “Poetry and Art on the Bus,” a collaborative effort between the Corona Cruiser and local high schools. A different poem and piece of art or photography are displayed on-board the vehicles each month. The City also derives revenue from bus shelter advertising which helps to support the Corona Cruiser farebox. Complaints are tracked by the contract operator and recorded onto the monthly report to the City. Complaints of a more serious nature are forwarded to the City for follow up. Complaints are placed into the driver’s file for reference. The website also has an email feedback form that transfers customer comments to City transit staff. Another type of targeted outreach involves mobility training. City transit staff meets three times annually at the Senior Center to answer questions and to provide updates about the transit system. The City has been actively seeking ambassadors at the Senior Center to assist with travel training. Cruiser 101 is a two-day travel training workshop that provides both classroom and bus trip orientation to prospective riders. Corona also refers riders to RTA’s full-time travel trainer. General Administration and Management The City of Corona was incorporated on July 13, 1896 as a General Law City and has a Council- Manager form of government. The City Council serves as the principal legislative body and each councilmember is elected for a four-year term. Regular meetings of the City Council are convened on the first and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at Corona City Hall. Along with the members of the City Council, the City Treasurer is also elected to a four-year term. The City Treasurer acts as the fiscal agent for the City. The City Manager is responsible for administrative and budgetary oversight of city departments. Transportation services fall under the direction of the Public Works Department. The City’s public transit operations are under the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department overseen by the Assistant Public Works Director. The Transportation Planning Manager and Transportation Engineering Technician provide daily administration of the transit system. The Corona Transit System’s contract operator, Transportation Concepts, is headquartered in Irvine, California. Transportation Concepts’ local facility is located at 735 Corporation Way in the Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 26 26 City’s Corporation Yard. The contract operator has an on-site Project Manager, who oversees the day-to-day transit functions and staff of 29 employees. The City Finance Director and staff are responsible for the completion and submittal of the Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller. The City’s most recent FTA Triennial Review occurred in 2011. Corona was found deficient in 7 areas pertaining to satisfactory continuing control, maintenance, half fare, ADA, safety and security and its drug and alcohol program. In response, the City addressed four deficiencies within 7 days of the field visit. With regard to satisfactory continuing control, the City added all federally funded equipment to its vehicle list to create a single equipment list. A promotional brochure listing businesses and schools served was updated to include the Medicare Card Holder half fare and the website was updated to include a description of door-to-door assistance to satisfy the ADA requirement. In order to satisfy the drug and alcohol requirement, 2010 drug and alcohol tests were submitted electronically to the Office of Safety and Security. In addition, maintenance and facilities plan was completed to ensure compliance with FTA requirements. Grants Management Grant funding allocated toward the transit system has been derived from local, sta te and federal sources. The primary source of transit funding support is derived from the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). The City submits the annual TDA claim for funds to RCTC. TDA claims are based on the City’s annual transit budget and the financial element of the SRTP. Reserve allocations for LTF and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds are included as separate line items on the claim form. The City’s LTF allocation goes toward operations whereas STA funds are allocation toward capital purchases and improvements. Corona received state Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) and Transit System Safety, Security and Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA) funds as a part of the Proposition 1B bond act. PTMISEA funds have been drawn for the purchase of vehicles and TSSSDRA funds have gone toward the purchase of video surveillance equipment. The City received $600,000 in Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds that were applied toward the purchase of 4 Dial-A-Ride vehicles and bus shelters. Transit grants are tracked on three spreadsheets. Transit grant revenues are tracked and categorized by source, project allocation, appropriation, drawdown availability, the amount spent and amount remaining. Another tracking spreadsheet is the quarterly Open Capital Projects Report, which is prepared by the City on behalf of RCTC. This tracking spreadsheet provides columns for the grant allocation year, project number and name, funding category code, allocation of funds by funding source, amount spent during the quarter, amount spent to date, balance remaining and the project status and milestone. The third grant tracking spreadsheet is the CalACT/MBTA Cooperative Purchasing Schedule. This spreadsheet provides a multi-grant fund and bus cost matrix tied to the SRTP. The matrix consists of the SRTP project number, grant and granting agency, grant number, year of apportionment; IFAS account numbers for revenues Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 27 27 and expenditures, grant amount and interest. The matrix is further categorized based on each bus procured with the funding sources identified. FTA grants generally have a life of 3 years after they are awarded. Grant recipients must demonstrate progress in project implementation in order to extend the term. The PTMISEA grants are scheduled to terminate in FY 2017 whereas the TSSSDRA funds have end dates ranging from March 2014 through March 2016. Based on the Open Capital Projects Report for the 2nd quarter of the FY 2012-13 reporting period, the City’s total grant funding amounted to $4,829,985, with $2,842,032 expended and $1,987,953 remaining. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 28 28 Section VI Findings The following summarizes the major findings obtained from this Triennial Audit covering fiscal years 2010 through 2012. A set of recommendations is then provided. Triennial Audit Findings 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to the City of Corona Transit Service, the operator fully complied with all nine applicable requirements. Two additional compliance requirements are not applicable to Corona (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio, and rural area farebox recovery ratio). 2. The City participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. The CHP inspection reports submitted for review were found to be satisfactory. 3. The City of Corona Transit Fund operating budget exhibited slight fluctuations during the audit period. The budget decreased 0.4 percent in FY 2010 and 7.3 percent in FY 2011. For FY 2012, the budget saw a small increase of 0.9 percent. 4. Based on the available data from the Annual Fiscal and Compliance Audits, the City’s farebox recovery ratio remained above the required 20 percent during the review period. The average farebox during the triennial period was 20.37 percent. 5. Of the two prior audit recommendations, Corona implemented the recommendation regarding the compatibility of the data contained in the TransTrack Manager and NTD reports. The other recommendation regarding the electronic submittal of the contractor’s monthly performance report was not implemented and is considered no longer applicable. 6. Operating costs systemwide decreased 2.3 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. By mode (using unaudited data), fixed route services saw its operating costs decrease by 3 percent during the period. In Dial-A-Ride operating costs decreased by a modest 1.5 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012, which was below the increase in the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the same period. 7. Ridership decreased 5.9 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership decreased 7.1 percent, while Dial-A-Ride ridership decreased 2.9 percent. Systemwide ridership remained fairly stable with modest increases reported in FY 2010 and FY 2012. Systemwide ridership fell from 229,793 in FY 2010 to a low of 210,721 in FY 2011 before rebounding to 215,068 in FY 2012. The systemwide trends are also reflected at the modal level. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 29 29 8. The provision of vehicle service hours and miles decreased systemwide as well as for both modes during the audit period. Fixed route vehicle service hours and miles decreased 21.5 and 22.6 percent, respectively. Dial-A-Ride vehicle service hours and miles exhibited smaller decreases of 9.4 and 4.8 percent, respectively. Overall, systemwide vehicle service hours decreased 15.8 percent and vehicle service miles decreased 13.7 percent. 9. Operating cost per passenger increased 3.9 percent systemwide based on audited data. Cost per passenger increased 4.4 percent on fixed route during the audit period and increased 1.4 percent on Dial-A-Ride. The indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness. 10. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, increased 16.1 percent systemwide based on audited data. This indicator increased 23.5 percent on the fixed route whereas Dial-A-Ride saw its cost per hour increase 8.7 percent. 11. The systemwide fare recovery ratio exhibited a slight 3.8 percent decrease from 21.0 percent in FY 2009 to 20.21 percent in FY 2012 based on audited data. Corona’s farebox recovery is inclusive of advertising revenues, interest and local support. Overall, the systemwide farebox recovery remained fairly stable. Without local support revenues, systemwide farebox recovery increased 23.4 percent from 13.5 percent in FY 2009 to 16.66 percent in FY 2012. Farebox for fixed route decreased 9.3 percent inclusive of local support revenues and increased 9.5 percent without local revenues factored in. Dial-A-Ride saw an increase of 47.8 percent without local support and saw an increase of 2.5 percent with local support. Total systemwide revenues increased 20.6 percent while passenger revenues including auxiliary support exhibited a 5.9 percent decrease. 12. The City adopted a fare increase that was implemented in July 2010 as well as a schedule reduction of 25 percent. These measures were implemented to address the rise in operating costs and reduction of non-productive services. Early morning and late evening trips were eliminated, which adjusted fixed-route and DAR operating hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. 13. Corona has embarked on a multi-year effort to improve accessibility at bus stops with the assistance of state and federal grant funds. Such improvements have included curb cuts, concrete improvements and upgraded setbacks adjacent to the library and Senior Center. The City is considering increasing the space encompassing bus stops and shelters in conformance with ADA requirements. 14. Transit services continued to be operated under contract by Transportation Concepts. During the spring of 2013, the contract was place out to competitive bid. The prior contract was extended 8 months prior to the rebidding process. Transportation Concepts was awarded the new contract, which has a 3-year base term and one 2-year option. The new service contract includes separate hourly cost rates between fixed route and demand response service modes. In addition, the contract allows for additional service such as a morning eastbound Red Line trip and an afternoon school tripper. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 30 30 15. Transportation Concepts subcontracted with a local vendor, Corona Fleet Services, to provide maintenance. Vehicle maintenance follows the industry standard of 45 days or 3,000 miles which conform to the State’s GPPV regulations. To allow a scheduling cushion, Transportation Concepts schedules each preventative maintenance inspection (PMI) every 43 days or 2,900 miles. Transportation Concepts plans to begin maintaining vehicles in the second year of the base term. 16. Corona’s transit services are marketed in electronic and print formats. The City’s website contains a dedicated page with information about the transit system. Printed brochures are available for both service modes. The colored tri-fold brochures provide a service area map with fare, schedule and service hour information. Other types of printed materials include brochures targeted to students and area shoppers, which identify school sites and retail businesses adjacent to the fixed routes. Brochures are published in-house by the City. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Corona Transit Service – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 31 31 Recommendations 1. Enforce the No-Show Policy. (High Priority) The City reports that its rate of “No-Shows” has averaged around 8 percent on its Dial-A-Ride service which is above general industry norms. Since the City’s Dial-A-Ride is open to general public ridership and is not limited to senior and ADA-certified individuals, the number of trips has steadily increased. No-Shows affect the timeliness and efficiency of service delivery in the areas of service hours and on-time performance. Staff has indicated that it does not enforce its No-Show policy. It is recommended that the City implement a series of measures consisting of written notification, education and awareness, and eventual potential suspensions for repeat violators. It is advised that the City and the contract operator take the necessary steps to formalize the No-Show policy and include the policy in transit brochures and on the website. 2. Consider Utilization of SB 821 LTF Article 3 Funds Toward Transit Accessibility Improvements. (Medium Priority) In efforts to improve community access including to bus stops and shelters, the City of Corona has embarked on improvements to bikeways and walkways around the City. T he City has utilized STA and ARRA funds to fund these improvements. Another potential source of funding that the City might consider would be to propose related projects for SB -821 LTF Article 3 funds through RCTC. RCTC solicits applications for funds through a Call for Projects that are scored according to specific criteria and may be used for the construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There are adopted policies by RCTC for this program including local match commitments and timely use of the funds. Non-motorized projects to improve transit accessibility could include engineering expenses leading to construction; right-of-way acquisition; construction and reconstruction; bicycle and pedestrian facilities and signage to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); bicycle route improvements and installation of bicycle facilities such as secure bicycle parking, benches, and other amenities adjacent to transit terminals. January 2014 ATTACHMENT 5 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i Section I ......................................................................................................................................1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 Overview of the Transit System ...........................................................................................1 Section II .....................................................................................................................................4 Operator Compliance Requirements ....................................................................................4 Section III ....................................................................................................................................9 Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations ...................................................................9 Section IV .................................................................................................................................. 10 TDA Performance Indicators .............................................................................................. 10 Section V ................................................................................................................................... 16 Review of Operator Functions ............................................................................................ 16 Operations ..................................................................................................................... 16 Maintenance ................................................................................................................. 18 Planning......................................................................................................................... 19 Marketing ...................................................................................................................... 19 General Administration and Management ..................................................................... 20 Section VI .................................................................................................................................. 22 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 22 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 24 Executive Summary PMC - i Executive Summary The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for the City of Riverside Special Transportation Services covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12. The audit includes a review of the following areas: Compliance with TDA Requirements Status of Prior Audit Recommendations Transit System Performance Trends Detailed Functional Review From the review, recommendations were developed to improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the City of Riverside Special Transportation Services. Compliance with TDA Requirements The City has fully complied with all nine applicable requirements. Two additional compliance requirements are not applicable to Riverside (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio, and rural area farebox recovery ratio). Status of Prior Audit Recommendations Of the two prior audit recommendations, Riverside implemented one recommendation pertaining to the surveying of passengers on a more frequent basis. The other recommendation pertaining to the marketing of premium subscription services is no longer applicable since such services have been discontinued. System Performance Trends 1. Operating costs increased 6 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. The increase is slightly above the increase in the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the same period. Operating costs increased 4.4 percent in FY 2012 after decreasing 1.2 percent in FY 2011. 2. Ridership increased 10 percent during the audit period. After exhibiting a 3.3 percent decrease in FY 2010, ridership increased in FY 2011 and FY 2012 by 5.8 and 7.9 percent, respectively. System ridership grew from 157,433 in FY 2009 to 174,058 in FY 2012. The increase in ridership reflects steady population growth and the stability in the fares . Executive Summary PMC - ii ii 3. The provision of revenue hours and miles mirrored the increase in ridership during the audit period. Vehicle service hours increased 15.3 percent, whereas vehicle service miles increased 19.2 percent. 4. Operating cost per passenger decreased 3.9 percent from $18.36 in FY 2009 to $17.64 in FY 2012 based on audited data. The indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, decreased 8 percent from $71.17 in FY 2009 to $65.47 in FY 2012. 5. Farebox recovery exhibited a 4.6 percent increase from 11.60 percent in FY 2009 to 12.08 percent in FY 2012 based on audited data. Farebox recovery saw a dip during FY 2010 of 11.01 before increasing during the subsequent years. Passenger revenues increased 10.4 percent from $335,833 in FY 2009 to $370,773 in FY 2012. Functional Review 1. There were no significant changes in service structure or delivery. The fare structure remained unchanged during the audit period with no adopted fare increases. The last fare increase was adopted in April 2005. The City utilized Community Development B lock Grant (CDBG) funding to provide after-hours taxi voucher service for special events and meetings. The CDBG funds have to be applied for on an annual basis, which amount to $3,500. 2. RSS acquired five vehicles over the audit period, bringing the total number of vehicles in the fleet to 31. An additional five vehicles will be added to the fleet in order to meet the rising service demand. RSS operates two back up vehicles that consist of a 7-passenger van and an automobile. All minibuses are equipped with cameras with 4 cameras installed on the newer vehicles. 3. Administrative personnel consist of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director, Deputy Director, Administrative Analyst and the Transit Supervisor. Non-exempt personnel are represented by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 721. According to the Special Transportation staff roster, during the audit period there were 12 full-time drivers, 13 three-quarter time drivers, 3 half-time drivers, 8 part-time drivers, 4 full-time driver/schedulers, and 2 full-time office specialists. 4. Vehicle maintenance is performed by the City at its Corporation Yard located at 8095 Lincoln Avenue. Preventive Maintenance schedules are managed through the Fleet Management system provided by Maximus known as M4 Fleet Focus. RSS reports a 78 percent PMI schedule adherence. 5. RSS has utilized a number of marketing strategies to promote its special transportation services in form of brochures, newspaper advertisements, community events, speakers’ bureaus, and electronic media. RSS is seeking a more aggressive marketing strategy aimed Executive Summary PMC - iii iii at attracting more choice and Spanish speaking riders. The focus would be on safety and customer service. Recommendations Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #1 Complete and implement the No-Show Policy. The City is continuing to update and finalize its No-Show policy. According to RSS, No-Shows comprise 5 percent of total ridership as the number of trips has continued to increase. The rate is above general industry norms. No- Shows affect the timeliness and efficiency of service delivery in the areas of service hours and on-time performance. The Transit Supervisor will follow up and counsel repeat violators. A series of measures consisting of written notification, education and awareness, and eventual potential suspensions for repeat violators could be implemented. It is suggested that the City and the contract operator take the necessary steps to formalize the no show policy and include the policy in transit brochures and on the website. High Priority #2 Reprogram Unused Grant Funds Awarded to Special Transportation Services. The City of Riverside has been successful in securing a variety of grants to support its Special Transportation Services from state and federal sources. FTA grants generally expire 3 years after they are awarded. Grant recipients must demonstrate progress in project implementation in order to extend the term. As of February 2013, the total grant funding amounted to $8,693,209, with $2,874,200 expended to date and $4,497,510 remaining plus $809,375 in State Proposition 1B funding not yet awarded. The remaining balance is tied to grant interest and outstanding encumbrances. Considering the large unspent balances, it is suggested that the City consider reprogramming older grants that are nearing expiration in order to meet project and procurement milestones. RCTC policy concerning older grant spend downs also encourage operators to close out grants before receiving new capital funding. High Priority Executive Summary PMC - iv iv Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #3 Meet Goal of 100% Preventive Maintenance Schedule Adherence. With completion of a new maintenance shop dedicated to Riverside Special Services, there should be improved adherence to preventive maintenance inspections (PMIs). Meeting timely PMIs are critical to the reliability and useful life of the vehicles. RSS should ensure that the PMI schedules for the growing fleet are developed to ensure timely vehicle inspection of all vehicles and full bus pull outs. This could also include adjusting min/max levels for parts inventory in the fleet software to trigger earlier order notification of needed parts to compensate for slower order fulfillment. The new dedicated facility should create the efficiencies needed to maintain PMI schedules. High Priority Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 1 1 Section I Introduction California’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that a triennial performance audit be conducted of public transit entities that receive TDA revenues. The performance audit serves to ensure accountability in the use of public transportation revenue. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for the City of Riverside Special Transportation Services covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12. The purpose of the performance audit is to evaluate the City’s effectiveness and efficiency in its use of TDA funds to provide public transportation in its service area. This evaluation is required as a condition for continued receipt of these funds for public transportation purposes. In addition, the audit evaluates the City’s compliance with the conditions specified in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC). This task involves ascertaining whether the transit agency is meeting the PUC’s reporting requirements. Moreover, the audit includes calculations of transit service performance indicators and a detailed review of the transit administrative functions. From the analysis that has been undertaken, a set of recommendations has been made which is intended to improve the performance of transit operations. In summary, this TDA audit affords the opportunity for an independent, constructive and objective evaluation of the organization and its operations that otherwise might not be available. The methodology for the audit included in-person interviews with management, collection and review of agency documents, data analysis, and on-site observations. The Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Entities published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was used to guide in the development and conduct of the audit. Overview of the Transit System The City of Riverside has provided dial-a-ride service for the elderly and disabled since the summer of 1975. The service was initially conceived to provide seniors with transportation to nutrition programs. The dial-a-ride service has since grown, with rides being provided anywhere within the city limits encompassing close to 86 square miles. Seniors using the service are transported to a variety of destinations, including shopping, adult education, work, social activities and medical appointments. Riverside Special Transportation Services (RSS) is administered by the City’s Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department. The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department also manages senior centers and programs, youth opportunity centers, and BRIDGE – the gang Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 2 2 prevention program. The transit system continues to be a part of the social service programs offered by the city and which are administered by this department. In August 1992, the City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) to provide complementary paratransit service to RTA’s fixed route service within the city boundaries under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. An amendment to the MOU was passed in September 1994 that eliminated RSS’ obligation for the provision of evening ADA service because of low ridership and transferring the hours to increase day service to meet growing demand. In April 2003, an MOU was executed between the City of Riverside and RTA which reaffirms the City’s agreement to provide ADA service and includes specific criteria for the provisions of service to comply with the ADA. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, Riverside’s population is 303,871 which grew 19.1 percent since the 2000 U.S. Census. The senior citizen population, comprised of residents aged 65 and over, is 8.64 percent. The 2013 population for Riverside is estimated to be 311,955 as reported by the State Department of Finance. The city covers an 81.14 square mile area. Major highway connections serving Riverside are Interstate 215 (I-15) State Routes (SR)-60 and 91. I-215 is the main north-south highway connecting Riverside with San Bernardino to the north and southwestern Riverside County and San Diego to the south. SR-60 connects Riverside with Moreno Valley and Beaumont to the east and Jurupa Valley and Los Angeles County to the west. SR-91 connects Riverside with Corona and Orange County to the southwest. Major arterial streets traversing Riverside include 14th Avenue, Alessandro Boulevard, Arlington Avenue, Central Avenue, Magnolia Avenue, and Van Buren Boulevard. System Characteristics RSS provides curb-to-curb demand responsive transit services to senior citizens aged 60 and older as well as to persons with disabilities certified under the ADA within the city limits of Riverside. Operating hours are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Saturdays, Sundays and holidays from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Service does not operate on Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s Day. Rides are scheduled in 30-minute intervals. RTA paratransit vehicles are used for ADA during the shoulder hours of RTA fixed route service through the city as well as backup to RTA’s paratransit fleet. Fares The fare for a one-way trip is $2.00. Multi-ride monthly punch cards good for 20 one-way trips are available for purchase for $40.00. Attendants accompanying ADA-certified passengers ride free. Fleet RSS operates a fleet of 31 vehicles (30 minibuses powered by Compressed Natural Gas-CNG and one 7-passenger unleaded fuel van). All vehicles comply with the requirements of the ADA by being equipped with wheelchair lifts. A detailed description of RSS’ fleet is presented in Table I-1: Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 3 3 Table I-1 RSS Fleet Year Make/Model Quantity Fuel Type Seating Capacity 2005 El Dorado Aerotech 1 CNG 12 (2 W/C) 2007 El Dorado Aerotech 5 CNG 14 (2 W/C) 2008 Ford Van 1 Gasoline 7 (1 W/C) 2008 El Dorado Aerotech 1 CNG 12 (2 W/C) 2008 El Dorado Aerotech 9 CNG 16 (2 W/C) 2010 El Dorado Aerotech 10 CNG 16 (2 W/C) 2011 El Dorado Aerotech 4 CNG 16 (1 W/C) Total 31 Source: City of Riverside Specialized Transportation Services; FY 2012 National Transit Database Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 4 4 Section II Operator Compliance Requirements This section of the audit report contains the analysis of the City’s ability to comply with state requirements for continued receipt of TDA funds. The evaluation uses the guidebook, Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, September 2008 (third edition), which was developed by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to assess transit operators. The guidebook contains a checklist of eleven measures taken from relevant sections of the Public Utilities Code and the California Code of Regulations. Each of these requirements is discussed in the table below, including a description of the system’s efforts to comply with the requirements. In addition, the findings from t he compliance review are described in the text following the table. Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The transit operator submitted annual reports to the RTPA based upon the Uniform System of Accounts and Records established by the State Controller. Report is due 90 days after end of fiscal year (Sept. 28/29), or 110 days (Oct. 19/20) if filed electronically (Internet). Public Utilities Code, Section 99243 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: September 22, 2010 FY 2011: October 14, 2011 FY 2012: October 2, 2012 Conclusion: Complied. The operator has submitted annual fiscal and compliance audits to the RTPA and to the State Controller within 180 days following the end of the fiscal year (Dec. 27), or has received the appropriate 90- day extension by the RTPA allowed by law. Public Utilities Code, Section 99245 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: March 28, 2011 FY 2011: January 18, 2012 FY 2012: January 16, 2013 Conclusion: Complied. The CHP has, within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim submitted by an operator, certified the operator’s compliance with Public Utilities Code, Section 99251 B The City participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 5 5 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts Vehicle Code Section 1808.1 following a CHP inspection of the operator’s terminal. TDA claim. Inspections were conducted at the City of Riverside General Services Division located at 8095 Lincoln Avenue. Inspection dates applicable to the audit period were: July 23 & 28, 2009; July 14 & 15, 2010; August 9, 2011; September 27 & 28, 2012 and October 1, 2012. All inspections conducted were rated satisfactory. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s claim for TDA funds is submitted in compliance with rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA for such claims. Public Utilities Code, Section 99261 As a condition of approval, the RSS’ annual claims for Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance are submitted in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by RCTC. Conclusion: Complied. If an operator serves urbanized and non-urbanized areas, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to the ratio determined by the rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA. Public Utilities Code, Section 99270.1 This requirement is not applicable, as RSS only serves an urbanized area. Conclusion: Not Applicable. The operator’s operating budget has not increased by more than 15% over the Public Utilities Code, Section 99266 Percentage increase in RSS’ operating budget: Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 6 6 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts preceding year, nor is there a substantial increase or decrease in the scope of operations or capital budget provisions for major new fixed facilities unless the operator has reasonably supported and substantiated the change(s). FY 2010: +10.5% FY 2011: -1.4% FY 2012: -3.0% The increase in the FY 2010 budget was attributed to professional services, training, utility services, insurance; and office supplies. Source: City of Riverside Parks & Recreation Department Budgets for FYs 2009-2012. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s definitions of performance measures are consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247, including (a) operating cost, (b) operating cost per passenger, (c) operating cost per vehicle service hour, (d) passengers per vehicle service hour, (e) passengers per vehicle service mile, (f) total passengers, (g) transit vehicle, (h) vehicle service hours, (i) vehicle service miles, and (j) vehicle service hours per employee. Public Utilities Code, Section 99247 The RSS’ definition of performance is consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247. A review of TransTrack Manager reports and trip sheets generated during the audit period indicates that correct performance data are being collected. Conclusion: Complied. If the operator serves an urbanized area, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-fifth (20 percent), unless it is in a county with a population of Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.12, 99270.1 This requirement is not applicable, as RSS provides exclusive services to ADA- certified individuals and seniors. Conclusion: Not Applicable. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 7 7 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts less than 500,000, in which case it must maintain a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs of at least equal to three-twentieths (15 percent), if so determined by the RTPA. If the operator serves a rural area, or provides exclusive services to elderly and disabled persons, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-tenth (10 percent). Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.4, 99268.5 Operating ratios for RSS’ using audited data were as follows: FY 2010: 11.0% FY 2011: 11.7% FY 2012: 12.1% Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits Conclusion: Complied. The current cost of the operator’s retirement system is fully funded with respect to the officers and employees of its public transportation system, or the operator is implementing a plan approved by the RTPA which will fully fund the retirement system within 40 years. Public Utilities Code, Section 99271 To be eligible for TDA funds, the annual TDA claims form requires a sign-off from the transit claimant to comply with standard assurances, one of which is that the City of Riverside’s retirement system is funded. City staff’s retirement is funded through the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Conclusion: Complied. If the operator receives state transit assistance funds, the operator makes full use of funds available to it under the California Code of Regulations, Section 6754(a)(3) As a recipient of State Transit Assistance Funds, the City of Riverside is making full use of federal funds available under Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 8 8 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 before TDA claims are granted. the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as amended. FY 2010: $ 43,209 FY 2011: $614,401 FY 2012: $220,601 Source: State Controller Reports. Conclusion: Complied. Findings and Observations from Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to RSS, the operator fully complied with all nine applicable requirements. Two additional compliance requirements are not applicable to Riverside (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio, and urbanized area farebox recovery ratio). 2. RSS participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. The CHP inspection reports submitted for review were found to be satisfactory. 3. The RSS operating budget exhibited modest fluctuations during the audit period. The budget increased 10.5 percent in FY 2010 due to professional services, training, utility services, insurance costs and office supplies. During the subsequent years of 2011 and 2012, the budget decreased 1.4 percent and 3 percent, respectively. 4. Based on the available data from the Annual Fiscal and C ompliance Audits, the City’s farebox recovery ratio remained above the required 10 percent during the review period. The average farebox during the triennial period was 11.6 percent. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 9 9 Section III Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations RSS’ efforts to implement the recommendations made in the prior triennial audit are examined in this section of the report. For this purpose, each prior recommendation for the agency is described, followed by a discussion of the City of Riverside’s efforts to implement the recommendation. Conclusions concerning the extent to which the recommendations have been adopted by the agency are then presented. Prior Recommendation 1 Need to conduct surveys of riders and non-riders on a more frequent basis. Actions taken by RSS The prior audit found that formal surveys of riders and non-riders had not been performed over a prior four year period. It was the prior auditor’s contention that surveys of both rider and non- riders could provide valuable input to the operator in order to address the needs of the community and to better understand the rider’s perception of the Dial-a-Ride service. The City currently conducts annual surveys of riders and non-riders alike that touch upon the frequency of usage, purpose of trip, original destination, customer service, reservation procedures and demographic data. Surveys are either conducted on-board the vehicles or through the mail. Conclusion This recommendation has been implemented. Prior Recommendation 2 Need to publish information regarding the availability of premium subscription services. Actions taken by RSS During the prior audit cycle, RSS offered premium subscription services that provided unlimited rides for $100.00 per month. The prior audit found that this service was not disclosed in the RSS brochure or the City’s Special Transportation webpage. The City has since discontinued the premium subscription fare due to lack of demand. Conclusion This recommendation is no longer applicable. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 10 10 Section IV TDA Performance Indicators This section reviews City of Riverside Special Transportation Services’ performance in providing transit service to the community in an efficient and effective manner. TDA requires that at least five specific performance indicators be reported, which are contained in the following tables. Farebox recovery ratio is not one of the five specific indicators but is a requirement for continued TDA funding. Therefore, farebox calculation is also included. Two additional performance indicators, operating cost per mile and average fare per passenger, are included as well. Findings from the analysis are contained in the section following the tables. Tables IV-1 through IV-3 provide the performance indicators for the City of Riverside Special Transportation Services. Charts are also provided to depict the trends in the indicators. It is noted that the operating costs and fare revenues are based on audited figures. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 11 11 Table IV-1 City of Riverside Special Transportation Services TDA Performance Indicators Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009- 2012 Operating Cost $2,895,428 $2,976,261 $2,941,368 $3,070,344 6.0% Total Passengers 157,743 152,472 161,242 174,058 10.3% Vehicle Service Hours 40,683 42,002 43,234 46,897 15.3% Vehicle Service Miles 571,038 611,656 613,384 680,455 19.2% Employee FTE's 29 31 37 43 48.3% Passenger Fares $335,833 $327,625 $344,367 $370,773 10.4% Operating Cost per Passenger $18.36 $19.52 $18.24 $17.64 -3.9% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $71.17 $70.86 $68.03 $65.47 -8.0% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $5.07 $4.87 $4.80 $4.51 -11.0% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 3.9 3.6 3.7 3.7 -4.3% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.28 0.25 0.26 0.26 -7.4% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 1,402.9 1,354.9 1,168.5 1,090.6 -22.3% Average Fare per Passenger $2.13 $2.15 $2.14 $2.13 0.1% Fare Recovery Ratio 11.60% 11.01% 11.71% 12.08% 4.1% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits; TransTrack Manager; State Controller's Reports Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 12 12 Graph IV-1 Operating Costs Graph IV-2 Ridership Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 13 13 Graph IV-3 Operating Cost Per Passenger Graph IV-4 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 14 14 Graph IV-5 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour Graph IV-6 Fare Recovery Ratio Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 15 15 Findings from Verification of TDA Performance Indicators 1. Operating costs increased 6 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. The increase is slightly above the increase in the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the same period. Operating costs increased 4.4 percent in FY 2012 after decreasing 1.2 percent in FY 2011. 2. Ridership increased 10.3 percent during the audit period. After exhibiting a 3.3 percent decrease in FY 2010, ridership increased in FY 2011 and FY 2012 by 5.8 and 7.9 percent, respectively. System ridership grew from 157,743 in FY 2009 to 174,058 in FY 2012. The increase in ridership reflects steady population growth and the stability in the fares . 3. The provision of revenue hours and miles mirrored the increase in ridership during the audit period. Vehicle service hours increased 15.3 percent, whereas vehicle service miles increased 19.2 percent. 4. Operating cost per passenger decreased 3.9 percent from $18.36 in FY 2009 to $17.64 in FY 2012 based on audited data. The indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness. 5. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, decreased 8 percent from $71.17 in FY 2009 to $65.47 in FY 2012. 6. Passengers per vehicle service hour systemwide exhibited a modest decrease of 4.3 percent. The number of passengers per service hour remained fairly stable during the period decreasing from 3.9 passengers in FY 2009 to 3.6 passengers in FY 2010 and rebounding to 3.7 passengers in FY 2011 and FY 2012. 7. Farebox recovery exhibited a 4.6 percent increase from 11.60 percent in FY 2009 to 12.08 percent in FY 2012 based on audited data. Farebox recovery saw a dip during FY 2010 of 11.01 before increasing during the subsequent years. Passenger revenues increased 10.4 percent from $335,833 in FY 2009 to $370,773 in FY 2012. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 16 16 Section V Review of Operator Functions This section provides an in-depth review of various functions within the City of Riverside Special Transportation Services. The review highlights accomplishments, issues and/or challenges that were determined during the audit period. The following functions were reviewed at the City of Riverside: Operations Maintenance Planning Marketing General Administration and Management Within some departments are sub-functions that require review as well, such as Grants Administration that falls under General Administration. Operations The City of Riverside has continued to offer demand responsive transit services to senior citizens and ADA-certified individuals on a daily basis. RSS operates as a complementary service to RTA within the Riverside city limits. In response to increased demand, RSS acquired newer vehicles and offered expanded service options after regular operating hours. Overall, there were no significant changes in service structure or delivery. The fare structure remained unchanged during the audit period with no adopted fare increases. The last fare increase was adopted in April 2005. The City utilized Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to provide after-hours taxi voucher service for special events and meetings. The CDBG funds have to be applied for on an annual basis, which amount to $3,500. RSS acquired a number of vehicles over the audit period, bringing the total number of vehicles in the fleet to 31. An additional five vehicles will be added to the fleet in order to meet the rising service demand. RSS operates two back up vehicles that consist of a 7-passenger van and an automobile. All minibuses are equipped with cameras with 4 cameras installed on the newer vehicles. Ridership averages 600 passengers daily during the week. RSS reports zero de nials. “No-shows” comprise about five percent of the total ridership. The Transit supervisor will follow up and counsel repeat offenders. However, RSS has yet to adopt a formal “No-Show” policy, and has been working on a draft policy subject to revision. In addition, RSS has taken other steps to Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 17 17 educate its ridership about its No-Show as defined in its service brochure. RSS utilizes RouteMatch dispatch and scheduling software. The operator reports that the software program works well and is compatible with NTD reporting. The driver manifest generated by RouteMatch is configured to account for the proper recording of operating data. The manifest contains the driver’s name, vehicle number, duration of the run and accounts for deadhead time and mileage (including breaks) as well as service time and mileage commencing with the first pickup and ending with the last drop off. In addition, customer information includes the name, requested pickup time, actual pickup time, origin and destination addresses, and actual drop off time and odometer readings. There is a 30-minute window (15 minutes before and after scheduled pick up time) for all reservations to track on-time performance. On-time performance data is entered into TransTrack Manager for trend analysis and data storage. Farebox collection and reconciliation procedures involve a combination of manual and automated methods. Drivers collect fares and punch cards from passengers. Fares are paid in cash or by check. A daily reconciliation is performed using the RouteMatch manifests. Two dispatchers count the fare revenue from the previous day in the morning, which takes approximately two hours. Another staff person takes the fare receipts and makes the deposit. The whole process is overseen by the Transit Supervisor. RSS is considering pre-selling tickets and accepting credit cards. This would involve a possible technology upgrade to tablets to manage this process. Mobile data computers (MTCs) download the fare and passenger data. ActiveNet software is also being considered to reduce the amount of cash handling. Personnel Administrative personnel consist of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director, Deputy Director, Administrative Analyst and the Transit Supervisor. Non-exempt personnel are represented by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 721. The last MOU between the City and the SEIU was for a three -year term from July 2011 through June 2013. Accruals for vacation and sick time off commence vary according to the length of service and employment classification. Employees with up to 5 years of continuous service accrue 80 hours of vacation time; 6 to 10 years of service accrue 120 hours of vacation time and employees with 11 or more years of service accrue 160 hours vacation time annually. The City has a two-year maximum vacation accumulation policy. Employees accrue 4 hours of sick leave per month. On a monthly basis, the City contributes toward employee group health insurance premiums, which are $755.00 for an employee and one dependent; $935.00 for an employee and 2 or more dependents and $555.00 for single coverage. In addition, the City covers 100 percent of the employee’s contribution to CalPERS. According to the Special Transportation staff roster, during the audit period there were 12 full- time drivers, 13 three-quarter time drivers, 3 half-time drivers, 8 part-time drivers, 4 full-time driver/schedulers, and 2 full-time office specialists. After the audit period, a fifth full-time driver/scheduler was added. Driver recruitment and retention have been challenging, particularly among part-time staff. The City has found it difficult to recruit and retain quality drivers. Driver Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 18 18 shifts are assigned based on service demand. In addition, the City has implemented an employee wellness program in an effort to address the relatively high rate of sick leave. Maintenance Vehicle maintenance is performed by the City at its Corporation Yard located at 8095 Lincoln Avenue. Preventive Maintenance schedules are managed through the Fleet Management system provided by Maximus known as M4 Fleet Focus, which is used by governmental agencies worldwide. This system is fully integrated and encompasses asset tracking, work orders, work flow, PM scheduling, billing, and inventory management. Preventive Maintenance Inspections (PMI) are set up in the M4 system and scheduled according to time, mileage, usage or a combination of each. Usage is gathered either at fueling times, which are tracked in the M4 Fleet System, updated vehicle work order entry, or from manual updates as needed. PMIs are performed every 3,000 miles. Some of the maintenance issues cited by RSS have included vehicles waiting idle for parts and the lack of a dedicated mechanic. This resulted in a 78 percent schedule adherence between scheduled and actual PMI, which is still acceptable to the FTA. In spite of the issues, the City has received satisfactory terminal inspections from the CHP. Vehicle parts are also managed and tracked by the M4 Fleet software. Stock part purchases such as brakes, filters, and tires are procured through competitive bidding. Annual purchase orders are approved by the City Council, and then awarded by Finance Purchasing. State contract pricing is also utilized for items such as automotive and pickup tires. Other non -stock parts are either competitively bid on an as needed basis through Purchasing or quoted through v endors that the City already has annual purchase orders with. During the audit period, the City secured funding and commenced construction of a state-of-the- art maintenance facility where RSS vehicles are serviced. The new facility is comprised of four service bays and is equipped with a CNG ventilation system and parts storage room. In addition, the City recently installed a high volume, public access CNG filling station. The station supports both 3,000 PSI (earlier vehicles) and 3,600 PSI pressures. This new dedicated facility should improve the schedule adherence for PMIs. The number of roadcalls has remained relatively low and has shown a declining trend during the triennial period. A summary of roadcalls is presented in the following table: Table V-1 RSS Roadcall Summary Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 # of Roadcalls 108 N/A 33 37 Source: NTD Data for FY 2010 was not included in the National Transit Database report for that reporting year. The declining trend is attributed to the acquisition of new vehicles to the RSS fleet. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 19 19 Planning The City of Riverside prepares a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) on an annual basis. The SRTP covers a three-year planning horizon and includes a system overview, performance analysis for each route and service provided, service changes, and financial and capital plans. Under the services and performance chapter, a series of recommendations for service improvement is presented for each route or program. Performance data from TransTrack Manager is also included in the SRTP to provide an annual comparison. Riverside must meet at least 4 out of 7 discretionary performance indicators. There is one mandatory indicator which is the farebox recovery ratio set at 10 percent. The latest SRTP provided to the auditors for review covered FY 2009-10 – FY 2011-12. Therefore, only the FY 2009-10 performance targets were available. Table V-2 provides a summary of the performance targets for RSS: Table V-2 RSS Performance Targets Performance Indicators FY 2009-10 Target FY 2010-11 Target FY 2011-12 Target Farebox Recovery >=10.00% >=10.00% >=10.00% Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour <=$74.48 <=$68.00 N/A Subsidy Per Passenger >=$13.80 & <=$18.66 >=$14.05 & <=$19.01 N/A Subsidy Per Passenger Mile >=$3.56 & <=$4.82 >=$3.60 & <=$4.88 N/A Subsidy Per Hour >=$54.08 & <=$73.16 >=$51.15 & <=$69.21 N/A Subsidy Per Mile >=$3.84 & <=$5.20 >=$3.46 & <=$4.68 N/A Passengers Per Revenue Hour >=3.32 & <=4.49 >=3.06 & <=4.14 N/A Passengers Per Revenue Mile >=0.24 & <=0.32 >=0.21 & <=0.29 N/A Source: City of Riverside, TransTrack Manager For the FY 2009-10 SRTP, RSS met 6 out of 7 performance indicator targets except for operating costs per revenue hour. All FY 2010-11 performance indicator targets were met. Subsequent SRTPs containing the FY 2011-12 performance targets were not available for review. Nevertheless, RSS exceeded the 10 percent farebox recovery standard during FY 2012. Marketing Riverside has utilized a number of marketing strategies to promote its special transportation services such as brochures, newspaper advertisements, community events , speakers’ bureaus, and electronic media. The RSS brochure is a bilingual tri-fold publication that provides service overview, hours of operation, fares and rider etiquette and policy information. Brochures are distributed primarily at local senior centers. Other printed collateral include a one-page flyer and advertisements in the Parks and Recreation Activity and local senior resource guides. The service is also advertised on the rear of the vehicles. Electronic marketing approaches have included the City of Riverside website (http://www.riversideca.gov/park_rec/seniors -transportation.asp), public access cable Channel 3, and announcements on an electronic billboard located near the SR-91 and 14th Street Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 20 20 interchange. Further outreach has consisted of presentations at senior centers and before the RCTC Quarterly Transit Operators meetings. RSS is seeking a more aggressive marketing strategy aimed at attracting more choice and Spanish speaking riders. The focus would be on safety and customer service. RSS has requested a 5 th dispatcher/scheduler in an effort to offer more coverage and serve Spanish speaking clientele. The number of complaints received has been very minimal. Complaints are received by the dispatcher, who completes a designated complaint form. The complaint is reviewed and followed up by the Transit Supervisor. General Administration and Management The City of Riverside was incorporated in 1883 and has a Council-Manager form of government. The Riverside City Charter sets forth the number of elected officials for the City and their method of election. The Mayor is elected at-large by voters of the entire City while the members of the City Council are voted into office by electors in each of the City’s seven wards. Regular elections for members of the City Council occur in June of odd-numbered years. The Mayoral election is held in June of U.S. Presidential election years. The Council serves as the principal legislative body and each councilmember is elected for a four-year term. Except for the months of July, August, and September, the regular meetings of the Mayor and City Council are convened on the first, second, third and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 2:00 p.m. During the months of July, August and September, the regular meetings are held on the second and fourth Tuesdays at 2:00 p.m. The City Manager is responsible for administrative and budgetary oversight of city departments. The City’s Special Transportation operations are overseen by the Director of Parks, Recreation and Community Services. The Director is assisted administratively by the Deputy Director, an Administrative Analyst and the Special Transportation Supervisor. The Special Transportation Supervisor and Administrative Assistant charge 100 percent of their project time to Special Transportation whereas the Director and Deputy Director charge 40 and 80 percent of their time to RSS, respectively. Goals set by transit management include: increased marketing; improved safety and customer service; increased technology use to reduce cash fare handling and through the introduction of tablet computers to drivers on a pilot basis ; increased dispatch staff; reduced workplace absenteeism through wellness; and centrally locating all transit vehicles at the corporation yard. The City Finance Director and staff are responsible for the completion and submittal of the Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller. The City’s most recent FTA Triennial Review occurred in 2012. Three deficiencies were found in the review areas of finance, maintenance, and Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE), which were corrected by the City in a satisfactory manner as per the FTA Closeout Letter. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 21 21 Grants Management Grant funding allocated toward RSS has been derived from local, state and federal sources. The City manages 15 various transit grants. The primary source of transit funding support is derived from the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). The City submits the annual TDA claim for funds to RCTC. TDA claims are based on the City’s annual budget for RSS and the financial element of the SRTP. Reserve allocations for LTF and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds are included as separate line items on the claim form. STA funds are utilized toward vehicle replacement, fueling infrastructure, and office equipment. Riverside received state Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement and Service Enhancement Account (PTMISEA) and Transit System Safety, Security and Disaster Response Account (TSSSDRA) funds as a part of the Proposition 1B bond act. Unspent Proposition 1B funds totaled $1.96 million at the end FY 2012. FTA Section 5307 grant funds (combined with 20 percent STA match) have been spent on preventative maintenance, vehicle replacement, communications and support equipment. Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds have been applied toward fareboxes and CNG fueling facility equipment. Transit grants are tracked on a spreadsheet , which is divided between federal and state grants. Federal grant tracking consists of the FTA project number, General Ledger number, allocation year, project description, total budget, funding allocation and share, amount expended to date, outstanding encumbrance, remaining balance, and grant status. FTA grants generally expire 3 years after they are awarded. Grant recipients must demonstrate progress in project implementation in order to extend the term. State grant tracking consists of the program (PTMISEA or TSSSDRA), General Ledger number, allocation year, project year, grant amount, interest accrued, amount expended to date, outstanding encumbrance, remaining balance, grant status and expiration date. The PTMISEA grants are scheduled to terminate in FY 2017 whereas the TSSSDRA funds have end dates ranging from March 2014 through March 2016. According to the RSS Capital Grant summary sheet, as of February 2013 total federal and state grant funding amounted to $8,693,209, with $2,874,200 expended to date and $4,497,510 remaining plus $809,375 in State Proposition 1B funding not yet awarded. The remaining balance is tied to grant interest and outstanding encumbrances. The bulk of grants is for vehicle replacement and facility improvements. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 22 22 Section VI Findings The following summarizes the major findings obtained from this Triennial Audit covering fiscal years 2010 through 2012. A set of recommendations is then provided. Triennial Audit Findings 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to the City of Riverside Special Transportation Services, the operator fully complied with all nine applicable requirements. Two additional compliance requirements are not applicable to Riverside (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio, and urbanized area farebox recovery ratio). 2. The City participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. The CHP inspection reports submitted for review were found to be satisfactory. 3. The City of Riverside Special Transportation Services’ operating budget exhibited modest fluctuations during the audit period. The budget increased 10.5 percent in FY 2010 due to professional services, training, utility services, insurance costs and office supplies. During the subsequent years of 2011 and 2012, the budget decreased 1.4 percent and 3 percent, respectively. 4. Based on the available data from the Annual Fiscal and Compliance Audit s, the City’s farebox recovery ratio remained above the required 10 percent during the review period. The average farebox during the triennial period was 11.6 percent. 5. Of the two prior audit recommendations, Riverside implemented one recommendation pertaining to the surveying of passengers on a more frequent basis. The other recommendation pertaining to the marketing of premium subscription services is no longer applicable since such services have been discontinued. 6. Operating costs increased 6 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. The increase is slightly above the increase in the regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the same period. Operating costs increased 4.4 percent in FY 2012 after decreasing 1.2 percent in FY 2011. 7. Ridership increased 10 percent during the audit period. After exhibiting a 3.3 percent decrease in FY 2010, ridership increased in FY 2011 and FY 2012 by 5.8 and 7.9 percent, respectively. System ridership grew from 157,433 in FY 2009 to 174,058 in FY 2012. The increase in ridership reflects steady population growth and the stability in the fares . Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 23 23 8. The provision of revenue hours and miles mirrored the increase in ridership during the audit period. Vehicle service hours increased 15.3 percent, whereas vehicle service miles increased 19.2 percent. 9. Operating cost per passenger decreased 3.9 percent from $18.36 in FY 2009 to $17.64 in FY 2012 based on audited data. The indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, decreased 8 percent from $71.17 in FY 2009 to $65.47 in FY 2012. 10. Farebox recovery exhibited a 4.6 percent increase from 11.60 percent in FY 2009 to 12.08 percent in FY 2012 based on audited data. Farebox recovery saw a dip during FY 2010 of 11.01 before increasing during the subsequent years . Passenger revenues increased 10.4 percent from $335,833 in FY 2009 to $370,773 in FY 2012. 11. There were no significant changes in service structure or delivery. The fare s tructure remained unchanged during the audit period with no adopted fare increases. The last fare increase was adopted in April 2005. The City utilized Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding to provide after-hours taxi voucher service for special events and meetings. The CDBG funds have to be applied for on an annual basis, which amount to $3,500. 12. RSS acquired a number of vehicles over the audit period, bringing the total number of vehicles in the fleet to 31. An additional five vehicles will be added to the fleet in order to meet the rising service demand. RSS operates two back up vehicles that consist of a 7 -passenger van and an automobile. All minibuses are equipped with cameras with 4 cameras installed on the newer vehicles. 13. Administrative personnel consist of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Director, Deputy Director, Administrative Analyst and the Transit Supervisor. Non-exempt personnel are represented by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), Local 721. According to the Special Transportation staff roster, during the audit period there were 12 full-time drivers, 13 three-quarter time drivers, 3 half-time drivers, 8 part-time drivers, 4 full-time driver/schedulers, and 2 full-time office specialists. 14. Vehicle maintenance is performed by the City at its Corporation Yard located at 8095 Lincoln Avenue. Preventive Maintenance schedules are managed through the Fleet Management system provided by Maximus known as M4 Fleet Focus . RSS reports a 78 percent PMI schedule adherence. 15. RSS has utilized a number of marketing strategies to promote its special transportation services in form of brochures, newspaper advertisements, community events, speakers’ bureaus, and electronic media. RSS is seeking a more aggressive marketing strategy aimed at attracting more choice and Spanish speaking riders. The focus would be on safety and customer service. Triennial Performance Audit of City of Riverside Special Transportation Services – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 24 24 Recommendations 1. Complete and Implement the No-Show Policy. (High Priority) The City is continuing to update and finalize its No-Show policy. According to RSS, No-Shows comprise 5 percent of total ridership as the number of trips has continued to increase. The rate is above general industry norms. No-Shows affect the timeliness and efficiency of service delivery in the areas of service hours and on-time performance. The Transit Supervisor will follow up and counsel repeat violators. A series of measures consisting of written notification, education and awareness, and eventual potential suspensions for repeat violators could be implemented. It is suggested that the City and the contract operator take the necessary steps to formalize the no show policy and include the policy in transit brochures and on the website. 2. Reprogram Unused Grant Funds Awarded to Special Transportation Services. (High Priority) The City of Riverside has been successful in securing a variety of grants to support its Special Transportation Services from state and federal sources. FTA grants generally expire 3 years after they are awarded. Grant recipients must demonstrate progress in project implementation in order to extend the term. As of February 2013, the total grant funding amounted to $8,693,209, with $2,874,200 expended to date and $4,497,510 remaining plus $809,375 in State Proposition 1B funding not yet awarded. The remaining balance is tied to grant interest and outstanding encumbrances. Considering the large unspent balances, it is suggested that the City consider reprogramming older grants that are nearing expiration in order to meet project and procurement milestones. RCTC policy concerning older grant spend downs also encourage operators to close out older grants before receiving new capital funding. 3. Meet Goal of 100% Preventive Maintenance Schedule Adherence. (High Priority) With completion of a new maintenance shop dedicated to Riverside Special Services, there should be improved adherence to preventive maintenance inspections (PMIs). Meeting timely PMIs are critical to the reliability and useful life of the vehicles. RSS should ensure that the PMI schedules for the growing fleet are developed to ensure timely vehicle inspection of all vehicles and full bus pull outs. This could also include adjusting min/max levels for parts inventory in the fleet software to trigger earlier order notification of needed parts to compensate for slower order fulfillment. The new dedicated facility should create the efficiencies needed to maintain PMI schedules. October 2013 ATTACHMENT 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. i Section I ...................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Overview of the Transit System ............................................................................................1 Section II ................................................................................................................................ 10 Operator Compliance Requirements ................................................................................... 10 Section III ............................................................................................................................... 15 Prior Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations ........................................................ 15 Section IV .............................................................................................................................. 16 TDA Performance Indicators .............................................................................................. 16 Corrected Employee FTEs .................................................................................................. 26 Section V ................................................................................................................................ 28 Review of Operator Functions ............................................................................................ 28 Operations / Contract Operations ................................................................................. 28 Maintenance ................................................................................................................ 34 Administration and Management ................................................................................. 38 Planning ...................................................................................................................... 42 Marketing ................................................................................................................... 44 Human Resources / Risk Management ........................................................................ 45 Procurement ................................................................................................................ 46 Information Technology .............................................................................................. 47 Section VI ............................................................................................................................... 48 Findings ............................................................................................................................. 48 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 50 List of Figures, Tables & Graphs Figure I-1 Organization Chart 2 Table I-1 Service Span 5 Table I-2 Fare Schedule 5 Table I-3 Vehicle Fleet 7 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix 10 Table IV-1 TDA Performance Indicators Systemwide 17 Table IV-2 TDA Performance Indicators Fixed Route, Directly Operated 18 Table IV-3 TDA Performance Indicators Fixed Route, Contracted 19 Table IV-4 TDA Performance Indicators General Public Service 20 Table IV-5 TDA Performance Indicators Dial-A-Ride Demand Response 21 Table IV-6 TDA Performance Indicators Employee FTEs and Labor Productivity 27 Table V-1 Vehicle Operations Performance Measures Directly Operated Fixed Route 30 Table V-2 Vehicle Operations Performance Measures Contracted Fixed Route 31 Table V-3 Vehicle Operations Performance Measures DAR Demand Response 32 Table V-4 Maintenance Performance Measures Directly Operated Fixed Route 36 Table V-5 Maintenance Performance Measures Contracted Fixed Route 37 Table V-6 Maintenance Performance Measures DAR Demand Response 38 Table V-7 Administrative Performance Measures Directly Operated Fixed Route 40 Table V-8 Administrative Performance Measures Contracted Fixed Route 41 Table V-9 Administrative Performance Measures DAR Demand Response 42 Table V-10 Customer Complaints 45 Graph IV-1 Operating Cost 22 Graph IV-2 Ridership 22 Graph IV-3 Operating Cost Per Passenger 23 Graph IV-4 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour 23 Graph IV-5 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour 24 Graph IV-6 Fare Recovery Ratio 24 Executive Summary PMC - i Executive Summary The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged the PMC consultant team to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction. The performance audit serves to ensure accountability in the use of public transportation revenue. This performance audit is conducted for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12 (FY2010 – FY2012). The audit includes a review of the following areas: Compliance with TDA Requirements Status of Prior Audit Recommendations System Performance Trends Functional Review From the review, recommendations wer e developed to improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of RTA. Compliance with TDA Requirements RTA was in substantial compliance with applicable requirements of TDA, including TDA definitions of performance measures consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247 . An exception is that t he measure of vehicle service hours per employee uses full time equivalents that are not consistent with the PUC. A recommendation is made for RTA to revise its calculation of FTEs reported to the State Controller’s Office so that both the FTE count as well as the performance indicator of vehicle service hours per employee conform to the Public Utilities Code. Status of Prior Audit Recommendations The FY2007-FY2009 TDA triennial performance audit did not identify any recommendations. System Performance Trends 1. Systemwide operating costs decreased by 7.7 percent which is in contrast to the Consumer Price Index which increased by 5.4 percent during the same period. Operating costs for general public service decreased by 9.9 percent while Dial-A-Ride (DAR) service increased by 2.4 percent. This demonstrates RTA’s effective cost control during the audit period which occurred during difficult economic times. 2. Ridership on general public service increased by 5.7 percent, from 8.0 million to 8.4 million passengers, a notable accomplishment given the service reductions that took place during the audit period. Ridership on DAR service increased by 5.3 percent, from Executive Summary PMC - ii 361,000 to 380,000. Systemwide ridership increased by 5.7 percent during the audit period. 3. The economic recession that began in 2008 resulted in significant financial challenges for RTA and other Riverside County transit operators during the audit per iod. RTA addressed those challenges by implementing service reductions, freezing wages, and taking administrative employee concessions. The provision of vehicle service hours and miles for general public service decreased by 9.2 percent and 7.5 percent respectively, as RTA reduced service levels in order to address declining economic conditions. DAR ve hicle service hours and miles decreased by 7.6 percent and 11.0 percent respectively. 4. Operating cost per passenger decreased by 12.6 percent systemwide, by 14.7 percent for general public service, and by 2.8 percent for DAR service (as compared to a 5.4 percent change in inflation during the audit period). This reflects the emphasis that RTA had during the audit period to realize cost efficiencies when feasible. 5. Operating cost per vehicle service hour increased by 1.2 percent systemwide and by 10.8 percent for DAR service, and decreased by 0.8 percent for general public service. Operating cost per vehicle service mile increased by 1.0 percent systemwide and by 15.1 percent for DAR service, and decreased by 2.6 percent for general public service. 6. Passengers per vehicle service hour increased by 15.8 percent systemwide, by 16.4 percent for general public service, and by 14.0 percent for DAR service. Passengers per vehicle service mile increased by 15.6 percent systemwide, by 14.2 percent for general public service, and by 18.3 percent for DAR service. 7. Vehicle service hours per employee FTE, using corrected figures to measure labor productivity, increased for general public service by 3.7 percent over the past three years. The increase in labor productivity is due to a significant increase in vehicle service hours per employee FTE for contracted fixed route service. Labor productivity decreased for DAR demand response service by 21.0 percent during the audit period. 8. The average fare per passenger increased systemwide from $0.99 in FY2009 to $1.16 in FY2012. The increase in average fare was primarily due to the change in fare policy implemented at the end of FY2009. Average fare for DAR service increased by 28.6 percent from $2.68 to $3.44 during the audit period. The average fare for general public service also increased by 16.1 percent from $0.91 to $1.06. 9. The blended farebox recovery ratio target established by RCTC for RTA service was met in each year of the audit. Including eligible non-fare revenue, the farebox recovery ratio was 25.37 percent in FY2010, 27.52 percent in FY2011, and 27.02 percent in FY2012. Functional Review 1. Vehicle operations cost indicators for directly operated fixed route service generally improved during the audit period. Over the past three years, operations cost per vehicle Executive Summary PMC - iii service hour decreased by 2.0 percent, cost per vehicle service mile decreased by 2.4 percent, cost per passenger trip decreased by 16.2 percent, and cost per passenger mile decreased by 19.5 percent. This compares to an inflation adjustment during the audit period of 5.4 percent. 2. Vehicle operations cost indicators for contracted fixed route service generally improved during the audit period. Operations cost per vehicle service hour increased by 5.0 percent over the last three years, cost per vehicle service mile increased by 2.3 percent, cost per passenger trip decreased by 21.7 percent, and cost per passenger mile decreased by 21.7 percent. This compares to an inflation adjustment during the audit per iod of 5.4 percent. 3. DAR vehicle operations cost indicators were generally positive during the audit period. Operations cost per vehicle service hour decreased by 17.7 percent, cost per vehicle service mile decreased by 22.2 percent, cost per passenger trip increased by 3.3 percent, and cost per passenger mile increased by 6.0 percent. 4. Preventable accidents decreased for all three service types. The overall preventable accident rate per 100,000 total miles decreased by 19.4 percent for directly operated fixed route service, 17.4 percent for contracted fixed route service, and 9.6 percent for DAR service. 5. Maintenance costs for directly operated fixed route service increased by only 1.9 percent during the audit period. Maintenance cost s per vehicle hour, per vehicle mile, and per active vehicle increased by 15.3 percent, 14.4 percent, and 5.2 percent, respectively, due to service reductions. 6. Miles between road calls increased from 10,682 in the base year of FY2009 to 13,078 in FY2012 for directly operated fixed route service, a 22.4 percent improvement during the audit period. 7. Maintenance costs for contracted fixed route service decreased by 12.5 percent during the audit period due to the consolidation of contractor facilities. Maintenance cost per vehicle hour, per vehicle mile, and per active vehicle decreased by 17.9 percent, 23.4 percent, and 12.5 percent, respectively. 8. Miles between road calls decreased from 18,337 in FY2009 to 11,022 in FY2012 for contracted fixed route service, a 39.9 percent decline during the audit period. 9. For DAR service, maintenance costs increased by 8.7 percent during the audit period. Maintenance costs per vehicle hour, per vehicle mile, and per active vehicle increased by 16.3 percent, 25.2 percent, and 25.1 percent, respectively. 10. Administration costs decreased by 24.9 percent for direct ly operated fixed route service and by 16.4 percent for DAR service and increased by 23.0 percent for contracted fixed route service. Executive Summary PMC - iv 11. Directly operated fixed route fringe benefit costs decreased by 22.5 percent during the audit period, from $9.4 million in FY2009 to $7.3 million in FY2012, due to reductions in pension and workers compensation expenses. 12. Directly operated fixed route casualty and liability costs declined by 90.6 percent during the audit period, from $1.7 million in FY2009 to $0.1 million in FY2012. The decline was due to a decrease in the reserve requirement found through an actuarial review. Recommendations Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #1: Revise calculation for full- time equivalent employees (FTEs) reported to the State Controller’s Office. From Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99247: “vehicle service hours per employee means the vehicle service hours divided by the number of employees employed in connection with the public transportation system, based on the assumption that 2,000 person-hours of work in one year constitute one employee. The count of employees shall also include those individuals employed by the operator which provide services to the agency of the operator responsible for the operation of the public transportation system even though not employed in that agency” (i.e., contractor staff). The TDA definition of full-time-equivalent (FTE) employee count is the number of transportation system-related hours worked by persons employed in connection with the public transportation system, including contractor staff, divided by 2,000. RTA currently reports FTEs as the number of total vehicle hours divided by 2,000. While the PUC section is subject to interpretation, we recommend that RTA should revise its calculation of FTE’s reported to the State Controller’s Office. Starting in FY2013, RTA should report FTE’s as the total chargeable hours for all direct and contracted employees divided by 2,000 hours. Commence with FY13 reporting Executive Summary PMC - v Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #2: Prepare and submit separate State Controller Reports for general public transit and specialized service for elderly and disabled. RTA has historically submitted an annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller and combining information for both general public and specialized service for elderly and disabled. Although the State Controller’s Office has not provided notice to RTA, written instructions by the State to prepare this particular report require separate reporting of these modes. In the General Instruction Form completed by the transit agency, a selection must be made as to which mode of transit is represented in the report. The options are general public use or elderly/disabled. The Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report Instructions contain the following passages under the General Instruction Form: “Transit operators providing two types of service, (general public use and transit service exclusively for the elderly/handicapped) must complete a separate report for each type of service.” “… a separate report must be filed for each type of service provided: General Public Use Service or Specialized Service exclusive for elderly and/or handicapped. For example, if an agency has received Article 4 and Article 8(c) monies to provide General Public Use Service, the agency should submit one report. If that agency has also received Article 4 monies to provide Specialized Service for the elderly and/or handicapped, then a report must be submitted for the Specialized Service operations.” The submission of separate reports to the State Controller will demonstrate RTA’s pro-active approach to compliance with State reporting instructions. Commence with FY13 reporting #3: Improve on-time performance of directly operated fixed route service. As ridership continues to increase, the vehicle loads of the buses will increase. During the audit period, the increase in vehicle loads and traffic conditions/detours impacted on -time performance for directly operated fixed route service. On -time performance went down from 93 percent in FY2009 to 83 percent in FY2012. With these type of occurrences expected to be on-going and outside of RTA’s direct control, including the SR 91 HOV lane project and other road construction projects in western Riverside County, RTA should continue to actively pursue means to improve on -time performance via service and schedule modifications and recommendations made through current planning analysis. Ongoing Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 1 Section I Introduction The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged the PMC consultant team to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction. This performance audit is conducted for Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009 -10 through 2011-12. The purpose of the performance audit is to evaluate RTA’s effectiveness and efficiency in its use of TDA funds to provide public transit in its service area. This evaluation is required as a condition for continued receipt of these funds for public transportation purposes. In addition, the audit evaluates RTA’s compliance with the conditions specified in the California Public Utilities Code. This task involves ascertaining whether RTA is meeting the PUC’s reporting requirements and is endeavoring to implement prior audit recommendations made to t he agency. Moreover, the audit includes calculations of transit service performance indicators and a detailed review of the agency’s departments and organizational functioning. From the analysis that has been undertaken, a set of recommendations has been made for the agency which is intended to improve the performance of transit operations. This TDA audit is intended to provide RTA with an independent, constructive, and objective evaluation of the organization and its operations. The methodology for the audit included in- person interviews with transit management, telephone interviews, collection, and review of agency documents, data analysis, and on-site observations. The Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Entities, September 2008 (third edition) published by the California Department of Transportation was used to guide in the development and conduct of the audit. Overview of the Transit System RTA Mission Statement The Riverside Transit Agency, Riverside County's multi-modal transportation provider, shall provide for a variety of transportation needs in a cost-effective and efficient manner for all the residents of our member communities. The Agency is committed to providing safe, reliable, courteous, accessible, and user-friendly services to our customers. RTA is the largest transit operator within Riverside County and the second-largest service area in the United States. The agency was established as a Joint Powers Agency on August 15, 1975 and began operating bus service on March 16, 1977. RTA is the Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) for western Riverside County and is responsible for coordinating transit services throughout the approximate 2,500 square mile service area including providing driver training, assist ing with grant applications, and developing the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP). In FY2012, RTA provided both local and regional services throughout the region with 37 fixed- routes, 9 CommuterLink routes, and Dial-A-Ride (DAR) services using 260 vehicles. In the cities of Corona, Beaumont, and Banning, RTA coordinates regional services with municipal transit Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 2 systems. In Riverside, RTA coordinates with the city's Riverside Special Services, which provides ADA complementary service to RTA's fixed-route services. RTA is governed by a board of directors comprised of 22 elected officials from 18 cities in western Riverside County and four members of the County Board of Supervisors. The member jurisdictions include the cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Eastvale, Hemet, Jurupa Valley, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Menifee, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, Temecula, Wildomar, and the unincorporated areas of Riverside County Supervisorial Districts I, II, III, and V. The RTA Chief Executive Officer reports directly to the Board. RTA is managed and administered by the Chief Executive Officer with support from the Chief Operating Officer, Chief Procurement and Logistics Officer, Chief Financial Officer and several department directors. As of March 31, 2013, RTA directly employed approximately 331 full-time employees (194 coach operators, 82 administrative employees, and 55 maintenance employees), 20 part -time coach operators, and 16 on-call customer information clerks. Figure I-1 shows the RTA management organization chart. Figure I-1 Organization Chart Source: RTA Transit Services RTA has both directly operated services and contracted services. Directly operated services are provided by both represented and non-represented employees. All RTA drivers and maintenance personnel excluding management, supervisory, professional, and confidential employees are Board of Directors Chief Executive Officer Director of Planning Director of Maintenance Director of Human Resources Director of Marketing Chief of Procurement & Logistics Officer Director of Contract Operations Chief Financial Officer Director of Information Technology Chief Operating Officer Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 3 represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 1277. All work performed on buses that seat 30 or more passengers must be performed by union employees. Contracted fixed route Empire Transportation employees are represented by the Teamsters Union effective July 2011. Paratransit employees were not represented by a union during the audit period (however, beginning in 2013, these employees are represented by United Transportation Union). RTA administrative employees are not represented. Southland Transit is a private transportation company that provides Dial-A-Ride (DAR) service with supplemental taxi overflow service provided by Network Paratransit Systems. The supplemental taxi service plays an important role in accommodating unproductive paratransit trips, such as trips during peak period with capacity constraints or trips to remote areas. Transportation Concepts provided contracted fixed route service in FY2010 and FY2011. In FY2012, Empire Transportation began providing fixed route service. In total, the services provided by RTA during FY 2012 included 37 local fixed routes, 9 CommuterLink fixed route, and ADA compliant DAR service. An overview of each service follows. Regional and Local Fixed Routes: Regional routes comprise the backbone of the bus network between metropolitan areas along primary corridors (including freeways). Local routes supplement regional routes by circulating through various neighborhoods and serving secondary corridors. Local routes also serve as feeders to regional and express routes by transporting customers within a community on shorter trips. Since the last triennial performance audit, RTA has decreased its regional and local service from 41 routes in FY2009 to 37 routes in FY2012 (route numbers ranging from 1 to 79). All 37 routes operate Monday through Friday. Most routes also operate on the weekends. CommuterLink Routes: These regional express routes provide limited-stop service designed to primarily transport commuters to and from employment sites and provide connectivity to transit operations heading outside of western Riverside County, such as Metrolink. These buses use the freeway system to provide faster service. Since the last triennial performance audit, RTA increased the number of CommuterLink routes from eight in FY2009 to nine in FY2012. CommuterLink routes provide service for long-distance commuters traveling to Metrolink, Coaster, and Sprinter rail stations; business parks; shopping malls; and regional transit facilities. Service operates primarily on the weekdays only. Dial-A-Ride Service: RTA is the designated Consolidated Transportation Service Agency (CTSA) for Western Riverside County. RTA’s senior, disabled and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) service is referred to as Dial-A-Ride (DAR) service. In accordance with the ADA, RTA provides wheelchair lift equipped vehicles for curb-to-curb, shared-ride transportation services. Reservations for service must be made at least 24 hours in advance, with the option to call up to 3 days in advance. DAR operates during the same days and hours as fixed route buses within a ¾ mile range of routes. Pick-up times are scheduled within one hour before or one hour after each rider’s requested pick-up time. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 4 All ADA Priority DAR riders must apply and be certified for the service to become eligible. RTA reduced the application process from 21 days to 7 days. Personal Care Attendants (PCAs) and companions are also able t o ride DAR service with ADA Priority DAR riders at no cost (companions and children are required to pay a fare). ADA Priority DAR riders are eligible for trips throughout the RTA service area within ¾ mi le of fixed routes. Seniors 65 years and older and persons with disabilities are eligible for local DAR service within a single city and within ¾ mile of fixed routes. Companions for these riders (not children) may come only if space permits and are requ ired to pay a fare. During the first trip, the rider will need to present proof of disability or age eligibility at the pick -up location. The base fare for DAR service is $3.00 per passenger, per boarding. The maximum fare is $9.00 per one-way trip and is based on the number of city zones that the rider travels. Depending on where the trip begins and ends, the rider may be required to transfer. In an effort to improve the availability of appointment time slots and make DAR service more efficient for passengers, RTA has adopted a no-show policy that is designed to limit the number of late cancellations and no -shows. Any DAR rider who is a no-show or cancels their trip after 6 PM the day before their scheduled pick-up may be given penalty points. If a passenger accumulates a specific number of points over a period of time, their service w ill be temporarily suspended. Transit Centers: RTA has three primary transit centers to support its bus network. These transit centers include the Riverside Downtown Terminal, Corona Transit Center, and Perris Transit Center. RTA also has other major transfer points including the Galleria at Tyler, University of California Riverside, Moreno Valley Mall, Riverside County Regional Medical Center, Moreno Valley College, Hemet Valley Mall, Mount San Jacinto College, Lake Elsinore Outlet Center, Temecula Promenade Mall, and County Administration Building, among others. RTA provides connections to five Metrolink Stations located within the RTA service area. These stations include North Main Corona, West Corona, Riverside-La Sierra, Pedley, and Riverside- Downtown. Service Span The hours of operations depends on route classification. Directly operated fixed route service on weekdays begins between 4:00 AM and 6:30 AM and ends between 8:00 PM and 10:00 PM, depending on route. Contracted fixed route service begins between 5:00 AM and 7:30 AM and ends between 6:30 PM and 9:00 PM. DAR service span is based on the hours of fixed -route service, excluding express and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 5 Table I-1 Service Span Route Classification Weekday Saturday Sunday Start End Start End Start End Local (Directly Operated) 4:30-6:30 AM 8:00-10:00 PM 5:30-7:30 AM 7:00-9:00 PM 6:30-8:30 AM 6:00-8:00 PM Local (Contracted) 5:30-7:30 AM 6:30-8:30 PM 6:30-8:30 AM 6:00-8:00 PM 6:30-8:30 AM 5:30-7:30 PM Regional (Directly Operated) 4:00-6:00 AM 8:30-10:30 PM 5:00-7:00 AM 7:30-9:30 PM 6:00-8:00 AM 6:30-8:30 PM Regional (Contracted) 5:00-7:00 AM 7:00-9:00 PM 6:00-8:00 AM 6:30-8:30 PM 6:00-8:00 AM 6:00-8:00 PM Rural 6:00-8:00 AM 6:00-8:00 PM 6:00-8:00 AM 6:00-8:00 PM 6:00-8:00 AM 6:00-8:00 PM Express (CommuterLink) Peak Hours Not Applicable Not Applicable Trolley or Special Varies Based on Targeted Market or Community Bus Rapid Transit 4:00 AM 10:00 PM 5:00 AM 9:00 PM 5:00 AM 9:00 PM Dial-A-Ride Based on Hours of Fixed-Routes, Excluding Express and BRT Source: FY2012-FY2014 Short Range Transit Plan Fares RTA’s current fare structure is shown in Table I-2. The last fare increase was in FY2009 for fixed route service and FY2010 for DAR service. In FY2010, the DAR fare structure began using zones. Table I-2 Fare Structure Fixed Route Cash Day Pass 7-Day Pass 30-Day Pass Full Fare $ 1.50 $ 4.00 $ 16.00 $ 50.00 Senior (60+) / Disability / Medicare $ 0.70 $ 2.00 $ 16.00 $ 23.00 Student (grades 1-12) $ 1.50 $ 4.00 $ 16.00 $ 35.00 Children under 47" $ 0.25 n/a n/a n/a CommuterLink Cash Day Pass 30-Day Pass Full Fare $ 3.00 $ 7.00 $ 75.00 Senior (60+) / Disability / Medicare $ 2.00 $ 5.00 $ 50.00 Student (grades 1-12) $ 3.00 $ 7.00 $ 75.00 Children under 46" $ 2.00 n/a n/a Dial-A-Ride Fare Ticket Book Notes Regular Fare $ 3.00 $ 30.00 Per zone; max fare $9.00 Personal Care Attendant Free Only ADA-certified riders Additional Companion $ 3.00 If space available Children under 47” $ 0.50 Per zone; only ADA-certified riders Source: RTA Website Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 6 RTA operates cooperative fare and subsidy programs, including: University of California, Riverside - U-Pass Program, Route 51 Crest Cruiser, Route 53 Bear Runner Riverside City College - Go-Pass Program Moreno Valley College - Go-Pass Program La Sierra University - U-Pass Program California Baptist University - U-Pass Program Mount San Jacinto College - Go-Pass Program City of Riverside - City Pass for Employees City of Temecula - Route 55 Harveston Shuttle County of Riverside - Route 50 Jury Trolley RTA also has transfer agreements with the following transit agencies: Corona Cruiser, Omnitrans, and Pass Transit (Banning and Beaumont): 1-Day and multi- day passes are accepted for base fare ($1.50 for General/Youth and $.70 for Senior/ Disabled with proper ID) on local fixed route buses at transfer locations only. It is not valid on CommuterLink or Dial-A-Ride. Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA): 1-Day and multi-day are accepted on Route 216 only in Orange County and only for base fare ($1.50 for General/Youth and $.70 for Senior/ Disabled with proper ID). Additional fare is required. OCTA passes are not accepted in Riverside County. Metrolink: RTA accepts valid Metrolink passes for the full fare on routes that serve Metrolink stations for customers traveling to or from a Metrolink station during the period from one hour before to one after Metrolink's service hours. The Metrolink pass must be valid on the day of travel. New, unvalidated 10-trip Metrolink passes carried by passengers traveling to Metrolink stations are also accepted on boardings as those pass-holders are required to validate their new passes at the stations. Metrolink passes are not valid on DAR service. Vehicle Fleet In FY2012, t here were a total of 260 revenue vehicles in the RTA fleet. Fixed route vehicles totaled 177 (94 for directly operated service and 83 for contracted service), while demand response vehicles totaled 83. The fixed route fleet has been converted to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) fu el with the exception of selected contracted fixed route vehicles. The contracted fixed route vehicles were operated and maintained by Transportation Concepts (FY2010 and FY2011) and Empire Transportation (FY2012). DAR vehicles were operated and maintained by Southland Transit. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 7 Table I-3 shows the RTA vehicle fleet. While the directly operated fleet uses one type of bus, contracted fixed route services use multiple types of vehicles. Table I-3 Vehicle Fleet Vehicle Type Year Number of Vehicles Fixed / DAR Seats Fuel Directly Operated Fixed Route (94 vehicles) NABI – 40’ 2001 47 Fixed 40 CNG NABI – 40’ 2002 47 Fixed 40 CNG Contracted Fixed Route (83 vehicles) Chance Bus Inc. – 29’ 1994 4 Fixed 25 CNG Chance Bus Inc. – 29’ 1996 1 Fixed 25 CNG Specialty Veh. Manu. Co. – 27’ 2003 3 Fixed 24 CNG Thomas Built Buses – 32’ 2003 9 Fixed 27 CNG Thomas Built Buses – 32’ 2004 3 Fixed 27 CNG Starcraft – 22’ 2007 6 Fixed 12 Gas Specialty Veh. Manu. Co. – 29’ 2008 2 Fixed 26 CNG El Dorado National – 22’ 2008 16 Fixed 14 Gas El Dorado National – 29’ 2008 4 Fixed 26 Gas El Dorado National – 29’ 2009 21 Fixed 26 Gas Spartan Motors Inc. – 28’ 2011 14 Fixed 21 Gas Contracted Demand Response (83 vehicles) Spartan Motors Inc. – 22’ 2007 24 DAR 14 Gas El Dorado National – 22’ 2008 5 DAR 14 Gas El Dorado National – 22’ 2009 54 DAR 14 Gas RTA owns an additional three New Flyers that are not in active service. Source: NTD Reports Replacement and expansion of the fleet is determined by the Fleet Management Plan. Due to the shorter useful life of the contracted vehicles, replacement of contracted vehicles is on-going. The 40 foot buses used for directly operated fixed route are approaching the end of their useful lives and the purchase of replacement buses is underway. In FY2012, RTA agreed to purchase 97 40-foot CNG buses from Gillig Corporation. The contract has an option for 48 additional buses. A prototype bus is to arrive in August 2013 with the delivery of the remaining vehicles by February 2014. RTA decided to replace the 2001 and 2002 40-foot CNG buses since the fuel tanks were certified for only 15 years and were due for replacement. In addition, the average mileage on th e buses was well over 500,000 miles. The replacement buses will have state-of-the-art technologies to provide enhanced passenger safety, better fuel efficiency, and decreased emissions. In preparation of the new fleet, RTA has reduced spare parts invento ry for its directly operated buses. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 8 Fleet Facilities RTA operates directly operated fixed route service out of two facilities, one located in the City of Riverside and the other in the City of Hemet. While operations and maintenance are provided at both facilities, RTA administration is located in the main Riverside office. Contracted fixed route and DAR services are operated out of two facilities in the City of Perris. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) is available at the Riverside and Hemet facilities for the agency’s alternative fueled fleet. Because of the extensive investment needed for CNG technology and fueling stations, RTA’s maintenance facilit y in Hemet also serves as a public fueling station for CNG vehicles. Access is available for fueling by other agencies including Omnitrans and the City of Riverside on an emergency basis. RTA generates additional revenue from the sale of CNG. The current facilities are capable of accommodating present operations and have room for expansion if necessary. Audit Period Highlights Several notable events occurred at RTA during the audit period, including the following: The economic recession and housing crisis, which began in 2008, had significant impacts on the local economy in Riverside County and funding levels during the audit period. Employment in the County had been heavily reliant on the housing construction market. Due to decreased funding from taxes, RTA implemented service cuts on June 28, 2009 which was just prior to the audit period. RTA reduced fixed route service hours by over 10 percent from FY2009 to FY2011. The service changes affected more than a third of RTA’s routes. In FY2012, RTA was finally able to begin increasing service. However, the number of service hours was still over 9 percent lower than it had been in FY2009. RTA decided to respond early in order to ensure fiscal sustainability instead of postponing service cuts. Despite the service reductions, RTA continued to have sustained fixed route and DAR ridership. Despite a slight dip in FY2010, RTA ridership continues to set agency records year-after-year. RTA has been able to strategically provide service to maximize ridership and meet demand. The number of unlinked passenger fixed route trips increased by 6 percent over the audit period. DAR trips increased by 5 percent. In part, the increase in ridership was due to a spike in gasoline prices. However, as prices have stabilized, RTA has been able to retain ridership. RTA met or exceeded all eight Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) metrics established by RCTC for 100 percent compliance during the audit period. RCTC establishes the PIP targets as part of a comprehensive effort with the transit operators to maintain financially sustainable transit systems. The PIP sets fort h efficiency and effectiveness standards that the transit operators are required to meet. Progress towards these standards is reported quarterly to RCTC. The eight operating performance indicators include: operating cost per service hour, farebox recovery ratio, subsidy per passenger, subsidy per passenger mile, subsidy per service hour, subsidy per service mile, passengers per service hour, and passengers per service mile. New routes can be exempted from the analysis. In FY2012, RTA hired a new contractor for the delivery of its contracted fixed route services, Empire Transportation, replacing Transportation Concepts. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 9 In FY2012, RTA awarded a contract to Gillig Corporation for the purchase of 97 40-foot CNG buses. The purchase w ill be accomplished without debt and with a significant portion of the funds coming from State Proposition 1B. RTA completed the construction of two transit centers during the audit period. In September 2009, RTA opened the Corona Transit Center. In January 201 0, RTA together with RCTC and the City of Perris opened the Perris Transit Center. These new facilities serve as a multi-modal hub for RTA fixed route and regional bus services. RTA obtained funding for a Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA). The COA kicked off in January 2013. The COA involves conducting an in-depth review of the efficiency and effectiveness of RTA’s transit services and proposing recommendations for service changes. The results of the COA will help RTA identify operational and capita l improvements to improve system efficiency and effectiveness, as well as identify a site for the Riverside Transit Center. The RTA “Choose” marketing billboard campaign that asked drivers to choose between paying high gas prices and riding the bus received the 2012 AdWheel Award sponsored by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) and the grand prize at APTA’s annual meeting. RTA tracked ridership on routes with and without the billboards to determine the effectiveness of the campaign. CommuterLink ridership grew 7.6 percent on routes without advertisements while ridership on routes that were targeted with billboard advertisements on I-15 and I-215 grew 24 percent. Administration costs decreased. The reduction in administration costs was primarily due to the 90.6 percent reduction in casualty and liability costs over the audit period. In FY2012, an actuarial review was conducted which determined that the reserve requirement should be decreased from prior levels. A reserve adjustment was made to bring RTA in the line with the actuarial recommendation. Another contributing factor to the decrease in administration costs was a decrease in pension costs for new employees and wage freeze. RTA no longer covers the employee share contribution for PER S for administrative employees hired after July 1, 2011. Administrative employees hired after this date must contribute 7 percent of their annual salary (employee share) to PER S. RTA also contained administration costs by freezing employee wages and implementing a number of compensation concessions from January 2009 until FY2013. In FY2013, administration employees received a 3 percent pay increase. RTA initiated a new travel training program to transition senior and disabled riders from DAR to fixed route using a Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) grant. According to RTA collected statistics, t he program has generated 40,000 more trips on fixed route and trained 200 people. In partnership with RCTC, RTA implemented a temporary shu ttle service (Route 54) beginning on April 11, 2012 for customers travelling between Riverside-Downtown Metrolink Station and the Riverside County Administrative Center. Due to construction along Highway 91 in Riverside, RTA launched the free, temporary shuttle service that runs Monday through Thursday (now through Friday) and is expected to operate for two years. RCTC is funding the service. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 10 Section II Operator Compliance Requirements This section of the audit report contains the analysis of RTA’s ability to comply with state requirements for continued receipt of TDA funds. The evaluation uses the guidebook, Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, September 2008 (third edition), which was developed by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to assess transit operators. The guidebook contains a checklist of eleven measures taken from relevant sections of the Public Utilities Code and the California Code of Regulations. Each of these requirements is discussed in the table below, including a description of the system’s efforts to comply with the requirements. In addition, the findings from the compliance review are described in the text following the table. TABLE II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The transit operator submitted annual reports to the RTPE based upon the Uniform System of Accounts and Records established by the State Controller. Report is due 90 days after end of fiscal year (Sept. 28) for paper filing, or 110 days (Oct. 18) if filed electronically (internet). Public Utilities Code, Section 99243 Completion/submittal dates (internet filing): FY 2010: October 12, 2010 FY 2011: September 30, 2011 FY 2012: October 30, 2012 Source: State Controller Reports Conclusion: Complied. Note: As RTA provides both general public service and separate specialized service for elderly and disabled, State Controller instructions require separate reporting of these modes. The operator has submitted annual fiscal and compliance audits to its RTPE and to the State Controller within 180 days following the end of the fiscal year (Dec. 27), or has received the appropriate 90 day extension by the RTPA allowed by law. Public Utilities Code, Section 99245 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: December 9, 2010 FY 2011: October 27, 2011 FY 2012: October 30, 2012 Source: Financial Statements Conclusion: Complied. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 11 TABLE II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The CHP has, within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim submitted by an operator, certified the operator’s compliance with Vehicle Code Section 1808.1 following a CHP inspection of the operator’s terminal. Public Utilities Code, Section 99251 RTA participates in the CHP Driver Pull Notice Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim submitted by the Authority. The inspection dates applicable to this audit for the directly operated Riverside facility include: FY10 FY11 FY12 Riverside 4/9/2009 4/7/10 4/13/11 CHP inspections are also conducted at each of RTA’s other directly operated and contracted facilities. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s claim for TDA funds is submitted in compliance with rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA for such claims. Public Utilities Code, Section 99261 As a condition of approval, RTA’s annual claims for Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance is submitted in compliance with rules and regulations adopted by RCTC. Conclusion: Complied. If an operator serves urbanized and non-urbanized areas, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to the ratio determined by the rules an d regulations adopted by the RTPA. Public Utilities Code, Section 99270.1 RTA is subject to Section 99270.1 and is required to achieve or exceed a mandatory blended farebox recovery ratio target established by RCTC. Target Actual* FY 2010: 16.85% 25.37% FY 2011: 17.09% 27.52% FY 2012: 17.04% 27.02% *Includes eligible non-fare revenue in calculation. Source: Financial Statements Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s operating budget has not increased by more than 15% over the preceding year, nor is there a substantial increase or decrease in the scope of operations or capital budget provisions for major new fixed facilities unless the operator has reasonably supported and substantiated the change(s). Public Utilities Code, Section 99266 Percentage change in RTA’s operating budget does not exceed 15% over the preceding year: FY 2010: - 4.6% FY 2011: - 5.8% FY 2012: + 8.4% Source: Operating Expense v. Budget Summary Reports Conclusion: Complied. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 12 TABLE II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The operator’s definition of performance measures are consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247, including (a) operating cost, (b) operating cost per passenger, (c) operating cost per vehicle service hour, (d) passengers per vehicle service hour, (e) passengers per vehicle service mile, (f) total passengers, (g) transit vehicle, (h) vehicle service hours, (i) vehicle service miles, and (j) vehicle service hours per employee. Public Utilities Code, Section 99247 RTA performance measures are defined in accordance with PUC requirements with the exception of vehicle service hours per employee. The TDA definition of full-time- equivalent (FTE) employee count is the number of transportation system-related hours worked by persons employed in connection with the public transportation system, including contractor staff, divided by 2,000. RTA currently reports FTEs as the number of total vehicle hours divided by 2,000. A more appropriate method would be to divide total labor hours (all direct and contract staff) by 2,000. Conclusion: Substantial compliance, with the exception of (j) vehicle service hours per employee. If the operator serves an urbanized area, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-fifth (20 percent), unless it is in a county with a population of less than 500,000, in which case it must maintain a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to three-twentieths (15%), if so determined by the RTPE. Public Utilities Code, Section 99268.2, 99268.3, & 99268.1 Per Section 99270.1, RTA must meet a blended farebox recovery ratio target. Conclusion: Not Applicable. If the operator serves a rural area, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-tenth (10 percent). Public Utilities Code, Section 99268.2, 99268.4, & 99268.5 Per Section 99270.1, RTA must meet a blended farebox recovery ratio target. Conclusion: Not Applicable. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 13 TABLE II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The current cost of the operator’s retirement system is fully funded with respect to the officers and employees of its public transportation system, or the operator is implementing a plan approved by the RTPE, which will fully fund the retirement system for 40 years. Public Utilities Code, Section 99271 As described in the annual fiscal audit, RTA contributes to the California Public Employees Retirement System (PERS). Participants are required to contribute 7 percent of their annual salary. RTA has agreed to fund the participant’s contributions for administrative employees hired before July 1, 2011. RTA is also required to contribute at an actuarially determined rate calculated as a percentage of payroll. Source: Financial Statements Conclusion: Complied. If the operator receives state transit assistance funds, the operator makes full use of funds available to it under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 before TDA claims are granted. California Code of Regulations, Section 6754(a)(3) RTA utilizes federal funds that are available to the agency, as reported in the annual State Controller reports. FY 2010: Operations ($20,001,660) Capital ($8,178,518) FY 2011: Operations ($16,642,340) Capital ($4,585,098) FY 2012: Operations ($15,271,620) Capital ($3,362,731) Source: State Controller Reports Conclusion: Complied. Findings and Observations from Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix 1. RTA was in substantial compliance with applicable requirements of TDA, including TDA definitions of performance measures consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247 . An exception is that the measure of vehicle service hours per employee uses full time equivalents that are not consistent with the PUC. A recommendation is made for RTA to revise its calculation of FTEs reported to the State Controller’s Office so that both the FTE count as well as the performance indicator of vehicle service hours per employee conform to the Public Utilities Code. 2. RTA’s operating budget decreased from the prior year during the first two fiscal years in the audit period. This trend is very positive relative to the budgetary threshold in the statute. 3. The blended farebox recovery ratio target established by RCTC for RTA service was met in each year of the audit. Including eligible non-fare revenue, the farebox recovery ratio was 25.37 percent in FY2010, 27.52 percent in FY2011, and 27.02 percent in FY2012, according to the annual financial statements. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 14 4. As RTA provides both general public service and separate specialized service for elderly and disabled, State Controller instructions require separate reporting of these modes. In the General Instruction Form completed by a transit agency, a selection must be made as to which mode of transit is represented in the report. The options are general public use or elderly/disabled. The Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report Instructions contain the following passages under the General Instruction Form: Transit operators providing two types of service, (general public use and transit service exclusively for the elderly/handicapped) must complete a separate report for each type of service. … a separate report must be filed for each type of service provided: General Public Use Service or Specialized Service exclusive for elderly and/or handicapped. For example, if an agency has received Article 4 and Article 8(c) monies to provide General Public Use Service, the agency should submit one report. If that agency has also received Article 4 monies to provide Specialized Service for the elderly and/or handicapped, then a report must be submitted for the Specialized Service operations. It is recommended that RTA submit separate State Controller Reports for general public service and for elderly/disabled for compliance with these State instructions. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 15 Section III Prior Triennial Performance Audit Recommendations The FY2007-FY2009 TDA triennial performance audit did not provide recommendations. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 16 Section IV TDA Performance Indicators This section reviews RTA’s performance in providing transit service to the community in an efficient and effective manner. TDA requires that at least five specific performance indicators be reported, which are contained in the following tables. Farebox recovery ratio is not one of the five specific indicators, but is a requirement for continued TDA funding. Therefore, farebox calculation is also included. Two additional performance indicators, operating cost per mile and average fare per passenger, are included as well. Findings fro m the analysis are contained in the section following the tables. Tables IV-1 through IV-5 provide the performance indicators for the following services: Systemwide Fixed Route, Directly Operated Fixed Route, Contracted General Public (total of fixed route directly operated and contracted) Demand Response (Dial-A-Ride) Graphs are also provided to depict the trends in the indicators. Data in the tables and graphs were derived from several sources, including National Transit Database (NTD) reports and State Controller Reports. Sources are noted in footnotes below the tables. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 17 Table IV-1 TDA Performance Indicators Systemwide Verified TDA Statistics & Base Year Audit Review Period % Change Performance Indicators FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Operating Costs (1) $52,086,944 $46,828,951 $45,092,129 $48,094,580 -7.7% Unlinked Passengers 8,326,764 7,934,079 8,092,220 8,800,273 5.7% Vehicle Service Hours 685,317 624,239 600,356 625,224 -8.8% Vehicle Service Miles 11,426,093 10,642,527 10,174,185 10,442,450 -8.6% Employee FTEs (2) 690 359 347 371 -46.2% Passenger Fare Revenue $8,245,927 $9,286,453 $9,410,427 $10,239,289 24.2% Operating Cost per Passenger $6.26 $5.90 $5.57 $5.47 -12.6% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $76.00 $75.02 $75.11 $76.92 1.2% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $4.56 $4.40 $4.43 $4.61 1.0% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 12.15 12.71 13.48 14.08 15.8% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.73 0.75 0.80 0.84 15.6% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee FTE 993 1,739 1,730 1,685 69.7% Average Fare per Passenger $0.99 $1.17 $1.16 $1.16 17.5% Farebox Recovery Ratio (3) 15.8% 19.8% 20.9% 21.3% 34.5% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% (1) Operating costs exclude depreciation, charter, and vehicle lease costs. (2) Employee FTEs in FY09 are based on the number of filled positions for RTA and its contractors. For FY10-FY12, RTA provided data showing FTEs based on total vehicle hours divided by 2,000 per State Controller’s Office guidance. See subsection Corrected Employee FTEs at the end of this Section for more discussion. (3) Farebox recovery ratio reflects only fare revenues and does not include eligible non-fare revenue allowed by RCTC. The compliance requirements in the prior chapter show the audited farebox ratio inclusive of all allowable revenues and operating expenses consistent with RCTC policy. Sources: NTD and State Controller Reports Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 18 Table IV-2 TDA Performance Indicators Fixed Route, Directly Operated Verified TDA Statistics & Base Year Audit Review Period % Change Performance Indicators FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Operating Costs (1) $33,052,251 $28,927,404 $26,985,502 $28,606,235 -13.5% Unlinked Passengers 6,597,514 6,245,550 6,299,800 6,784,928 2.8% Vehicle Service Hours 338,529 299,738 289,492 297,815 -12.0% Vehicle Service Miles 4,741,076 4,370,136 4,183,981 4,189,091 -11.6% Employee FTEs (2) 332 162 156 161 -51.5% Passenger Fare Revenue $5,714,109 $6,172,361 $6,337,314 $6,832,615 19.6% Operating Cost per Passenger $5.01 $4.63 $4.28 $4.22 -15.8% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $97.63 $96.51 $93.22 $96.05 -1.6% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $6.97 $6.62 $6.45 $6.83 -2.0% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 19.49 20.84 21.76 22.78 16.9% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 1.39 1.43 1.51 1.62 16.4% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee FTE 1,020 1,850 1,856 1,850 81.4% Average Fare per Passenger $0.87 $0.99 $1.01 $1.01 16.3% Farebox Recovery Ratio (3) 17.3% 21.3% 23.5% 23.9% 38.2% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% (1) Operating costs exclude depreciation, charter, and vehicle lease costs. (2) Employee FTEs in FY09 are based on the number of filled positions for RTA and its contractors. For FY10-FY12, RTA provided data showing FTEs based on total vehicle hours divided by 2,000 per State Controller’s Office guidance. See subsection Corrected Employee FTEs at the end of this Section for more discussion. (3) Farebox recovery ratio reflects only fare revenues and does not include eligible non-fare revenue allowed by RCTC. The compliance requirements in the prior chapter show the audited farebox ratio inclusive of all allowable revenues and operating expenses consistent with RCTC policy. Sources: NTD and State Controller Reports Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 19 Table IV-3 TDA Performance Indicators Fixed Route, Contracted Verified TDA Statistics & Base Year Audit Review Period % Change Performance Indicators FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Operating Costs (1) $9,676,347 $9,204,809 $9,449,522 $9,909,469 2.4% Unlinked Passengers 1,368,287 1,350,071 1,462,330 1,635,375 19.5% Vehicle Service Hours 168,808 164,215 164,232 163,002 -3.4% Vehicle Service Miles 3,033,203 3,109,354 3,070,908 3,004,500 -0.9% Employee FTEs (2) 199 92 92 99 -50.3% Passenger Fare Revenue $1,566,102 $2,009,936 $1,898,091 $2,099,408 34.1% Operating Cost per Passenger $7.07 $6.82 $6.46 $6.06 -14.3% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $57.32 $56.05 $57.54 $60.79 6.1% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $3.19 $2.96 $3.08 $3.30 3.4% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 8.11 8.22 8.90 10.03 23.8% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.45 0.43 0.48 0.54 20.7% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee FTE 848 1,785 1,785 1,646 94.1% Average Fare per Passenger $1.14 $1.49 $1.30 $1.28 12.2% Farebox Recovery Ratio (3) 16.2% 21.8% 20.1% 21.2% 30.9% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% (1) Operating costs exclude depreciation, charter, and vehicle lease costs. (2) Employee FTEs in FY09 are based on the number of filled positions for RTA and its contractors. For FY10-FY12, RTA provided data showing FTEs based on total vehicle hours divided by 2,000 per State Controller’s Office guidance. See subsection Corrected Employee FTEs at the end of this Section for more discussion. (3) Farebox recovery ratio reflects only fare revenues and does not include eligible non-fare revenue allowed by RCTC. The compliance requirements in the prior chapter show the audited farebox ratio inclusive of all allowable revenues and operating expenses consistent with RCTC policy. Sources: NTD and State Controller Reports Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 20 Table IV-4 TDA Performance Indicators General Public Service (Directly Operated and Contracted Fixed Route) Verified TDA Statistics & Base Year Audit Review Period % Change Performance Indicators FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Operating Costs (1) $42,728,598 $38,132,213 $36,435,024 $38,515,704 -9.9% Unlinked Passengers 7,965,801 7,595,621 7,762,130 8,420,303 5.7% Vehicle Service Hours 507,337 463,953 453,724 460,817 -9.2% Vehicle Service Miles 7,774,279 7,479,490 7,254,889 7,193,591 -7.5% Employee FTEs (2) 531 254 248 260 -51.0% Passenger Fare Revenue $7,280,211 $8,182,297 $8,235,405 $8,932,023 22.7% Operating Cost per Passenger $5.36 $5.02 $4.69 $4.57 -14.7% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $84.22 $82.19 $80.30 $83.58 -0.8% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $5.50 $5.10 $5.02 $5.35 -2.6% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 15.70 16.37 17.11 18.27 16.4% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 1.02 1.02 1.07 1.17 14.2% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee FTE 955 1,827 1,830 1,772 85.5% Average Fare per Passenger $0.91 $1.08 $1.06 $1.06 16.1% Farebox Recovery Ratio (3) 17.0% 21.5% 22.6% 23.2% 36.1% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% (1) Operating costs exclude depreciation, charter, and vehicle lease costs. (2) Employee FTEs in FY09 are based on the number of filled positions for RTA and its contractors. For FY10-FY12, RTA provided data showing FTEs based on total vehicle hours divided by 2,000 per State Controller’s Office guidance. See subsection Corrected Employee FTEs at the end of this Section for more discussion. (3) Farebox recovery ratio reflects only fare revenues and does not include eligible non-fare revenue allowed by RCTC. The compliance requirements in the prior chapter show the audited farebox ratio inclusive of all allowable revenues and operating expenses consistent with RCTC policy. Sources: NTD and State Controller Reports Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 21 Table IV-5 TDA Performance Indicators Dial-A-Ride Demand Response Service Verified TDA Statistics & Base Year Audit Review Period % Change Performance Indicators FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Operating Costs (1) $9,358,346 $8,696,738 $8,657,105 $9,578,876 2.4% Unlinked Passengers 360,963 338,458 330,090 379,970 5.3% Vehicle Service Hours 177,980 160,286 146,632 164,407 -7.6% Vehicle Service Miles 3,651,814 3,163,037 2,919,296 3,248,859 -11.0% Employee FTEs (2) 332 162 156 161 -51.5% Passenger Fare Revenue $965,716 $1,104,156 $1,175,022 $1,307,266 35.4% Operating Cost per Passenger $25.93 $25.70 $26.23 $25.21 -2.8% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $52.58 $54.26 $59.04 $58.26 10.8% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $2.56 $2.75 $2.97 $2.95 15.1% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 2.03 2.11 2.25 2.31 14.0% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.10 0.11 0.11 0.12 18.3% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee FTE 1,020 1,850 1,856 1,850 81.4% Average Fare per Passenger $2.68 $3.26 $3.56 $3.44 28.6% Farebox Recovery Ratio (3) 10.3% 12.7% 13.6% 13.6% 32.3% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% (1) Operating costs exclude depreciation, charter, and vehicle lease costs. (2) Employee FTEs in FY09 are based on the number of filled positions for RTA and its contractors. For FY10-FY12, RTA provided data showing FTEs based on total vehicle hours divided by 2,000 per State Controller’s Office guidance. See subsection Corrected Employee FTEs at the end of this Section for more discussion. (3) Farebox recovery ratio reflects only fare revenues and does not include eligible non-fare revenue allowed by RCTC. The compliance requirements in the prior chapter show the audited farebox ratio inclusive of all allowable revenues and operating expenses consistent with RCTC policy. Sources: NTD and State Controller Reports Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 22 Graph IV-1 Operating Costs Systemwide, General Public and Dial-A-Ride Graph IV-2 Ridership Systemwide, General Public and Dial-A-Ride $0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50 $60 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Mi l l i o n s General Public Dial-A-Ride Total 0 2 4 6 8 10 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Mi l l i o n s General Public Dial-A-Ride Total Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 23 Graph IV-3 Operating Cost per Passenger Systemwide, General Public and Dial-A-Ride Graph IV-4 Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, General Public and Dial-A-Ride $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 General Public Dial-A-Ride Total $0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 General Public Dial-A-Ride Total Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 24 Graph IV-5 Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, General Public and Dial-A-Ride Graph IV-6 Fare Recovery Ratio (Exclusive of Eligible Non-Fare Revenue) Systemwide, General Public and Dial-A-Ride 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 General Public Dial-A-Ride Total 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 General Public Dial-A-Ride Total Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 25 Findings from Verification of TDA Performance Indicators 1. Operating costs for RTA general public service decreased by 9.9 percent over the last three years, which is remarkable given that the Consumer Price Index increased by 5.4 percent during the same period. Operating costs for DAR service increased by 2.4 percent during the last three years. Systemwide operating costs decreased by 7.7 percent. 2. Ridership on general public service increased by 5.7 percent, from 8.0 million to 8.4 million passengers, a notable accomplishment given the service reductions that took place during the audit period. Ridership on DAR service increased by 5.3 percent, from 361,000 to 380,000. Systemwide ridership increased by 5.7 percent during the audit period. 3. The provision of vehicle service hours and miles for general public service decreased by 9.2 percent and 7.5 percent respectively, as RTA reduced service levels in order to balance its budget. DAR vehicle service hours and miles decreased by 7.6 percent and 11.0 percent respectively. 4. Operating cost per passenger decreased by 12.6 percent systemwide, by 14.7 percent for general public service, and by 2.8 percent for DAR service (as compared to a 5.4 percent change in inflation during the audit period). This reflects the emphasis that RTA had during the audit period to realize cost efficiencies when feasible. 5. Operating cost per vehicle service hour increased by 1.2 percent systemwide and by 10.8 percent for DAR service, and decreased by 0.8 percent for general public service. Operating cost per vehicle service mile increased by 1.0 percent systemwide and by 15.1 percent for DAR service, and decreased by 2.6 percent for general public service. 6. Passengers per vehicle service hour increased by 15.8 percent systemwide, by 16.4 percent for general public service, and by 14.0 percent for DAR service. Passengers per vehicle service mile increased by 15.6 percent systemwide, by 14.2 percent for general public service, and by 18.3 percent for DAR service. 7. Vehicle service hours per employee Full Time Equivalent (FTE) for general public service, which measures labor productivity, could not be accurately determined using the numbers from the State Controllers Reports since the methodology changed from FY2009 to FY2010. See subsection Corrected Employee FTEs at the end of this Section for more discussion. 8. The average fare per passe nger increased systemwide from $0.99 in FY2009 to $1.16 in FY2012. The increase in average fare was primarily due to the change in fare policy implemented at the end of FY2009. Average fare for DAR service increased by 28.6 percent from $2.68 to $3.44 during the audit period. The average fare for general public service also increased by 16.1 percent from $0.91 to $1.06. 9. The fare recovery ratio for general public service increased from 17.0 percent in FY2009 to 23.2 percent in FY2012, while the fare recover y ratio for DAR service increased from Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 26 10.3 percent in FY2009 to 13.6 percent in FY2012. The RCTC required farebox is based on a systemwide blended farebox recovery ratio target that accounts for both fixed route and DAR and includes eligible non-fare revenue such as local Measure A sales tax contributions and other locally generated revenue. Corrected Employee FTEs Based on RTA’s interpretation of the California State Controller’s Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report Instructions, RTA revised its calculation for employee FTEs in FY2010. The relevant excerpt from the instructions is provided below. Total Employees - Public and Contract: Report the number of employee equivalents. Public Utilities Code section 99247(j) defines "Vehicle service hours per employee" as the vehicle service hours divided by the number of employees employed in connection with the public transportation system. Use the assumption that 2,000 person-hours of work in one year constitutes one employee. The number of employees shall also include those individuals employed by the operator which provide services to the agency of the operator responsible for the operation of the public transportation system even though not employed in that agency. For FY2010, FY2011, and FY2012, RTA interpreted the instructions to mean that employee FTEs were to be calculated by taking the total vehicle hours (sum of service and deadhead hours) and dividing it by 2,000. Previously, RTA had calculated employee FTEs as total labor hours divided by 2,000. Using total vehicle hours to estimate labor hours does not account for all of an agency’s payroll hours and therefore would not include all employees employed in connection with the public transportation system. For example, maintenance, administration, and management employees as well as extra board operators would not be included in the calculation of FTEs if total vehicle hours are used to calculate FTEs. Using data from the FY2009 State Controller’s Report, FY2009 and FY2012 NTD Reports, and the FY2007-FY2009 Triennial Audit along with data from the current fixed route and DA R contractors, the audit team was able to compare FY2009 and FY2012 employee FTEs. RTA obtained labor hours for contracted fixed route and DAR services for FY2012 from the contractors. At the beginning of FY2012, a new contractor (Empire Transportation) began providing fixed route service; therefore, RTA was unable to obtain employee data from the prior contractor for FY2010 and FY2011. Directly operated labor hours reported on the NTD report were used for directly operated fixed route service. Corrected results are provided in Table IV-6. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 27 Table IV-6 TDA Performance Indicators Employee FTEs and Labor Productivity % Change FY09 FY12 FY09-FY12 Employee FTEs General Public (Directly Operated and Contracted Fixed Route) 531 465 -12.4% Directly Operated Fixed Route 332 306 -7.8% Contracted Fixed Route 199 159 -20.1% Dial-A-Ride Demand Response 159 186 17.0% Vehicle Service Hours General Public (Directly Operated and Contracted Fixed Route) 507,337 460,817 -9.2% Directly Operated Fixed Route 338,529 297,815 -12.0% Contracted Fixed Route 168,808 163,002 -3.4% Dial-A-Ride Demand Response 177,980 164,407 -7.6% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee FTE General Public (Directly Operated and Contracted Fixed Route) 955 991 3.7% Directly Operated Fixed Route 1,020 973 -4.6% Contracted Fixed Route 848 1,025 20.9% Dial-A-Ride Demand Response 1,119 884 -21.0% Sources: FY2009 and FY2012 NTD Reports, FY2009 State Controller Report, FY2007-2009 Triennial Audit, FY2012 Contractor Labor Hours from RTA Vehicle service hours per employee FTE, which measures labor productivity, increased for general public service by 3.7 percent over the audit period. The increase in labor productivity is due to a significant increase in vehicle service hours per employee FTE for contracted fixed route service of 20.9 percent during the audit period. During the same time, the labor productivity for directly operated fixed route service decreased by 4.6 percent. Labor productivity decreased for DAR demand response service by 21.0 percent during the audit period. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 28 Section V Review of Operator Functions This section provides a review of various functions within RTA. The review highlights accomplishments, issues, and challenges that were determined during the audit period. The following functions were reviewed: Operations / Contract Operations Maintenance Administration and Management Planning Marketing Human Resources / Risk Management Procurement Information Technology Operations / Contract Operations Operations and Contract Operations Departments are responsible for delivering transit service for all of the age ncy’s fixed route and demand response operations, both directly and via private contractors. These departments comprise the coach operators, dispatchers, supervisors, and managers who provide the daily interface between RTA and the riding public. Operations and Contract Operations work to maintain scheduled service, manage contracted services, adhere to regulatory requirements, and improve labor relations. Operations and Contract Operations Departments prepare key performance indicators (KPI) report s that track indicators on a systemwide level including discipline violations, overtime hours, accidents, and lost service hours. Each KPI is reported at least on a monthly basis. Beginning in July 2013, RTA also reports uncontrolled absences. Major accomplishments during the audit period include: Replaced its prior contractor, Transportation Concepts, in FY2012 with a new contractor, Empire Transportation, for the delivery of contracted fixed route services. Placed into service new low floor buses on rural routes that were exceeding passenger capacity. Completed supplemental training for ADA requirements such as wheelchair securement and service animals. Continued Cooperative Agreements with other transit operators in the region and RCTC. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 29 Began new Travel Training Program to transition senior and disabled riders from DAR to fixed route service using Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funding. The program has generated 40,000 more trips on fixed route and trained 200 people. Amended its Americans with Disabilities Act Policy in FY2012 to allow personal care attendants to travel free of charge on fixed route service when assisting an eligible person with a disability. Established a Medi-Cal reimbursement program with the Riverside County Health Services for the reimbursement for a portion of DAR service starting in FY201 2. Operations Performance Tables V-1, V-2, and V-3 provide several indicators of operations performance for RTA directly operated fixed route, contracted fixed route, and contracted demand response services, respectively. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 30 Table V-1 Vehicle Operations Performance Indicators Directly Operated Fixed Route Operations Data Base Year Audit Review Period % Change FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Cost for Operations $16,491,539 $14,603,053 $14,308,798 $14,215,862 -13.8% Operator Salaries and Wages $8,463,972 $7,458,645 $6,470,605 $6,616,939 -21.8% Operator Pay Hours 466,555 436,267 402,217 418,299 -10.3% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 338,529 299,738 289,492 297,815 -12.0% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 4,741,076 4,370,136 4,183,981 4,189,091 -11.6% Total Vehicle Hours 363,875 323,161 311,550 321,671 -11.6% Total Vehicle Miles 5,469,813 5,043,554 4,819,844 4,872,610 -10.9% Unlinked Passenger Trips 6,597,514 6,245,550 6,299,800 6,784,928 2.8% Passenger Miles 40,486,364 38,312,253 39,894,503 43,326,772 7.0% Preventable Accidents 39 47 61 28 -28.2% Performance Indicators Veh Ops Cost per VSH $48.72 $48.72 $49.43 $47.73 -2.0% Veh Ops Cost per VSM $3.48 $3.34 $3.42 $3.39 -2.4% Veh Ops Cost per Passenger Trip $2.50 $2.34 $2.27 $2.10 -16.2% Veh Ops Cost per Passenger Mile $0.41 $0.38 $0.36 $0.33 -19.5% Average Wage per Operator Pay Hour $18.14 $17.10 $16.09 $15.82 -12.8% VSH per Operator Pay Hour 0.73 0.69 0.72 0.71 -1.9% VSM per Operator Pay Hour 10.16 10.02 10.40 10.01 -1.4% Service Miles per Service Hour 14.00 14.58 14.45 14.07 0.4% Service Hours / Total Hours 93.0% 92.8% 92.9% 92.6% -0.5% Service Miles / Total Miles 86.7% 86.6% 86.8% 86.0% -0.8% Avg Psgr Miles per Psgr Trip 6.14 6.13 6.33 6.39 4.1% Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour 19.49 20.84 21.76 22.78 16.9% Prev Accidents per 100,000 Total Miles 0.71 0.93 1.27 0.57 -19.4% On-Time Performance 93% 80% 80% 83% -10.8% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: NTD Reports Vehicle operations costs for directly operated fixed route service declined by 13.8 percent during the audit period despite an increase in CPI of 5.4 percent . Operations cost per vehicle service hour decreased by 2.0 percent, and cost per vehicle service mile decreased by 2.4 percent. Cost per passenger trip decreased by 16.2 percent and cost per passenger mile decreased by 19.5 percent. The stability in operations costs was achieved by limiting growth in wage levels through contract negotiations and implementing route modifications to improve productivity. Vehicle service hours per operator pay hour and vehicle service miles per operator pay hour, both functions of operator productivity, decreased slightly by 1.9 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively, during the audit period. Service hours per total hour and service miles per total mile decrease d by 0.5 percent and 0.8 percent, respectively. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 31 Service miles provided per service hour, a reflection of average vehicle speed, was approximately 14 miles per hour. Passenger miles per passenger trip, a reflection of average passenger trip length, increased by 4.1 percent from 6.14 miles to 6.39 miles. Passengers per revenue vehicle hour, a reflection of vehicle occupancy, increased by 16.9 percent from 19.49 in FY2009 to 22.78 in FY2012. The number of directly operated fixed route preventable accidents p er 100,000 miles was 0.71 in FY2009, 0.93 in FY2010, 1.27 in FY2011, and 0.57 in FY2012 for a net decrease of 19.4 percent over the audit period. On-time performance declined by 10 percentage points from 93 percent in FY2009 to 83 percent in FY2012, not me et ing the on-time performance target of 85 percent for directly operated fixed route service. The increase in traffic conditions/detours, which are outside of RTA’s control, as well as vehicle loads during the audit period impacted on-time performance. Table V-2 Vehicle Operations Performance Indicators Contracted Fixed Route Operations Data Base Year Audit Review Period % Change FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Cost for Operations $6,575,787 $6,631,006 $6,830,421 $6,664,522 1.3% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 168,808 164,215 164,232 163,002 -3.4% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 3,033,203 3,109,354 3,070,908 3,004,500 -0.9% Total Vehicle Hours 185,644 183,892 185,073 197,864 6.6% Total Vehicle Miles 3,520,624 3,644,106 3,627,796 4,023,113 14.3% Unlinked Passenger Trips 1,368,287 1,350,071 1,462,330 1,635,375 19.5% Passenger Miles 10,907,832 10,755,179 12,867,205 14,125,971 29.5% Preventable Accidents 18 19 7 17 -5.6% Performance Indicators Veh Ops Cost per VSH $38.95 $40.38 $41.59 $40.89 5.0% Veh Ops Cost per VSM $2.17 $2.13 $2.22 $2.22 2.3% Veh Ops Cost per Passenger Trip $0.60 $0.62 $0.53 $0.47 -21.7% Veh Ops Cost per Passenger Mile $0.60 $0.62 $0.53 $0.47 -21.7% Service Miles Per Service Hour 17.97 18.93 18.70 18.43 2.6% Service Hours / Total Hours 90.9% 89.3% 88.7% 82.4% -9.4% Service Miles / Total Miles 86.2% 85.3% 84.6% 74.7% -13.3% Avg Psgr Miles per Psgr Trip 7.97 7.97 8.80 8.64 8.4% Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour 8.11 8.22 8.90 10.03 23.8% Prev Accidents per 100,000 Total Miles 0.51 0.52 0.19 0.42 -17.4% On-Time Performance 95.0% 94.0% 94.2% 92.6% -2.5% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Sources: NTD Reports, Contractor Performance Indicator, Monthly, and Preventable Accidents Reports Vehicle operations cost s for contracted fixed route service increased slightly by 1.3 percent during the audit period. The increase was less than the increase in CPI of 5.4 percent . Operations cost per Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 32 vehicle service hour increased by 5.0 percent, and cost per vehicle service mile increased by 2.3 percent. Cost per passenger trip and cost per passenger mile both decreased by 21.7 percent. Service miles provided per service hour, a reflection of average vehicle speed, was approximately 18 miles per hour. The average passenger trip length on contracted fixed routes was nearly twice as long as trips on directly operated fixed route service. Average pass enger miles per passenger trip increased by 8.4 percent from 7.97 miles to 8.64 miles. The vehicle occupancy of buses on contracted fixed routes was lower than on directly operated fixed routes. This is due in part to the smaller vehicle sizes on contracted routes. Passengers per revenue vehicle hour increased by 23.8 percent from 8.11 in FY2009 to 10.03 in FY2012. The number of contracted fixed route preventable accidents per 100,000 miles was 0.51 in FY2009, 0.52 in FY2010, 0.19 in FY2011, and 0.42 in FY2012 for a net decrease of 17.4 percent over the audit period. On-time performance declined by 2.4 percentage points from 95.0 percent in FY2009 to 92.6 percent, meeting the on-time performance target of 90 percent established for contractors. Table V-3 Vehicle Operations Performance Indicators Dial-A-Ride Demand Response Operations Data Base Year Audit Review Period % Change FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Cost for Operations $4,681,968 $4,581,672 $4,663,569 $5,089,113 8.7% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 177,980 160,286 146,632 164,407 -7.6% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 3,651,814 3,163,037 2,919,296 3,248,859 -11.0% Unlinked Passenger Trips 360,963 338,458 330,090 379,970 5.3% Passenger Miles 4,450,674 4,173,188 3,895,062 4,565,516 2.6% Preventable Accidents 46 42 57 37 -19.6% Performance Indicators Veh Ops Cost per VSH $26.31 $28.58 $31.80 $30.95 17.7% Veh Ops Cost per VSM $1.28 $1.45 $1.60 $1.57 22.2% Veh Ops Cost per Psgr Trip $12.97 $13.54 $14.13 $13.39 3.3% Veh Ops Cost per Psgr Mile $1.05 $1.10 $1.20 $1.11 6.0% Service Miles Per Service Hour 20.52 19.73 19.91 19.76 -3.7% Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour 2.03 2.11 2.25 2.31 14.0% Passenger Miles per Passenger Trip 12.33 12.33 11.80 12.02 -2.6% Prev Accidents per 100,000 Rev Miles 1.26 1.33 1.95 1.14 -9.6% On-Time Performance 94.0% 96.0% 94.7% 93.1% -1.0% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Sources: NTD Reports, Contractor Performance Indicator, Monthly, and Preventable Accidents Reports Vehicle operations costs for DAR service increased by 8.7 percent during the audit period due in part to the growth in demand for DAR services. Operations cost per vehicle service hour increased by 17.7 percent and cost per vehicle service mile increased by 22.2 percent, exceeding the growth Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 33 in CPI. Cost per passenger trip increased by 3.3 percent, and cost per passenger mile increased by 6.0 percent. Service miles provided per service hour, a reflection of average vehicle speed, was approximately 20 miles per hour. Passenger miles per passenger trip, a reflection of average passenger trip length, decreased by 2.6 percent from 12.33 miles to 12.02 miles. Passengers per revenue vehicle hour, a reflection of vehicle occupancy, increased by 14.0 percent from 2.03 in FY2009 to 2.31 in FY2012. The number of contracted DAR preventable accidents per 100,000 miles was 1.26 in FY2009, 1.33 in FY2010, 1.95 in FY2011, and 1.14 in FY2012 for a net decrease of 9.6 percent over the audit period. On-time performance declined by 0.9 percentage points from 94.0 percent in FY2009 to 93.1 percent, meeting the on-time performance target of 90 percent established for contractors. Review of Methodology for Collection and Reporting Operations Data Data collection and reporting of operations data, including hours and miles of service, are performed by several departments within RTA. For directly operated fixed route service, hours and miles are computed by taking the scheduled hours and miles and determining variances in hours and miles due to roadcalls, detours, and other factors. For contracted services, hours and miles are determined based on actual miles and hour s driven. Initially, hours and miles are estimated by the Planning Department based on the service changes that occur three times per year. The Operations Department measures schedule variances. RTA’s primary source of ridership and fare revenue data is the GFI fareboxes which show passengers by fare type. Ridership counts from the Automated Passenger Counters (APCs) are used to validate the farebox data. For directly operated fixed route service, on-time performance is measured using a Global Positioning Systems (GPS) based Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) system. For contracted service, RTA collects data from driver surveys. Since the AVL system has more observations, it is believed to be more accurate. RTA staff and the contractors are each responsible for collecting and handling cash from fares. For fixed bus services, the cash reported is compared to what is projected by the GFI farebox. For DAR service, the cash reported is compared to paper slips. The Finance Department reconciles the actual and expected revenues. In the event of a discrepancy, RTA uses the higher revenue number. RTA also conducts surprise audits. Fare revenue and ridership go into the monthly Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) performance summary report produced by Finance. The Director of Contract Operations oversees contractor services for fixed route and DAR service and conducts monthly contract compliance reviews. Contractor goals for on-time performance and miles between roadcalls are monitored on a monthly basis. Passenger no -show rates and call abandoned rates for DAR service are also monitored. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 34 Interagency Agreements During the audit period, RTA had in place or entered into several operating agreements with partners in the provision of service. These interagency agreements formalize RTA’s coordination of intercounty service or transfers with neighboring transit agencies. RTA also entered into agreements with the City of Riverside and local universities, colleges, and community colleges to provide transit service and for reduced price passes. These agreements include the following: Transfer agreements with the City of Beaumont, City of Corona, Metrolink, Orange County Transportation Agency, Omnitrans Service provision agreements with the C ity of Temecula, County of Riverside Jury Trolley, Metrolink bus bridge service, RCTC S huttle, University of California Riverside campus service Pass programs with the City of Riverside, University of California Riverside, La Sierra University, Mount San Jacinto College, Riverside Community College, and Cal Baptist University Other cooperative agreements and memorandums of understanding with the City of Corona DAR service, City of Riverside DAR service, and Orange County Transportation Agency intercounty operations. Maintenance The Maintenance Department maintains the directly operated fixed route fleet. CHP and Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) recommendations and requirements are being met or exceeded. For directly operated buses, t he current Preventative Maintenance Vehicle Inspections (PMVIs) are due every 6,000 miles or as per manufacturers’ recommendations during the warranty period. Each bus that is out of warranty is due for inspection every 10,000 vehicle miles. The inspections are conducted within a variance of 500 miles from the target mileage. The PMVI for contracted buses are inspected to ensure quality control each quarter by RTA employees. Contractors perform preventative maintenance on each vehicle in accordance with the contract, OEM specifications, and/or prescribed by law. Non-revenue licensed vehicles (relief, staff, and service vehicles) are inspected every 6,000 miles in accordance with OEM recommendations and/or as prescribed by law. Non-licensed vehicles have a PMVI every ninety days. The Maintenance Department prepares a monthly maintenance standards and performance indicators report that tracks indicators including average miles per gallon, attendance, overtime, OSHA 300 log, maintenance expenses, cost per mile, vehicle availability, daily average of buses down for parts, inventory value, training hour s, road calls, miles between road calls, and inspections. Some data is oriented by base facility and is tabulated for each base such as miles per gallon, roadcalls, and headcounts. The remaining indicators are tracked at a systemwide level. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 35 Maintenance staff forecast vehicle replacement needs by mileage. Mileage and age for each individual vehicle are tracked in four separate reports according to service type: directly operated fixed route buses, contracted fixed route buses, DAR vehicles, and other support/staff vehicles. It is the joint responsibility of Maintenance Department staff and the Parts Department to identify all potential warrantable items. During their routine repair and inspection of vehicles, Maintenance Department staff will mark known parts which have failed and that may be eligible for warranty claims. The Parts Department then determines if an item is eligible to be processed for a warranty claim. The Storeroom Supervisor provide s all supporting documentation to Accounts Payable for the collection on warrantable items. Information is entered into the warranty database. On a monthly basis, the Chief Procurement and Logistics Officer and Director of Maintenance receive a list of all outstanding claims by vendor, summary of money recovered during the month, and updates on any problems being experienced. Major accomplishments of the Maintenance Department during the audit period include: Maintenance facilit ies passed annual CHP terminal inspections. Completed safety and security enhancements at the operational and maintenance facilities using Proposition 1B funding. Partnered with University of California, Riverside for a Department of Transportation energy grant to enhance DAR service with the goal of generating savings between 10 and 30 percent by helping people drive smarter in order to lower emissions and save fuel. The research project will result in the development of next -generation, environmentally friendly driving feedback system. Maintenance Performance Tables V-4, V-5, and V-6 show the trends in maintenance performance for RTA directly operated fixed route, contracted fixed route, and contracted demand response services, respectively. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 36 Table V-4 Maintenance Performance Indicators Directly Operated Fixed Route Maintenance Data Base Year Audit Review Period % Change FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Cost for Maintenance $7,292,463 $6,783,670 $7,267,360 $7,434,164 1.9% Maintenance Pay Hours 112,399 110,887 107,075 109,690 -2.4% Total Vehicle Hours 363,875 323,161 311,550 321,671 -11.6% Total Vehicle Miles 5,469,813 5,043,554 4,819,844 4,872,610 -10.9% Active Vehicles 97 97 94 94 -3.1% Peak Vehicles 75 75 72 80 6.7% Performance Indicators Maintenance Cost per Veh Hour $20.04 $20.99 $23.33 $23.11 15.3% Maintenance Cost per Veh Mile $1.33 $1.35 $1.51 $1.53 14.4% Maintenance Cost per Active Veh $75,180.03 $69,934.74 $77,312.34 $79,086.85 5.2% Veh Hours per Maint Pay Hour 3.24 2.91 2.91 2.93 -9.4% Veh Miles per Maint Pay Hour 48.66 45.48 45.01 44.42 -8.7% Veh Hours per Active Vehicle 3,751 3,332 3,314 3,422 -8.8% Veh Miles per Active Vehicle 56,390 51,995 51,275 51,836 -8.1% Miles Between Road Calls 10,682 12,045 11,148 13,078 22.4% Spare Ratio 29.3% 29.3% 30.6% 17.5% -40.3% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Sources: NTD Reports, Miles Between Roadcall Reports Maintenance costs for directly operated fixed route service increased by just 1.9 percent during the audit period. However, maintenance costs per vehicle hour, per vehicle mile, and per active vehicle increased by 15.3 percent, 14.4 percent, and 5.2 percent, respectively. This implies that costs did not change relative to the trend in decreased services due to inflation and from the age of the buses. All of the directly operated buses entered service during 2001 and 2002. By FY 2012, the age of the buses ranged from 10 to 11 years and averaged over 500,000 miles per bus. Vehicle hours per maintenance pay hour and vehicle miles per maintenance p ay hour, functions of maintenance productivity, decreased by 9.4 percent and 8.7 percent, respectively. Vehicle hours per active vehicle and vehicle miles per active vehicle decreased by 8.8 percent and 8.1 percent, respectively. Total directly operated fixed route vehicle miles between roadcalls showed a 22.4 percent improvement during the audit period from 10,682 miles in FY2009 to 13,078 miles in FY2012. The vehicle spare ratio decreased from 29.3 percent to 17.5 percent as the number of peak vehicles required increased from 75 in FY2009 to 80 in FY2012. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 37 Table V-5 Maintenance Performance Indicators Contracted Fixed Route Maintenance Data Base Year Audit Review Period % Change FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Cost for Maintenance $1,603,539 $1,153,483 $963,517 $1,403,840 -12.5% Total Vehicle Hours 185,644 183,892 185,073 197,864 6.6% Total Vehicle Miles 3,520,624 3,644,106 3,627,796 4,023,113 14.3% Active Vehicles 83 84 84 83 0.0% Peak Vehicles 58 61 60 66 13.8% Performance Indicators Maintenance Cost per Veh Hour $8.64 $6.27 $5.21 $7.09 -17.9% Maintenance Cost per Veh Mile $0.46 $0.32 $0.27 $0.35 -23.4% Maintenance Cost per Active Veh $19,319.75 $13,731.94 $11,470.44 $16,913.73 -12.5% Veh Hours per Active Vehicle 2,237 2,189 2,203 2,384 6.6% Veh Miles per Active Vehicle 42,417 43,382 43,188 48,471 14.3% Miles Between Road Calls 18,337 14,291 15,179 11,022 -39.9% Spare Ratio 43.1% 37.7% 40.0% 25.8% -40.2% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Sources: NTD Reports, Contractor Performance Indicator, Monthly, and Preventable Accidents Reports Maintenance costs for contracted fixed route service decreased by 12.5 percent during the audit period due in part to the consolidation of contractor facilities. Maintenance cost per vehicle hour, per vehicle mile, and per active vehicle decreased by 17.9 percent, 23.4 percent, and 12.5 percent, respectively. Vehicle hours per active vehicle and vehicle miles per active vehicle increased by 6.6 percent and 14.3 percent, respectively. The trend in decreased cost is a result of contractor facility consolidation. Total contracted fixed route vehicle miles between roadcalls decreased by 39.9 percent during the audit period from 18,337 miles in FY2009 to 11,022 miles in FY2012. The performance target for miles between roadcalls is 10,000, which was met during each year of the audit period. The vehicle spare ratio decreased fr om 43.1 percent to 25.8 percent during the audit period as the number of peak vehicles required increased from 58 in FY2009 to 66 in FY2012. The higher than 20 percent spare ratio is due to the fact that fleets are not interchangeable . The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has agreed to permit RTA to calculate the spare ratios for individual subfleets. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 38 Table V-6 Maintenance Performance Indicators Demand Response Maintenance Data Base Year Audit Review Period % Change FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Cost for Maintenance $2,309,361 $2,260,050 $2,300,213 $2,510,105 8.7% Total Vehicle Hours 231,388 205,437 192,902 216,285 -6.5% Total Vehicle Miles 4,337,502 3,658,624 3,345,596 3,766,556 -13.2% Active Vehicles 107 110 97 93 -13.1% Peak Vehicles 92 85 87 85 -7.6% Performance Indicators Maintenance Cost per Veh Hour $9.98 $11.00 $11.92 $11.61 16.3% Maintenance Cost per Veh Mile $0.53 $0.62 $0.69 $0.67 25.2% Maintenance Cost per Active Veh $21,582.81 $20,545.91 $23,713.54 $26,990.38 25.1% Veh Hours per Active Vehicle 2,163 1,868 1,989 2,326 7.5% Veh Miles per Active Vehicle 40,537 33,260 34,491 40,501 -0.1% Miles Between Road Calls 20,220 15,472 15,898 22,809 12.8% Spare Ratio 16.3% 29.4% 11.5% 9.4% -42.3% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Total Vehicle Hours and Miles exclude Supplemental Taxi service. Sources: NTD Reports, Contractor Performance Indicator, Monthly, and Preventable Accidents Reports Maintenance costs for DAR service increased by 8.7 percent during the audit period. Maintenance cost per vehicle hour, per vehicle mile, and per active vehicle increased by 1 6.3 percent, 25.2 percent, and 25.1 percent, respectively. Vehicle hours per active vehicle increased by 7.5 percent, while vehicle miles per active vehicle decreased by 0.1 percent. Total DAR vehicle miles between roadcalls showed a 12.8 percent improvement during the audit period from 20,220 miles in FY2009 to 22,809 miles in FY2012 with a dip in FY2010 and FY2011. The vehicle spare ratio decreased from 16.3 percent to 9.4 percent during the audit period as the number of active vehicles decreased from 107 in FY2009 to 93 in FY2012. Administration and Management Administration and management include s Finance/Accounting, Human Resources/Risk Management , Information Technologies, Marketing/Customer Service, Planning, and Purchasing/ Contract Operations. Each year, the department heads collaboratively develop overarching agency goals. Each department then forms specific department goals with identified activities and measurements. Performance for each department goal is tracked and reported quarterly with an annual presentation to the RTA Board. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 39 For FY2012, seven agency goals were developed: 1. Develop post recession deployment plan 2. Begin Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) implementation/pursue funding 3. Reduce instances of work injuries/return injured workforce 4. Secure replacement buses 5. Expedite Temecula-Murrieta Twin Cities transit center 6. Improve employee morale 7. Reduce amount of customer complaints Some departments also identified additional goals, such as increase ridership, maximize cost efficiencies, and continuous service improvements. Major accomplishments by administration and management during the audit period include: Awarded contract for 97 CNG 40-foot replacement buses to Gillig Corporation in FY2012. The purchase will be accomplished without debt. Opened the Corona Transit Center in September 2009. Opened the Perris Transit Center in January 2010. Obtained funding for a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) that initiated in January 2013. Chief Executive Officer Larry Rubio named 2011 Manager of the Year by California Transportation Foundation. Met or exceeded all eight Productivity Improvement Program (PIP) metrics established by RCTC for 100 percent comp liance during the audit period. Completed its initial BRT test to deploy transit signal priority (TSP) project on Magnolia Avenue in the City of Riverside in FY2012. Continued to work collaboratively with RCTC toward the expansion of SR -91that will include high occupancy toll (HOT) lanes and express bus service. Casualty and liability costs declined by 90.6 percent due to a decrease in the reserve requirement. Administrative employees hired after July 1, 2011 must contribute 7 percent of their annual salary (employee share) to PERS, reducing pension and fringe benefit costs. Joined and established an account with the County of Riverside Treasurer’s Pooled Investment Fund to improve interest income in FY2011. Used innovative revenue generating practices to off-set declining funding. Examples of such programs include leasing of facilities, shelter advert ising, interest income, and commercial sale of CNG fuel at the RTA facilit y in Hemet. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 40 Administrative Performance Tables V-7, V-8, and V-9 show the trends in administration performance for RTA directly operated fixed route, contracted fixed route, and contracted demand response services, respectively. Table V-7 Administration Performance Indicators Directly Operated Fixed Route Administrative Data Base Year Audit Review Period % Change FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Administration Costs $9,268,249 $7,540,681 $5,409,344 $6,956,209 -24.9% Administration Pay Hours 85,799 82,822 77,902 83,787 -2.3% Casualty & Liability Costs $1,656,080 $1,154,730 $395,544 $155,193 -90.6% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 338,529 299,738 289,492 297,815 -12.0% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 4,741,076 4,370,136 4,183,981 4,189,091 -11.6% Unlinked Passenger Trips 6,597,514 6,245,550 6,299,800 6,784,928 2.8% Passenger Miles 10,907,832 10,755,179 12,867,205 14,125,971 29.5% Performance Indicators Admin Cost per VSH $27.38 $25.16 $18.69 $23.36 -14.7% Admin Cost per VSM $1.95 $1.73 $1.29 $1.66 -15.1% Admin Cost per Psgr Trip $1.40 $1.21 $0.86 $1.03 -27.0% Admin Cost per Psgr Mile $0.85 $0.70 $0.42 $0.49 -42.0% VSH per Admin Pay Hour 3.95 3.62 3.72 3.55 -9.9% VSM per Admin Pay Hour 55.26 52.77 53.71 50.00 -9.5% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: NTD Reports Administration costs for directly operated fixed route service decreased by 24.9 percent during the audit period. Administration cost per vehicle hour, per vehicle mile, per passenger trip, and per passenger mile decreased by 14.7 percent, 15.1 percent, 27.0 percent, and 42.0 percent, respectively. The reduction in administration costs was primarily due to the 90.6 percent reduction in casualty and liability costs over the audit period. In FY2012, an actuarial review was conducted which determined the reserve requirement should be decreased. In FY2009, RTA had been informed by PERS that the required contribution would be increasing by approximately 50 percent. A reserve for this increase was booked in FY2009. When the actual rates were published, it was found that the increase was not as dramatic as expected. A reserve adjustment was made to bring RTA in the line with the actuarial recommendation. Another contributing factor to the decrease in administration costs was due a decrease in pension costs for new employees and wage freeze. RTA no longer covers the employee share contribution for PERS for administrative employees hired after July 1, 2011. Administrative employees hired after July 1, 2011 must contribute 7 percent of their annual salary (employee share) to PER S. RTA Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 41 also cont ained administration costs by freezing employee wages from January 2009 until FY201 3. In FY2013, administration employees received a 3 percent pay increase. Directly operated fixed route vehicle hours per administration pay hour and vehicle miles per administration pay hour, functions of administration productivity, decreased by 9.9 percent and 9.5 percent, respectively. Table V-8 Administration Performance Indicators Contracted Fixed Route Administration Data Base Year Audit Review Period % Change FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Cost for Administration $1,497,021 $1,420,320 $1,655,584 $1,841,107 23.0% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 168,808 164,215 164,232 163,002 -3.4% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 3,033,203 3,109,354 3,070,908 3,004,500 -0.9% Unlinked Passenger Trips 1,368,287 1,350,071 1,462,330 1,635,375 19.5% Passenger Miles 10,907,832 10,755,179 12,867,205 14,125,971 29.5% Performance Indicators Admin Cost per VSH $8.87 $8.65 $10.08 $11.29 27.4% Admin Cost per VSM $0.49 $0.46 $0.54 $0.61 24.2% Admin Cost per Psgr Trip $1.09 $1.05 $1.13 $1.13 2.9% Admin Cost per Psgr Mile $0.14 $0.13 $0.13 $0.13 -5.0% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: NTD Reports Administration costs for contracted fixed route service increased by 23.0 percent during the audit period. Administration cost per vehicle hour, per vehicle mile, and per passenger trip increased by 27.4 percent, 24.2 percent, and 2.9 percent, respectively. Administration cost per passenger mile decreased by 5.0 percent . Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 42 Table V-9 Administration Performance Indicators Demand Response Administration Data Base Year Audit Review Period % Change FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Cost for Administration $2,367,017 $1,855,016 $1,693,323 $1,979,658 -16.4% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 177,980 160,286 146,632 164,407 -7.6% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 3,651,814 3,163,037 2,919,296 3,248,859 -11.0% Unlinked Passenger Trips 360,963 338,458 330,090 379,970 5.3% Passenger Miles 4,450,674 4,173,188 3,895,062 4,565,516 2.6% Performance Indicators Admin Cost per VSH $13.30 $11.57 $11.55 $12.04 -9.5% Admin Cost per VSM $0.65 $0.59 $0.58 $0.61 -6.0% Admin Cost per Psgr Trip $6.56 $5.48 $5.13 $5.21 -20.5% Admin Cost per Psgr Mile $0.53 $0.44 $0.43 $0.43 -18.5% Percentage Change Consumer Price Index (CPI-All) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: NTD Reports Administration costs for DAR service decreased by 16.4 percent during the audit period. Administration cost per vehicle hour, per vehicle mile, per passenger trip, and per passenger mile decreased by 9.5 percent, 6.0 percent, 20.5 percent, and 18.5 percent, respectively. Planning The Planning Department’s mission is to develop short and long range plans and programs, and funding to accomplish RTA’s mission. The Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) is prepared by the Planning Department every year and serves as RTA’s primary financial, planning, and service policy document . With the exception of FY2010, RTA experienced continued ridership growth. In response to the increasing demand, RTA had to tailor service to meet demand despite service reductions due to funding constraints. Planning has identified opportunities to improve route efficiency by removing unproductive route segments and increasing service frequencies. For example, on Route 16, service between the downtown Riverside terminal and Main & Russel l was eliminated in FY2013. Ridership on this segment was low and another route provided a similar connection. RTA was able reinvest the operating travel time savings from eliminating this segment into increasing frequency on the route. RTA’s ATU union contract requires that all work performed on buses that seat 30 or more passengers must be performed by union employees. Due to this restriction and the limited number of 40 foot buses, RTA must continually work with its fixed route contractor to determine which routes are contracted out. Generally, new routes that are still building ridership and lower demand routes are contracted out. When swapping routes, RTA must identify directly operated routes with lower ridership that can be swapped with contracted routes with higher ridership. Recently, in Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 43 some instances, RTA and the contractor segment the route or interline service to meet the route’s frequency and capacity needs. After the audit period in January 2013, RTA’s Planning Department in coordination with RCTC and Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) began the update of its Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA). The COA involves conducting an in-depth review of the efficiency and effectiveness of RTA’s transit services and proposing recommendations for service changes. The COA consists of six phases: Phase I Data Collection Phase II Market Assessment Phase III Service Assessment Phase IV Guiding Principles and Framework Phase V Recommendations Phase VI Short, Mid, and Long-Range Plans The results of the COA will help RTA identify operational and capital improvements to improve system efficiency and effectiveness. Depending on the outcome of the COA, service demand, and future service expansions (including additional BRT and CommuterLink service), RTA has an option to purchase an additional 48 CNG 40-foot buses as part of its vehicle procurement with Gillig. Planning is responsible for conducting surveys for the COA, Title VI a nalyses, NTD reporting, and route/trip specific surveys. RTA continues to be compliant with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI requirements. The last Title VI analysis was completed in 2010. RTA is in the process of updating its Title VI policy to conform to the updated Title VI Circular by increasing public outreach. In June 2013, RTA presented its new Limited English Proficiency Plan based on the 2010 Census to the Board for approval. The P lanning Department implements service changes three times a year (January, May, and September). Planning staff develop a schedule for the service changes to accommodate public hearings and public comments. In addition to the public hearings, the Marketing Department will accept comments through the website, call center, and social media. Planning uses HASTUS transit scheduling software to determine changes in service hours and miles to determine if more vehicles or operators will be necessary to accommodate the changes. An additional notable planning study was the Paratransit Demand Response Plan. Recognizing the increasing demand, RTA and its consultant reviewed the paratransit process and identified changes to overcome the growth in demand while continuing to provide a high level of service. The Plan went into effect in January 2010, changing the fare policy to a zone -based system, increasing the minimum age requirement for seniors from 60 to 65 years, and reducing the reservation period from 7 days to 3 days to minimize late cancelations and no shows. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 44 Marketing The Marketing Department is responsible for coordinating and enhancing the flow of information about RTA services, programs, projects, and activities to existing and potential customers, the community at large, and the media. The Marketing Department prepares informational materials to support transit operations, including bus schedules, how -to guides, and fare media information. Additional marketing initiatives include: New website with a mobile site that is readable by voice readers. Release of Rider News on a monthly basis to communicate with riders. Use of several media outlets to promote and market RTA service, including billboards, radio, television, direct mailings, and the internet. When RTA did a targeted billboard campaign along I-15 and I-215, RTA tracked ridership on routes with and without the billboards to determine the effectiveness of the campaign. CommuterLink ridership grew 7.6 percent on routes without advertisements while ridership on routes that were targeted with billboard advertisements grew 24 percent. Increasing use of social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, to reach customers. i-Alerts for job and service notifications to registered users through text message or emails. Alerts include job opening and service changes. Schools-Served website to help assist middle and high school students in finding alternative ways to get to class with the elimination of home-to-school bus services. Promotional campaigns and pass programs. Pass program ridership increased year-over- year during the audit period. RTA’s “Choose” marketing billboard campaign that asked drivers to choose between paying high gas prices and riding the bus. The campaign received the 2012 AdWheel Award sponsored by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the grand prize at APTA’s annual meeting. RTA recently added a government affairs representative position to the Marketing Department . This person is in contact with local, state, and federal officials and agencies and informs RTA of upcoming grant opportunities. RTA receives notices of funding availability from various funding sources including FTA, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and RCTC. The government affairs representative assists the other departments with applications, including determining whether the identified project is eligible for the grant . To improve competitiveness, RTA requests Board resolutions for all grant applications and a letter of support from the cities even if not required. The Marketing Department also includes customer service and handles customer complaints and comments. Most come through the call center. RTA also receives comments through email/on line, mail, and front -desk. Comments are entered int o the database with the date, time, and customer contact information. Each comment that requires follow up is assigned to a department. All comments have to be closed out with a date stamp input into the database. Each department can run a report to see what items are still open for the ir specific department. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 45 Total customer complaints are provided in Table V-10. Table V-10 Customer Complaints Customer Complaints Data Base Year Audit Review Period % Change FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY09-FY12 Unlinked Passenger Trips 8,326,764 7,934,079 8,092,220 8,800,273 5.7% Complaints 2,618 2,250 2,134 1,960 -25.1% Complaints per 100,000 Psgr Trips 31 28 26 22 -29.2% Sources: NTD Reports, Customer Complaints The total number of complaints decreased by 25.1 percent. The number of complaints per 100,000 passenger trips decreased by 29.2 percent from 31 in FY2009 to 22 in FY2012. The various complaints are categorized for trend analysis. Complaint statistics for operators are monitored to encourage positive behavior by RTA staff. RTA recognizes best performers (operators with commendations and zero complaints) on its “Wall of Fame” board. If three or more complaints are found against a specific coach operator in a quarter, Marketing ale rts Operations for further follow up with that driver who may be subject to corrective action including additional training, coaching, counseling , or ride-alongs. Human Resources / Risk Management The Human Resources Department recruits new hires for the agency, including providing initial assessment and screening tests. Human Resources is also responsible for worker pay and benefits, including worker’s compensation claims and certain labor issues. During the audit period the agency was subject to staff wage freezes. To reduce personnel layoffs in FY2009, RTA offered an early retirement option to eligible employees within two years of retirement . There were 14 employees who opted for early retirement. In FY2009, RTA laid off 12 union employees and moved 20 others to part-time. Those that were laid-off have since received offers to be rehired. In addition, the following trends in fringe benefits costs and liability costs were identified from RTA NTD reports: Directly operated fixed route fringe benefit costs decreased by 22.5 percent during the audit period, from $9.4 million in FY2009 to $7.3 million in FY2012. Directly operated fixed route casualty and liability costs declined by 90.6 percent during the audit period, from $1.7 million in FY2009 to $0.1 million in FY2012. The department also implements safety and development courses including ergonomic , training, and performance improvement classes. In addition, Human Resources is responsible for the discipline of drivers and retraining of operators after accidents, incidents, or customer service issues. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 46 Worker’s compensation claims dropped from 37 in FY2011 to 18 in FY2012. However, the severity of claims increased by 55 percent. Procurement The Procurement Department is responsible for procuring a wide range of equipment, parts, supplies, contractors, vendors, and professional services that are used by RTA. Most large procurements for RTA are for motor vehicles and buses. The largest capital purchase for RTA is the purchase of 97 CNG 40-foot buses in FY2012. The prototype is to arrive in August 2013. Based on RTA’s review, the remaining vehicles will go to the assembly line in September 2013 with final delivery by the end of February 2014. RTA also works with its member cities to implement bus stop upgrades and new transit centers. In September 2009, RTA opened the Corona Transit Center. In January 2010, RTA with RCTC and the City of Perris opened the Perris Transit Center. New transit centers are planned for Riverside and Murrieta/Temecula. RTA uses funding from the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), a development fee that funds transportation projects, to supplement LTF and federal funding for transit centers. TUMF funding has, however, been negatively impacted by the drop in the economy and housing market. Other accomplishments of the Procurement Department during the audit period included: Purchased and installed new GFI fareboxes on all contracted fixed route vehicles in FY2011. Implemented a SBE program in addition to its DBE program to increase small business participation. RTA also received funding from Proposition 1B “Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006.” The funds helped pay for safety and security enhancements at the operational and maintenance facilities, including: Security Lighting Upgrades Walls and Fencing Security Signage Fire Alarm Enhancements Facility Video Surveillance Emergency Supplies Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 47 Information Technology (IT) The Information Technology (IT) Department is responsible for the provision of RTA IT services. Accomplishments of the IT Department during the audit period included: Upgraded the financial system from Oracle e-business suite to the newest Oracle 12i system, replaced all PCs and printers, and upgraded the email system. Eliminated the 800 toll free telephone number and transitioned customers to the 511 system, saving $2,000 per month in FY2012. Installed Wi-Fi on all commuter buses in FY2011. Two major IT projects are planned: Replacement of ITS systems (Automated Vehicle Locator (AVL), Automated Passenger Counter (APC), real-time web and text -based system, and transit signal priority) on direct ly operated fixed route buses and installment of a similar system on contracted fixed route buses so that the transit experience for the customer is seamless between directly operated and contracted fixed route service. Procurement of a new scheduling software. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 48 Section VI Findings The following summarizes the major findings obtained from this Tr iennial Audit covering FY2010 through FY2012. A set of recommendations is then provided. 1. RTA was in substantial compliance with applicable requirements of TDA, including TDA definitions of performance measures consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247 . An exception is that t he measure of vehicle service hours per employee uses full time equivalents that are not consistent with the PUC. A recommendation is made for RTA to revise its calculation of FTEs reported to the State Controller’s Office so that both the FTE count as well as the performance indicator of vehicle service hours per employee conform to the Public Utilities Code. 2. Systemwide operating costs decreased by 7.7 percent which is in contrast to the Consumer Price Index which increased by 5.4 percent during the same period. Operating costs for general public service decreased by 9.9 percent while Dial-A-Ride (DAR) service increased by 2.4 percent . This demonstrates RTA’s effective cost control during the audit period which occurred during difficult economic times. 3. Ridership on general public service increased by 5.7 percent, from 8.0 million to 8.4 million passengers, a notable accomplishment given the service reductions that took place during the audit period. Ridership on DAR service increased by 5.3 percent, from 361,000 to 380,000. Systemwide ridership increased by 5.7 percent during the audit period. 4. The economic recession that began in 2008 resulted in significant financial challenges for RTA and other Riverside County transit operators during the audit period. RTA addressed those challenges by implementing service reductions, freezing wages, and taking administrative employee concessions. The provision of vehicle service hours and miles for general public service decreased by 9.2 percent and 7.5 percent respectively, as RTA reduced service levels in order to address declining economic conditions. DAR vehicle service hours and miles decreased by 7.6 percent and 11.0 percent respectively. 5. Operating cost per passenger decreased by 12.6 percent systemwide, by 14.7 percent for general public service, and by 2.8 percent for DAR service (as compared to a 5.4 percent change in inflation during the audit period). This reflects the emphasis that RTA had during the audit period to realize cost efficiencies when feasible. 6. Operating cost per vehicle service hour increased by 1.2 percent systemwide and by 10.8 percent for DAR service, and decreased by 0.8 percent for general public service. Operating cost per vehicle service mile increased by 1.0 percent systemwide and by 15.1 percent for DAR service, and decreased by 2.6 percent for general public service. 7. Passengers per vehicle service hour increased by 15.8 percent systemwide, by 16.4 percent for general public service, and by 14.0 percent for DAR service. Passengers per vehicle Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 49 service mile increased by 15.6 percent systemwide, by 14.2 percent for general public service, and by 18.3 percent for DAR service. 8. The average fare per passenger increased systemwide from $0.99 in FY2009 to $1.16 in FY2012. The increase in average fare was primarily due to the change in fare policy implemented at the end of FY2009. Average fare for DAR service increased by 28.6 percent from $2.68 to $3.44 during the audit period. The average fare for general public service also increased by 16.1 percent from $0.91 to $1.06. 9. The blended farebox recovery ratio target established by RCTC for RTA service was met in each year of the audit. Including eligible non-fare revenue, the farebox recovery ratio was 25.37 percent in FY2010, 27.52 percent in FY2011, and 27.02 percent in FY2012. 10. Vehicle operations cost indicators for directly operated fixed route service generally improved during the audit period. Over the past three years, operations cost per vehicle service hour decreased by 2.0 percent, cost per vehicle service mile decreased by 2.4 percent, cost per passenger trip decreased by 16.2 percent, and cost per p assenger mile decreased by 19.5 percent. This compares to an inflation adjustment during the audit period of 5.4 percent. 11. Vehicle operations cost indicators for contracted fixed route service generally improved during the audit period. Operations cost per vehicle service hour increased by 5.0 percent over the last three years, cost per vehicle service mile increased by 2.3 percent, cost per passenger trip decreased by 21.7 percent, and cost per passenger mile decreased by 21.7 percent. This compares to an inflation adjustment during the audit period of 5.4 percent. 12. DAR vehicle operations cost indicators were generally positive during the audit period. Operations cost per vehicle service hour decreased by 17.7 percent, cost per vehicle service mile decreased by 22.2 percent, cost per passenger trip increased by 3.3 percent, and cost per passenger mile increased by 6.0 percent. 13. Preventable accidents decreased for all three service types. The overall preventable accident rate per 100,000 total miles decreased by 19.4 percent for directly operated fixed route service, 17.4 percent for contracted fixed route service, and 9.6 percent for DAR service. 14. Maintenance costs increased by 1.9 percent for directly operated fixed route service and 8.7 percent for DAR service and decreased by 12.5 percent for contracted fixed route service during the audit period. The decrease in maintenance costs for contracted fixed route service was due to the consolidation of contractor facilities. Miles between road calls decreased from 18,337 in FY2009 to 11,022 in FY2012 for contracted fixed route service, a 39.9 percent decline during the audit period. 15. Administration costs decreased by 24.9 percent for directly operated fixed route service and by 16.4 percent for DAR service and increased by 23.0 percent for contracted fixed route service. Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 50 16. Directly operated fixed route fringe benefit costs decreased by 22.5 percent during the audit period, from $9.4 million in FY2009 to $7.3 million in FY2012 due to reductions in pension and workers compensation expenses. 17. Directly operated fixed route casualty and liability costs declined by 90.6 percent during the audit period, from $1.7 million in FY2009 to $0.1 million in FY2012. The decline was due to a decrease in the reserve requirement found through an actuarial review. Recommendations 1. Revise calculation for full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) reported to the State Controller’s Office. (Commence with FY13 reporting) From Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99247: “vehicle service hours per employee means the vehicle service hours divided by the number of employees employed in connection with the public transportation system, based on the assumption that 2,000 person-hours of work in one year constitute one employee. The count of employees shall also include those individuals employed by the operator which provide services to the agency of the operator responsible for the operation of the public transportation system even though not employed in that agency” (i.e., contractor staff). The TDA definition of full-time-equivalent (FTE) employee count is the number of transportation system-related hours worked by persons employed in connection with the public transportation system, including contractor staff, divided by 2,000. RTA currently reports FTEs as the number of total vehicle hours divided by 2,000. While the PUC section is subject to interpretation, we recommend that RTA should revise its calculation of FTE’s reported to the State Controller’s Office. Starting in FY2013, RTA should report FTE’s as the total chargeable hours for all direct and contracted employees divided by 2,000 hours. 2. Prepare and su bmit separate State Controller Reports for general public transit and specialized service for elderly and disabled. (Commence with FY13 reporting) RTA has historically submitted an annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller and combining information for both general public and specialized service for elderly and disabled. Although the State Controller’s Office has not provided notice to RTA, written instructions by the State to prepare this particular report require separate reporting of these modes. In the General Instruction Form completed by the transit agency, a selection must be made as to which mode of transit is represented in the report. The options are general public use or elderly/disabled. The Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report Instructions contain the following passages under the General Instruction Form: Triennial Performance Audit of Riverside Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 51 Transit operators providing two types of service, (general public use and transit service exclusively for the elderly/handicapped) must complete a separate report for each type of service. … a separate report must be filed for each type of service provided: General Public Use Service or Specialized Service exclusive for elderly and/or handicapped. For example, if an agency has received Article 4 and Article 8(c) monies to provide General Public Use Service, the agency should submit one report. If that agency has also received Article 4 monies to provide Specialized Service for the elderly and/or handicapped, then a report must be submitted for the Specialized Service operations. The submission of separate reports to the State Controller will demonstrate RTA’s pro- active approach to compliance with State reporting instructions. 3. Improve on-time performance of directly operated fixed route service. (Ongoing) As ridership continues to increase, the vehicle loads of the buses will increase. During the audit period, the increase in vehicle loads and traffic conditions/detours impacted on-time performance for directly operated fixed route service. On-time performance went down from 93 percent in FY2009 to 83 percent in FY2012. With these type of occurrences expected to be on-going and outside of RTA’s direct control, including the SR 91 HOV lane project and other road construction projects in western Riverside County, RTA should continue to actively pursue means to improve on-time performance via service and schedule modifications and recommendations made through current planning analysis. November 2013 ATTACHMENT 7 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i Section I ......................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 Overview of the Transit System ..............................................................................................1 Section II .....................................................................................................................................7 Operator Compliance Requirements .......................................................................................7 Section III .................................................................................................................................. 13 Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations .................................................................... 13 Section IV .................................................................................................................................. 14 TDA Performance Indicators ................................................................................................. 14 Section V ................................................................................................................................... 23 Review of Operator Functions ............................................................................................... 23 Operations ....................................................................................................................... 23 Maintenance .................................................................................................................... 28 Planning ........................................................................................................................... 31 Marketing ......................................................................................................................... 32 General Administration and Management ........................................................................ 33 Section VI .................................................................................................................................. 36 Findings ................................................................................................................................ 36 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 38 Executive Summary PMC - i Executive Summary The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for the SunLine Transit Agency covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12. The audit includes a review of the following areas: Compliance with TDA Requirements Status of Prior Audit Recommendations Transit System Performance Trends Detailed Functional Review From the review, recommendations were developed to improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the SunLine Transit Agency. Compliance with TDA Requirements SunLine has fully complied with seven of nine applicable requirements. The Agency was in partial compliance with regard to the timely submittals of the annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports to the State Controller and also its annual fiscal and compliance audits. Two additional compliance requirements did not apply to SunLine (e.g., separate urbanized and rural farebox recovery ratios). Status of Prior Audit Recommendations The prior triennial performance audit did not provide recommendations. System Performance Trends 1. Operations cost was relatively stable over the triennial review period. SunBus fixed route costs decreased by 1.8 percent during the period. In contrast, operating costs for the SunDial ADA paratransit service increased 7.2 percent. The increase was slightly above the Consumer Price Index of 5.4 percent. Fuel, typically an uncontrollable operating expense, was stable as SunLine produces its own alternative fuel for its vehicle fleet. 2. Along with modest cost growth, ridership increased 23.9 percent systemwide. Fixed route ridership increased 23.5 percent and ridership on the ADA paratransit service increased 38.5 percent. SunLine experienced its highest systemwide increases in ridership during FYs 2011 and 2012. The increases in ridership are attributed in part to Executive Summary PMC - ii ii cutbacks in school districts’ transportation budgets resulting in more student riders on SunLine as well as from an increase in the service area population. 3. Other performance metrics that measure cost and service efficiency and effectiveness were positive in light of the stabilized cost combined with growth in service . For example, there were decreases in operating cost per hour and per passenger, while passengers per hour showed increases for both SunBus and SunDial. 4. SunLine is subject to an intermediate farebox recovery ratio standard set by RCTC. The intermediate ratio is a blended ratio that accounts for both rural and urban transit services. SunLine exceeded the minimum standard all three audit years. The average farebox recovery ratio was 18.87 percent. It is noted that CNG revenue generated by SunLine from commercial sale of fuel and from CNG fuel rebates is a growing component of operations revenue counted toward the farebox ratio. This allowable revenue source under RCTC farebox policy comprised 16 percent of operations revenue in FY 2010, 29 percent in FY 2011, and 17 percent in FY 2012. Functional Review 1. SunLine was not able to provide the FY 2011-12 State Controller Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports. The finance department, which had high turnover in staff during the audit period, did not have record of the required report being completed. 2. SunLine participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program and received vehicle inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. Inspections conducted during the audit period were rated satisfactory. Fixed-route vehicles were inspected at SunLine’s Thousand Palms facility and Dial-a-Ride vehicles were inspected at its facility in Indio. 3. SunLine has held operations steady for the audit period as it positions itself to meet the growing service demand in the Coachella Valley and upgrade infrastructure. The Agency implemented several service adjustments and realignments to a number of SunBus lines with anticipation to reduce headways as demand continues to grow. The changes involved expanded service to retail centers in north Indio as well as additional morning peak trips on Line 14 to address crowding issues. 4. A commuter bus line was implemented between the Coachella Valley and Riverside and serving communities in the San Gorgonio Pass. The Agency was awarded FTA Section 5316 and 5317 funds to implement the commuter service. Commuter Link 220 provides two morning outbound trips and two afternoon return trips with transfers to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) buses and Metrolink trains in Riverside. 5. The Agency implemented an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) initiative aimed at upgrading infrastructure on board its fixed route and paratransit vehicles. The SunLine Executive Summary PMC - iii iii web site has a bus tracker that provides “real time” bus info and a Google Transit interface. Enhanced software is also used for fixed route schedule building and vehicle and driver assignments. SunLine is also seeking to procure a new on-board video system that relies on digital technology capable of retaining data footage for longer periods. 6. A new operations management team instilled a new culture based on accountability and that unifies the two operations facilities that previously had their own respective subcultures. There was relatively high driver turnover as a result of changing the culture among the drivers and implementing new reporting protocols. However, positive trends were realized such as the rate of absenteeism which decreased from 28 percent to 18 percent. SunLine has installed a sign-on mechanism when drivers report for duty as part of its ITS upgrades. New operators receive more than one hundred and fifty hours of combined of classroom and behind the wheel training. 7. SunLine prepares a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) on an annual basis. The SRTP is developed internally and involves the solicitation of input from the nine incorporated cities in the Coachella Valley and the County of Riverside. Areas of focus have included the rapidly growing City of Coachella, as well as other development possibilities in the transit service area including the SR-86 corridor at Travertine Point near Imperial County and commercial development in Desert Hot Springs. 8. SunLine publishes a bilingual (English/Spanish) consolidated timetable or “Rider’s Guide” of its routes. The Rider’s Guide provides fare information, schedules, rider etiquette, SunDial information, and a system map. Other publications include the SunDial Curb to Curb ADA Paratransit Service brochure; the Taxi Voucher Program brochure; and the Half-Fare Program for SunBus. Spanish language advertisements and promotions appear in local newspapers. Recommendations Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #1 Develop desktop procedures ensuring the completion of the annual State Controller Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports. SunLine was not able to provide the FY 2011-12 State Controller Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports. Although the agency had completed the report in prior years, the finance department, which had high turnover in staff during the audit period, did not have record of the required report being completed for the last year of the audit. It is recommended that internal procedures be developed that provide the timeline and staff assignments to complete the annual report. The desktop procedures should be made available across finance department staff and made part of a finance orientation package in light of turnover in the department. High Priority Executive Summary PMC - iv iv Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #2 Prepare and submit separate State Controller Reports for general public transit and specialized service. SunLine’s annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller has historically combined information for both general public (SunBus) and specialized service for the disabled (SunDial). Although the State Controller’s Office has not provided notice to SunLine, written instructions by the State to prepare this particular report require separate reporting of these modes. In the General Instruction Form completed by the transit agency, a selection must be made as to which mode of transit is represented in the report. The options are general public use or elderly/disabled. The Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report Instructions contain the following passages under the General Instruction Form: Transit operators providing two types of service, (general public use and transit service exclusively for the elderly/handicapped) must complete a separate report for each type of service. … a separate report must be filed for each type of service provided: General Public Use Service or Specialized Service exclusive for elderly and/or handicapped. For example, if an agency has received Article 4 and Article 8(c) monies to provide General Public Use Service, the agency should submit one report. If that agency has also received Article 4 monies to provide Specialized Service for the elderly and/or handicapped, then a report must be submitted for the Specialized Service operations. The submission of separate reports to the State Controller will demonstrate SunLine’s pro-active approach to compliance with State reporting instructions. High Priority #3 Monitor rates of vehicle failures and revenue miles between failures. With the majority of the fleet reaching and exceeding mid-life, performance metrics such as number of vehicle failures have increased while revenue miles between failures have decreased, both negative trends. SunLine has been maximizing deployment of its older fixed route buses as part of a plan to reduce the spare ratio. SunLine should closely monitor the reporting of these data sets that should influence the planning of capital High Priority Executive Summary PMC - v v Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline replacement and/or maintenance practice. #4 Conduct new rider survey. The most recent survey was last undertaken by SunLine in 2008. Since that time, there have been several updates to the Short Range Transit Plan that were developed using the survey data. A new passenger survey should be conducted in concert with the SRTP update and to meet federal regulatory requirements. Among the survey questions, the survey should collect rider data on the effect from implementation of ITS and other technology improvements that have been installed since the last survey to capture an approximate cost-benefit from these particular improvements. Medium Priority #5 Provide enforcement of repeated no-show passengers on SunDial. As demand for ADA paratransit continues, current strategies that help increase service efficiencies should be implemented. Enforcement of repeat no- shows can be accomplished in tiers or phases. At a minimum, SunLine should send a letter to the rider notifying them of the adverse impacts from a no- show. This provides the rider with an awareness of the impact to the agency from repeated no-shows. A threshold level of no-shows should be established to determine when a letter is sent out, such as two or three no shows in a given time period. A description of the no-show policy should be included in the SunDial ADA Guidebook. Medium Priority Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 1 1 Section I Introduction California’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that a triennial performance audit be conducted of public transit entities that receive TDA revenues. The performance audit serves to ensure accountability in the use of public transportation revenue. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for SunLine Transit Agency covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12. The purpose of the performance audit is to evaluate SunLine’s effectiveness and efficiency in its use of TDA funds to provide public transportation in its service area. This evaluation is required as a condition for continued receipt of these funds for public transportation purposes. In addition, the audit evaluates SunLine’s compliance with the conditions specified in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC). This task involves ascertaining whether the transit agency is meeting the PUC’s reporting requirements. Moreover, the audit includes calculations of transit service performance indicators and a detailed review of the transit administrative functions. From the analysis that has been undertaken, a set of recommendations has been made which is intended to improve the performance of transit operations. In summary, this TDA audit affords the opportunity for an independent, constructive and objective evaluation of the organization and its operations that otherwise might not be available. The methodology for the audit included in-person interviews with management, collection and review of agency documents, data analysis, and on-site observations. The Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Entities published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was used to guide in the development and conduct of the audit. Overview of the Transit System SunLine was established under a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) on July 1, 1977 between the County of Riverside and the cities of the Coachella Valley, which at the time included the City of Coachella, City of Desert Hot Springs, City of Indio, City of Pa lm Desert and the City of Palm Springs. The JPA was later amended to include the Cities of Cathedral City, Indian Wells, La Quinta, and Rancho Mirage. The JPA’s governing board is comprised of one elected official from each member entity and one county supervisor. SunLine is headquartered in Thousand Palms. SunLine’s service area encompasses 1,120 square miles of the Coachella Valley from the San Gorgonio Pass in the west to the Salton Sea in the southeast. The permanent population of the Coachella Valley was 423,644 (Southern California Association of Governments 2010 estimate) with an estimated seasonal influx of an additional 100,000 residents, and continues to grow at a Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 2 2 rapid pace. According to the Coachella Valley Economic Partnership, the Valley’s population grows by about 53 new residents daily. Development is occurring predominantly in the southeastern end of the Valley (Coachella and Indio), south of La Quinta, north of Interstate 10 (I - 10) in Palm Desert and Cathedral City and Desert Hot Springs. A demographic snapshot of incorporated cities located in the Coachella Valley is presented below in Table I-1: Table I-1 Coachella Valley Demographics City 2010 US Census Population Change from 2000 US Census Population 65 years & older 2013 California DOF Estimate Land area (in square miles) Cathedral City 51,200 20.1% 14.4% 52,337 21.50 Coachella 40,704 79.1% 4.5% 42,784 28.95 Desert Hot Springs 25,938 56.4% 9.6% 27,828 23.62 Indian Wells 4,958 29.9% 55.1% 5,081 14.32 Indio 76,036 54.8% 12.4% 81,393 29.18 La Quinta 37,467 58.1% 20.9% 38,401 35.12 Palm Desert 48,445 17.7% 32.9% 49,949 26.81 Palm Springs 44,552 4.1% 26.5% 45,712 94.12 Rancho Mirage 17,218 30.0% 44.0% 17,639 24.45 Source: U.S. Census, California Department of Finance Major highway connections serving the Coachella Valley are Interstate 10 (I-10) and State Routes (SR)-62, 86, 86-S and 111. I-10 is the main east-west highway connecting the Coachella Valley with the Inland Empire to the west and Blythe and Arizona to the east. SR-111 connects the Coachella Valley with Salton Sea and the Imperial Valley to the southeast. It also serves as the main business arterial through Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, La Quinta, Indio, Coachella, Thermal and Mecca. Major arterial streets include Bob Hope Drive, Cook Street, Date Palm Drive, Gene Autry Trail, Monterey Avenue, Palm Canyon Drive, Ramon Road, and Washington Street. System Characteristics SunLine operates local fixed-route, complementary ADA paratransit and commuter services. Local fixed route service is comprised of 12 lines branded under the name SunBus and operates through the Coachella Valley. SunDial is the complementary ADA paratransit that provides service to those certified under ADA and who can not ride the fixed route service. The system operates Monday through Friday from 5:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and weekends from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. SunLine does not operate on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day, but operates regular service on all other holidays. The Commuter Link 220 service does not operate New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. The SunBus and Commuter Link 220 lines are summarized in Table I-2. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 3 3 Table I-2 SunLine Fixed Route Services Line Description Frequency/Operation Key Time points 14 Palm Canyon & Baristo to West & Pierson Every 35 minutes (Monday through Friday from 4:54 a.m. to 11:21 p.m.) Every 45 minutes (Saturday & Sunday from 5:33 a.m. to 10:33 p.m.) Palm Canyon & Baristo Baristo & Farrell Gene Autry @ Vista Chino Palm & Paul West & Pierson 15 Spa City Loop Every 45 minutes (Monday through Friday from 5:10 a.m. to 8:55 p.m.; Saturday & Sunday from 6:36 a.m. to 8:06 p.m.) West & Pierson Hacienda & Don English Way Two Bunch Palms & Palm 24 Palm Canyon & Stevens to Tahquitz & Farrell Every 45 minutes (Monday through Friday from 6:15 a.m. to 9:53 p.m.; Saturday & Sunday from 6:15 a.m. to 8:23 p.m.) Palm Canyon & Stevens Vista Chino & Sunrise Tahquitz & Farrell 30 Palm Canyon & Baristo to B Street & Buddy Rogers Every 30 minutes (Monday through Friday from 5:24 a.m. to 10:12 p.m.) Every 40 minutes (Saturday & Sunday from 6:10 a.m. to 9:38 p.m.) Palm Canyon & Baristo Baristo & Farrell Date Palm & Ramon B Street & Buddy Rogers 32 Ramon & San Luis Rey to Town Center Way & Hahn Every 50 minutes (Monday through Friday from 5:02 a.m. to 10:46 p.m.) Every 75 minutes (Saturday & Sunday from 6:30 a.m. to 10:09 p.m.) Ramon & San Luis Rey Ramon & Date Palm Ramon & Monterey Ramon & Sierra Del Sol County Club & John L. Sinn Town Center Way & Hahn 53 Town Center Way & Hahn to Gerald Ford & Cook Every 80 minutes (Monday through Friday from 4:45 a.m. to 8:55 p.m.) Town Center Way & Hahn Hwy 111 & Deep Canyon Gerald Ford & Cook Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 4 4 Line Description Frequency/Operation Key Time points Every 80 minutes (Saturday & Sunday from 5:55 a.m. to 8:25 p.m.) 70 Harris Lane & Washington to Madrid & Vallejo Every 45 minutes (Monday through Friday from 5:15 a.m. to 8:43 p.m.) Every 90 minutes (Saturday & Sunday from 5:15 a.m. to 9:28 p.m.) Harris Lane & Washington Adams & Blackhawk Way (School Days) Adams & Hwy 111 Madrid & Vallejo 80 Hwy 111 & Flower (Southbound Loop) Every 60 minutes (Daily from 6:00 a.m. to 8:49 p.m.) Hwy 111 & Flower Dr. Carreon & Monroe Avenue 44 & Jackson 81 Hwy 111 & Flower (Northbound Loop) Every 60 minutes (Daily from 5:35 a.m. to 8:22 p.m.) Hwy 111 & Flower Jackson & Avenue 44 Jackson & Avenue 42 Dr. Carreon & Monroe 90 Hwy 111 & Flower to Avenue 53 & Shady Lane Every 35 minutes (Daily from 5:00 a.m. to 10:11 p.m.) Hwy 111 & Flower Harrison & Avenue 50 Harrison & 1st Street Avenue 53 & Shady Lane 91 Hwy 111 & Flower to Avenue 66 & Middleton Every 60 minutes (Monday through Friday from 5:00 a.m. to 10:13 p.m.) Every 80 minutes (Saturday & Sunday from 5:31 a.m. to 9:19 p.m.) Hwy 111 & Flower Harrison & 1st Street Harrison & Avenue 50 Airport Blvd & Palm COD Mecca/Thermal Avenue 66 @ Family Health Center Avenue 66 @ Library Avenue 66 & Middleton 111 Palm Canyon & Stevens to Hwy 111 & Flower Every 20 minutes (Monday through Friday from 5:07 a.m. to 10:56 p.m.) Every 40 minutes (Saturday & Sunday from 5:32 a.m. to 10:36 p.m.) Palm Canyon & Stevens Palm Canyon & Baristo B Street & Buddy Rogers Town Center Way & Hahn Hwy 111 & Adams Hwy 111 & Flower Commuter Link 220 Palm Desert - Riverside Two westbound AM Town Center Way & Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 5 5 Line Description Frequency/Operation Key Time points trips & two eastbound PM trips (Monday through Friday from 4:55 a.m. to 9:02 p.m.) Hahn Monterey & Dinah Shore Casino Morongo Ramsey & Morongo Beaumont City Hall Fir & Nelson Moreno Valley Mall UCR Lot 30 Riverside Metrolink Riverside Downtown Terminal Source: SunLine Transit Agency SunDial ADA Paratransit Service SunDial is a curb-to-curb paratransit service for passengers certified under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), who are unable to access the regular SunBus fixed route service. Service is available within ¾ mile of any local SunBus route. SunDial operates Monday through Friday between the hours of 5 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and weekends between the hours of 5 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Reservations for service are required at least one-day up to 14 days in advance. Trips not cancelled a minimum of two hours prior to the scheduled pickup time are considered “No Shows.” The service does not operate on Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. The one-way fare within one city is $1.50 and $2.00 within multiple cities. Fares SunLine’s fares are structured based on passenger, media and service type. The Commuter Link 220 fares are zonal in nature. Zone 1 covers the portion of the route between Riverside a nd Cabazon and Zone 2 covers Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage. The fare structures during the audit period are summarized in Table I-3. Table I-3 SunLine Fare Schedule SunBus Commuter Link 220 Category Fare Category Fare Adult $1.00 Adult/Youth – One Zone $3.00 Youth (Ages 5 to 17) $0.85 Senior (Age 60+)/Child 46” or less – One Zone $2.00 Senior (Age 60+)/Disabled $0.50 Adult/Youth – Two Zones $6.00 Transfer (Valid for two hours) $0.25 Senior (Age 60+)/Child 46” or less – Two Zones $4.00 Children (Ages 4 and under) Free Transfer to/from SunBus $0.25 Passes Passes 31-Day Pass 30-Day Pass – One Zone Adult $34.00 Adult/Youth $75.00 Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 6 6 SunBus Commuter Link 220 Category Fare Category Fare Youth (Ages 5 to 17) $24.00 Senior (Age 60+)/Child 46” or less $50.00 Senior (Age 60+)/Disabled $17.00 30-Day Pass – Zones 1 & 2 Day Pass Adult/Youth $150.00 Adult $3.00 Senior (Age 60+)/Child 46” or less $100.00 Youth (Ages 5 to 17) $2.00 Day Pass – One Zone Senior (Age 60+)/Disabled $1.50 Adult/Youth $7.00 10-Ride Pass Senior (Age 60+)/Child 46” or less $5.00 Adult $10.00 Day Pass – Zones 1 & 2 Youth (Ages 5 to 17) $8.50 Adult/Youth $14.00 Senior (Age 60+)/Disabled $5.00 Senior (Age 60+)/Child 46” or less $10.00 Source: SunLine Transit Agency SunLine unveiled its new automated Ticket Vending Machine (TVM) during a public event in July 2010 at SunLine’s Division 2 facility in Indio. Automated public transportation ticketing is more accessible and convenient for the riding public. Fleet The SunLine/SunDial fleet is comprised of 100 “clean fuel” vehicles including 97 powered by compressed natural gas (CNG) and the remaining three by hydrogen fuel cell. Sixty-nine large sized vehicles are used for fixed route service and 31 are smaller cutaway type vehicles used for dial-a-ride. There are an additional 45 non-revenue support vehicles, most of which are powered by CNG. All vehicles in revenue service are wheelchair accessible with tie-downs in compliance with ADA. The 2006 Orions were placed in maximum deployment to increase the mileage to meet their useful lives sooner as part of reducing the spare ratio, and to save on mileage of the newer vehicles. Table I-4 summarizes the SunLine/SunDial fleet. Table I-4 SunLine Fleet Inventory Year Make/Model Quantity Fuel Type Seating Capacity Service Mode 2004 VanHool 1 Hydrogen Fuel Cell 30 (2 W/C) Fixed Route 2006 Orion V 40’ 15 CNG 44 (2 W/C) Fixed Route 2008 El Dorado 22’ 14 CNG 12 (2 W/C) Dial-a-Ride 2008 New Flyer 1 Hydrogen Fuel Cell 37 (2 W/C) Fixed Route 2008 New Flyer 41 CNG 39 (2 W/C) Fixed Route 2009 El Dorado Easy Rider 10 CNG 29 (2 W/C) Fixed Route 2010 El Dorado 22’ 4 CNG 12 (2 W/C) Dial-a-Ride 2011 El Dorado 40’ 1 Hydrogen Fuel Cell 37 (2 W/C) Fixed Route 2012 El Dorado 22’ 13 CNG 12 (2 W/C) Dial-a-Ride Total 100 Source: SunLine Transit Agency Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 7 7 Section II Operator Compliance Requirements This section of the audit report contains the analysis of the Agency’s ability to comply with state requirements for continued receipt of TDA funds. The evaluation uses the guidebook, Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, September 2008 (third edition), which was developed by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to assess transit operators. The guidebook contains a checklist of eleven measures taken from relevant sections of the Public Utilities Code and the California Code of Regulations. Each of these requirements is discussed in the table below, including a description of the system’s efforts to comply with the requirements. In addition, the findings from the compliance review are described in the text following the table. Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The transit operator has submitted annual reports to the RTPA based upon the Uniform System of Accounts and Records established by the State Controller. Report is due 90 days after end of fiscal year (Sept. 28/29), or 110 days (Oct. 19/20) if filed electronically (Internet). Public Utilities Code, Section 99243 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: October 20, 2010 FY 2011: April 30, 2012 FY 2012: Report Unavailable The FY 2011 State Controller Report was submitted after the scheduled timeline. Also, the FY 2012 State Controller Report was not available for review and was not submitted within the timeframe. Conclusion: Partial compliance. The operator has submitted annual fiscal and compliance audits to the RTPA and to the State Controller within 180 days following the end of the fiscal year (Dec. 27), or has received the appropriate 90- day extension by the RTPA allowed by law. Public Utilities Code, Section 99245 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: January 10, 2011 FY 2011: April 16, 2012 FY 2012: June 1, 2013 The Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits for FY 2011 & FY 2012 were submitted after the 90-day extension allowed by law. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 8 8 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts Conclusion: Partial compliance. The CHP has, within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim submitted by an operator, certified the operator’s compliance with Vehicle Code Section 1808.1 following a CHP inspection of the operator’s terminal. Public Utilities Code, Section 99251 B The Agency participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. Inspections for fixed route vehicles were conducted at SunLine Transit Agency headquarters located at 32505 Harry Oliver Trail in Thousand Palms. For the Dial-a-Ride vehicles, inspections were conducted at SunLine’s operations facility located at 83255 Highway 111 in Indio. Inspection dates applicable to the audit period were (Thousand Palms facility): June 8-10, 2009; June 17-23, 2010; July 5, 7 & 8, 2011; and June 18-20, 2012. (Indio facility): June 2 & 3, 2009; June 23 & 24, 2010; June 8 & 9, 2011; and June 14 & 15, 2012. All inspections conducted were rated satisfactory. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s claim for TDA funds is submitted in compliance with rules and regulations adopted by the Public Utilities Code, Section 99261 As a condition of approval SunLine’s annual claims for Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance are submitted Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 9 9 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts RTPA for such claims. in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by RCTC. Conclusion: Complied. If an operator serves urbanized and non-urbanized areas, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to the ratio determined by the rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA. Public Utilities Code, Section 99270.1 Pursuant to PUC, Section 99270.1, RCTC is responsible for calculating an intermediate farebox recovery ratio for the SunLine Transit Agency since it serves both urbanized and non- urbanized areas. SunLine Minimum Fare Ratio Ratio FY 2010: 18.26% 18.18% FY 2011: 19.83% 17.97% FY 2012: 18.52% 17.88% Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s operating budget has not increased by more than 15% over the preceding year, nor is there a substantial increase or decrease in the scope of operations or capital budget provisions for major new fixed facilities unless the operator has reasonably supported and substantiated the change(s). Public Utilities Code, Section 99266 Percentage increase in SunLine Transit Agency’s operating budget: FY 2010: -3.7% FY 2011: -2.6% FY 2012: +4.0% Source: SunLine Transit Agency Budgets for FYs 2009-2012. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s definitions of performance measures are consistent with Public Utilities Public Utilities Code, Section 99247 SunLine Transit Agency’s definition of performance is consistent with Public Utilities Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 10 10 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts Code Section 99247, including (a) operating cost, (b) operating cost per passenger, (c) operating cost per vehicle service hour, (d) passengers per vehicle service hour, (e) passengers per vehicle service mile, (f) total passengers, (g) transit vehicle, (h) vehicle service hours, (i) vehicle service miles, and (j) vehicle service hours per employee. Code Section 99247. A review of SunLine’s monthly miles and hours reports generated during the audit period indicates that correct performance data are being collected. Conclusion: Complied. If the operator serves an urbanized area, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-fifth (20 percent), unless it is in a county with a population of less than 500,000, in which case it must maintain a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs of at least equal to three-twentieths (15 percent), if so determined by the RTPA. Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.12, 99270.1 This requirement is not applicable, as SunLine Transit Agency serves both urbanized and non-urbanized areas and is subject to an intermediate farebox recovery ratio. Conclusion: Not Applicable. If the operator serves a rural area, or provides exclusive services to elderly and disabled persons, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-tenth (10 percent). Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.4, 99268.5 This requirement is not applicable, as SunLine Transit Agency serves both urbanized and non-urbanized areas and is subject to an intermediate farebox recovery ratio. Conclusion: Not Applicable. The current cost of the operator’s retirement system is fully funded with respect to the officers and employees of Public Utilities Code, Section 99271 To be eligible for TDA funds, the annual TDA claims form requires a sign-off from the transit claimant to comply with Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 11 11 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts its public transportation system, or the operator is implementing a plan approved by the RTPA which will fully fund the retirement system within 40 years. standard assurances, one of which is that the SunLine Transit Agency’s retirement system is funded. Agency staff retirement is funded through SunLine Transit Retirement Income Plans for Bargaining and Non-Bargaining Personnel Plans, single- employer defined benefit plans. The Agency administers the Plans through a Retirement Committee appointed by the Agency’s Board of Directors. Conclusion: Complied. If the operator receives state transit assistance funds, the operator makes full use of funds available to it under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 before TDA claims are granted. California Code of Regulations, Section 6754(a)(3) As a recipient of State Transit Assistance Funds, SunLine is making full use of federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as amended. FY 2010: $2,749,463 (Operating) $2,623,379 (Capital) FY 2011: $3,822,621 (Operating) $5,769,787 (Capital) FY 2012: $3,274,678 (Operating) $3,051,416 (Capital) Source: National Transit Database. Conclusion: Complied. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 12 12 Findings and Observations from Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to SunLine Transit Agency, the operator fully complied with seven out of the nine applicable requirements. The Agency was in partial compliance with regard to the timely submittals of the annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports to the State Controller and also its annual fiscal and compliance audits. Two additional compliance requirements did not apply to SunLine (e.g., separate urbanized and rural farebox recovery ratios). 2. SunLine was not able to provide the FY 2011-12 State Controller Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports. The finance department, which had high turnover in staff during the audit period, did not have record of the required report being completed. 3. SunLine is subject to an intermediate farebox recovery ratio standard set by RCTC pursuant to PUC, Section 99270.1. The intermediate ratio is a blended ratio that accounts for both rural and urban transit services. The minimum farebox recovery ratios that SunLine was required to meet were 18.18 percent in FY 2010; 17.97 percent in FY 2011; and 17.88 percent in FY 2012. SunLine’s farebox recovery ratios based on audited data were 18.26 percent in FY 2010; 19.83 percent in FY 2011; and 18.52 percent in FY 2012. SunLine exceeded the minimum standard all three audit years. The average farebox recovery ratio was 18.87 percent. 4. The SunLine Transit Agency participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program and received vehicle inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. Inspections conducted during the audit period were rated satisfactory. Fixed-route vehicles were inspected at SunLine’s Thousand Palms facility and Dial-a-Ride vehicles were inspected at its facility in Indio. 5. The operating budget exhibited modest changes during the audit period. SunLine’s budget for FY 2010 and FY 2011 decreased by 3.7 and 2.6 percent, respectively. For FY 2012, the Agency’s operating budget increased 4 percent. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 13 13 Section III Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations The prior triennial performance audit did not provide recommendations. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 14 14 Section IV TDA Performance Indicators This section reviews SunLine Transit Agency’s performance in providing transit service to the community in an efficient and effective manner. TDA requires that at least five specific performance indicators be reported, which are contained in the following tables. Farebox recovery ratio is not one of the five specific indicators but is a requirement for continued TDA funding. Therefore, farebox calculation is also included. Two additional performance indicators, operating cost per mile and average fare per passenger, are included as well. Findings from the analysis are contained in the section following the tables. Tables IV-1 through IV-3 provide the performance indicators for SunLine systemwide, fixed route and ADA paratransit. Charts are also provided to depict the trends in the indicators. It is noted that the systemwide operating costs and fare revenues are based on audited figures, while fixed route and dial-a-ride costs and fare revenues are unaudited. The annual fiscal audits do not provide a modal breakdown. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 15 15 Table IV-1 SunLine Transit Agency TDA Performance Indicators Systemwide Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009- 2012 Operating Cost (1) $21,845,132 $21,163,238 $21,652,880 $21,949,703 0.5% Total Passengers 3,682,728 3,713,775 4,155,480 4,561,637 23.9% Vehicle Service Hours 234,089 231,792 240,779 246,513 5.3% Vehicle Service Miles 2,998,164 3,141,682 3,228,899 3,349,082 11.7% Employee FTE's 282 269 269 259 -8.2% Passenger Fares (2) $3,794,964 $3,412,795 $4,284,916 $4,061,520 7.0% Measure A Support & Interest $97,852 $452,114 $8,573 $2,787 -97.2% Total Revenues $3,892,816 $3,864,909 $4,293,489 $4,064,307 4.4% Operating Cost per Passenger $5.93 $5.70 $5.21 $4.81 -18.9% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $93.32 $91.30 $89.93 $89.04 -4.6% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $7.29 $6.74 $6.71 $6.55 -10.0% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 15.7 16.0 17.3 18.5 17.6% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 1.23 1.18 1.29 1.36 10.9% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 830.1 861.7 895.1 951.8 14.7% Average Fare per Passenger $1.03 $0.92 $1.03 $0.89 -13.6% Fare Recovery Ratio 17.37% 16.13% 19.79% 18.50% 6.5% Fare Recovery Ratio w/Meas. A & Interest (3) 17.82% 18.26% 19.83% 18.52% 3.9% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits; NTD; State Controller's Reports (1) Operating costs exclude depreciation. (2) Passenger Fares include fare revenue, CNG revenue, and other transportation revenue. (3) Systemwide farebox recovery is inclusive of Measure A support and interest income as allowed by RCTC's Fare Box Recovery Ratio Policy. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 16 16 Table IV-2 SunLine Transit Agency TDA Performance Indicators SunBus - Fixed Route Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009-2012 Operating Cost $18,210,705 $17,400,719 $17,319,800 $17,881,325 -1.8% Total Passengers 3,592,703 3,607,764 4,045,018 4,436,917 23.5% Vehicle Service Hours 184,357 180,684 188,685 190,728 3.5% Vehicle Service Miles 2,358,817 2,467,482 2,522,186 2,527,678 7.2% Employee FTE's 218 205 205 198 -9.2% Passenger Fares (1) $2,460,675 $2,449,810 $2,622,348 $2,921,901 18.7% Operating Cost per Passenger $5.07 $4.82 $4.28 $4.03 -20.5% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $98.78 $96.30 $91.79 $93.75 -5.1% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $7.72 $7.05 $6.87 $7.07 -8.4% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 19.5 20.0 21.4 23.3 19.4% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 1.52 1.46 1.60 1.76 15.2% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 845.7 881.4 920.4 963.3 13.9% Average Fare per Passenger $0.68 $0.68 $0.65 $0.66 -3.8% Fare Recovery Ratio 13.51% 14.08% 15.14% 16.34% 20.9% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: NTD; State Controller's Reports (1) Modal passenger fare revenue, unlike systemwide audited fare revenues, does not include other revenue such as CNG revenue. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 17 17 Table IV-3 SunLine Transit Agency TDA Performance Indicators SunDial - Dial-a-Ride Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009-2012 Operating Cost $3,634,480 $3,818,266 $3,824,343 $3,897,629 7.2% Total Passengers 90,025 106,011 110,462 124,720 38.5% Vehicle Service Hours 49,732 51,108 52,094 55,785 12.2% Vehicle Service Miles 639,347 674,200 706,713 821,404 28.5% Employee FTE's 64 64 64 61 -4.7% Passenger Fares (1) $226,691 $256,388 $271,502 $285,428 25.9% Operating Cost per Passenger $40.37 $36.02 $34.62 $31.25 -22.6% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $73.08 $74.71 $73.41 $69.87 -4.4% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $5.68 $5.66 $5.41 $4.75 -16.5% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 1.8 2.1 2.1 2.2 23.5% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.15 7.8% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 777.1 798.6 814.0 914.5 17.7% Average Fare per Passenger $2.52 $2.42 $2.46 $2.29 -9.1% Fare Recovery Ratio 6.24% 6.71% 7.10% 7.32% 17.4% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: NTD; State Controller's Reports (1) Modal passenger fare revenue, unlike systemwide audited fare revenues, does not include other revenue such as CNG revenue . Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 18 18 Graph IV-1 Operating Costs Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-2 Ridership Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 19 19 Graph IV-3 Operating Cost Per Passenger Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-4 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 20 20 Graph IV-5 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-6 Fare Recovery Ratio Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Note: Systemwide fare recovery includes other revenue such as CNG revenue. Modal fares do not include other revenues. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 21 21 Findings from Verification of TDA Performance Indicators 1. Operating costs systemwide increased by a modest 0.5 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. By mode (using unaudited data), the SunBus fixed route saw its operating costs decrease by 1.8 percent during the period. In contrast, operating costs for the SunDial ADA paratransit service increased 7.2 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012. 2. Ridership increased 23.9 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership increased 23.5 percent and ridership on the ADA paratransit service increased 38.5 percent. SunLine experienced its highest systemwide increases in ridership during FYs 2011 and 2012. Systemwide ridership increased 11.9 percent in FY 2011 and 9.8 percent in FY 2012. The increases in ridership are attributed in part to cutbacks in school districts’ transportation budgets resulting in more student riders on SunLine as well as from an increase in the service area population. 3. The provision of revenue hours and miles increased systemwide as well as on a modal level during the audit period. Fixed route revenue hours increased 3.5 percent, whereas vehicle service miles increased 7.2 percent. SunDial’s revenue hours and miles increased 12.2 and 28.5 percent, respectively between FY 2009 and FY 2012. Systemwide vehicle service hours increased 5.3 percent and vehicle service miles increased 11.7 percent. 4. Operating cost per passenger decreased 18.9 percent systemwide based on audited data. Mirroring the systemwide trends, cost per passenger decreased 20.5 percent on fixed route during the audit period, as well as decreased 22.6 percent on SunDial. The indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness and demonstrates how the increases in ridership have exceeded the increases in operating costs. 5. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, decreased 4.6 percent systemwide based on audited data. This indicator decreased 5.1 percent on the fixed route whereas SunDial saw its cost per hour decrease 4.4 percent during the audit period. 6. Passengers per vehicle service hour systemwide exhibited an increase of 17.6 percent. In Fixed route experienced an increase of 19.4 percent over the audit period and SunDial saw a comparable increase of 23.5 percent. Systemwide, the number of passengers per service hour demonstrated steady growth from 15.7 passengers in FY 2009 to 18.5 passengers in FY 2012. 7. The systemwide fare recovery ratio exhibited a 6.5 percent increase during the triennial period based on audited data. SunLine is subject to the provisions of PUC Section 99270.1 and was required to maintain a minimum farebox recovery ratio of 18.18 percent in FY 2010; 17.97 percent in FY 2011; and 17.88 percent in FY 2012. SunLine attained the required farebox recovery standard for all three years. Farebox for fixed route increased Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 22 22 20.9 percent, while the ADA paratransit service saw an increase of 17.4 percent. Total systemwide revenues increased 7.0 percent while fixed-route revenues increased 18.7 percent and ADA paratransit revenues increased 25.9 percent. It is noted that CNG revenue generated by SunLine from commercial sale of the fuel and from CNG fuel rebates is a growing component of operations revenue counted toward the farebox ratio. This allowable revenue source under RCTC farebox policy comprised 16 percent of operations revenue in FY 2010, 29 percent in FY 2011, and 17 percent in FY 2012. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 23 23 Section V Review of Operator Functions This section provides an in-depth review of various functions within the SunLine Transit Agency. The review highlights accomplishments, issues and/or challenges that were determined during the audit period. The following functions were reviewed with staff at the SunLine Transit Agency headquarters in Thousand Palms: Operations Maintenance Planning Marketing General Administration and Management Within some departments are sub-functions that require review as well, such as Grants Administration that falls under General Administration. Operations SunLine has held operations steady for the audit period as it positions itself to meet the growing service demand in the Coachella Valley and upgrade infrastructure. Systemwide ridership increased by nearly 24 percent due to an influx of new residents and increased usage by local students due to transportation funding cutbacks by local school districts. SunLine implemented several service adjustments and realignments to a number of SunBus lines. SunLine is looking to incorporate headways of 20, 40 and 60 minutes to enhance connectivity. Line 111 serves as SunBus’ main trunk line running along the SR-111 corridor carrying one-third of the system’s fixed route ridership and offering 20 minute headways on weekdays. The most significant service changes took place in January 2012. Additional morning trips were implemented on Line 14 that involved an increase in peak capacity. A minor route realignment was implemented on Line 15 and an additional afternoon/evening trip was added to Line 70 for high levels of student ridership. Line 80 was realigned into a northbound loop numbered Line 81 together with Line 80 aligned as a southbound loop in Indio to serve new retail developments. A time point change was implemented on Line 90 in Coachella and a time point change and route realignment were implemented on Line 91 in Coachella and Mecca. In addition, running times were revised on Lines 14, 30, 53, 90 and 111. Line 30 is reported to have the highest productivity in the SunBus system, averaging over 30 passengers per revenue hour. This particular line receives much of its patronage from students and the transit dependent. SunLine is planning to reduce headways on Line 30 from 30 minutes Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 24 24 to 20 minutes in order to better meet the service demand. The next highest performing route, Line 14, is proposed to receive the same service improvement. Service enhancements were not just limited to local services. In September 2012, SunLine implemented a commuter line between the Coachella Valley and City of Riverside serving communities in the San Gorgonio Pass. The Agency submitted a grant application in response to RCTC’s Call for Projects in FY 2011 and was awarded FTA Section 5316 and 5317 funds to implement the commuter service. Commuter Link 220 provides two morning outbound trips and two afternoon return trips. Commuters are able to make transfers to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) buses and Metrolink trains in Riverside. RTA in turn adjusted its service to the San Gorgonio Pass to avoid duplication with the SunLine route. Starting in the fall of 2009, the Agency implemented an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) initiative aimed at upgrading infrastructure on board its fixed route and paratransit vehicles. The SunLine web site has a bus tracker that provides “real time” bus info and a Google Transit interface. The bus tracker information is provided through a Global Positioning System (GPS) from Avail Technologies that tracks bus movement. Trapeze FX is also used which is a fixed route schedule builder and vehicle and driver assignment system. Functionality of Trapeze FX includes trip building, blocking, and runcutting. The agency is also seeking to procure a new on-board video system that relies on digital technology and replaces the existing DVR system as the current system only retains between 3 to 4 days’ worth of data. The new digital video system would be capable of retaining up to 30 days worth of data footage. ADA paratransit trips are coordinated with Trapeze scheduling software. SunDial is able to receive passenger reservations 14 days in advance although most reservations are scheduled the night before. Vehicles are assigned their scheduled routes in the morning. Visually impaired passengers are called prior to pickup which has helped to contain the number of “no shows.” According to Trapeze data, no-shows grew to 6,310 in FY 2010 and to 6,954 in FY 2011, then to 7,573 in FY 2012. This is a 42 percent increase from the FY 2009 figure of 5,316 no-shows. SunDial ridership grew by close to 39 percent during the same time period from 90,025 riders in FY 2009 to 124,720 in FY 2012. The rate of increase for both ridership and no-shows has been similar. A reduction in the rate for no-shows should be targeted as one means to improve service effectiveness in light of growing demand. Repeat no-show passengers are not typically notified by letter and SunLine is careful about imposing a penalty for no-shows. A letter, at a minimum, should be part of standard protocol in addressing no-shows and notifying riders of the adverse impacts from each incident. There have been no service denials on SunDial as there were adequate numbers of personnel and vehicles during the audit period, although growing demand for this service will continue to place strain on the system. The taxi voucher program is available for passengers who reside outside of the ADA paratransit service area. SunLine reports that the average ridership exceeds 500 passengers monthly. The program involves the processing of invoices from three taxi companies. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 25 25 Personnel There are 111 full time fixed route drivers that operate 97 weekday runs, and 67 weekend runs. Extraboard (drivers available at the facility to fill in) is about 20 percent. Non-exempt personnel are represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), Local 1277 based in Los Angeles. The current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between SunLine and the ATU Local covers the period from April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2014. Article 29 of the MOU provides a breakdown of hourly compensation based on job classification. Accruals for vacation and sick time off commence on the first day of employment for full-time employees. Employees with one to four years of service accrue 10 vacation and 8 floating days up to 30 vacation and 8 floating days with 25 or more years of service. Employees accrue 3.08 hours of sick time off per 80 hours each pay period. Full-time employees and their dependents are provided employer-paid health insurance benefits. New hires are subject to a 120-day probationary period. Shifts and vacation time off are open to bid three times annually during January, May and September. A new operations management team was hired during FY 2009-10. The new management team instilled a new culture based on accountability and that unifies the two operations facilities that previously had their own respective subcultures. As a result of changing the culture among the drivers and implementing new reporting protocols between drivers and supervisors, there was relatively high driver turnover including terminations. However, positive trends were realized such as the rate of absenteeism which decreased from 28 percent to 18 percent. New operators receive more than one hundred and fifty hours combined of classroom and behind the wheel training. Training includes Defensive Driving, Customer Service and ADA. Two new segments were added to the curriculum, Smart Drive and Avail System. The Avail System is SunLine’s new electronic communication system that reduces paper manifests and run guides as well as aids with driving directions. The system makes all ADA announcements, changes destination signs and keeps track of bus location. With changes to staffing, SunLine commissioned a human resources study in 2012, which was conducted by RSG. The study was comprised of two parts: a wage and classification study and a job description section. Supervisors are classified as being part of the administrative staff. SunLine has installed a sign-on mechanism when drivers report for duty as part of its ITS upgrades. Each supervisor is assigned duty days at the Indio facility to help build a uniform culture among both facilities. This helps drivers to clarify the rules under new management. Cross-training is provided among the dispatchers, reservationists and customer service representatives. Operations Performance Tables V-1 and V-2 show performance metrics for both SunBus and SunDial, respectively. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 26 26 Table V-1 SunBus Transportation Performance Indicators Base Data & Performance Indicators Base Year FY 2009 Audit Review Period % Change FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2009-FY 2012 Cost for Operations $9,152,612 $9,242,993 $9,418,321 $9,005,176 -1.6% Operator Salaries and Wages $4,290,248 $4,227,897 $4,329,109 $4,432,618 3.3% Cost of Fuel and Lubricants $1,306,358 $1,107,482 $1,110,722 $1,047,849 -19.8% Operator Pay Hours 264,829 258,161 267,671 259,399 -2.1% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 184,357 180,684 188,685 190,728 3.5% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 2,358,817 2,467,482 2,522,186 2,527,615 7.2% Total Vehicle Hours 191,281 189,809 197,707 199,538 4.3% Total Vehicle Miles 2,527,353 2,694,501 2,754,861 2,755,929 9.0% Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,592,703 3,607,733 4,045,018 4,436,917 23.5% Passenger Miles 20,197,600 20,292,932 22,760,412 29,067,479 43.9% Veh Ops Cost per VSH $49.65 $51.16 $49.92 $47.21 -4.9% Veh Ops Cost per VSM $3.88 $3.75 $3.73 $3.56 -8.2% Veh Ops Cost per Psgr Trip $2.55 $2.56 $2.33 $2.03 -20.3% Veh Ops Cost per Psgr Mile $0.45 $0.46 $0.41 $0.31 -31.6% Avg Wage per Operator Pay Hour $16.20 $16.38 $16.17 $17.09 5.5% Fuel & Lubricants Cost per VSM $0.55 $0.45 $0.44 $0.41 -25.1% VSH per Operator Pay Hour 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.74 5.6% VSM per Operator Pay Hour 8.91 9.56 9.42 9.74 9.4% Service Miles per Service Hour 12.8 13.7 13.4 13.3 3.6% Service Hours / Total Hours 96.4% 95.2% 95.4% 95.6% -0.8% Service Miles / Total Miles 93.3% 91.6% 91.6% 91.7% -1.7% Avg Psgr Miles per Psgr Trip 5.6 5.6 5.6 6.6 16.5% Consumer Price Index (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: National Transit Database Reports for FY09-FY12 SunBus operations cost was relatively stable over the triennial period, decreasing by 1.6 percent. Operations costs decreased in conjunction with the new schedule roll out at the beginning of 2012. Operator salaries and wages grew below the rate of inflation for the three years, increasing by 3.3 percent versus the CPI rate of 5.4 percent . Fuel costs decreased by almost 20 percent from the base year of FY 2009, with fuel expenses remaining stable during FYs 2010, 2011, and 2012 at about $1.1 million per year. From the slight decline in operations cost, performance indicators such as cost per vehicle hour and vehicle mile declined which is a positive trend. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 27 27 Table V-2 SunDial Transportation Performance Indicators Base Data & Performance Indicators Base Year FY 2009 Audit Review Period % Change FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2009- FY 2012 Cost for Operations $2,740,254 $2,894,511 $2,849,673 $3,018,847 10.2% Operator Salaries and Wages $1,040,980 $1,033,017 $1,085,744 $1,173,343 12.7% Cost of Fuel and Lubricants $186,571 $162,570 $152,270 $150,315 -19.4% Operator Pay Hours 106,155 104,819 109,973 103,375 -2.6% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 49,732 51,108 52,094 55,785 12.2% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 639,347 674,200 706,713 821,404 28.5% Total Vehicle Hours 65,182 66,479 67,156 62,699 -3.8% Total Vehicle Miles 833,049 864,635 903,974 937,969 12.6% Unlinked Passenger Trips 90,025 106,011 110,462 124,720 38.5% Passenger Miles 1,063,839 1,204,831 1,248,001 1,408,192 32.4% Veh Ops Cost Per VSH $55.10 $56.64 $54.70 $54.12 -1.8% Veh Ops Cost Per VSM $4.29 $4.29 $4.03 $3.68 -14.3% Veh Ops Cost Per Psgr Trip $30.44 $27.30 $25.80 $24.20 -20.5% Veh Ops Cost Per Psgr Mile $2.58 $2.40 $2.28 $2.14 -16.8% Avg Wage per Operator Pay Hour $9.81 $9.86 $9.87 $11.35 15.7% Fuel & Lubricants Cost per VSM $0.29 $0.24 $0.22 $0.18 -37.3% VSH per Operator Pay Hour 0.47 0.49 0.47 0.54 15.2% VSM per Operator Pay Hour 6.02 6.43 6.43 7.95 31.9% Service Miles Per Service Hr 12.9 13.2 13.6 14.7 14.5% Service Hours / Total Hours 76.3% 76.9% 77.6% 89.0% 16.6% Service Miles / Total Miles 76.7% 78.0% 78.2% 87.6% 14.1% Avg Psgr Miles per Psgr Trip 11.8 11.4 11.3 11.3 -4.5% Consumer Price Index (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: National Transit Database Reports for FY09-FY12 SunDial operations cost increased by 10.2 percent over the triennial period. Operator salaries and wages grew by 12.7 percent which is above the rate of inflation for the three years as demand for ADA service fueled growth. This is shown by the growth in ADA ridership by almost 40 percent. Fuel costs decreased at the same rate as fixed route from the base year of FY 2009, with fuel expenses remaining stable during FYs 2010, 2011, and 2012 at about $150,000 per year. In spite of the growth in cost, when coupled with the growth in service measured by hours and miles, performance indicators such as cost per vehicle hour and vehicle mile declined which is a positive trend. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 28 28 Maintenance SunLine maintains a revenue fleet of 100 buses, consisting of CNG and hydrogen fuel cell buses. The newest vehicles delivered during the audit period were primarily smaller vehicles used for SunDial service. One hydrogen fuel cell bus was delivered in 2011 for fixed route. Most of the fleet is approaching mid-life which could be an early indicator of potential maintenance issues. As a result from a finding from a 2010 FTA triennial audit, SunLine developed and submitted a Bus Fleet Management Plan to the FTA that serves as a guide to ensure the current spare ratio is reduced and maintained over the next several years. SunLine had bus service expansion plans before the economic recession hit. The fleet plan included an expansion of the maintenance facility that increased the number of service bays that will enable more vehicles to be maintained simultaneously without the need for additional backups. Service adjustments have also created the need for additional vehicles which reduces the spare ratio. In addition, older fixed route buses were placed in maximum deployment to increase the mileage to meet their useful lives sooner as part of reducing the spare ratio, and to save on mileage of the newer vehicles . The maintenance department oversees the maintenance of vehicles, facilities and bus stop/shelters. SunLine’s vehicle maintenance is conducted in two locations, one at the main facility in Thousand Palms and the other at a smaller facility in Indio. The Thousand Palms facility is equipped with six maintenance bays and one overflow. There are four permanent lifts and one portable lift at that facility. The Indio facility is also equipped with four lifts. The Agency conducts maintenance using a Preventive Maintenance Inspection (PMI) based upon an A-B-C-D mileage schedule. FleetNet maintenance software is utilized for PMI tracking and forecasts each category of preventative maintenance scheduled. For instance, engine oil sample checks are taken every 6,000 miles and oil changes are performed every 12,000 miles . The PMI plan is detailed in Table V-3. Mileage must be manually entered into FleetNet at the facility after bus runs since the fuel reader device does not have capability to transfer mileage data automatically to FleetNet. All PMIs must be completed within a 10 percent plus or minus mileage window before they are due. Table V-3 SunLine Transit Agency Vehicle Preventative Maintenance Plan PM Type PM Due Mileage Forecast Mileage Completion Window A 6,000 5,400 5,400 to 6,600 B 12,000 11,400 11,400 to 12,600 C 24,000 23,400 23,400 to 24,600 D 48,000 47,400 47,400 to 48,600 Source: SunLine Transit Agency The majority of maintenance work is performed in-house; however, any outside repairs would fall under micro-purchases including alternators, smog testing, and wheel alignments. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 29 29 Cycle counts are performed on a monthly basis. Only supervisory staff and lead mechanics are allowed to retrieve parts. Parts are bar-coded and categorized according to vehicle make and model. SunLine maintains minimum and maximum inventory thresholds. Vehicle warranties drive which parts are ordered. Each part is scanned with a video checkout unit (VCU) connected to the FleetNet software system. The parts department is camera monitored. FleetNet keeps history of each item in inventory. This program is also utilized for cost pricing comparisons (less than $2,500). For items or services exceeding $100,000 in cost, an Invitation for Bid (IFB) or a Request for Proposals (RFP) is made. The majority of inventory as measure in value is at the Thousand Palms facility. SunLine procures parts from local vendors such as Napa Auto Parts and Car Quest for Orion vehicles. For the New Flyer buses, parts are procured directly from the manufacturer in Fresno. Tires are leased through a contract. Maintenance Performance Tables V-4 and V-5 show performance metrics for both SunBus and SunDial, respectively. Table V-4 SunBus Maintenance Performance Indicators Base Data & Performance Indicators Base Year FY 2009 Audit Review Period % Change FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2009-FY 2012 Cost for Maintenance $3,894,618 $3,881,145 $3,944,512 $3,869,069 -0.7% Maintenance Pay Hours 87,484 85,686 84,313 81,106 -7.3% Total Vehicle Hours 191,281 189,809 197,707 199,538 4.3% Total Vehicle Miles 2,527,353 2,694,501 2,754,861 2,755,929 9.0% Active Vehicles 68 68 68 69 1.5% Peak Vehicles 43 43 47 43 0.0% Total Vehicle Failures 95 80 124 133 40.0% Maintenance Cost per Veh Hour $20.36 $20.45 $19.95 $19.39 -4.8% Maintenance Cost per Veh Mile $1.54 $1.44 $1.43 $1.40 -8.9% Maintenance Cost per Active Veh $57,274 $57,076 $58,008 $56,073 -2.1% Veh Hours per Maint Pay Hour 2.19 2.22 2.34 2.46 12.5% Veh Miles per Maint Pay Hour 28.89 31.45 32.67 33.98 17.6% Veh Hours per Active Vehicle 2,813 2,791 2,907 2,892 2.8% Veh Miles per Active Vehicle 37,167 39,625 40,513 39,941 7.5% Veh Miles Between Failures 26,604 33,681 22,217 20,721 -22.1% Spare Ratio 58.1% 58.1% 44.7% 60.5% 4.0% Consumer Price Index (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: National Transit Database Reports for FY09-FY12 Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 30 30 Maintenance costs for SunBus was steady for the triennial period, remaining consistent at about $3.9 million per year. The stability in cost is in contrast to the low growth in CPI. The number of vehicle failures reported by SunLine to the FTA has grow n each audit year, increasing from 80 in FY 2010 to 124 in FY 2011, and to 133 in FY 2012. Maintenance cost using performance metrics like cost per vehicle hour and per vehicle mile showed improved efficiency as depicted by declining cost trends. However, miles between failures decreased significantly from 33 ,700 miles in FY 2010 to 20,700 miles in FY 2012. SunLine should closely monitor this trend in reduced miles between failures given the aging of the fleet. Table V-5 SunDial Maintenance Performance Indicators Base Data & Performance Indicators Base Year FY 2009 Audit Review Period % Change FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2009-FY 2012 Cost for Maintenance $661,170 $695,482 $702,851 $683,403 3.4% Maintenance Pay Hours 16,775 16,063 16,283 16,773 0.0% Total Vehicle Hours 65,182 66,479 67,156 62,699 -3.8% Total Vehicle Miles 833,049 864,635 903,974 937,969 12.6% Active Vehicles 27 27 31 31 14.8% Peak Vehicles 26 25 28 28 7.7% Total Vehicle Failures 26 44 31 41 57.7% Maintenance Cost Per Veh Hour $10.14 $10.46 $10.47 $10.90 7.5% Maintenance Cost Per Veh Mile $0.79 $0.80 $0.78 $0.73 -8.2% Maintenance Cost Per Active Veh $24,488 $25,759 $22,673 $22,045 -10.0% Veh Hours per Maint Pay Hour 3.89 4.14 4.12 3.74 -3.8% Veh Miles per Maint Pay Hour 49.66 53.83 55.52 55.92 12.6% Veh Hours Per Active Vehicle 2,414 2,462 2,166 2,023 -16.2% Veh Miles Per Active Vehicle 30,854 32,024 29,160 30,257 -1.9% Veh Miles Between Failures 32,040 19,651 29,160 22,877 -28.6% Spare Ratio 3.8% 8.0% 10.7% 10.7% 178.6% Consumer Price Index (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: National Transit Database Reports for FY09-FY12 Maintenance costs for SunDial increased reasonably to the rate of inflation (3.4 percent growth in cost and 5.4 percent CPI change). Maintenance cost using performance metrics like cost per vehicle hour and per vehicle mile showed mixed cost efficiencies as depicted by decreased cost per vehicle mile but increased maintenance cost per hour. Maintenance cost per vehicle was relatively stable each year. Vehicle miles between failures increased for the three year period which is a positive trend but much less during the FY 2010-2012 period compared to the base year of FY 2009. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 31 31 Planning SunLine prepares a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) on an annual basis. The SRTP is developed internally and involves the solicitation of input from the nine incorporated cities and the County of Riverside. The process involves review of local municipal planning developments such as single-family housing tracts. Areas of focus hav e included the rapidly growing City of Coachella, which could have potential development that would increase the population by 40,000 residents. Other development possibilities in the service area include the SR-86 corridor at Travertine Point near Imperial County and commercial development in Desert Hot Springs. The latest SRTP indicates that the last passenger survey was conducted in 2008. The passenger survey provides input in the planning of new and adjusted services. A new passenger survey should be conducted in concert with the SRTP update and to meet federal regulatory requirements. Among the survey questions, the survey should collect rider data on the effect from implementation of ITS and other technology improvements that have been installed since the last survey to capture an approximate cost-benefit from these particular improvements. The SRTP covers a three-year planning horizon and establishes objectives for the agency’s transit services and capital improvement program. Under the Planned Services Changes and Implementation chapter, a series of recommendations for service improvements is presented for each route or program. Performance data from TransTrack Manager is also included in the SRTP to provide an annual comparison. SunLine must meet at least 4 out of 7 discretionary performance indicators. There is one mandatory indicator which is the farebox recovery ratio set by formula by RCTC each year. Table V-6 shows the general targets for the performance indicators during the triennial period. The SRTP shows TransTrack data compared against the targets which SunLine has mostly met. Table V-6 SunLine Systemwide Performance Targets Performance Indicators FY 2009-10 Target FY 2010-11 Target FY 2011-12 Target Farebox Recovery >=18.23% >=18.15% >=17.88% Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour <=$93.50 <=$89.03 <=$86.92 Subsidy Per Passenger <=$4.82 <=$4.70 <=$4.43 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile <=$0.83 <=$0.81 <=$0.77 Subsidy Per Revenue Hour <=$76.25 <=$72.87 <=$71.38 Subsidy Per Revenue Mile <=$6.00 <=$5.33 <=$5.59 Passengers Per Revenue Hour >=15.8 >=15.5 >=16.1 Passengers Per Revenue Mile >=1.24 >=1.14 >=1.26 Source: SunLine Transit Agency, TransTrack Manager A Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA), originally completed in 2006, was updated in 2009 and recommended realignment changes which SunLine implemented. However, SunLine did not implement the route frequency recommendations. Service adjustments are implemented at least annually to reflect the recommendations made from planning reports as well from staff’s analysis of actual data. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 32 32 Marketing Marketing of transit services is provided through a variety of methods and outlets. Information is posted at bus stops and other major activity centers such as schools, senior centers, retail outlets and public facilities. Brochures and schedules are available on buses and at the various activity centers. The agency’s website, http://www.sunline.org/, contains information about routes, schedules, services, and fares, including a systemwide map. Passengers are also able to purchase passes online. There are creative marketing promotions and a considerable newspaper presence in both English and Spanish. Spanish language advertisements and promotions appear in the La Prensa and El Informador newspapers. SunLine publishes a bilingual (English/Spanish) consolidated timetable or “Rider’s Guide” of its routes. The Rider’s Guide provides fare information, schedules, rider etiquette, SunDial information, and a system map. Other publications include the SunDial Curb to Curb ADA Paratransit Service brochure; the Taxi Voucher Program brochure; and the Half-Fare Program for SunBus. The marketing plan contained in the SRTP entails SunLine conducting more public outreach to businesses and schools along most routes as well as increase promotion efforts in bus shelters, on board buses and on the website. Focused outreach to area businesses involve d the promotion of the Coachella Valley Employer Pass, which was discontinued during the audit period. SunLine customer service staff receives complaints and forwards them to the appropriate department for a response. They are logged by type of complaint in Trapeze. The average number of complaints the last few years was about 600 per year for fixed route, and about 400 per year for dial-a-ride. On a ridership basis (using FY 2012 data), this amounts to rates of 13 complaints per 100,000 passenger trips on fixed route, and 32 complaints per 10,000 passenger trips for dial-a-ride. Community outreach has involved contacts with area senior centers, homeless shelters, disabled organizations, and school districts. SunLine produces an Annual Report highlighting the agency’s accomplishments and activities for the past year. The Annual Report is distributed to the communities in the Coachella Valley as a means to communicate the message that investment in transit delivers a return beyond simply helping those that ride the bus. Other outreach has included an online video advertisement created to provide public awareness of the Agency’s contact information and service. The ad was created for superyellowpages.com and highlights SunLine’s technologically advanced vehicles, demonstrating its commitment to the environment and the passengers of the Coachella Valley. SunLine hosts the annual State of Public Transit luncheon for community and industry leaders and features keynote speakers and guests from such institutions as California State University San Bernardino and the American Public Transportation Association. The SunLine General Manager briefs the audience on the Agency’s progress over the past year and discusses Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 33 33 prospects for future service enhancements. The luncheon has been held each year for the past five years. The SunLine Learning Center was dedicated in October 2012 and evolved from the Agency’s hydrogen processing facility. The Center provides an interactive and interpretive experience for visitors amongst the state-of-the-art exhibits. The Learning Center exhibits present a history of the Agency vehicles from 1977 into the future - renewable energy, hydrogen fuel cell technology and ITS. The exhibit is located on SunLine’s main facility and is available by reservations only. General Administration and Management The Board of Directors is comprised of elected officials from each jurisdiction within SunLine’s service area. The Board meets 10 times each year on the fourth Wednesday of the month at noon. The July and August meeting are combined and usually held on the first Wednesday in August. The November and December meetings are also combined and are held on the first Wednesday in December. Special meetings may be convened by the chairman as needed. The Chair and Vice-Chair are elected for annual terms that commence on July 1st of each year. The Chair and Vice-Chair are selected from the Board. SunLine is guided by a vision and mission statement in the delivery of transit service: Vision: SunLine Transit Agency is the regional transportation mode of choice. Mission Statement: To provide safe and environmentally conscious public transportation services and alternative fuel solutions to meet the mobility needs of the Coachella Valley. The General Manager during the audit period had been with SunLine since 2004. After the audit period, however, an interim General Manager was in place for several months until a new General Manager was hired in September 2013. Also, there has been significant turnover in the Agency’s Finance Department involving a turnover of four Finance Directors over a two year period as well as other support staff. The Grants Analyst has served in the capacity of interim Finance Director. The annual budgeting process involves the department directors and managers and their projects. Variances from the prior budget year are also analyzed. Fuel costs have been relatively stable for budgeting since SunLine has the capacity for producing its own alternative fuels. Preparation of the annual budget is a three to four month process, with approval at the June Board meeting. Administrative Performance Tables V-7 and V-8 show performance indicators for administration relative to SunBus and SunDial operations. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 34 34 Table V-7 SunBus Administrative Performance Indicators Base Data & Performance Indicators Base Year FY 2009 Audit Review Period % Change FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2009-FY 2012 Costs for Administration $5,163,475 $4,276,581 $3,957,057 $5,007,080 -3.0% Administration Pay Hours 53,023 50,915 49,584 55,475 4.6% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 184,357 180,684 188,685 190,728 3.5% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 2,358,817 2,467,482 2,522,186 2,527,615 7.2% Unlinked Passenger Trips 3,592,703 3,607,733 4,045,018 4,436,917 23.5% Passenger Miles 20,197,600 20,292,932 22,760,412 29,067,479 43.9% Admin Cost Per VSH $28.01 $23.67 $20.97 $26.25 -6.3% Admin Cost Per VSM $2.19 $1.73 $1.57 $1.98 -9.5% Admin Cost per Psgr Trip $1.44 $1.19 $0.98 $1.13 -21.5% Admin Cost per Psgr Mile $0.26 $0.21 $0.17 $0.17 -32.6% VSH per Admin Pay Hour 3.48 3.55 3.81 3.44 -1.1% VSM per Admin Pay Hour 44.49 48.46 50.87 45.56 2.4% Consumer Price Index (CPI- Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: National Transit Database Reports for FY09-FY12 Administrative costs allocated to fixed route service as shown in the National Transit Database declined slightly for the period between FY’s 2009 and 2012, although a larger decline occurred in FYs 2010 and 2011 before increasing in FY 2012. As a result of the decline in costs coupled with increases in vehicle hours and ridership, performance indicators measured by cost per vehicle hour and per passenger trip showed positive trends meaning percentage decreases in these measures. Table V-8 SunDial Administrative Performance Indicators Base Data & Performance Indicators Base Year FY 2009 Audit Review Period % Change FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2009-FY 2012 Costs for Administration $233,056 $228,273 $271,819 $195,379 -16.2% Administration Pay Hours 3,466 3,183 3,102 2,596 -25.1% Vehicle Service Hours (VSH) 49,732 51,108 52,094 55,785 12.2% Vehicle Service Miles (VSM) 639,347 674,200 706,713 821,404 28.5% Unlinked Passenger Trips 90,025 106,011 110,462 124,720 38.5% Passenger Miles 1,063,839 1,204,831 1,248,001 1,408,192 32.4% Admin Cost Per VSH $4.69 $4.47 $5.22 $3.50 -25.3% Admin Cost Per VSM $0.36 $0.34 $0.38 $0.24 -34.7% Admin Cost per Psgr Trip $2.59 $2.15 $2.46 $1.57 -39.5% Admin Cost per Psgr Mile $0.22 $0.19 $0.22 $0.14 -36.7% VSH per Admin Pay Hour 14.35 16.06 16.79 21.49 49.8% Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 35 35 Base Data & Performance Indicators Base Year FY 2009 Audit Review Period % Change FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2009-FY 2012 VSM per Admin Pay Hour 184.46 211.81 227.82 316.41 71.5% Consumer Price Index (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: National Transit Database Reports for FY09-FY12 Administrative costs allocated to dial-a-ride service as shown in the National Transit Database declined more sharply for the period between FY’s 2009 and 2012. Costs decreased by over 16 percent which correlates with the decline in pay hours allocated to dial-a-ride. As a result of the decline in costs coupled with increases in vehicle hours and ridership, performance indicators measured by cost per vehicle hour and per passenger trip showed positive trends meaning percentage decreases in these measures. Grants Management Status of grants is tracked through Quarterly Project Manager Project Updates where department managers report their grant activity. The updates require input on details of activities for the quarter, expected completion date, issues, and whether any expenses were incurred. The reported information is linked to a grants summary worksheet that describes the original grant, budgeted and expended amounts, and remaining grant funds. Estimated completion dates are identified while closed grants are highlighted. Grant funds are received from a variety of FTA sources for projects including FTA Sections 5307, 5309, 5316, 5317. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds were also used for maintenance facility and bus stop improvements. Proposition 1B bond funds were also programmed for the new SunLine administrative building as well as security projects. The Grants Manager in the Planning Department departed in 2010. In response, a consultant was retained by SunLine to assist the planning manager clean out the outstanding grant reports. As of October 2013, the consultant has been named Finance Director. Replacement grant staff for the Planning Department is being conducted for responsibilities such as milestone reporting. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 36 36 Section VI Findings The following summarizes the major findings obtained from this Triennial Audit covering fiscal years 2010 through 2012. A set of recommendations is then provided. Triennial Audit Findings 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to SunLine Transit Agency, the operator fully complied with seven of nine applicable requirements. The Agency was in partial compliance with regard to the timely submittals of the annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports to the State Controller and also its annual fiscal and compliance audits. Two additional compliance requirements did not apply to SunLine (e.g., separate urbanized and rural farebox recovery ratios). 2. SunLine was not able to provide the FY 2011-12 State Controller Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports. The finance department, which had high turnover in staff during the audit period, did not have record of the required report being completed. 3. SunLine is subject to an intermediate farebox recovery ratio standard set by RCTC. The intermediate ratio is a blended ratio that accounts for both rural and urban transit services. SunLine exceeded the minimum standard all three audit years. The average farebox recovery ratio was 18.87 percent. It is noted that CNG revenue generated by SunLine from commercial sale of the fuel and from CNG fuel rebates is a growing component of operations revenue counted toward the farebox ratio. This allowable revenue source under RCTC farebox policy comprised 16 percent of operations revenue in FY 2010, 29 percent in FY 2011, and 17 percent in FY 2012. 4. SunLine participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program and received vehicle inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. Inspections conducted during the audit period were rated satisfactory. Fixed-route vehicles were inspected at SunLine’s Thousand Palms facility and Dial-a-Ride vehicles were inspected at its facility in Indio. 5. Operations cost was relatively stable over the triennial review period. SunBus fixed route costs decreased by 1.8 percent during the period. In contrast, operating costs for the SunDial ADA paratransit service increased 7.2 percent. The increase was slightly above the Consumer Price Index of 5.4 percent. Fuel, typically an uncontrollable operating expense, was stable as SunLine produces its own alternative fuel for its vehicle fleet. 6. Along with modest cost growth, ridership increased 23.9 percent systemwide. Fixed route ridership increased 23.5 percent and ridership on the ADA paratransit service increased 38.5 percent. SunLine experienced its highest systemwide increases in ridership during FYs 2011 and 2012. The increases in ridership are attributed in part to cutbacks in school districts’ Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 37 37 transportation budgets resulting in more student riders on SunLine as well as from an increase in the service area population. Other performance metrics that measure cost efficiency and effectiveness were positive in light of the stabilized cost combined with growth in service. 7. SunLine has held operations steady for the audit period as it positions itself to meet the growing service demand in the Coachella Valley and upgrade infrastructure. The Agency implemented several service adjustments and realignments to a number of SunBus lines with anticipation to reduce headways as demand continues to grow. A larger service chang e occurred in January 2012 that improved connectivity and running times. 8. A commuter bus line was implemented between the Coachella Valley and Riverside and serving communities in the San Gorgonio Pass. The Agency was awarded FTA Section 5316 and 5317 funds to implement the commuter service. Commuter Link 220 provides two morning outbound trips and two afternoon return trips with transfers to the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) buses and Metrolink trains in Riverside. 9. The Agency implemented an Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) initiative aimed at upgrading infrastructure on board its fixed route and paratransit vehicles. The SunLine web site has a bus tracker that provides “real time” bus info on a Google Transit interface. Enhanced software is also used for fixed route schedule building and vehicle and driver assignments. SunLine is also seeking to procure a new on-board video system that relies on digital technology capable of retaining data footage for longer period. 10. A new operations management team instilled a new culture based on accountability and that unified the two operations facilities that previously had their own respective subcultures. There was relatively high driver turnover as a result of changing the culture among the drivers and implementing new reporting protocols. However, positive trends were realized such as the rate of absenteeism which decreased from 28 percent to 18 percent. SunLine has installed a sign-on mechanism when drivers report for duty as part of its ITS upgrades. New operators receive more than one hundred and fifty hours combined of classroom and behind the wheel training. 11. SunLine prepares a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) on an annual basis. The SRTP is developed internally and involves the solicitation of input from the nine incorporated cities and the County of Riverside. Areas of focus have included the rapidly growing City of Coachella, as well as other development possibilities in the transit service area including the SR -86 corridor at Travertine Point near Imperial County and commercial development in Desert Hot Springs. 12. SunLine publishes a bilingual (English/Spanish) consolidated timetable or “Rider’s Guide” of its routes. The Rider’s Guide provides fare information, schedules, rider etiquette, SunDial information, and a system map. Other publications include the SunDial Curb to Curb ADA Paratransit Service brochure; the Taxi Voucher Program brochure; and the Half-Fare Program for SunBus. Spanish language advertisements and promotions appear in local newspapers. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 38 38 Recommendations 1. Develop desktop procedures ensuring the completion of the annual State Controller Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports. (High Priority) SunLine was not able to provide the FY 2011-12 State Controller Transit Operators Financial Transactions Reports. Although the agency had completed the report in prior years, the finance department, which had high turnover in staff during the audit period, did not have record of the required report being completed for the last year of the audit. It is recommended that internal procedures be developed that provide the timeline and staff assignments to complete the annual report. The desktop procedures should be made available across finance department staff and made part of a finance orientation package in light of turnover in the department. 2. Prepare and submit separate State Controller Reports for general public transit and specialized service. (High Priority) SunLine’s annual Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report to the State Controller has historically combined information for both general public (SunBus) and specialized service for the disabled (SunDial). Although the State Controller’s Office has not provided notice to SunLine, written instructions by the State to prepare this particular report require separate reporting of these modes. In the General Instruction Form completed by the transit agency, a selection must be made as to which mode of transit is represented in the report. The options are general public use or elderly/disabled. The Transit Operators Financial Transactions Report Instructions contain the following passages under the General Instruction Form: Transit operators providing two types of service, (general public use and transit service exclusively for the elderly/handicapped) must complete a separate report for each type of service. … a separate report must be filed for each type of service provided: General Public Use Service or Specialized Service exclusive for elderly and/or handicapped. For example, if an agency has received Article 4 and Article 8(c) monies to provide General Public Use Service, the agency should submit one report. If that agency has also received Article 4 monies to provide Specialized Service for the elderly and/or handicapped, th en a report must be submitted for the Specialized Service operations. The submission of separate reports to the State Controller will demonstrate SunLine’s pro- active approach to compliance with State reporting instructions. Triennial Performance Audit of SunLine Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 39 39 3. Monitor rates of vehicle failures and revenue miles between failures. (High Priority) With the majority of the fleet reaching and exceeding mid-life, performance metrics such as number of vehicle failures have increased while revenue miles between failures have decreased, both negative trends. SunLine has been maximizing deployment of its older fixed route buses as part of a plan to reduce the spare ratio. SunLine should closely monitor the reporting of these data sets that should influence the planning of capital replacement and/or maintenance practice. 4. Conduct new rider survey. (Medium Priority) The most recent survey was last undertaken by SunLine in 2008. Since that time, there have been several updates to the Short Range Transit Plan that were developed using the survey data. A new passenger survey should be conducted in concert with the SRTP update and to meet federal regulatory requirements. Among the survey questions, the survey should collect rider data on the effect from implementation of ITS and other technology improvemen ts that have been installed since the last survey to capture an approximate cost -benefit from these particular improvements. 5. Provide enforcement of repeated no-show passengers on SunDial. (Medium Priority) As demand for ADA paratransit continues, current strategies that help increase service efficiencies should be implemented. Enforcement of repeat no-shows can be accomplished in tiers or phases. At a minimum, SunLine should send a letter to the rider notifying them of the adverse impacts from a no-show. This provides the rider with an awareness of the impact to the agency from repeated no-shows. A threshold level of no-shows should be established to determine when a letter is sent out, such as two or three no shows in a given time period. A description of the no-show policy should be included in the SunDial ADA Guidebook. October 2013 ATTACHMENT 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... i Section I ......................................................................................................................................1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 Overview of the Transit System ...........................................................................................1 Section II .....................................................................................................................................6 Operator Compliance Requirements .......................................................................................6 Section III ..................................................................................................................................11 Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations ....................................................................11 Section IV ..................................................................................................................................12 TDA Performance Indicators .................................................................................................12 Section V ...................................................................................................................................21 Review of Operator Functions ...............................................................................................21 Operations ........................................................................................................................21 Maintenance .....................................................................................................................23 Planning ............................................................................................................................24 Marketing ..........................................................................................................................25 General Administration and Management .........................................................................25 Section VI ..................................................................................................................................27 Findings ................................................................................................................................27 Recommendations ................................................................................................................30 Executive Summary PMC - i Executive Summary The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12. The audit includes a review of the following areas: Compliance with TDA Requirements Status of Prior Audit Recommendations Transit System Performance Trends Detailed Functional Review From the review, recommendations were developed to improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the PVVTA. Compliance with TDA Requirements PVVTA has fully complied with seven out of the eight applicable requirements. The transit agency was in partial compliance with the timely submittal of its annual fiscal and compliance audits. Three additional compliance requirements did not apply to PVVTA (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio under PUC 99270.1, exclusive urbanized farebox recovery ratio, and the utilization of federal funds). Status of Prior Audit Recommendations The prior triennial performance audit did not provide recommendations. System Performance Trends 1. Operating costs systemwide increased 2.7 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. The system saw the implementation of new and restructured routes as well as the discontinuation of Dial -a-Ride toward the end of FY 2010. By mode (using unaudited data), fixed route services saw its operating costs increase by 14.4 percent during the period. In contrast, Dial-a-Ride operating costs decreased 91.8 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012. Dial-a-Ride costs reported for FY 2012 reflect the Desert RoadTRIP program. 2. Ridership decreased 23.5 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership increased 19.7 percent, while Dial-a-Ride ridership decreased 72.4 percent due to the Executive Summary PMC - ii ii transition of riders to the new deviated fixed route. Systemwide ridership between FYs 2009 and 2010 decreased by 28.6 percent due primarily to the economic downturn and state budget cuts resulting in furloughs, layoffs and reduced social services . Systemwide ridership fell from 54,806 in FY 2009 to a low of 37,117 in FY 2011 before rebounding to 41,945 in FY 2012. The rebound in ridership is attributed to the increased demand for service on the Red Route to the California State Prisons. 3. The provision of revenue hours and miles varied according to mode yet decreased systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route revenue hours decreased 12.6 percent, whereas vehicle service miles saw negligible change after fluctuating during the interveni ng years. DAR revenue hours and miles decreased 68.5 and 68.6 percent, respectively, between FY 2009 and FY 2010 until the service was discontinued. Given the system realignment, systemwide vehicle service hours decreased 22.2 percent and vehicle service miles decreased 7.4 percent. 4. The systemwide fare recovery ratio met the TDA requirement but decreased 19.8 percent from 14.69 percent in FY 2009 to 11.78 percent in FY 2012 based on audited data. PVVTA’s farebox recovery is inclusive of advertising revenues, interest and local support. Farebox recovery exhibited a dip during the intervening years of 2010 and 2011 of 13.05 and 11.30 percent, respectively. The fiscal audit shows a higher farebox in FY 2012 due to exemption for new services; however only operating expenses were deducted and not fare revenue as required by TDA. Functional Review 1. Toward the end of FY 2009, state budget cuts in the form of furloughs, layoffs and reduced social assistance adversely impacted ridership and operational funding. In addition, given the escalating operating costs for Dial -a-Ride and the reduction of TDA funding in 2009, the system was restructured in favor of a deviated fixed route alignment. Buses are allowed to deviate ¾ mile from the scheduled route with a 30-minute advance reservation or upon request when boarding. 2. A fare increase was implemented at the start of FY 2010, which involved an increase in the base fare from $1.50 to $1.65 per ride for general public. A per trip participant fee was added to the Desert RoadTRIP program in order to cover farebox recovery. 3. The Desert RoadTRIP program averages 10 to 12 monthly participants out of a total of 48 applicants. PVVTA was able to transition many TRIP participants onto the deviated fixed route service. The average farebox for the TRIP has been 12 percent. 4. PVVTA tested and subsequently employed audio and video surveillance on buses and other PVVTA property throughout the transit system. The surveillance systems were funded through Proposition 1B Transit Security grant funds from the California Emergency Executive Summary PMC - iii iii Management Agency (CalEMA), in accordance with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). 5. PVVTA recently purchased a building from the City of Blythe that formerly housed the Parks and Recreation Department. PVVTA plans to move its operations into the building. Parts and equipment such as tires, filters, belts and freon will be stored in the warehouse behind the building. 6. PVVTA has utilized a number of marketing strategies to promote its transit services such as brochures, newspaper and radio advertisements, community events, electronic and social media and mobility management training. 7. The PVVTA Board has been active in its advocacy of transit and staff. A Board member attends RCTC Transit Managers’ meetings in an effort to advocate for the interests of PVVTA. Recommendations Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline #1 Exempt both Fare Revenue and Operating Cost from New Services in the Fiscal Audit. During the audit period, PVVTA underwent a major system realignment that involved the introduction of a deviated fixed route and the elimination of the Dial-a-Ride service. Under TDA, the system is exempt from meeting the farebox recovery standards for two full years after the year the new services were initiated. The exempt status for the new services expires in FY 2012-13. The annual fiscal audits of PVVTA for FYs 2011 and 2012 calculate farebox recovery by excluding only the new service operating costs from the ratio. However, under California Code of Regulations Section 6633.8, both the fare revenues and operating costs should be excluded. The effect of only excluding operating costs is that the farebox ratio would be artificially high. For example, the audited farebox ratio in FY 2012 was determined to be 23.16 percent. PVVTA should ensure that fare revenues from new services are also being separated and excluded from the farebox ratio, both for reporting to the Board, and also to the fiscal auditor. High Priority #2 Develop a Succession Plan for the Finance Manager Position. The PVVTA Finance Manager serves a vital role in the monitoring of the Agency’s financial plan and submittal of its TDA claims. The current Finance Manager formerly served as the City of Blythe’s Finance Director for many years and retired from that position in early 2013. The Finance Manager High Priority Executive Summary PMC - iv iv Performance Audit Recommendation Background Timeline brings years of institutional knowledge about the TDA claims process and dealings with RCTC staff. It is suggested that PVVTA identify and cross train an Assistant Finance Manager capable of assuming the duties of the Finance Manager in the event of any future staffing changes. #3 Include Year-to-Date and Prior Year-to-Date Performance Data in the Quarterly Operations Data Report. The contract operator compiles a quarterly operations data report that is quite comprehensive in scope. The operation data report contains a detailed breakdown of ridership, revenue miles, total miles, revenue hours, total hours, deviations and fare revenue. However, the data report does not feature year-to-date totals or comparisons to the prior year-to-date figures. Although the data are transferred to TransTrack Manager from which reports are generated with year-to-date totals, the addition of such totals in the Quarterly Operations Data Report would provide more comprehensive performance trend data under one cover and be considered a best practice measure. It is suggested that the contract operator include this additional data as it would be a tool toward comprehensive trend analysis, service planning and external reporting to the PVVTA Board and RCTC. Medium Priority Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 1 1 Section I Introduction California’s Transportation Development Act (TDA) requires that a triennial performance audit be conducted of public transit entities that receive TDA revenues. The performance audit serves to ensure accountability in the use of public transportation revenue. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) engaged PMC to conduct the Transportation Development Act (TDA) triennial performance audit of the public transit operators under its jurisdiction in Riverside County. This performance audit is conducted for the Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency (PVVTA) covering the most recent triennial period, fiscal years 2009-10 through 2011-12. The purpose of the performance audit is to evaluate the transit agency’s effectiveness and efficiency in its use of TDA funds to provide public transportation in its service area. This evaluation is required as a condition for continued receipt of these funds for public transportation purposes. In addition, the audit evaluates the transit agency’s compliance with the conditions specified in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC). This task involves ascertaining whether the transit agency is meeting the PUC’s reporting requirements. Moreover, the audit includes calculations of transit service performance indicators and a detailed review of the transit administrative functions. From the analysis that has been undertaken, a set of recommendations has been made which is intended to improve the performance of transit operations. In summary, this TDA audit affords the opportunity for an independent, constructive and objective evaluation of the organization and its operations that otherwise might not be available. The methodology for the audit included in-person interviews with management, collection and review of agency documents, data analysis, and on-site observations. The Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Entities published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was used to guide in the development and conduct of the audit. Overview of the Transit System Under a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the County of Riverside and the City of Blythe executed on January 24, 1978, the PVVTA was created to provide demand response and fixed- route transit service branded as Desert Roadrunner in the City of Blythe, the adjacent unincorporated areas of Riverside County and neighboring Ehrenberg, Arizona. Prior to the creation of PVVTA, there were no transit services in the Palo Verde Valley. PVVTA services are operated under contract by Irvine-based, Transportation Concepts, Inc. The Mission Statement for PVVTA declares its intention: Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 2 2 To provide the residents and visitors of the Palo Verde Valley a public transportation system that maximizes passenger use, comfort, convenience, safety and satisfaction while efficiently using financial resources that benefits our community. Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, Blythe’s population was 20,817 which grew 71.3 percent since the 2000 U.S. Census. The senior citizen population, comprised of residents aged 65 and over , is 8.62 percent. The 2013 population for Blythe is estimated to be 19,606 as reported by the State Department of Finance. The city covers a 26.19 square mile area. Agriculturally-based and a winter “snow bird” destination, Blythe is located on the California - Arizona border along the Colorado River and serves as a commercial center for eastern Riverside County. The area’s population varies seasonally. The area’s largest employer is the California State Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which operates the Chuckawalla Valley and Ironwood State Prison facilities located approximately 20 miles west of Blythe. Growth in the Valley is expected to increase at an average annual rate of 2 percent. PVVTA’s ridership is expected to grow in concert with the population due to implementation and stability of new transit services. Major highway connections serving Blythe and the Palo Verde Valley are Interstate 10 (I-10) State Route (SR)-78 and U.S. Highway 95. I-10 is the main east-west highway connecting Blythe with the Coachella Valley and Inland Empire to the west and Arizona to the east. SR-78 connects Blythe with the community of Ripley and the I mperial Valley to the southwest. U.S. Highway 95 runs northerly along the Colorado River to Needles. Major arterial streets traversing Blythe include Broadway, Hobsonway, Intake Boulevard, Lovekin Boulevard, and 7th Street. System Characteristics PVVTA operated both fixed-route and demand responsive transit services . During the audit period, PVVTA discontinued its general public Dial-a-Ride service and implemented a deviated fixed-route system. The system operates Monday through Friday from 5:20 a.m. to 6:20 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. PVVTA does not operate on New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, President’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, and Christmas Day. Only Silver Route 5 operates the day following Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve. Red Route 3 Express does not operate on any California State or Federal holiday observance. PVVTA’s deviated fixed route services during the audit period are summarized in Table I-1. Table I-1 PVVTA Fixed Route Services Route Description Frequency/Operation Key Time points Blue Route 1 City of Blythe Circulator Every 60 minutes (Monday through Friday from 6:25 a.m. to 5:40 p.m.) K-Mart Transfer Center Mesa Verde High School 7th Street/Rite Aid 14th Avenue/7th Street Palo Verde Hospital Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 3 3 Route Description Frequency/Operation Key Time points Civic Center Gold Route 2 Crosstown Palo Verde College/Ehrenberg Every 60 minutes (Monday through Friday from 6:45 a.m. to 6:40 p.m.) Hobsonway WB/7th Street Palo Verde Hospital Civic Center K-Mart Transfer Center Palo Verde College 7th Street/Rite Aid Hobsonway/Intake US 95 Red Route 3 Express Peak Service to California State Prisions Four outbound AM trips & Four inbound PM trips (Monday through Friday from 5:15 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) Desert Roadrunner Park & Ride Hobsonway/SR-78 Neighbours Hobsonway WB/Mesa Chuckawalla Valley State Prison Ironwood State Prison Green Route 4 Regional Ripley/Mesa Verde Three AM trips & Two PM trips (Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 3:55 p.m.) Ehrenberg AZ/Goodman’s 7th Street/Rite Aid K-Mart Hobsonway/SR-78 Neighbours Ripley - Desert Rose Apts. Mesa Verde – Roy Wilson Community Center Silver Route 5 Saturday Blythe/Ripley/Mesa Verde Three AM trips & Two PM trips (Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 2:45 p.m.) K-Mart Transfer Center 7th Street East/Albertsons Hobsonway/Intake US 95 Ehrenberg AZ/Goodman’s Hobsonway/SR-78 Neighbours Ripley - Desert Rose Apts. Mesa Verde – Roy Wilson Community Center Source: PVVTA Dial-a-Ride PVVTA provided curb-to-curb, demand response service encompassing a 26 mile service area. The service area was bordered by 2nd Avenue to the north; 28th Avenue to the south; the Colorado River to the east; and the California State Prisons to the west. Dial -a-Ride was available Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 4 4 on a priority basis to passengers certified under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Seniors (ages 60 years old and older) & persons with disabilities who use Desert Roadrunner Dial - A-Ride had to be certified by PVVTA. General public passengers traveling to/from or within areas that are beyond 3/4 of a mile of a fixed route (approximately 4 blocks) could utilize Dial-A-Ride without certification on a space available basis. These areas include the California State Prisons, Blythe Airport, Mesa Verde, Ripley and other unincorporated areas. Due to high operating costs and deadhead mileage, PVVTA phased out its Dial -a-Ride service during the audit period and replaced the service with a deviated fixed-route system. Desert RoadTRIP Desert RoadTRIP is short for the Desert Road Transportation Reimbursement and Information Project, which is a partnership between the PVVTA and the Partnership to Preserve Independent Living for Seniors and Persons with Disabilities. Since 1995, the Desert RoadTRIP program has offered this specialized transit service for seniors 60 years of age and disabled persons living in isolated locations in the Palo Verde Valley and eastern Riverside County, who are unable to drive and do not have access to transportation. This service utilizes qualified volunteer drivers, who are reimbursed on a mileage basis. The volunteer drivers are required to have a valid driver’s license, a registered vehicle, and auto liability insurance. Each qualified rider identifies his/her own volunteer driver. The driver could be a family member, family friend, neighbor or some other trusted individual known to the rider. The eligible rider files a reimbursement claim based on the mileage traveled during the month with Desert RoadTRIP and after receiving the claim reimburses the driver. The reimbursement is paid at 32 cents ($0.32) per mile. An individual is allowed up to 460 miles per month, and an eligible family is entitled to 690 miles per month. Fares PVVTA’s fares are structured based on passenger, route and service type. Multi-trip passes are also available for purchase in person or by mail at the PVVTA Operations Office located at 125 West Murphy Street in Blythe. A fare increase became effective July 2010 and certain fare categories and media were eliminated with the implementation a deviated fixed -route system. The fare structures during the audit period are summarized in Table I-2. Table I-2 PVVTA Fare Schedule Fare Category Fare Prior to July 1, 2010 Fare After to July 1, 2010 General Public (Ages 5 to 59 Years Old) $1.50 $1.65 Seniors (Ages 60 and Older) $0.75 $0.80 Persons with Disabilities (ADA or Medicare Card) $0.75 $0.80 Additional Zone Fare to/from Ehrenberg, Arizona N/A $1.65 Children (Under 5 Years of Age) First Boarding with Full Fare Free Free Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 5 5 Fare Category Fare Prior to July 1, 2010 Fare After to July 1, 2010 Adult Children (Under 5 Years of Age) Second & Third Boarding with Full Fare Adult Free $0.80 Red Route 3 Express (All Adult Categories) $3.00 $3.30 Route Deviations (One Way to/from Route) $0.75 $0.80 DV-Punch Pass (8 One Way Deviation Fares) $6.00 $6.40 Dial-a-Ride (All Adult Categories) $3.00 N/A Dial-a-Ride (Children Ages 5 and Under) Free N/A 10-Ride Punch Pass (Routes 1, 2, 3 Local & 4) $15.00 $16.50 20-Ride Punch Pass (Routes 1, 2, 3 Local & 4) $30.00 N/A Senior/Disabled 10-Ride Punch Pass (Routes 1, 2, 3 Local & 4) N/A $8.00 General Public 31-Day Pass (Routes 1, 2, 3 Local & 4) $40.00 $43.00 Seniors 31-Day Pass (Routes 1, 2, 3 Local & 4) $25.00 $28.00 Persons with Disabilities 31-Day Pass (Routes 1, 2, 3 Local & 4) $25.00 $28.00 Summer Youth Pass (Routes 1, 2, & 4) $35.00 N/A 10-Ride Zone Pass (Ehrenberg, Arizona) N/A $33.00 10-Ride Punch Pass (Dial-A-Ride) $30.00 N/A 10-Ride Punch Pass (Red Route 3 Express) $30.00 $33.00 20-Ride Punch Pass (Red Route 3 Express) $60.00 $66.00 General Public 31-Day Pass (Red Route 3 Express) $110.00 $120.00 Source: PVVTA Fleet There were 11 vehicles in the transit fleet during the audit period comprised of 6 active and 5 reserve/support vehicles. Most vehicles in the fleet are wheelchair accessible with tie-downs in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Table I-3 summarizes the PVVTA fleet. Table I-3 PVVTA Fleet Year Make/Model Quantity Fuel Type Seating Capacity 2001 Ford E350 1 Gasoline 15 (1 W/C) 2002 International 1 Diesel 22 (2 W/C) 2003 Freightliner Trolley 1 Diesel 28 (2 W/C) 2004 Chevy Venture Van 1 Gasoline 5 (1 W/C) 2006 International 1 Gasoline 16 (1 W/C) 2009 Ford 1 Gasoline 5 2009 GMC Glaval 2 CNG 26 (2 W/C) 2010 Ford 1 Gasoline 18 (1 W/C) 2011 Ford 1 Gasoline 18 (1 W/C) 2012 Ford 1 CNG 18 (1 W/C) Total 11 Source: TransTrack, PVVTA Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 6 6 Section II Operator Compliance Requirements This section of the audit report contains the analysis of PVVTA’s ability to comply with state requirements for continued receipt of TDA funds. The evaluation uses the guidebook, Performance Audit Guidebook for Transit Operators and Regional Transportation Planning Agencies, September 2008 (third edition), which was developed by the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to assess transit operators. The guidebook contains a checklist of eleven measures taken from relevant sections of the Public Utilities C ode and the California Code of Regulations. Each of these requirements is discussed in the table below, including a description of the system’s efforts to comply with the requirements. In addition, the findings from the compliance review are described in the text following the table. Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The transit operator submitted annual reports to the RTPA based upon the Uniform System of Accounts and Records established by the State Controller. Report is due 90 days after end of fiscal year (Sept. 28/29), or 110 days (Oct. 19/20) if filed electronically (Internet). Public Utilities Code, Section 99243 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: October 14, 2010 FY 2011: October 13, 2011 FY 2012: October 16, 2012 Reports were filed electronically Conclusion: Complied. The operator has submitted annual fiscal and compliance audits to the RTPA and to the State Controller within 180 days following the end of the fiscal year (Dec. 27), or has received the appropriate 90- day extension by the RTPA allowed by law. Public Utilities Code, Section 99245 Completion/submittal dates: FY 2010: March 29, 2011 FY 2011: March 30, 2012 FY 2012: April 12, 2013 The Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audit for FY 2012 was submitted slightly after the 90-day extension allowed by law. Conclusion: Partial compliance. The CHP has, within the 13 Public Utilities Code, Section The PVVTA, through its contract Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 7 7 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts months prior to each TDA claim submitted by an operator, certified the operator’s compliance with Vehicle Code Section 1808.1 following a CHP inspection of the operator’s terminal. 99251 B operator, participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program in which the CHP has conducted inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. Inspections were conducted at the City of Blythe Corporation Yard. Inspection dates applicable to the audit period were: September 1, 2009; September 14, 2010; September 8, 2011 and September 14, 2012. Inspections were rated satisfactory. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s claim for TDA funds is submitted in compliance with rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA for such claims. Public Utilities Code, Section 99261 As a condition of approval, the PVVTA’s annual claims for Local Transportation Funds and State Transit Assistance are submitted in compliance with the rules and regulations adopted by RCTC. Conclusion: Complied. If an operator serves urbanized and non-urbanized areas, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to the ratio determined by the rules and regulations adopted by the RTPA. Public Utilities Code, Section 99270.1 This requirement is not applicable, as PVVTA serves a non-urbanized area. Conclusion: Not Applicable. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 8 8 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts The operator’s operating budget has not increased by more than 15% over the preceding year, nor is there a substantial increase or decrease in the scope of operations or capital budget provisions for major new fixed facilities unless the operator has reasonably supported and substantiated the change(s). Public Utilities Code, Section 99266 Percentage increase in PVVTA’s transit operating budget: FY 2010: -0.7% FY 2011: -10.3% FY 2012: +15.8% The increase in the FY 2012 budget was attributed to the introduction of new flex route services. Source: PVVTA Budgets for FYs 2009-2012. Conclusion: Complied. The operator’s definitions of performance measures are consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247, including (a) operating cost, (b) operating cost per passenger, (c) operating cost per vehicle service hour, (d) passengers per vehicle service hour, (e) passengers per vehicle service mile, (f) total passengers, (g) transit vehicle, (h) vehicle service hours, (i) vehicle service miles, and (j) vehicle service hours per employee. Public Utilities Code, Section 99247 The PVVTA’s definition of performance is consistent with Public Utilities Code Section 99247. A review of trip sheets updated during the audit period indicates that correct performance data are being collected. Conclusion: Complied. If the operator serves an urbanized area, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-fifth (20 percent), unless it is in a Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.3, 99268.12, 99270.1 This requirement is not applicable, as PVVTA serves a non-urbanized area. Conclusion: Not Applicable. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 9 9 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts county with a population of less than 500,000, in which case it must maintain a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs of at least equal to three-twentieths (15 percent), if so determined by the RTPA. If the operator serves a rural area, or provides exclusive services to elderly and disabled persons, it has maintained a ratio of fare revenues to operating costs at least equal to one-tenth (10 percent). Public Utilities Code, Sections 99268.2, 99268.4, 99268.5 Operating ratios for PVVTA using audited data were as follows: FY 2010: 13.05% FY 2011: 11.30% FY 2012: 11.78% Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits Conclusion: Complied. The current cost of the operator’s retirement system is fully funded with respect to the officers and employees of its public transportation system, or the operator is implementing a plan approved by the RTPA which will fully fund the retirement system within 40 years. Public Utilities Code, Section 99271 To be eligible for TDA funds, the annual TDA claims form requires a sign-off from the transit claimant to comply with standard assurances, one of which is that PVVTA’s retirement system is funded. The PVVTA contracts with a private provider for operations, but since a portion of PVVTA’s functions are administered by the City of Blythe; City staff’s retirement is funded through the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS). Conclusion: Complied. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 10 10 Table II-1 Operator Compliance Requirements Matrix Operator Compliance Requirements Reference Compliance Efforts If the operator receives state transit assistance funds, the operator makes full use of funds available to it under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 before TDA claims are granted. California Code of Regulations, Section 6754(a)(3) Although a recipient of State Transit Assistance Funds, PVVTA does not utilize federal funds available under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 as amended (other than those funds that are passed through RCTC). Conclusion: Not Applicable Findings and Observations from Operator Complian ce Requirements Matrix 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to PVVTA, the operator fully complied with seven out of the eight applicable requirements. The Agency was in partial compliance with the timely submittal of its annual fiscal and compliance audits. Three additional compliance requirements did not apply to PVVTA (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio under PUC 99270.1, exclusive urbanized farebox recovery ratio, and the utilization of federal funds). 2. PVVTA met its farebox recovery standard of 10 percent during the audit period, with several new flex routes being exempt for two full fiscal years after the year of implementation. The farebox recovery ratio was 13.05 percent in FY 2010, 11.30 percent in FY 2011; and 11.78 percent in FY 2012. The average systemwide farebox recovery ratio was 12.04 percent during the period. In FYs 2011 and 2012, the fiscal audit accounted for new service exemptions by deducting the operating costs from the farebox ratio, but not the fare revenue as required by TDA. It is recommended that PVVTA work with the fiscal auditor to identify and deduct both fares and operating costs from new services. 3. The PVVTA participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program and received vehicle inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. Inspections conducted during the audit period were rated satisfactory. 4. The operating budget exhibited notable changes during the audit period. PVVTA saw a 15.8 percent increase in its operating budget for FY 2012. The FY 2012 increase was attributed to the implementation of several deviated fixed-routes (“flex routes”). During FYs 2010 and 2011, the budget decreased 0.7 and 10.3 percent respectively. The FY 2011 decrease was attributed to the elimination of the demand response service in anticipation of the flex route. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 11 11 Section III Prior Triennial Performance Recommendations The prior triennial performance audit did not provide recommendations. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 12 12 Section IV TDA Performance Indicators This section reviews PVVTA’s performance in providing transit service to the community in an efficient and effective manner. TDA requires that at least five specific performance indicators be reported, which are contained in the following tables. Farebox recovery ratio is not one of the five specific indicators but is a requirement for continued TDA funding. Therefore, farebox calculation is also included. Two additional performance indicators, operating cost per mile and average fare per passenger, are included as well. Findings from the analysis are contained in the section following the tables. Tables IV-1 through IV-3 provide the performance indicators for PVVTA systemwide, fixed route and dial-a-ride. Charts are also provided to depict the trends in the indicators. It is noted that the systemwide operating costs and fare revenues are based on audited figures, while fixed route and dial-a-ride costs and fare revenues are unaudited. The annual fiscal audits do not provide a modal breakdown. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 13 13 Table IV-1 PVVTA TDA Performance Indicators Systemwide Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009-2012 Operating Cost $823,737 $847,683 $723,718 $845,748 2.7% Total Passengers 54,806 39,157 37,117 41,945 -23.5% Vehicle Service Hours 11,479 9,829 8,551 8,926 -22.2% Vehicle Service Miles 194,269 173,465 154,348 179,971 -7.4% Employee FTE's 10 10 10 12 20.0% Passenger Fares $87,547 $63,036 $66,029 $83,253 -4.9% Auxiliary Revenue (Advertising, Interest, etc.) $33,494 $47,559 $15,769 $16,361 -51.2% Total Revenue $121,041 $110,595 $81,798 $99,614 -17.7% Operating Cost per Passenger $15.03 $21.65 $19.50 $20.16 34.2% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $71.76 $86.24 $84.64 $94.75 32.0% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $4.24 $4.89 $4.69 $4.70 10.8% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 4.8 4.0 4.3 4.7 -1.6% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.28 0.23 0.24 0.23 -17.4% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 1,147.9 982.9 855.1 743.8 -35.2% Average Fare per Passenger $1.60 $1.61 $1.78 $1.98 24.3% Fare Recovery Ratio 10.63% 7.44% 9.12% 9.84% -7.4% Fare Recovery Ratio w/Auxiliary Revenue 14.69% 13.05% 11.30% 11.78% -19.8% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Operating costs exclude depreciation, mobility services, and extension of services, permissible by TDA. Source: Annual Fiscal & Compliance Audits, RCTC TransTrack Manager, State Controller's Reports Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 14 14 Table IV-2 PVVTA TDA Performance Indicators Fixed Route Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % Change FY 2009-2012 Operating Cost $709,321 $795,485 $723,718 $811,170 14.4% Total Passengers 52,222 38,443 37,117 41,945 -19.7% Vehicle Service Hours 10,218 9,432 8,551 8,926 -12.6% Vehicle Service Miles 179,930 168,967 154,348 179,971 0.0% Employee FTE's 8 8 10 12 50.0% Passenger Fares $78,754 $104,192 $81,798 $98,913 25.6% Operating Cost per Passenger $13.58 $20.69 $19.50 $19.34 42.4% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $69.42 $84.34 $84.64 $90.88 30.9% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $3.94 $4.71 $4.69 $4.51 14.3% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 5.1 4.1 4.3 4.7 -8.1% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.29 0.23 0.24 0.23 -19.7% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 1,277.3 1,179.0 855.1 743.8 -41.8% Average Fare per Passenger $1.51 $2.71 $2.20 $2.36 56.4% Fare Recovery Ratio 11.10% 13.10% 11.30% 12.19% 9.8% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: RCTC TransTrack Manager, State Controller's Reports Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 15 15 Table IV-3 PVVTA TDA Performance Indicators Dial-a-Ride Audit Period Performance Data and Indicators FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 (1) FY 2012 (2) % Change FY 2009-2012 Operating Cost $114,417 $52,199 n/a $9,348 -91.8% Total Passengers 2,584 714 n/a n/a -72.4% Vehicle Service Hours 1,261 397 n/a n/a -68.5% Vehicle Service Miles 14,339 4,498 n/a n/a -68.6% Employee FTE's 2 2 n/a n/a 0.0% Passenger Fares $6,920 $6,399 n/a $700 -89.9% Operating Cost per Passenger $44.28 $73.11 n/a n/a 65.1% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Hour $90.74 $131.48 n/a n/a 44.9% Operating Cost per Vehicle Service Mile $7.98 $11.60 n/a n/a 45.4% Passengers per Vehicle Service Hour 2.0 1.8 n/a n/a -12.2% Passengers per Vehicle Service Mile 0.18 0.16 n/a n/a -11.9% Vehicle Service Hours per Employee 630.5 198.5 n/a n/a -68.5% Average Fare per Passenger $2.68 $8.96 n/a n/a 234.7% Fare Recovery Ratio 6.05% 12.26% n/a 7.49% 23.8% Consumer Price Index - (CPI-Los Angeles CSMA) 0.9% 2.9% 1.6% 5.4% Source: RCTC TransTrack Manager, State Controller's Reports Notes: (1) Dial-a-Ride service was discontinued toward the end of FY 2010 (2) 2012 Data represent the Desert RoadTRIP Program Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 16 16 Graph IV-1 Operating Costs Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-2 Ridership Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Systemwide $847,683 $723,718 $845,748 Fixed Route $795,485 $723,718 $811,170 Dial-a-Ride $52,199 $- $9,348 $- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Systemwide 39,157 37,117 41,945 Fixed Route 38,443 37,117 41,945 Dial-a-Ride 714 - - - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 17 17 Graph IV-3 Operating Cost Per Passenger Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-4 Operating Cost Per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Systemwide $21.65 $19.50 $20.16 Fixed Route $20.69 $19.50 $19.34 Dial-a-Ride $73.11 $- $- $- $10.00 $20.00 $30.00 $40.00 $50.00 $60.00 $70.00 $80.00 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Systemwide $86.24 $84.64 $94.75 Fixed Route $84.34 $84.64 $90.88 Dial-a-Ride $131.48 $- $- $- $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00 $140.00 Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 18 18 Graph IV-5 Passengers Per Vehicle Service Hour Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride Graph IV-6 Fare Recovery Ratio Systemwide, Fixed Route & Dial-a-Ride FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Systemwide 4.0 4.3 4.7 Fixed Route 4.1 4.3 4.7 Dial-a-Ride 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 Systemwide 13.05% 11.30% 11.78% Fixed Route 13.10% 11.30% 12.19% Dial-a-Ride 12.26% 0.00% 7.49% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 19 19 Findings from Verification of TDA Performance Indicators 1. Operating costs systemwide increased 2.7 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. The system saw the implementation of new and restructured routes as well as the discontinuation of Dial-a-Ride toward the end of FY 2010. By mode (using unaudited data), fixed route services saw its operating costs increase by 14.4 percent during the period. In contrast, Dial-a-Ride operating costs decreased 91.8 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012. Dial-a-Ride costs reported for FY 2012 reflect the Desert RoadTRIP program. 2. Ridership decreased 23.5 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership increased 19.7 percent, while Dial-a-Ride ridership decreased 72.4 percent due to the transition of riders to the new deviated fixed route. Systemwide ridership between FYs 2009 and 2010 decreased by 28.6 percent due primarily to the economic downturn and state budget cuts resulting in furloughs, layoffs and reduced social services . Systemwide ridership fell from 54,806 in FY 2009 to a low of 37,117 in FY 2011 before rebounding to 41,945 in FY 2012. The rebound in ridership is attributed to the increased demand for service on the Red Route to the California State Prisons . 3. The provision of revenue hours and miles varied according to mode yet decreased systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route revenue hours increased 12.6 percent, whereas vehicle service miles saw negligible change after fluctuating during the intervening years. DAR revenue hours and miles decreased 68.5 and 68.6 percent, respectively between FY 2009 and FY 2010. Given the system realignment, systemwide vehicle service hours decreased 22.2 percent and vehicle service miles decreased 7.2 percent. 4. Operating cost per passenger increased 34.2 percent systemwide based on audited data. Concurrent with the systemwide indicator, cost per passenger increased 42.4 percent on fixed route during the audit period, as well as increased 65.1 percent on Dial-a-Ride between FY 2009 and FY 2010. The indicator is a measure of cost effectiveness. 5. Operating cost per hour, which is a measure of cost efficiency, increased 32 percent systemwide based on audited data. This indicator increased by a comparable 30.9 percent on the fixed route whereas Dial-a-Ride saw its cost per hour increase 44.9 percent between FY 2009 and FY 2010. 6. Passengers per vehicle service hour systemwide exhibited a modest decrease of 1.6 percent. In contrast, fixed route experienced a decrease of 8.1 percent over the audit period. Passengers per hour on Dial -a-Ride decreased 12.2 percent prior to the service being discontinued. Systemwide, the number of passengers per service hour remained fairly stable during the period decreasing from 4.8 passengers in FY 2009 to 4.0 passengers in FY 2010 and rebounding to 4.7 passengers in FY 2012. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 20 20 7. The systemwide fare recovery ratio decreased 19.8 percent from 14.69 percent in FY 2009 to 11.78 percent in FY 2012 based on audited data. PVVTA’s farebox recovery is inclusive of advertising revenues, interest and local support. Farebox recovery exhibited a dip during the intervening years of 2010 and 2011 of 13.05 and 11.30 percent, respectively. With the service exemptions factored in, the FY 2012 farebox recovery was reported as 23.16 percent according to the annual fiscal and compliance audit. However, only operating costs were deducted and not fare revenue as required by TDA. Farebox for fixed route increased 9.8 percent, while Dial-a-Ride saw an increase of 23.8 percent, inclusive of the Desert RoadTRIP program. Total systemwide revenues decreased 17.7 percent while passenger revenues excluding auxiliary support exhibited a 4.9 percent decrease. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 21 21 Section V Review of Operator Functions This section provides an in-depth review of various functions within the PVVTA Transit System. The review highlights accomplishments, issues and/or challenges that were determined during the audit period. The following functions were reviewed with the PVVTA contract operator: Operations Maintenance Planning Marketing General Administration and Management Within some departments are sub-functions that require review as well, such as Grants Administration that falls under General Administration. Operations As the only public transit operator in eastern Riverside County, PVVTA took steps to improve the efficiency of its services while being responsive to service needs. PVVTA confronted the challenges of the economic recession with system restructuring and modest fare increases. The current approach of the Agency has been to have transit grow in concert with the city’s growth. PVVTA continued to place emphasis on tailor fitting the fixed-route service to serve trip generators, such as employment centers, medical offices, Palo Verde College (PVC), and shopping centers. PVVTA offered fixed-route, Dial-a-Ride and the Desert RoadTRIP program during the earlier years of the triennial audit period. Toward the end of FY 2009, state budget cuts in the form of furloughs, layoffs and reduced social assistance, adversely impacted ridership and operational funding. In addition, given the escalating operating costs for Dial-a-Ride and the reduction of TDA funding in 2009, the system was restructured in favor of a deviated fixed route alignment. Buses are allowed to deviate ¾ mile f rom the scheduled route with a 30-minute advance reservation or upon request when boarding. Routes are structured in a “hub and spoke” configuration with connectivity at the K-Mart located at 1455 West Hobsonway. The Green Route is a regional service providing service to Ripley and Mesa Verde , which were previously served by Dial-a-Ride. The Silver Route, an amalgamation of the Blue, Gold and Green Routes, was created to provide coverage on Saturday and in -service holidays. An additional trip was added to the Red Route to meet demand. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 22 22 With the ever growing need to serv e seniors and persons with disabilities through the same universal deviated fixed route system, a minor routing change was made on the Blue Route 1. By realigning the route to the Baldwin Senior Apartments, a large majority of the Agency’s most transit dependant riders would be served as well provide a greater degree of mobility. Trips that were previously made by deviation are now made as part of the regular set schedule. The Gold Route 2 serving PVC was consolidated by removing routing in the west and shortening headways to PVC. Focusing on meeting the specific needs of PVC has allowed for increased student trips as well as opening the possibility of a partnership with PVC to fund transit through student fees. The Green Route 4, which had been developed during the initial three-year farebox grace period, was expanded to cover that western portion of Gold Route 2 that was discontinued. The Green Route was realigned to service all of the unincorporated areas including the communities of Mesa Verde and Ripley as well as provide timed transfers to PVC and the local Blythe routes. A fare increase was implemented at the start of the FY 2010, which involved an increase in the base fare from $1.50 to $1.65 per ride. A per trip participant fee was added to the Desert RoadTRIP program in order to cover farebox recovery. The Desert RoadTRIP program averages 10 to 12 monthly participants out of a total of 48 applicants. The PVVTA was able to transition many TRIP participants onto the deviated fixed route service. The average fareb ox for the TRIP has been 12 percent. Transportation Concepts has served as the PVVTA contract operator since 2003. The contract operator prepares an operation data report for review by PVVTA on a quarterly basis. The operation data report contains a detailed breakdown of ridership, revenue miles, total miles, revenue hours, total hours, deviations and fare revenue. The data are categorized by route and month. In reviewing the quarterly data reports, the auditor observed that the data report does not feature year-to-date totals or comparisons to the prior year’s data. It is suggested that the contract operator include this additional data as it would be useful toward service planning and analysis. Driver training is based on the Transportation Safety Institute (TSI) model and consists of 40 hours classroom and 80 hours behind-the-wheel training. Mobility and customer service training are provided through the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA). Drivers are required to have a Class B license with passenger endorsement. Drivers are evaluated every 90 days which involves unobserved road checks, scheduled ride -alongs and reviews of bus surveillance videos. Dispatching functions are handled on a manual basis with no particular software utilized other than an Excel spreadsheet. PVVTA utilized Schedule Pro when Dial-a-Ride was still in operation. On-time performance is monitored by having drivers call in when g oing in service, out of service, for breaks and route deviations. Field supervisors also perform periodic check s to assure schedule adherence. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 23 23 In October 2009, the PVVTA tested and subsequently employed audio and video surveillance on buses and other PVVTA property throughout the transit system. Radio Engineering Industries (REI) provided the PVVTA with a 4 camera demo system to work out all the difficulties in developing a new surveillance program. A Global positioning system (GPS) and motion sensors are provided to emit an alert to the supervisor should an incident occur. Drivers also have access to a panic button in case of an emergency. The surveillance systems were funded through Proposition 1B Transit Security grant funds from the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), in accordance with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). The PVVTA also upgraded its communication system from a digital-based Nextel system to an UHF radio system. The UHF sys tem meets all narrow-banded requirements and is compatible with the frequencies used by local first responders. Fareboxes installed on the vehicles are Diamond F1 rectangular fareboxes, which are standard manual fareboxes. Electronic GFI fareboxes were not found to be cost-effective. Fares deposited into the farebox are not accessible until the end of the run. Fareboxes are pulled by the field supervisor and are counted in a secured room monitored by cameras. The cash reconciliation form contains a line item for any overages and shortages. Once counted, fare proceeds are placed into a secured locked money pouch and taken to Blythe City Hall where they undergo a second reconciliation process. The City Treasurer combines the funds, which are then deposited at the bank. Personnel PVVTA personnel are comprised of administrative and operations staff employed by Transportation Concepts. Administrative staff is comprised of a General Manager, Administrative Supervisor/Mobility Manager, 2 Field Supervisors, and a Finance Director. Operationally, there are 8 drivers (2 full-time, 6 part-time) and 3 dispatchers (1 full-time, 2 part-time). Full-time drivers work more than 36 hours weekly and part-time drivers generally work between 20 to 30 hours weekly. PVVTA reported no major turnover in personnel during the audit period other than a supervisor and a few part-time drivers who left the Agency to pursue other opportunities . All personnel are non-union. Maintenance Vehicle maintenance is performed on a 3,000 mile or 45 day inspection schedule in accordance with the State’s General Public Paratransit Vehicle (GPPV) regulations. Additional preventive maintenance is conducted every 15,000 miles and annually at 36,000 miles. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) is responsible for certifying PVVTA’s maintenance facilities and for inspecting vehicles on an annual basis. PVVTA vehicles have received satisfactory terminal inspections from the CHP. The last CHP inspection was conducted in September 2012. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 24 24 Maintenance is contracted with the City of Blythe and conducted at the City’s Central Garage located at 440 South Main Street. The facility features two service bays including one for larger vehicles. There is also one lift and a portable lift. Preventive maintenance is tracked using Dossier maintenance software and by using service due stickers which are placed in each vehicle. Drivers are allotted 15 minutes to conduct pre-trip inspections. The pre-trip inspection form is in triplicate and includes post-trip details. The top white sheet stays with the vehicle during its operation, the pink copy stays in dispatch, and the yellow copy remains on the vehicle as a record. PVVTA reported no major maintenance issues other than air conditioning systems that shut down periodically during extreme summer temperatures. Given Blythe’s remote location, v ehicle parts are generally ordered in bulk in order to have an ample supply on hand. The shop foreman at the central garage performs periodic cycle counts. PVVTA recently purchased a building from the City of Blythe that formerly housed the Parks and Recreation Department. PVVTA plans to move its operations into the building. Parts and equipment such as tires, filters, belts and freon will be stored in the warehouse behind the building. Vehicle fueling is conducted at a facility owned by HayDay Farms located along Seeley Avenue near Lovekin Boulevard south of town. The facility converts liquefied natural gas (LNG) into CNG. PVVTA has secured grant funding toward the construction of its own CNG station. Planning PVVTA prepares a Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP ) on an annual basis. The SRTP covers a three- year planning horizon and includes a system overview, performance analysis for each route and service, service changes, and financial and capital plans. Under the services and performance chapter, a series of recommendations for service improvements is presented for each route or program. Performance data from TransTrack Manager is also included in the SRTP to provide an annual comparison. PVVTA must meet at least 4 out of 7 discretionary performance indicators as part of RCTC’s Productivity Improvement Program (PIP). There is one mandatory indicator which is the farebox recovery ratio set at 10 percent. Table V-1 PVVTA Performance Targets Performance Indicators FY 2009-10 Target FY 2010-11 Target FY 2011-12 Target Farebox Recovery >=10.00% >=10.00% >=10.00% Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour <=$73.44 <=$79.64 <=$82.53 Subsidy Per Passenger >=$10.97 & <=$14.84 >=$14.81 & <=$20.03 >=$14.67 & <=$19.85 Subsidy Per Passenger Mile >=$1.78 & <=$2.40 >=$1.67 & <=$2.25 >=$1.62 & <=$2.19 Subsidy Per Hour >=$53.40 & <=$72.24 >=$61.40 & <=$83.08 >=$62.96 & <=$85.18 Subsidy Per Mile >=$3.17 & <=$4.29 >=$3.50 & <=$4.74 >=$3.50 & <=$4.74 Passengers Per Revenue Hour >=4.17 & <=5.64 >=3.49 & <=4.72 >=3.66 & <=4.95 Passengers Per Revenue Mile >=0.24 & <=0.33 >=0.20 & <=0.28 >=0.20 & <=0.28 Source: PVVTA, TransTrack Manager Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 25 25 According to the FY 2009-10 SRTP, PVVTA met 3 out of 7 performance indicator targets. For the FY 2010-11 SRTP, PVVTA met 6 out of 7 performance indicator targets and for the FY 2011 -12 SRTP, PVVTA met 5 out of 7 performance indicator targets. Marketing PVVTA has utilized a number of marketing strategies to promote its transit services such as brochures, newspaper and radio advertisements, community events , electronic and social media and mobility management training. The PVVTA Riders Guide serves as the Agency’s principal informational brochure that contains a route map, schedules, fares and general information about service hours and rider etiquette. The Riders Guide went through several updates during the audit period to reflect the fare increase in July 2010 as well as the introduction of new routes. PVVTA’s website (http://pvvta.com/) provides much of the same information as the Riders Guide, but also includes a trip planning tool, service updates and links to social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The trip planner interactive tool is powered by Google Transit. Standard multi-ride passes are available for purchase at the PVVTA Operations Office located at 125 West Murphy Street in Blythe. Radio spots are broadcast over local stations such as KJMB 100.3 FM and Spanish language Radio Bilingüe KERU 88.5 FM. Another effective outreach tool has been the Mobility Management Program, which is the direct result of needs identified in the RCTC Public Transit Human Services Transportation Plan funded through FTA Section 5316 and 5317 grants . This program offers training to riders interested in using the transit system, particularly those riders seeking to transition to the deviated fi xed route service. Travel training sessions have been held at local primary and middle schools. PVVTA has also provided safe-ride shuttles during homecoming and New Year’s Eve events, which have reduced the number of driving under the influence (DUI) arrests. General Administration and Management The Board of Directors is comprised of five members made up of two members of the Blythe City Council, one public member appointed by the City of Blythe, one member from the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors from District 4, and one public member appointed by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors. The Secretary to the Board is the City Clerk of the City of Blythe. Regular meetings of the PVVTA Board of Directors are held the first Wednesday of the month at 12:00 noon at the Blythe City Hall Council Chambers located at 235 North Broadway in Blythe. The PVVTA Board has been supportive in its advocacy of transit and staff. A Board member attends RCTC Transit Managers’ meetings in an effort to advocate for the interests of PVVTA. PVVTA’s contract operator, Transportation Concepts, is headquartered in Irvine, California. Transportation Concepts’ local facility is located at 125 West Murphy Street in Blythe. The contract operator has an on-site General Manager, who oversees the day-to-day transit Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 26 26 functions. The former Finance Director for the City of Blythe currently serves in an interim role as the PVVTA Finance Manager. The Finance Manager’s role is shaped by the needs and requirements of the Agency and serves a vital role in the monitoring of the Agency’s financial plan and submittal of its TDA claims . In the event of any future staffing changes, it is recommended that PVVTA develop a succession plan to cross train another capable employee for the responsibilities and role currently undertaken by the Finance Manager. Grants Management Grant funding allocated toward the transit system has been derived from local, state and federal sources. The primary source of transit funding support is derived from the Local Transportation Fund (LTF). PVVTA submits the annual TDA claim for funds to RCTC. TDA claims are based on the PVVTA annual budget and the financial element of the SRTP. Reserve allocati ons for LTF and State Transit Assistance (STA) funds are included as separate line items on the claim form. STA funds are utilized toward vehicle replacement, bulk supplies, and bus stop amenities. PVVTA received state Proposition 1B (PTMISEA) funds for vehicle purchases and CalEMA funds for surveillance camera systems. FTA Sections 5316 and 5317 grants awarded to the Agency have been used to develop the Mobility Management Program. The Finance Manager tracks the financial element of the SRTP and provides quarterly reporting to RCTC through the capital tracking report. The Administrative Supervisor/Mobility Manager oversees project management and the General Manager oversees vehicle procurement. Bus procurement encompasses bulk maintenance supplies, support vehicles, bus shelters and radio equipment. PVVTA’s purchasing guidelines involve a bidding process and signing off on purchase orders once the procurement is complete. Purchase orders are logged in and tracked during the budget process. A separate tracking spreadsheet is maintained for each project or purchase along with its specific funding source. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 27 27 Section VI Findings The following summarizes the major findings obtained from this Triennial Audit covering fiscal years 2010 through 2012. A set of recommendations is then provided. Triennial Audit Findings 1. Of the compliance requirements pertaining to PVVTA, the operator fully complied with seven out of the eight applicable requirements. The Agency was in partial compliance with the timely submittal of its annual fiscal and compliance audits. Three additional compliance requirements did not apply to PVVTA (e.g., intermediate farebox recovery ratio under PUC 99270.1, exclusive urbanized farebox recovery ratio, and the utilization of federal funds). 2. PVVTA met its farebox recovery standard of 10 percent during the audit period. The farebox recovery ratio was 13.05 percent in FY 2010, 11.30 percent in FY 2011; and 11.78 percent in FY 2012. The fiscal audit shows a higher farebox in FY 2012 due to exemption for new services; however only operating expenses were deducted and not fare revenue as required by TDA. 3. The PVVTA participates in the CHP Transit Operator Compliance Program and received vehicle inspections within the 13 months prior to each TDA claim. Inspections conducted during the audit period were rated satisfactory. 4. The operating budget exhibited notable changes during the audit period. PVVTA saw a 15.8 percent increase in its operating budget for FY 2012. The FY 2012 increase was attributed to the implementation of several deviated fixed-routes (“flex routes”). During FYs 2010 and 2011, the budget decreased 0.7 and 10.3 percent respectively. The FY 2011 decrease was attributed to the elimination of the demand response service in anticipation of the flex route. 5. The prior triennial performance audit did not provide recommendations. 6. Operating costs systemwide increased 2.7 percent over the review period from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012 using audited data. The system saw the implementation of new and restructured routes as well as the discontinuation of Dial -a-Ride toward the end of FY 2010. By mode (using unaudited data), fixed route services saw its operating costs increase by 14.4 percent during the period. In contrast, Dial-a-Ride operating costs decreased 91.8 percent from the FY 2009 base year through FY 2012. Dial-a-Ride costs reported for FY 2012 reflect the Desert RoadTRIP program. 7. Ridership decreased 23.5 percent systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route ridership increased 19.7 percent, while Dial-a-Ride ridership decreased 72.4 percent due to the transition of riders to the new deviated fixed route. Systemwide ridership between FYs 2009 Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 28 28 and 2010 decreased by 28.6 percent due primarily to the economic downturn and state budget cuts resulting in furloughs, layoffs and reduced social services . Systemwide ridership fell from 54,806 in FY 2009 to a low of 37,117 in FY 2011 before rebounding to 41,945 in FY 2012. The rebound in ridership is attributed to the increased demand for service on the Red Route to the California State Prisons. 8. The provision of revenue hours and miles varied according to mode y et decreased systemwide during the audit period. Fixed route revenue hours increased 12.6 percent, whereas vehicle service miles saw negligible change after fluctuating during the intervening years. DAR revenue hours and miles decreased 68.5 and 68.6 percent, respectively, between FY 2009 and FY 2010 until the service was discontinued. Given the system realignment, systemwide vehicle service hours decreased 22.2 percent and vehicle service miles decreased 7.4 percent. 9. The systemwide fare recovery ratio decreased 19.8 percent from 14.69 percent in FY 2009 to 11.78 percent in FY 2012 based on audited data. PVVTA’s farebox recovery is inclusive of advertising revenues, interest and local support. Farebox recovery exhibited a dip during the intervening years of 2010 and 2011 of 13.05 and 11.30 percent, respectively. 10. Toward the end of FY 2009, state budget cuts in the form of furloughs, layoffs and reduced social assistance adversely impacted ridership and operational funding. In addition, given the escalating operating costs for Dial-a-Ride and the reduction of TDA funding in 2009, the system was restructured in favor of a deviated fixed route alignment. Buses are allowed to deviate ¾ mile from the scheduled route with a 30-minute advance reservation or upon request when boarding. 11. A fare increase was implemented at the start of FY 2010, which involved an increase in the base fare from $1.50 to $1.65 per ride for the general public. A per trip participant fee was added to the Desert RoadTRIP program in order to cover farebox recovery. 12. The Desert RoadTRIP program averages 10 to 12 monthly participants out of a total of 48 applicants. PVVTA was able to transition many TRIP participants onto the deviated fixed route service. The average farebox for the TRIP has been 12 percent. 13. PVVTA tested and subsequently employed audio and video surveillance on buses and other PVVTA property throughout the transit system. The surveillance systems were funded through Proposition 1B Transit Security grant funds from the California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA), in accordance with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA). 14. PVVTA recently purchased a building from the City of Blythe that formerly housed the Parks and Recreation Department. PVVTA plans to move its operations into the building. Parts and equipment such as tires, filters, belts and Freon will be stored in the warehouse behind the building. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 29 29 15. PVVTA has utilized a number of marketing strategies to promote its transit services such as brochures, newspaper and radio advertisements, community events, electronic and social media and mobility management training. 16. The PVVTA Board has been supportive in its advocacy of transit and staff. A Board member attends RCTC Transit Managers’ meetings in an effort to advocate for the interests of PVVTA. Triennial Performance Audit of Palo Verde Valley Transit Agency – FY’s 2010-2012 PMC - 30 30 Recommendations 1. Exempt both Fare Revenue and Operating Cost from New Services in the Fiscal Audit. During the audit period, PVVTA underwent a major system realignment that involved the introduction of a deviated fixed route and the elimination of the Dial-a-Ride service. Under TDA, the system is exempt from meeting the farebox recovery standards for two full years after the year the new services were initiated. The exempt status for the new services expires in FY 2012-13. The annual fiscal audits of PVVTA for FYs 2011 and 2012 calculate farebox recovery by excluding only the new service operating costs from the ratio. However, under California Code of Regulations Section 6633.8, both the fare revenues and operating costs should be excluded. The effect of only excluding operating costs is that the farebox ratio would be artificially high. For example, the audited farebox ratio in FY 2012 was determined to be 23.16 percent. PVVTA should ensure that fare revenues from new services are also being separated and excluded from the farebox ratio, both for reporting to the Board, and also to the fiscal auditor. 2. Develop a Succession Plan for the Finance Manager Position. The PVVTA Finance Manager serves a vital role in the monitoring of the Agency’s financial plan and submittal of its TDA claims. The current Finance Manager formerly served as the City of Blythe’s Finance Director for many years and retired from that positi on in early 2013. The Finance Manager brings years of institutional knowledge about the TDA claims process and dealings with RCTC staff. It is suggested that PVVTA identify and cross train an Assistant Finance Manager capable of assuming the duties of the Finance Manager in the event of any future staffing changes. 3. Include Year-to-Date and Prior Year-to-Date Performance Data in the Quarterly Operations Data Report. The contract operator compiles a quarterly operations data report that is quite comprehensive in scope. The operation data report contains a detailed breakdown of ridership, revenue miles, total miles, revenue hours, total hours, deviations and fare revenue. However, the data report does not feature year-to-date totals or comparisons to the prior year-to-date figures. Although the monthly data are transferred to TransTrack Manager from which reports are generated with year-to-date totals, the addition of such totals in the Quarterly Operations Data Report would provide more comprehensive performance trend data under one cover and be considered a best practice measure. It is suggested that the contract operator include this additional data as it would be a tool toward comprehensive trend analysis, service planning and external reporting to the PVVTA Board and RCTC. AGENDA ITEM 7G BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee Jillian Guizado, Staff Analyst Brian Cunanan, Commuter and Motorist Assistance Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Operation of the Freeway Service Patrol Program in Riverside County WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Approve Agreement No. 14-45-084-00 with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for the operation of the Riverside County Freeway Service Patrol (FSP) program in the amount of $1,547,104 in state funding for FY 2013/14; and 2) Authorize the Chair or Executive Director, pursuant to legal counsel review, to execute the agreement on behalf of the Commission. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: In 1986, the Commission established itself as the Riverside County Service Authority for Freeway Emergencies (RC SAFE) after the enactment of SB 1199 in 1985. The purpose of the formation of SAFEs in California was to provide call box services and, with excess funds, provide additional motorist aid services. Funding for RC SAFE is derived from a one dollar per vehicle registration fee on vehicles registered in Riverside County. Initially, these funds were used only for the call box program. As additional motorist aid services were developed, SAFE funds were also used to provide FSP and the Inland Empire 511 traveler information services as part of a comprehensive motorist aid system in Riverside County. In 1990, Proposition C was passed to fund transportation improvements and to help reduce traffic congestion in California. From this, the FSP program was created by Caltrans, which developed the corresponding Local Funding Allocation Plan to distribute funds to participating jurisdictions through a formula based on population, urban freeway lane miles, and levels of congestion. DISCUSSION: In February 2014, the Commission received the attached funding agreement from Caltrans for FY 2013/14. Caltrans funding agreements are reimbursement-based and allow for the carryover of contract balances not expended in the agreement’s stated fiscal year. This allows Agenda Item 7G 158 the Commission to fully expend allocated amounts and also helps to accommodate the timing of the Caltrans allocation release, which is typically later during the fiscal year for which it is intended. The table below summarizes the use of these funding agreements by fiscal year: Amount Expended Caltrans Funding Agreement No. FY 2009/10 FY 2010/11 FY 2011/12 FY 2012/13 FY 2013/14 Unexpended Balance 10-45-036-00 ($1,657,171) $192,643 $1,464,528 11-45-105-00 ($1,577,721) $303,402 $1,274,319 12-45-068-00 ($1,653,564) $536,958 $1,116,606 13-45-075-00 ($1,606,567) $621,880 $842,614 $142,073 The Caltrans funding agreement for FY 2013/14 provides for continued state funding in the amount of $1,547,104. The Commission will fund the required local match of $389,276 with RC SAFE revenues. As with prior funding agreements, any state funds not claimed in the current fiscal year will be carried over and claimed in FY 2014/15. A budget adjustment is not required and upon approval of this agenda item, the Commission will execute this fund transfer agreement with Caltrans. The Commission, acting in its capacity as the RC SAFE, is the principal agency in Riverside County, in partnership with Caltrans and the California Highway Patrol, managing the FSP program. The purpose of the FSP program is to provide a continuously roving tow services patrol along designated freeway segments (referred to as beats) to relieve freeway congestion and facilitate the rapid removal of disabled vehicles and those involved in minor accidents on local freeways. Currently, the Commission contracts with four tow truck operators to provide service on a total of nine beats Monday through Friday during the peak commute hours, 5:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. (1:00 p.m. on Fridays) to 7:00 p.m. In FY 2012/13, FSP performed over 43,633 assists. Financial Information In Fiscal Year Budget: Yes N/A Year:2013/14 2014/15+ Amount: $459,797 $1,087,307 Source of Funds: State of California Budget Adjustment: No N/A GL/Project Accounting No.: 002173 415 41508 0000 201 45 41505 Fiscal Procedures Approved: Date: 03/13/2014 Attachment: FSP Fund Transfer Agreement Agenda Item 7G 159 160 BLANK 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 7H BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Support of the University of California, Riverside Application for Designation as a Manufacturing Community as Part of the United States Department of Commerce Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to: 1) Authorize the Executive Director to provide a letter of support for the University of California (UC) Riverside’s application for designation as a manufacturing community (Manufacturing Community) as part of the U.S. Department of Commerce Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (ICMP); 2) Adopt Resolution No. 14-014, “Resolution of the Riverside County Transportation Commission Certifying Support for the University of California Riverside’s Application for Designation as a Manufacturing Community as Part of the U.S. Department of Commerce Investing and Manufacturing Communities Partnership”; and 3) Work in cooperation with UC Riverside and the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG) in providing information and support for the application. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration announced a competitive, government-wide initiative to help communities “. . .cultivate an environment for businesses to create well-paying manufacturing jobs in regions across the country and thereby accelerate the resurgence of manufacturing.” The program will select up to 12 communities to be designated as Manufacturing Communities, which would provide these areas with preferential consideration in the determination of grant funding from a variety of federal sources. Among these grant sources is the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program, a program that initially enabled the Commission to receive a TIFIA loan for the State Route 91 Corridor Improvement Project (SR-91 CIP). In addition to preferential consideration from the DOT, nine additional cabinet departments will provide support for grant opportunities involving education, agriculture, small business, housing, and the environment. Agenda Item 7H 168 Responding to the Opportunity UC Riverside is heading a proposal to designate all of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties as a Manufacturing Community. The combined two-county area fits nicely in the Commerce Department’s definition of an eligible applicant for the program. As part of its effort, UC Riverside garnered the support of government agencies such as the county of Riverside, education and business interests, and the legislative delegations from both counties. The competition for the designation will certainly be fierce and might include Los Angeles and the Silicon Valley. Why It’s Important to the Commission Transportation clearly has a role in acting as a catalyst for job creation, and the Commission has taken a wider view of the interaction between transportation investment and the local economy. As an example, the 2009 Measure A Expenditure Plan allocated funding specifically for projects in Western Riverside County that would spur economic development. Additional efforts to reach out to local businesses and suppliers are yet another way the Commission will continue to be supportive of the local economy. Finally, the Commission has a successful track record with the TIGER program on the SR-91 CIP. Approval of the UC Riverside application for Manufacturing Community status would undoubtedly be of benefit to the local economy, and the Commission’s experience with the DOT would benefit the effort while also providing the Commission with improved leverage in competing for federal funding. The deadline for the federal application is April 14, which would make Commission approval of an endorsement for the effort especially timely. There is no financial impact for support of such an effort. Attachment: Resolution No. 14-014 Agenda Item 7H 169 RESOLUTION NO. 14-014 RESOLUTION OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION CERTIFYING SUPPORT FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE’S APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION AS A MANUFACTURING COMMUNITY AS PART OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE INVESTING AND MANUFACTURING COMMUNITIES PARTNERSHIP WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration has announced a federal interagency competition to designate up to 12 communities as manufacturing communities (Manufacturing Communities) through the Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership (IMCP) for a period of two years; and WHEREAS, Manufacturing Communities will receive preference for a range of future federal economic development funding and technical assistance offered by IMCP participating agencies; and WHEREAS, one identified source of preferential grant funding includes that U.S. Department of Transportation’s Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program; and WHEREAS, the Commission successfully competed for TIGER grants in the past; and WHEREAS, the University of California (UC) Riverside requests the Commission’s support to submit a proposal to benefit the Inland Empire’s Manufacturing Community; and WHEREAS, UC Riverside demonstrated previous and ongoing leadership in coordinating economic development for job creation, entrepreneurship, innovation in reducing emissions, industry attraction, and innovation based activities such as supporting incubator, tech transfer within the Inland Empire; and WHEREAS, UC Riverside’s experience in managing extramural grants and contracts (>$100 million per year) prepare it well to serve the proposed project as the project lead; and WHEREAS, the county of Riverside would benefit from the cultivation of an environment for businesses to create well-paying manufacturing jobs in the Inland Empire; and WHEREAS, a coordinated approach that attracts private investment from new and existing manufacturers will lead to broad-based prosperity and bolster the county’s economic health; and WHEREAS, a healthy and growing economy, which includes manufacturing growth, will create jobs and bolster Measure A sales tax revenue; and BE IT RESOLVED, the Commission supports the UC Riverside IMCP application; and 170 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Commission agrees to participate and assist UC Riverside in all phases of the IMCP project. ADOPTED by the Commission at its meeting on the 9th day of April, 2014. __________________________________________ Marion Ashley, Chair Riverside County Transportation Commission ATTEST: _____________________________________ Jennifer Harmon, Clerk of the Board Riverside County Transportation Commission 171 BLANK AGENDA ITEM 8 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Presentation from South Coast Air Quality Management District Executive Officer Barry R. Wallerstein STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to receive and file as an information item. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env., serves the Executive Officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Dr. Wallerstein will be making a presentation to the Commission on the Air District’s legislative proposals for the next federal transportation authorization bill. Attachments: 1) SCAQMD Correspondence Dated March 21, 2014 2) SCAQMD Draft Proposals for Federal Transportation Legislation Agenda Item 8 172 BLANK South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 (909) 396-2000 • www.aqmd.gov Jo)~©~Il~~~ tf\\ MAR 2 6 2014 Office of the Executive Officer Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env. 909.396.2100, fax 909.396.3340 Anne Mayer Executive Director RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Riverside County Transportation Commission P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 9250~'\ " •. , w ['-0\J V\A__-Dear~ March 21, 2014 The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Governing Board's Legislative Committee requested that we share the attached draft legislative language pertaining to air quality issues under consideration for the upcoming federal surface transportation law (MAP-21) reauthorization. We would appreciate this matter being agendized for discussion at your April 2014 Commission meeting. Our eight draft proposals were presented to our SCAQMD Legislative Committee as an informational item during its March 14th meeting. After discussion our Legislative Committee Chair, San Bernardino County Supervisor Josie Gonzales, directed staff to share the proposals with Southern California Association of Governments and our four county transportation agencies to seek their input. Our goal is to develop regionally supported language that members of our Southern California federal delegation can request be included in the MAP-21 reauthorization legislation to help the region achieve federal clean air standards. SCAQMD staff has presented the proposals to the Southern California Legislative Roundtable, on which Riverside County Transportation Co1filillissifn sti~ff sitf· To drte, comments reci+ved have been favorable. We have quickly responded to al questions, and concerns including those from your staff. We appreciate your attention to this request and hope to receive your confirmation shortly. If you have any questions please feel free to call me at (909) 396-2100. LBS:MC:jaf Attachment ~ Sincerely, . ~ 0 t ,--' .... ····~~ '. '~ .~ J iv~;__,__ aITyR.~~- Executive Officer--- PLPR-AQMD-CI-00007 173 ATTACHMENT 1 BLANK DRAFT As Presented to SCAQMD Legislative Committee on March 14, 2014 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PROPOSALS FOR FEDERAL TRANSPORTATION LEGISLATION: ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION FROM FREIGHT TRANSPORT TO SUPPORT ATTAINMENT OF FEDERAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Proposal 1. Increased Federal Funding Share for Infrastructure Enabling or lncentivizing Advanced Freight Technologies Amend MAP-21 Section 1116 as follows (proposed amendments are shown in underline/strike-out): SEC. 1116. PRIORITIZATION OF PROJECTS TO IMPROVE FREIGHT MOVEMENT. (a) IN GENERAL-Notwithstanding section 120 of title 23, United States Code, the Secretary may increase the Federal share payable for any project to 95 percent for projects on the Interstate System and 90 percent for any other project if the Secretary certifies that the project meets the requirements of this section. (b) INCREASED FUNDING.-To be eligible for the increased Federal funding share under this section, a project shall- (1) demonstrate the improvement made by the project to the efficient movement of freight, including making progress towards meeting performance targets for freight movement established under section lSO(d) of title 23, United States Code; and (2) be identified in a State freight plan developed pursuant to section 1118. (c) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.-Eligible projects to improve the movement of freight under this section may include, but are not limited to- (1) construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and operational improvements directly relating to improving freight movement; (2) intelligent transportation systems and other technology to improve the flow of freight; ~ efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of freight movement on the primary freight netv,iork; (4) railway-highway grade separation; (5) geometric improvements to interchanges and ramps. (6) truck-only lanes; (7) climbing and runaway truck lanes; (8) truck parking facilities eligible for funding under section 1401; (9) real-time traffic, truck parking, roadway condition, and multimodal transportation information systems; Page 1of8 174 ATTACHMENT 2 DRAFT {10) improvements to freight intermodal connectors; and {11) improvements to truck bottlenecks. (d) DEFINITION OF "EFFORTS TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF FREIGHT MOVEMENT."-As used in Section 1116 (c)(3), "efforts to reduce the environmental impacts of freight movement" shall include, but not be limited to,- (1) transportation infrastructure that enables or incentivizes utilization of Advanced Freight Transport Technologies (as defined in subsection (e)), including, but not limited to, construction of - (A) infrastructure that is dedicated for use by Advanced Freight Transport Technologies, such as highway lanes, rail lines, or lanes providing expedited access to freight facilities; (B) infrastructure that will be operated in a manner to create incentives for use by Advanced Freight Transport Technologies, such as through toll or access fee discounts for highways or freight facilities; and (C) fueling or charging infrastructure, or wayside power, to provide energy for Advanced Freight Transport Technologies; and (2) actions to reduce public health impacts in communities near freight facilities caused by emissions from freight movement, including, but not limited to- (A) deployment of advanced freight technologies or other technologies and strategies to reduce emissions near such communities beyond the benefits of adopted regulatory standards; and (B) establishment of sufficient distance between diesel-powered freight operations and communities, schools, workplaces and other sensitive receptors to prevent significant health impacts. (e) DEFINITION OF ADVANCED FREIGHT TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY. -Advanced Freight Transport Technologies shall include the following: (1) TRUCKS. -Heavy-duty trucks powered by - (A) fuel cells; (B) electricity; (C) hybrid-electric technologies with significant zero-emission range, which may use range extenders powered by diesel, natural gas, fuel cells or other power sources; "significant zero-emission range" shall be defined by the Administrator of the EPA so as to encompass a substantial portion of typical daily service in nonattainment areas; or (D) any other technology that emits nitrogen oxides and fine particulates (PM2.5) at rates at least 90% lower than the most stringent applicable emission standards adopted by EPA, or which the Administrator of the EPA Page 2of8 175 DRAFT determines creates sufficiently low emissions of such pollutants to meet the air quality attainment needs of all areas designated nonattainment under the Clean Air Act (including areas classified as Extreme Ozone nonattainment.} (2) LOCOMOTIVES. -Freight locomotives powered by- (A) natural gas with advanced emission controls achieving emission levels substantially lower than EPA Tier 4 locomotive standards (as determined by the Administrator of the EPA); (B) fuel cells; ( C) electricity; (D) hybrid-electric technologies with significant zero-emission range, which may use range extenders powered by diesel, natural gas, fuel cells or other power sources; "significant zero-emission range" shall be determined by the Administrator of the EPA so as to encompass a substantial portion of typical service in nonattainment areas; or (E) any other technology satisfying the criteria in paragraph (e)(l)(D} above. (3) CARGO HANDLING. -Cargo handling equipment powered by- (A) electricity; {B) fuel cells; {A) hybrid-electric technologies with significant zero-emission range, which may use range extenders powered by diesel, natural gas, fuel cells or other power sources; "significant zero-emission range" shall be determined by the Administrator of the EPA so as to encompass a substantial portion of typical daily service; or {C) any other technology satisfying the criteria in paragraph (e)(l)(D) above. Proposal 2. Grant Program for Development, Demonstration and Deployment of Advanced Freight Transport Technologies (New) (a) GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION. -There shall be authorized $50 million per year for five years to fund eligible projects and programs to develop and demonstrate Advanced Freight Transport Technologies (as defined in Proposal 1), and provide incentives for commercialization and deployment in major freight corridors to support broad markets for advanced technologies. (b) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS.-Projects and programs eligible for funding under this section shall be undertaken by a state or local government in partnership with academic or industry participants, and shall be designed to - Page 3of8 176 DRAFT (1) develop, improve, or expand applications for Advanced Freight Transport Technologies; (2) implement prototype demonstrations, or larger scale demonstrations, of Advanced Freight Transport Technologies; (3) assist in overcoming obstacles to commercialization of Advanced Freight Transport Technologies; or (4) provide incentives for commercialization and deployment of Advanced Freight Transport Technologies in major freight corridors. Incentives under this paragraph may include, but are not limited to, subsidies or financing of the incremental capital cost of Advanced Freight Transport Technologies; discounted tolls for Advanced Technology vehicles; dedicated lanes to expedite access to ports and railyards by Advanced Technology vehicles; and public recognition programs for companies utilizing Advanced Technologies. (c) PROCESS AND FUNDING PRIORITIES -The Secretary shall establish a competitive grant program, and shall prioritize funding for projects or programs that involve - (1) technology development and demonstration by entities with a history of successful technology advancement, and expertise regarding emission reduction needs in an area substantially impact by freight emissions; (2) technologies that have potential to provide economic and other co-benefits, including ability to move larger volumes of goods with less energy and emissions, fuel and maintenance cost reductions, improved energy cost certainty, job creation in the United States, and reduction in emissions impacting climate; (3) a variety of technologies in order to support choice for freight carriers; (4) technology deployment in major freight corridors located in areas of the nation that are designated non attainment under the Clean Air Act and are substantially impacted by freight emissions, with priority for initial deployment in communities that are located near freight facilities and most significantly impacted by local diesel emissions; and (5) leveraging of resources and funds through partnerships with state or local government, industry, academia, nonprofit or foundation, or other sources; and (d) MINIMUM FUNDING MATCH.--Eligible projects and programs shall include at least a 20 percent funding match from non-federal sources. (e) FEDERAL AGENCY COORDINATION. -The Secretary shall seek to coordinate funding under this section with technology development, demonstration and deployment funding by other federal agencies, to maximize effective and efficient use of resources. Page 4of8 177 DRAFT Proposal 3. Grant Program for Fueling and Charging Infrastructure (New) (a} GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION. -There shall be authorized $50 million each year for five years for the Secretary of Transportation to provide grants for projects or programs that fund installation of fueling and charging infrastructure for trucks, locomotives and cargo handling equipment employing Advanced Freight Transport Technologies (as defined in Proposal 1}. (b} ELIGIBLE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS. -Projects and programs eligible for funding under this section shall be undertaken by a state or local government in partnership with industry participants. (c} PROCESS AND FUNDING PRIORITIES -The Secretary shall establish a competitive grant program, and shall prioritize funding for projects or programs that involve - (1} deployment along major freight corridors located in areas of the nation that are designated nonattainment under the Clean Air Act and are substantially impacted by freight emissions, with priority for initial deployment in communities that are located near freight facilities and most significantly impacted by local diesel emissions; (2} fueling and charging infrastructure for a variety of technologies in order to support choice for freight carriers; and (3} leveraging of resources and funds through partnerships with state or local government, industry or other sources. (d} MINIMUM FUNDING MATCH. --Eligible projects and programs shall include at least a 20 percent funding match from non-federal sources. (e} FEDERAL AGENCY COORDINATION. -The Secretary shall seek to coordinate funding under this section with fueling and charging infrastructure funding by other federal agencies, to maximize effective and efficient use of resources. Proposal 4. Incentives in Fuel Economy Standards (New) (a} INCENTIVES. -The Secretary shall, after consulting with the Administrator of the EPA, ensure that regulations adopted after (date of enactment} pertaining to fuel efficiency for heavy duty trucks are designed to create incentives for deployment of increasing numbers of trucks employing Advanced Freight Transport Technologies (as defined in Proposal 1}. Such incentives may take the form of additional credit for trucks employing Advanced Freight Transport Technologies, or any other form of incentive that the Secretary determines is likely to significantly incentivize development and commercialization of such technologies in time to support attainment of ozone air quality standards under the Clean Air Act. (b} FUEL AND TECHNOLOGY NEUTRALITY. -Incentive programs under this section shall be designed to be fuel-neutral and technology-neutral. Page 5of8 178 DRAFT Proposal 5. Federal Fleets (New) (a) The Secretary shall make information available to procurement programs of federal agencies regarding the potential to demonstrate Advanced Freight Transport Technologies funded under this act. (b) No later than 18 months after (date of enactment), the (insert Executive Branch office) shall establish and publish policies for federal agencies to acquire Advanced Freight Transport Technologies to the maximum extent operationally and financially feasible. Proposal 6. COMMUTER RAIL TIER 4 LOCOMOTIVE GRANT PROGRAM (New) (a) GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION. -There shall be authorized $80 million per year for five years for a competitive grant program to assist commuter rail agencies upgrade their fleet to the least-polluting technology by: (1) Replacing existing locomotives that meet but do not exceed the EPA Tier Zero, Tier 1 or Tier 2 emission standards, with locomotives that meet the EPA's Tier 4 emission standards, or (2) Retrofitting the engines of existing locomotives that meet but do not exceed the EPA Tier Zero, Tier 1 or Tier 2 emission standards, to engines that meet EPA's Tier 4 emission standards (b) ELIGIBILITY -All commuter rail agencies which have begun, as of July 1, 2014, to replace Tier zero, Tier 1 or Tier 2 locomotives with Tier 4 locomotives, and which serve an area designated as nonattainment for PM2.5 and nonattainment for ozone under the Clean Air Act. (c) LOCAL SHARE -The local share of 30% shall be calculated on a fleet-wide basis and not a locomotive by locomotive basis. A commuter rail agency shall be deemed to have met the 30% local match if it provides funding for at least 30% of the cost to replace at least 50% of its Tier 0, Tier 1 and Tier 2 locomotives in its fleet as of July 1, 2013, even if those funds have already been expended on Tier 4 locomotives before the enactment of this Act. (d) AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS-Any amount made available under this section- (1) Shall remain available to a project for 3 years after the fiscal year for which the amount is made available or appropriated; and (2) That remains unobligated at the end of the period described in paragraph (1) shall be added to the amount made available in the following year. Proposal 7. Grant Program for Development, Demonstration and Deployment of Advanced Passenger Locomotive Technology (New) Page 6of8 179 DRAFT {a) GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZATION. -There shall be authorized $40 million per year for five years to fund eligible projects and programs to develop and demonstrate advanced passenger locomotive technologies. {b) ELIGIBILITY.- (1) Applicants for grants under this section must be commuter rail agency, although they may partner with academic participants, cities, counties, MPOs, state or local air quality agencies, and/or industry participants. (2) Projects and programs eligible for funding under this section shall be designed to - (A) develop, improve, or expand applications for advanced passenger locomotive technologies; or {B) implement prototype demonstrations, or larger scale demonstrations, of advanced passenger locomotive technologies. {c) DEFINITION OF ADVANCED PASSENGER LOCOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES. --Advanced Passenger Locomotive Technologies shall mean passenger locomotives powered by- (A) natural gas with advanced emission controls achieving emission levels substantially lower than EPA Tier 4 locomotive standards {as determined by the Administrator of the EPA); {B) fuel cells; (C) an electric battery tender car; (D) hybrid-electric technologies with significant zero-emission range, which may use range extenders powered by diesel, natural gas, fuel cells or other power sources; "significant zero-emission range" shall be determined by the Administrator of the EPA so as to encompass a substantial portion of typical service in nonattainment areas; or (E) refueling and/or recharging infrastructure for locomotives powered by fuels mentioned in subparagraphs {A), {B), (C), (D), or (E). (d) MINIMUM FUNDING MATCH.--Eligible projects and programs shall include at least a 20 percent funding match from non-federal sources. ------------------------ Proposal 8. Federal Regulations to Implement State Implementation Plans Under the Clean Air Act (New) The following proposal is in response to a request by Chairman Burke at the February Legislative Committee meeting for draft legislation authorizing AQMD to regulate "federal" sources. This proposal would require EPA to adopt rules to implement the State Implementation Plan {SIP} in circumstances where state and local authority is preempted. Like the above proposals for surface transportation legislation, this proposal would potentially affect equipment involved in freight transport, i.e. interstate trucks and locomotives (in addition to ships and aircraft). This proposal, however, is drafted to amend the Clean Air Act, because the proposal would implement SIPs under that act. It would need to be determined whether this proposal is sufficiently germane to the surface transportation bill to be included in that legislation. Page 7of8 180 DRAFT Proposal: Add new Subdivision 110{q) to the Clean Air Act, to read as follows: (a) FEDERAL ATTAINMENT MEASURES. - (1) The Administrator shall promulgate regulations applicable to sources within the regulatory authority of the Environmental Protection Agency which shall be sufficient, in conjunction with measures contained in the applicable state implementation plan, to attain all national primary ambient air quality standards throughout the United States by the applicable attainment dates. (2) The duty imposed by this subdivision applies if the Administrator concurs with a state's finding in a state implementation plan revision that the state implementation plan includes all feasible measures that are not preempted by federal law, yet one or more nonattainment areas is unable to attain a national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date. The Administrator shall concur with, or disapprove, a state's finding within the time required to act on the implementation plan revision. (3) The regulations required by this subdivision may, in the Administrator's discretion, be applicable only to one or more specified states, regions, or nonattainment areas. (4) In implementing this subdivision, the Administrator may adopt regulations applicable to motor vehicles and engines, and to non-road vehicles and engines, which are no longer new. Page 8of8 181 Presentation on Draft MAP 21 Legislative Proposals from South Coast AQMD 1 MAP-21 Reauthorization Key goals: improving mobility reducing environmental impacts of freight movement Policy underlying SCAQMD proposals: economic growth can be accommodated while simultaneously addressing environmental needs through – clean technologies efficiency 2 South Coast Region 3 Overview SCAQMD Approach Focus on grants and incentives to encourage development and deployment of low and zero emission freight transport technologies, and supporting infrastructure technologies are needed to attain enforceable federal air quality standards Advanced technology policies for federal fleets 4 Proposals 1-3 –Sustainable Freight Proposal 1: Incentivizes highway infrastructure that promotes cleaner freight by providing 90% or 95% federal share of funding. Proposal 2: Competitive grant program for development, demonstration and deployment of advanced freight vehicle technologies. ($50 m/yr for 5 yrs) Proposal 3: Competitive grants for fueling and charging infrastructure ($50 m/yr for 5 yrs) 5 Proposals 4-5 –Federal Involvement Proposal 4: Requires DOT fuel efficiency standards for heavy duty trucks to be designed to create incentives to deploy advanced clean technologies while remaining fuel neutral. Proposal 5: Requires federal agencies to craft policies for acquiring advance clean freight vehicles for their fleets. Would provide manufacturers greater certainty there will be a market for such vehicles. 6 Proposals 6 & 7 –Passenger Rail Proposal 6 –Grant program for commuter rail agencies that have begun upgrading fleets to Tier 4 to support continuation of such efforts. ($80 m/yr for 5 years) Proposal 7 –Grant programs for demonstration projects of locomotives using natural gas, fuel cells, batteries or hybrid technologies. ($40 m/yr for 5 years) 7 Proposal 8 –Federal Emission Controls Addresses Catch-22: federal law mandates state to adopt measures to attain air quality standards, but restricts state and local authority to regulate emissions from key sources (e.g. locomotives, oceangoing vessels) Proposal: require federal government to reduce emissions from sources over which it has authority if— state has adopted all feasible measures within its authority, but additional emission reductions from federally-regulated sources are needed Does not add to SCAQMD regulatory authority 8 Regional Comments RCTC –“These proposed grant programs advance helpful causes to our region. Our position is that any of these programs must be funded through increased revenue to the HTF and not come at the expense of an existing core program.”Also, Proposal 8 “is intriguing and…there might be positive outcomes for our region.” SANBAG –“proposals raise a number of questions we hope can be further clarified,” e.g. funding sources, undefined terms, preemption of local authority, and regulatory impact on industry LA Metro: “We are supportive of additional federal resources being directed to improve the quality of our air, especially near freight corridors….We are also supportive of directing federal funds to lower emissions associated with locomotives…” OCTA –“These are laudable goals”but where is funding coming from? Metrolink -Offered minor edits to the two passenger rail proposals 9 Funding Not proposing diversion from current programs Seeking $220 million per year for entire nation SCAQMD: 5% of US population; if region receives 10% of funding, equals $22 million per year Policies: Congress should understand funding needs as it crafts funding sources and amounts Nation benefits from Southern California as gateway for 40+ percent of imported goods . . . Nation should financially assist Southern California address mobility and environmental impacts of that trade. 10 AGENDA ITEM 9 PRESENTATION 91 PROJECT UPDATE Mark Lancaster, Right of Way Manager Eliza Echevarria, Community Relations Manager April 9, 2014 Right of Way Innovation Today’s Presentation •Right of Way approach •Acquisition summary •Buena Vista Mobile Manor •Emergency responder training Right of Way Approach •Greatest public good with least private injury •Early start –Met one-on-one with 125 separate owners to discuss property needs, acquisition, relocation process prior to environmental approval •Goals: •Positive relationships with owners/tenants •Avoid condemnation •Close escrow on as many properties as possible •Manage costs Making Contact Owner In Person Meetings Mailings Phone Contacts Emails Total CPI/Tiki Island 8 4 47 146 205 Haupert 5 2 43 111 161 Public Storage 8 3 25 93 129 Elster/Del Taco 3 5 35 119 162 Wardlow Road Development 8 6 21 84 119 Circle K Stores 2 3 32 65 102 Benson 14 5 46 41 106 Dollar Self Storage 6 3 40 41 90 Total Right of Way Interests Full Acquisitions –74 Partial Acquisitions –101 Permanent Easements –60 Temp. Construction Easements -121 Utility Easements –34 Mitigation Easements -109 Total Parcels Required 199 Tenant and Leasehold Interests 150+ Settlements 118 Parcels Deleted through Design-Build Process 6 Parcels with Decreased ROW 14 Full, Partial Acquisitions Relocation, Business/Residential Status Residential Business Completed 135 39 Remaining 1 Temporary 27 Total 135 permanent 1 temporary 66 Relocation, Storage Units Storage Facility Units Required Interviews Completed Units Vacated Dollar Self Storage 79 79 34 Allsize Storage 41 1 0 Storage Direct 43 24 24 Public Storage 22 0 0 Total 185 112 58 Escrow Closed after RON –20 Parcels in Escrow –13 Settlements after RON –34 Resolutions of Necessity Court Cases Filed –58 Court Cases Not Yet Filed –28 Buena Vista Mobile Manor: Acquisition and Relocation Early Identification •RCTC identified Buena Vista Mobile Manor as sensitive property for 91 Project •Full purchase of senior (55+) mobile home park; relocation of all residents •High cost effort •Potential for negative exposure for RCTC, City of Corona Impact to Park •Existing eastbound ramps to be changed to hook ramps, bisecting park •Partial purchase not feasible Ramps, D Street Extension Park Overview •Built in 1976; original owner •206 S. Buena Vista Ave., adjacent to City Hall, medical facilities, Senior Center, transit stops •59 spaces (57 occupied coaches), club house, pool •On-site property manager Research •Met with property owner and broker to discuss acquisition, relocation •Toured park •Gathered coach ownership, occupancy data •Met with Riverside County Office on Aging •Spoke to city officials •Analyzed replacement property costs, availability Demographics •93 percent of coaches had occupants over age of 55 •37 owner-occupied coaches, 20 with tenants •Some occupants well into their 80s and 90s •Five occupants required medical oxygen •Seven occupants spoke only Spanish •Many on fixed incomes •Pad rents averaged $570 (lower than average) Action Plan RCTC developed Relocation Action Plan to: •Assess needs of park residents •Explain process for acquisition, relocation •Identify replacement housing •Be responsive, available •Offer choice to early sellers to lease back to RCTC •Provide long lead-time prior to moving Communication •Hosted two on-site meetings, May 2012 •Delivered meeting materials door-to-door and spoke to residents; made follow-up calls •Explained proposed acquisition/relocation processes in detail, answered questions, alleviated concerns •Encouraged bringing friend or advocate •Served meals •Spanish interpretation Meeting Follow-Up •55 residents attended information meetings •Called owners/tenants unable to attend meetings, mailed materials, answered questions •Prepared Q&A document (English and Spanish); mailed to owners and tenants Second Public Meeting •Held second public meeting in Sept. 2012 •One-on-one service by ROW/relocation agents Resources •Project helpline and website •Office on Aging officials attended meetings, provided materials, helpline for support •Assigned highly compassionate relocation agent full-time, others assigned part-time –highly visible presence at park •Office location at park club house •City outreach Relocation Process •Met individually with occupants to review relocation preferences, rights, benefits, options •Detailed process –caring, patient agents •Helped with claim forms •Toured replacement housing •Minimized vandalism: hired security, emptied pool, boarded homes from inside •Moves occurred over 14-month period Relocation Progression All residents relocated by March 31; demolition to start in April Mar. 2014Jan. 2014Oct. 2013July 2013 July 2013 Training: Corona Fire Department Training Opportunity •Property demolition has provided unprecedented opportunity for emergency responder training •Crews using properties set for demo to conduct training for roof access, search/rescue, hostage situations •Worked with Corona Fire Dept., Corona Police Dept; other agencies invited AGENDA ITEM 10 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Budget and Implementation Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: State Legislative Update BUDGET AND IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt the following state bill positions: 1) AB 515 (Dickinson) – Seek Amendments; 2) AB 2197 (Mullin) – Support; 3) SB 785 (Wolk) – Support if Amended; 4) SB 969 (DeSaulnier) – Oppose Unless Amended; and 5) SB 990 (Vidak) – Oppose. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: AB 515 (Dickinson) Budget and Implementation Committee Recommendation: SEEK AMENDMENTS This bill pertaining to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) reform was discussed by the Commission’s Quality of Life and Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee and at the 2014 Commission Workshop in January. AB 515 proposes to require the courts to specify actions that must be taken by an agency to remedy CEQA violations and a timeframe within which those violations must be taken. Requiring this level of specificity could be helpful to ensure a judge’s writ of mandate is not overly vague. However, the January version of AB 515 inferred that public comments should be considered in the agency’s return to the writ, which could further delay and complicate resolution of court cases. The Commission sought an amendment that would clarify no additional public comments are required in an agency’s return to the court. Recently, Assemblyman Dickinson amended AB 515 to eliminate the reference to a public comment period, thereby alleviating the Commission’s concern. While the Budget and Implementation Committee adopted a “Seek Amendments” position, the Commission may consider whether to adopt a full “Support” position on the bill or remain neutral in light of Mr. Dickinson’s amendments. Agenda Item 10 182 AB 2197 (Mullin) Budget and Implementation Committee Recommendation: SUPPORT This bill would require a temporary license plate system be developed by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). AB 2197 would require this new system to be operative by July 1, 2015. Currently, upon purchasing a vehicle an owner has 90 days to affix license plates to the vehicle insofar as a copy of the proof of sale is displayed on the car. Vehicle auto dealerships are required to report sales to the DMV to initiate registration and processing of license plates for the vehicle. In 2011, the Legislature required all dealerships to participate in an electronic registration system to speed up the registration and license plate process. While in a vast majority of cases this system works well, the time delay in receiving license plates creates opportunities for criminal activity and increases the burden on law enforcement to identify vehicles. One problem created by vehicles without license plates is toll evasion. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) estimates vehicles without plates incur $12 million in toll violations. Currently FasTrak toll systems in California rely on photo enforcement of violations. These violations translate to a loss of revenue needed to maintain and operate toll facilities that rely on users to pay their fair share of costs for use of the infrastructure. This bill would ensure all lawfully purchased vehicles leave the dealership with some form of identification that can be read from the roadway by law enforcement. AB 2197 allows the DMV flexibility to use “weatherproof paper or other media selected by the department” that can be printed on a standard laser printer from the dealership. Data regarding the vehicle’s owner would be restricted to law enforcement use only, and must be transmitted by the dealership within two business days of the vehicle’s purchase. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have temporary license plate programs similar to what is proposed in AB 2197, including Arizona, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, and Virginia. Staff believes this bill protects the Commission’s financial obligations to State Route 91 and Interstate 15 express lanes and strengthens the nexus between the users of these lanes and the benefits received. Additionally, law enforcement will be able to more easily identify vehicles involved in other traffic violations or crimes. SB 785 (Wolk) Budget and Implementation Committee Recommendation: SUPPORT IF AMENDED This bill consolidates a number of existing statutes authorizing local governments to use design-build for certain types of projects. Design-build for public transit projects is included in the consolidation. The effect is the transit design-build program’s sunset date is eliminated and the program is made permanent. This is a positive change. Agenda Item 10 183 However, the Commission is seeking amendments to the existing law that would qualify the Commission to use design-build for transit projects. Currently only public transit operators are eligible. The Commission’s lobbyist in Sacramento communicated with Senator Wolk’s office about amending SB 785 to include county transportation commissions as eligible; the response has been warm. Therefore, staff seeks a Support if Amended position on SB 785 in the event the Commission’s amendments are accepted into the bill. In the meantime, the California Transit Association (CTA) also introduced SB 1433 (Hill), which exclusively addresses the transit design-build statutes and includes the Commission’s requested language. Given the Commission’s direction to seek such language in CTA’s bill at its January 2014 meeting, Chair Marion Ashley already authored a letter of support for SB 1433. SB 969 (DeSaulnier) Budget and Implementation Committee Recommendation: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED This bill requires the establishment of peer review groups for “mega-projects” exceeding $1 billion in total cost. The bill also requires agencies responsible for mega-projects to: a) Establish a comprehensive risk management plan; b) Qualify the effect of identified risks in financial terms; c) Develop and maintain documents to track identified risks and related mitigation steps; d) Regularly update its estimates of capital and capital outlay support costs; e) Regularly reassess its reserves for potential claims and unknown risks, incorporating information related to risks identified and quantified through its risk assessment process; and f) Regularly integrate estimates for capital, capital outlay support costs, and contingency reserves into a program-wide report. While the goals of ensuring rigorous oversight of major public works projects are laudable, SB 969 duplicates existing measures and controls. Mega projects require financing, which requires credit ratings and thorough examination by investors. Through this process, agencies must commit to risk mitigation and demonstrate accountability to bondholders. Additionally, federal agencies have stringent requirements for projects receiving federal assistance, which is usually the case with mega-projects. For example, the SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project TIFIA loan required detailed risk management policies, financial reserves, and other contingencies in order for the U.S. Department of Transportation Credit Council to approve the loan. The Perris Valley Line (PVL) project, while well under $1 billion, received extensive project oversight from an independent consultant who reported to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on all project activities. Staff is supportive of ensuring that projects with major public investments are properly monitored for performance and risk. However, staff believes that creation of an additional state policy on risk management and peer review is redundant and complicates federally- mandated policies that currently exist for these projects. Given the bill author’s concerns about Agenda Item 10 184 project oversight stem from the Bay Bridge east span project, staff suggests the Commission propose the bill be amended to be limited to state-sponsored projects. SB 990 (Vidak) Budget and Implementation Committee Recommendation: OPPOSE This bill would require 5 percent of Local Transportation Fund (LTF) funds and funds from the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) be set-aside by agencies such as the Commission for disadvantaged small communities for congestion relief and safety needs. For reference, the terms above are defined as follows: Local Transportation Fund: the Transit Development Act (TDA) devotes ¼ cent of the state sales tax to regional transportation agencies such as the Commission for transportation planning, transit operations, and in some cases, local streets and roads. The Commission uses LTF for bus transit and rail operations throughout the county, as well as bicycle and pedestrian projects such as the Nuevo Road pedestrian bridge and sidewalk in the city of Perris, and Monroe Street sidewalk and bike lanes in the city of Indio. Regional Transportation Improvement Program: 75 percent of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is sub-allocated by law to regional agencies such as the Commission for programming on projects of our choice. The state retains the other 25 percent for interregional projects of state significance. In recent years, the Commission used RTIP funds for PVL, East Junction, I-10/Jefferson interchange, and SR-60 truck climbing lane to name a few. Disadvantaged Small Community: a city or census-designated place with a population of 25,000 or fewer people and a median household income less than 80 percent of the statewide average. Staff recommends opposition to SB 990 for a variety of reasons: • The bill violates the following provisions of the Commission’s adopted 2014 legislative platform: o Project selection and planning authority for state/federal funds should be as local as possible, preferably in the hands of the Commission. o Oppose efforts to infringe on the Commission’s revenue sources including, but not limited to, Measure A, tolls, and TUMF. • RTIP funds are typically used on major highway or transit projects serving regional needs. Cutting up the program for smaller projects limits the Commission’s ability to address regional transportation issues. Agenda Item 10 185 o In 2006, the Commission and the city of Blythe entered into an agreement to swap RTIP dollars for Measure A dollars to give Blythe more certainty and local control compared to trying to compete for RTIP funds. This type of successful partnership should not be legislated, but left to local governments to work out among themselves. • State funding is scarce and is often used to supplement local dollars, which constitute the majority of the funds on any given project. SB 990 is another example of the state attempting to micromanage a decreasing funding source, with the effect of making it less useful to resolve California’s overall transportation challenges. • This bill would reduce funding available for transit services in Riverside County, which often crucial to small and disadvantaged communities. The Commission historically opposed federal and state legislation that seeks to limit local flexibility for how funds are used. The Commission administers competitive processes to award funds to projects that are most able to meet countywide goals and go to construction quickly. The Technical Advisory Committee of public works directors from all cities and the county has overseen a fair and equitable process of distributing scarce dollars. The Commission believes the Legislature should allow these successful models to continue without interference. Attachment: Legislative Matrix Agenda Item 10 186 BLANK RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - POSITIONS ON STATE AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION – March 2014 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 515 (Dickinson) This bill pertains to CEQA reform. AB 515 proposes to require the courts to specify actions which must be taken by an agency to remedy CEQA violations and a timeframe within which those violations must be taken. Referred to Coms. on E.Q. and JUD. (Feb. 6, 2014). Pending Commission Approval AB 2197 (Mullin) This bill would require that temporary license plate system be developed by the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). AB 2197 would require this new system to be operative by July 1, 2015. This bill would ensure that all lawfully purchased vehicles leave the dealership with some form of identification that can be read from the roadway by law enforcement. Referred to Coms. on E.Q. and JUD. (Feb. 6, 2014). Pending Commission Approval SB 785 (Wolk) This bill consolidates a number of existing statutes authorizing local governments to use design-build for certain types of projects. Design-build for public transit projects is included in the consolidation. In Assembly. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 35. Noes 0. Page 2653.) Ordered to the Assembly. (Jan. 27, 2014) Pending Commission Approval SB 969 (DeSaulnier) The bill would require the agency administering a megaproject to establish a peer review group and to take specified actions to manage the risks associated with a megaproject including establishing a comprehensive risk management plan, and regularly reassessing its reserves for potential claims and unknown risks. Because this bill would require local agencies to perform additional duties, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Referred to Com. on T. & H. (Feb. 20, 2014) Pending Commission Approval SB 990 (Vidak) This bill would require that 5% of Local Transportation Funds (LTF) and funds from the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) be set-aside by agencies such as the Commission for disadvantaged small communities for congestion relief and safety needs. Referred to Com. on T. & H. (Feb. 20, 2014) Pending Commission Approval AB 1721 (Linder) Today, state law prohibits tolling of zero-emission vehicles in designated high- occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. This bill would exclude from the above-described exemption a toll imposed for passage in HOT lanes designated for State Highway Route 15 in Riverside County. Referred to Com. on TRANS. (Feb. 27, 2014) SPONSOR January 8, 2014 SB 953 (Roth) This bill will provide parking enforcement authority to RCTC for the Metrolink commuter rail stations we own and operate for the residents of Riverside County. Referred to Com. on T. & H. (Feb. 20, 2014) SPONSOR January 8, 2014 AB 14 (Lowenthal) Formalizes creation of a State Freight Advisory Council and commits the state to authoring a State Freight Plan every 5 years, pursuant to MAP-21. Approved by the Governor. (Sept. 6, 2013). Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 223, Statutes of 2013. (Sept. 6). SUPPORT April 13, 2013 187 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 179 (Boganegra) Previous version reduced the amount of time transportation agencies can retain personally identifiable customer information for electronically-collected highway tolls and transit fares, from 4.5 years to six months. Amendments extend the time period back to 4.5 years, removing a conflict with the statute of limitations during which customers can challenge tolls and fare charges, which is up to 4 years. The bill also enacts new privacy provisions for electronic transit fare collection. Unknown impacts exist for transit operators RTA, SunLine and Metrolink for future implementation of electronic fare systems. Approved by the Governor. (Sept. 27, 2013). Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 375, Statutes of 2013. (Sept. 27). NEUTRAL June 12, 2013 AB 266 (Blumenfield) Extends by an additional 10 years a pilot program previously opposed by RCTC. Ultra- low emission vehicles (mostly electric cars) are exempted from paying tolls on tolled facilities, except for toll projects in L.A. County. This bill represents a state mandate that cuts into local revenue for infrastructure that local governments are providing to the state. This policy erodes the user-pay concept inherent in many areas of transportation finance. This bill represents a current and future threat to the viability of innovative infrastructure financing in California as low-emission vehicles become more popular. The pilot program has only been in existence for less than one year. Approved by the Governor. (Sept. 28, 2013). Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 405, Statutes of 2013. (Sept. 28). OPPOSE April 13, 2013 AB 487 (Linder) Requires government employees participating in the DMV confidentiality program to provide a workplace address so that parking, toll, and traffic violations can still be enforced. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution. (Jan. 31, 2014). From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. (Feb. 3, 2014). SUPPORT April 13, 2013 AB 574 (Lowenthal) Formerly, this bill reformed the process by which cities and counties apply to the State for relinquishment of state highways to local jurisdictions. The bill has been amended in its entirety. The bill now proposes policy to guide the expenditure of the state’s cap-and-trade program, which was authorized by AB 32 (Pavley, 2006) and is administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The bill provides for regional control of the expenditure of cap-and-trade funds. The Commission, along with SCAG and other transportation commissions in Southern California have requested amendments that would direct cap-and-trade funds to directly to transportation commissions rather than Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s) Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution. (Jan. 31, 2014). From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. (Feb. 3, 2014). SUPPORT if Amended June 12, 2013 AB 1081 (Medina) Requires goods movement infrastructure projects and financing options from the private sector to be included in the Governor’s annually submitted 5-year infrastructure plan and international trade & investment strategy. In committee: Held under submission. (August 30, 2013). SUPPORT June 12, 2013 188 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption SB 337 (Emmerson) Relinquishes portions of SR-74 to the City of Hemet. The City of Hemet is the sponsor of this bill. This bill builds on previous legislation that authorized relinquishment of SR-74 to the Cities of Palm Desert, Perris, and Lake Elsinore. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56. (Feb. 3, 2014) Hearing cancelled at request of author. This bill’s language has been incorporated into SB 788, the Senate Transportation Omnibus Bill. SUPPORT April 13, 2013 SB 731 (Steinberg) Enacts modest changes to CEQA, mostly relating to private development. Joint Rule 62(a) file notice suspended. (Page 3247). (Sept. 11, 2013). Set, First hearing. Hearing cancelled at the request of author. (Sept. 11, 2013). MONITOR/WORK WITH AUTHOR April 13, 2013 AB 37 (Perea) This bill would allow would allow project applicants to require lead agencies to prepare a record of proceedings concurrently with the preparation of CEQA documents. This has the potential to accelerate future judicial proceedings by giving both sides of a CEQA lawsuit the opportunity to prepare for court. AB 37 is supported by business groups and is currently unopposed, awaiting a vote on the Assembly floor. Re-referred to Com. On L. & I.R. (Aug. 14, 2013). SUPPORT June 12, 2013 AB 401 (Daly) Authorizes the use of best value design-build for the I-405 widening project by OCTA. The language of this bill is nearly identical to that of the Commission’s AB 2098 (Miller), which was approved in 2010. The project will add one general purpose lane in each direction. Approved by the Governor. (Oct. 5, 2013). Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 586, Statutes of 2013. (Oct. 5). SUPPORT June 12, 2013 AB 543 (Campos) This bill would require a lead agency to translate, as specified, certain notices required by the act and a summary of any negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report when a group of non-English-speaking people, as defined, comprises at least 25% of the population within the lead agency’s jurisdiction and the project is proposed to be located at or near an area where the group of non- English-speaking people comprises at least 25% of the residents of that area. By requiring a lead agency to translate these notices and documents, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author. (July 2, 2013). OPPOSE June 12, 2013 189 Legislation/ Author Description Bill Status Position Date of Board Adoption AB 756 (Melendez) Allows public works projects to be granted Leadership designation by the Governor for the purposes of a 2011 law that provides expedited judicial review for CEQA challenges. The Commission seeks amendments that would clarify elgibility of regional transportation agencies (such as the Commission) to utilize this fast-tracking for public transit projects. Note: the underlying 2011 law has recently been ruled unconstitutional. Died pursuant to Art. IV, Sec. 10(c) of the Constitution. (Jan. 31, 2014). From committee: Filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to Joint Rule 56. (Feb. 3, 2014). SUPPORT if Amended June 12, 2013 SB 778 (Committee on Transportation & Housing) Senate “omnibus” bill of non-controversial items. This omnibus includes language from SB 337 (Emmerson), which relinquishes SR-74 to the city of Hemet. Other provisions of the bill include non-substantive technical corrections to existing law and deletion of obsolete provisions such as the 1984 Olympics special license plate program. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56. (Feb. 3, 2014). SUPPORT June 12, 2013 AB 493 (Daly) This bill would authorize operators of toll facilities on federal-aid highways to fully implement technologies or business practices that provide for the interoperability of electronic toll collection programs on and after the date specified in MAP-21. The bill would limit the information that may be disclosed through participation in an interoperability program, as specified. Approved by the Governor. (Aug. 12, 2013). Chaptered by Secretary of State – Chapter 79, Statutes of 2013. (Aug. 12). SUPPORT June 12, 2013 190 Recommendations on State Legislation & Cap and Trade Policy April 9, 2014 AB 515 (Dickinson) •Requires court to specify actions needed to correct a CEQA document found out of compliance. •Requires timelines for return to the court and final decision by court. •Implies new comment period needed for revised CEQA document. •Staff Recommendation: SEEK AMENDMENTS AB 2197 (Mullin) •Requires temporary license plates •Public safety benefits, combats toll evasion •16 states + DC already have similar programs •Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT •Consolidates and standardizes design-build statutes for various types of projects, including transit. •Eliminates sunset date on transit design-build pilot program. •Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT IF AMENDED –Seek clarification that RCTC can use design-build for transit projects. AB 785 (Wolk ) •For projects over $1 billion in total cost: –Peer review committees –Comprehensive risk management plan –Ongoing tracking, assessment, and reporting of risks •Federal requirements already require careful monitoring and disclosure of risk •Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE UNLESS AMENDED –Seek narrowing of scope to state projects only. SB 969 (DeSaulnier) SB 990 (Vidak) •Reserves 5 percent of the Local Transportation Fund (LTF) in any county and 5 percent of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) for disadvantaged small communities. •RCTC holds broad discretion over these funds. •Limits local control. •Staff Recommendation: OPPOSE Cap and Trade •~$15 billion program •Transportation sector = 40 percent of GHG emissions •First year auctions: $500 million loaned to GF •Governor’s FY 2014/15 Budget •$100 million –Sustainable Communities •$50 million –Intercity/Commuter Rail •$250 million –High Speed Rail •$200 million –Low Carbon Transportation •Auctions likely to bring more $ this year •Request significant increase to Sustainable Communities projects to implement unfunded mandate of SB 375 •Seek ongoing program structure •Shift project selection to regions Cap and Trade Cap and Trade: Principles •Align Funding with Responsibility •Regional Consultation •Geographic Equity •Protection from Theft •Hold Harmless Existing Funds and Projects Questions? AB 515 (Dickinson) AB 2197 (Mullin) AB 785 (Wolk ) SB 969 (DeSaulnier) SB 990 (Vidak) Cap and Trade Principles AGENDA ITEM 11 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION DATE: April 9, 2014 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Qualify of Life and Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee Aaron Hake, Government Relations Manager THROUGH: Anne Mayer, Executive Director SUBJECT: Cap and Trade Funding Principles QUALITY OF LIFE AND SUSTAINABILITY AD HOC COMMITTEE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This item is for the Commission to adopt principles for state cap and trade funding. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The California Global Warming Solutions Act, otherwise known as AB 32, became law in 2006. That law created a cap on greenhouse gas emissions for industries and created a market for the purchase of emissions allowances, which is commonly referred to as cap and trade. The proceeds from the auction of these allowances generate revenue for the state. Auction revenues are to be invested in projects and programs that help California meet the greenhouse gas reduction goals set forth in AB 32. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the primary entity responsible for implementation of AB 32 and specifically the cap and trade program. Allowance auctions began in 2013. Approximately $1.4 billion has been raised from the auctions. However in 2013, Governor Brown decided against budgeting any of the first-year revenue ($500 million) to allow CARB and the Strategic Growth Council (SGC), a body of state executives who oversee agencies with a role in greenhouse gas reduction, more time to develop funding plans. As the program began, the California Chamber of Commerce also filed a lawsuit against the cap and trade program alleging it amounts to a tax that was adopted unconstitutionally. That lawsuit is still in the courts. In the meantime, CARB developed an investment plan that outlines priority areas for cap and trade revenues to be spent. The investment plan does recognize transportation as a priority for funding given the sector’s large contribution to greenhouse gas emissions. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) estimates that up to $15 billion in revenue could be generated throughout the life of the cap-and-trade program. The Transportation Coalition for Sustainable Communities (TCSC), comprised of the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties (CSAC), Self-Help Counties Coalition (SHCC), California Alliance for Jobs, California Association of Councils of Governments (CALCOG), and the large metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) including Southern Agenda Item 11 191 California Association of Governments (SCAG), formulated a consensus position on how cap and trade revenues should be administered. A letter by the coalition is attached to this staff report, outlining its principles. In the Governor’s 2014 budget proposal, he recommends the expenditure of $850 million of cap and trade auction revenue, with $600 million devoted to transportation as follows: • $250 million: high-speed rail • $50 million: conventional rail • $100 million: sustainable communities projects • $200 million: low-carbon transportation The Governor’s budget trailer bill also devotes $400 million of the $500 million FY 2013 general fund loan to high-speed rail, and establishes a 33 percent revenue set-aside for high-speed rail in all future years. Sources in Sacramento believe that available auction revenues during the 2014-15 budget year will far exceed the budget request by the Governor. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) in addition to other members of the TCSC are requesting the Legislature increase the amount appropriated to sustainable communities projects be increased from $100 million to at least $500 million in the current budget year. Commission staff has joined with these stakeholders to bolster this request. Why does cap and trade matter to the Commission and other transportation agencies in California? The younger brother of AB 32, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (known as SB 375), charges regional governments with attaining greenhouse gas reduction targets by way of the regional transportation plans (RTPs) and a concurrently adopted Sustainable Comminutes Strategy (SCS). The greenhouse gas reduction target for the SCAG region is 8 percent per capita by 2020, and 13 percent per capita by 2035, as set by CARB. SB 375 clearly places regional governments in the driver’s seat for meeting the state’s goals. During deliberations while SB 375 moved through the Legislature, the bill’s proponents pledged eventual funding support for implementation of SCS’s. To date, such funding has failed to materialize in a meaningful way. SCAG’s adopted 2012 RTP/SCS demonstrates compliance with SB 375 targets, assuming that adequate funding materializes to implement all projects. Given cap and trade revenues are generated specifically for the purposes of reducing greenhouse gases and regional government’s responsibility to implement plans to achieve the state’s goals, the Commission and its agency partners have much at stake with these funds. Even more will be at stake when the cap broadens to apply to fuel distributors, creating an even stronger link between revenue generated and the transportation sector. In late February, Senate President Pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg introduced a proposal to replace the cap on fuel distributors with a carbon tax. It is estimated the cap on fuel distributors will cause a per-gallon price increase of motor fuels by $0.10-$0.40/gallon Agenda Item 11 192 beginning in 2015. The Steinberg proposal would instead set a carbon tax at $0.15/gallon, thereby stabilizing (and possibly reducing) the price increase to be felt by consumers compared to what would likely occur under cap and trade. Steinberg proposes to use half of the revenue for an Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) for families making less than $75,000/year as a way to reduce the impact of the new tax on lower income families. The remainder of the tax revenue of $1.5 billion annually would be invested in transportation projects. The portion of tax revenue devoted to transportation would be protected by Article XIX of the Constitution, which prohibits from theft by the Legislature for non-transportation purposes. It is not clear whether the proposal will advance in 2014, or what alternatives might be introduced. Since the Steinberg proposal has been introduced, transportation stakeholders have expressed concern with the large portion of the tax that would be diverted for non-transportation purposes. Steinberg has been holding discussions with stakeholders; it is clear this proposal will evolve throughout this legislative session. Within the last year, other transportation agencies have adopted principles on how these agencies believe cap and trade revenues should be invested. As significant revenues are in play in the state budget this year, staff believes it is important for the Commission to also adopt principles to guide the Commission’s interactions with legislative committees, the Administration, and statewide coalitions that will all be seeking to shape the final policy. The Quality of Life and Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee recommends the following five basic principles for adoption: I. Align Funding With Responsibility. Regional governments should receive a majority of revenue available in order to implement SCS’s. The Commission opposes resting a preponderance of investment decisions with the State inasmuch as the regions remain the primary level of government responsible for compliance with SB 375. II. Regional Consultation. Actions and policies by the Legislature, CARB, SGC, and other state entities should include close consultation with those entities responsible for implementing SB 375. III. Geographic Equity. Revenues should be distributed equitably across the state, enabling all regions to make investments needed to implement their SCS. IV. Protection from Theft. Revenues should not be diverted for purposes without a clear nexus to meeting greenhouse gas reduction targets by deadlines set forth in law and regulation. V. Hold Harmless Existing Funds and Projects. The state should not link cap and trade funds to any other funding source or attempt to coerce agencies to reprioritize projects. Allow regions to implement the entirety of their RTP/SCS’s, regardless of funding sources or project types. Agenda Item 11 193 The Quality of Life and Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee expressed its desire to see the Commission prioritize securing local control of cap-and-trade revenue and maximizing the amount available for sustainable communities projects on an ongoing basis. Staff concurs with this approach. Attachment: Transportation Coalition Proposal for CARB Cap and Trade Investment Plan Correspondence Dated February 18, 2013 Agenda Item 11 194 February 18, 2013 Re: Transportation Coalition Proposal for CARB Cap and Trade Investment Plan The Transportation Coalition for Livable Communities, which includes the California Transit Association, Transportation California, California Alliance for Jobs, and local and regional government associations has developed a proposal for investing cap and trade revenue to address both the greenhouse gas reduction goals of AB 32 and critical transportation system maintenance and operation needs identified in the California Transportation Commission’s Statewide Transportation Needs Assessment over the next ten years. Our proposal is consistent with AB 32, SB 375, and the provisions of AB 1532 and SB 535 – and most equitably and effectively meets the transportation and GHG reduction goals of the state and local communities. We request that this proposal be considered for inclusion in the Investment Plan. Our uniting principle is that auction revenues derived from vehicle fuels should be used to fund transportation system needs in a way that achieves AB 32 objectives and builds on the framework of SB 375 and other GHG reduction strategies. We believe that by integrating investments in new mobility, new infrastructure, and new jobs we can create healthy communities and better quality of life for all – while measurably reducing greenhouse gas emissions consistent with AB 32 and legal requirements for spending allocation revenues. By targeting revenues and incentives toward local governments in support of regional planning goals we can leverage a cost effective investment portfolio across transportation infrastructure and efficiency measures, land use incentives, and improved transportation options to yield the greatest GHG reductions associated with the transportation sector. Allocating funding to promote combining strategies will maximize GHG reduction while reinforcing SB 375, regional blueprints, other regional plans and local innovation. Implementing SB 375 and other GHG-reducing regional plans outside of metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) requires rebuilding aging infrastructure within urban infill and existing rural communities. Our program concept allocates funds equitably to regional governments under statewide criteria to administer competitive grants to local entities. We propose combinations of investments, including transit service and operating costs, road and bridge maintenance, retrofits for complete streets and urban greening, and clean technology and other community infrastructure – integrated with land use modifications to support regional plans. This approach of integrating livable community infrastructure, maintenance, and operations of the transportation system at the neighborhood scale will maximize GHG reductions from the transportation sector and support a range of community benefits – including public health, resource protection, affordable housing, equity, air quality, and safe routes to schools and other community services. For the first year Budget allocation we want to propose the state provide funding through the regions for planning and project development focused on this competitive and integrated approach to most effectively reduce greenhouse gases, meet our local and regional transportation needs, and revitalize our communities. Over the life of the program, we believe that allowance revenues related to motor vehicle fuels should be dedicated to reducing emissions from the transportation sector, with a major part of those funds allocated to this sustainable community funding program. 195 We have commissioned research to identify how to get the best results from such a program and have brought together the local governments and regional agencies responsible for administering our sustainable community programs to create a program concept that will most equitably and effectively achieve the state's short term and long term GHG reduction and sustainable community goals. We want to work with CARB and the Administration to craft an effective strategy to achieve maximum GHG reductions and long term co-benefits under AB 32 by investing a major portion of revenues related to fuels in integrated transportation and land use strategies consistent with the SB 375, the California Regional Blueprint plans and other regional planning processes. We request that the following concepts be considered for inclusion in the Investment Plan: 1. Auction revenue from fuels should implement the AB 32 regulatory program to reduce GHG emissions from transportation 2. Favor cost-effective and integrated transportation and land use strategies 3. Project funding determinations should be done primarily at regional level under statewide criteria for evaluating GHG impacts. Criteria for project selection should be uniform statewide and developed by the State of California. Regions shall administer competitive funding processes and select projects based on these criteria. 4. Allow flexibility at the regional and local level to develop most cost effective projects 5. Assist local governments in meeting regional GHG reduction goals 6. Create performance-based approach to maximize regional flexibility with improved modeling and verification systems to ensure effective results 7. Promote innovation, collaboration, economic development and rural sustainability 8. Support co-benefits: air quality, public health, resource protection, equity, affordable housing, agriculture, and safety We hope you will give us the opportunity to work with you to refine these concepts and take advantage of this opportunity to make AB 32 a key component of California’s transportation investment program. Sincerely, California Alliance for Jobs • California Transit Association • Transportation California • California State Association of Counties • League of California Cities • Self-Help Counties Coalition • California Association of Councils of Governments • Sacramento Area Council of Governments • Southern California Association of Governments • Metropolitan Transportation Commission • Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District • San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council 196 TO: Riverside County Transportation Commission FROM: Jennifer Harmon, Office and Board Services Manager DATE: April 2, 2014 SUBJECT: Possible Conflicts of Interest – Riverside County Transportation Commission Agenda of April 9, 2014 The April 9, 2014 agenda of the Riverside County Transportation Commission includes items that may raise possible conflicts of interest. A Commissioner may not participate in any discussion or action concerning a contract or amendment if a campaign contribution of more than $250 is received in the past 12 months or 3 months following the conclusion from any entity or individual listed. Agenda Item No. 7D – Agreement with Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. for the Completion of the Final Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement and Project Report for the Mid County Parkway Project Consultant(s) Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Steve Bichich, Vice President Agenda Item No. 7E – Agreements for On-Call Right of Way Engineering and Surveying Services Consultant(s) Huitt-Zollars, Inc. 3990 Concourse, Suite 330 Ontario, CA 91764 Maurice Murad, Vice President Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. One Penn Plaza New York, NY 10119 Lloyd Graham, Senior Vice President RBF Consulting 3300 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 Larry Truman, Vice President