BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT
AGENDA
Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors and the External Affairs and Finance and Audit Committees AC Transit General Offices 2nd Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Closed Session: 4:00 p.m. (Items 8A-8D)
Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS GREG HARPER, PRESIDENT (WARD 2) JOE WALLACE, VICE PRESIDENT (WARD 1) ELSA ORTIZ (WARD 3) MARK WILLIAMS (WARD 4) JEFF DAVIS (WARD 5) JOEL YOUNG (AT-LARGE) H. E. CHRISTIAN PEEPLES (AT-LARGE) BOARD OFFICERS DAVID J. ARMIJO, GENERAL MANAGER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, INTERIM GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY STANDING COMMITTEES MEETING DAYS* nd Planning Committee 2 Wednesday nd Operations Committee 2 Wednesday th External Affairs Committee 4 Wednesday th Finance and Audit Committee 4 Wednesday * All Standing Committees are held in conjunction with the regular Board of Directors meeting, To access live and archived audio of Board of Directors and Standing Committee meetings as well as agendas, staff reports, and the schedule of future meetings please visit www.actransit.org and click on “Board Meetings”. Dial (510) 891-7200 to access agendas by telephone. For questions, contact the District Secretary’s Office at (510) 891-7201.
1
MEETING PROCEDURES Public Comment: Members of the public wishing to present comments should complete a Speaker’s Form and submit it to the District Secretary. For subjects not listed on this agenda, the public will be invited to speak under the "PUBLIC COMMENTS" section of the agenda. For specific agenda item(s), speakers will be invited to address the Board/Standing Committee(s) at the time the item is being considered. All speakers are allowed two (2) minutes to present comments. Individuals wishing to present more detailed information are encouraged to submit comments in writing. Written comments are included in the record for meeting(s), and as such, are available for public inspection and may be posted to the District’s website. Electronic Devices: All electronic devices (cell phones, pagers and similar-sounding devices) shall be placed on mute, vibrate or silent mode during Board and Committee meetings pursuant to District Ordinance No. 12. Time of Meetings: Times included on this agenda for commencement of Standing Committee meetings are estimates only. Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole. Order of Agenda Items: The Board or Standing Committee(s) may discuss any item listed on this agenda and in any order. Agenda Planning: The Agenda Planning portion of the agenda is designed to assist the Board and staff in the preparation of future Board and Committee agendas. Each item requested shall have the concurrence of at least two Directors in order to place a proposed agenda item on a future agenda. LIVE AUDIO STREAMING OF BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Live audio streaming and an archive of previously recorded meetings is available on the District’s website at www.actransit.org. For technological reasons, recordings of meetings held outside of the Board Room cannot be streamed to the web. AVAILABILITY OF AGENDA RELATED MATERIALS Written agenda related materials for all open session regular meetings are available to the public 72 hours prior to the meeting or at the time the materials are distributed to a majority of the Board. Written materials presented at a meeting by staff or a member of the Board will be available to the public at that time, or after the meeting if supplied by an outside party. Agenda related materials are available on the District’s website or by contacting the District Secretary’s Office. ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC MEETINGS Meetings of the Board of Directors are accessible to individuals in wheelchairs. The Board Room is equipped with Assistive Listening Devices for individuals with a hearing impairment. Written materials in appropriate alternative formats, disability-related modification/accommodation as well as sign language and foreign language interpreters must be made 72 hours in advance of the meeting or hearing to help ensure availability. Please direct requests for disability related modification or accommodation and/or interpreter services to Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, 94612 or call (510) 891-7201. AC Transit’s General Offices are generally served by bus lines 1, 11, 12, 51A, 72, 72M. The nearest accessible bus th service is provided at the intersection of Broadway and 17 Street in Oakland. The nearest accessible BART station th is the 19 Street Station in Oakland. District Ordinance No. 13 prohibits bringing non-service animals to District facilities unless specifically authorized by federal or state law. To accommodate individuals with severe allergies and environmental illnesses, meeting participants should refrain from wearing scented products to the meeting.
2
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING – Greg Harper, President Wednesday, April 23, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. 1.
ROLL CALL
2.
GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact or Presenter
David Armijo
Any person may directly address the Board at this time on any items of interest to the public that is within the subject matter and jurisdiction of the Board. Speakers wishing to address a specific agenda item will be invited to address the Board at the time the item is being considered. Two (2) minutes are allowed for each item.
Items listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and may be enacted by one motion/one vote. If discussion is desired, an item may be removed from the Consent Calendar and will be considered individually.
4A. Consider approving Board of Directors minutes of April 14, 2014.
Linda Nemeroff 891-7284
4B. Consider receiving Accessibility Advisory Committee minutes of March 12, 2014 (Report 14-096).
Dennis Butler 891-4798
4C. Consider receiving Retirement Board minutes of March 13, 2014 (Report 14-097).
Hugo Wildmann 891-4889
5.
REGULAR CALENDAR
5A. Consider approving contract award for the Lead Artist for the Bus Rapid Transit Art Enhancement (Report 14-085).
Dennis Butler 891-4798
5B. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-018 approving the changes to the Locally Preferred Alternative for the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project as described in the Environmental Re-evaluation (Section 130(c)) Report and authorize the General Manager to file an amendment to the Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk and State Clearinghouse (Report 12-083b).
Dennis Butler 891-4798
5C. Consider the options for the appointment of a non-ATU employee representative to the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Retirement Board and adoption of Resolution 14-022 (Report 14-123).
Linda Nemeroff 891-7284
5D. Announcement regarding the appointment of a Board liaison representative to the Transbay Task Force. (verbal)
President Harper
RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole)
Speakers will be invited to address a Committee at the time an item on the agenda is being considered or under Public Comment for items not on the agenda. Immediately following the Standing Committee Meetings, the Board meeting will reconvene at which time the Board may take action on any of the following Committee agenda items.
3
ALL COMMITTEES ARE ADVISORY ONLY. A.
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE – Elsa Ortiz, Chairperson Held immediately following the Board Meeting recess.
Staff Contact or Presenter(s)
Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) Briefing/Action Items: A-1.
Consider recommending receipt of the monthly legislative report and approval of legislative positions (Report 14-098).
Dennis Butler 891-4798
A-2.
Consider recommending approval of the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) Outreach Flyer to be used by committee members to promote AC Transit accessible bus services (Report 14-121).
Dennis Butler 891-4798
A-3.
Consider recommending support of Measure AA - the Alameda County healthcare services tax. (verbal)
Dennis Butler 891-4798
B.
FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE – Jeff Davis, Chairperson Held immediately following the External Affairs Committee meeting.
Staff Contact or Presenter(s)
Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) Consent Items: B-1.
Consider recommending receipt of the Monthly Report on Investments for February, 2014 (Report 14-099).
Jim Pachan 891-7215
B-2.
Consider review and recommend approval of Board Policy 320 – Debt Limitations with no changes (Report 14-049).
Jim Pachan 891-7215
B-3.
Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-020 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s FY 2013-14 Transit Performance Initiative – Investment grant program for the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement Project (Report 14-116).
Tom Prescott 891-7221
B-4.
Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-021 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications for the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s FY 2014-15 Transportation Fund for Clean Air program for eligible projects that result in the reduction of motor vehicle emissions (Report 14-117).
Tom Prescott 891-7221
B-5.
Consider recommending that the General Manager be authorized to renew the contract with Sedgwick Claims Management as the District’s Third Party Administrator for Workers’ Compensation Claims (Report 10-227b).
Kurt De Stigter 891-4791
4
Briefing/Action Items: B-6.
Consider recommending receipt of report on the Draft FY 2014-15 Annual Operating and Capital Budget (Report 14-026c).
Jim Pachan 891-7215
B-7.
Consider recommending receipt of report and authorize the General Manager to implement the recommended classification and compensation structure for the unrepresented employees identified in the report effective July 1, 2014 (Report 13-159a).
Kurt De Stigter 891-4791
B-8.
Consider recommending authorization to bind the Proposed 2014-2015 Excess Liability Insurance and Travel Insurance Policies (Report 14-118).
Denise Standridge 891-7178
RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING – Greg Harper, President
Staff Contact or Presenter(s)
6.
REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES
The District Secretary will report on the recommendations made by the Committees, including those items referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda. If discussion or comment is desired, any person may request that an item be considered individually.
A. EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: A-1. Consider receiving the monthly legislative report and approval of legislative positions, and support of Measure AA - the Alameda County Healthcare Services Tax (Report 14-098). A-2. Consider approving the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) Outreach Flyer to be used by committee members to promote AC Transit accessible bus services (Report 14-121). A-3.
Consider recommending support of Measure AA - the Alameda County healthcare services tax. (verbal)
B. FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE B-1. Consider receiving the Monthly Report on Investments for February, 2014 (Report 14-099). B-2. Consider approving Board Policy 320 – Debt Limitations with no changes (Report 14-049). B-3. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-020 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s FY 2013-14 Transit Performance Initiative – Investment grant program for the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement Project (Report 14116). B-4. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-021 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications for the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s FY 2014-15 Transportation Fund for Clean Air program for eligible projects that result in the reduction of motor vehicle emissions (Report 14-117).
5
Linda Nemeroff 891-7284
Dennis Butler 891-4798 Dennis Butler 891-4798
Dennis Butler 891-4798
Jim Pachan 891-7215 Jim Pachan 891-7215 Tom Prescott 891-7221
Tom Prescott 891-7221
B-5. B-6. B-7.
B-8.
Consider authorizing the General Manager to renew the contract with Sedgwick Claims Management as the District’s Third Party Administrator for Workers’ Compensation Claims (Report 10-227b). Consider receiving report on the Draft FY 2014-15 Annual Operating and Capital Budget (Report 14-026c). Consider receiving report and authorize the General Manager to implement the recommended classification and compensation structure for the unrepresented employees identified in the report effective July 1, 2014 (Report 13-159a). Consider authorizing the binding of the Proposed 2014-2015 Excess Liability Insurance and Travel Insurance Policies (Report 14-118).
7.
CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA
8.
CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT
Kurt De Stigter 891-4791 Jim Pachan 891-7215 Kurt De Stigter 891-4791
Denise Standridge 891-7178
The Board is requested to authorize as recommended from the committee meetings above. The items for consideration are listed below and will be reported on by the General Counsel as necessary at the end of the meeting.
8A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))
Lucina Sandoval v. AC Transit, et al., ACSC Case No. RG13689501, Claim No. 12-2905. Arul Edwin v. AC Transit, ACSC Case No. RG12637734; Claim No. 12-1954
8B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) (Two Cases)
8C. Conference with Labor Negotiators
(Government Code Section 54957.6): Agency Designated Representative: David J. Armijo, General Manager Employee Organizations: ATU Local 192, AFSCME Local 3916, IBEW Local 1245, Unrepresented Employees
8D. Public Employee Performance Evaluation
(Government Code Section 54957) Title: General Manager, Interim General Counsel, District Secretary
9.
AGENDA PLANNING
10.
BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS
11.
ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting: Wednesday, April 30, 2014, at 2:00 p.m.
(Government Code Section 54954.2)
6
Denise Standridge 891-7178
BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSENT CALENDAR
April 23, 2014 Agenda Item 4A-4C
7
This page intentionally blank
8
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT MINUTES Special Meeting of the Board of Directors AC Transit General Offices 2nd Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 Monday, April14, 2014, at 6:30 p.m. Closed Session MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
GREG HARPER, PRESIDENT {WARD 2) JOE WALLACE, VICE PRESIDENT {WARD 1) ELSA ORTIZ {WARD 3) MARK WILLIAMS {WARD 4) JEFF DAVIS {WARD 5) JOEL YOUNG {AT-LARGE) H. E. CHRISTIAN PEEPLES (AT-LARGE) BOARD OFFICERS
DAVID J. ARMIJO, GENERAL MANAGER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, INTERIM GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY Teleconference: Director Jeff Davis, Ward 5 36365 Shorehaven Place Newark, CA 94560
Alameda-Cont ra Costa Transit Dist rict
April 14, 2014
9
Page 1 of 3
SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- Greg Harper, President Monday, April14, 2014, at 6:30 p.m.
Staff Contact or Presenter
! The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Board of Directors held a I special meeting on Monday, April14, 2014.
' \ Prior to the start of the meeting, Interim General Counsel Denise J Standridge confirmed that all requirements of the Ralph M. Brown I' Act (Govt. Code Sections 54950, et seq.) and the provisions of Board \ Policy 100, Section 4.8 regarding teleconferenced meetings were met j i in order for Director Davis to participate in the meeting and advised [ [ that all votes must be taken by roll call vote. [An affidavit verifying '
I that
the teleconference location was accessible to persons with I disabilities and that the revised agenda was posted at the i teleconference location at least 24 hours prior to the start of the i meeting is attached as Exhibit A.] !
I The
meeting was called to order at 6:32 p.m. with President Harper
! presiding. I 1.
i ·
i ROLL CALL Present: Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Young (arrived at 6:36 p.m.), i Wallace, Harper Absent: None
r
I 2.
l PUBLIC COMMENT / There was no public comment offered.
' !Interim General Counsel Denise Standridge announced that the Board ' would convene in Closed Session to discuss Items 3A-B as listed on the agenda. Closed Session concluded at 7:00 p.m.
3.
i 3A.
CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT Interim General Counsel Denise Standridge advised that there was nothing to report out of Closed Session.
NO REPORT
l Conference with labor Negotiators f
(Government Code Section 54957.6):
! Agency Designated Representative: David J. Armijo, General Manager
I Employee Organizations: ATU I
3B.
Local 192, AFSCME, Local 3916; IBEW, Local 1245,
Unrepresented Employees
Il Public Employee Performance Evaluation i (Government Code Section 54957)
! Title: 4.
General Manager
lI ADJOURNMENT I There being no further business to come before the Board of Directors,
I the meeting was adjourned at 7:02p.m. Alameda~Contra
Costa Transit District
April14, 2014 10
Page2of3
Respectfully submitted,
District Secretary
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
April 14, 2014
11
Page 3 of 3
This page intentionally blank
12
~I' T.~;WNS/T ..,II=•
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-096 April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) Minutes of March 12, 2014
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receiving the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) minutes of March 12, 2014. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Minutes for March 12, 2014 were approved by the Accessibility Advisory Committee on April 8, 2014. Major topics included: Completion of Conflict of Interest Form 700, and Discussion regarding Joint Meeting with the Board of Directors. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The Accessibility Advisory Committee was established by the Board of Directors in 1991 to review, comment and advise the Board of Directors and District staff regarding the implementation and enhancement of planning programs and services for seniors and people with disabilities. The AAC consists of 14 members with two members being appointed by each of the seven elected members of the District's Board of Directors. Committee members serve a one year term. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report is being provided to inform the Board of the activities of the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC). ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: This report does not recommend an action.
13
Report No. 14-096 Page 2 of 2
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: GM Memo No. 12-073, dated March 28, 2012, Accessibility Advisory Committee Bylaws GM Memo No. 10-221, dated October 13, 2010, Adopted Resolution No. 10-047 Repealing all Prior Resolutions Concerning the Establishment of the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) and Board Policy No. 504.
ATTACHMENTS: 1: AAC Minutes for March 12, 2014
Department Head Approval:
Dennis W. Butler, Chief Planning and Development Officer
Reviewed by:
Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Mallory Nestor-Brush, Accessible Services Manager Kim Ridgeway, Accessible Services Specialist Tammy Kyllo, Administrative Coordinator
Prepared by:
14
Staff Report 14-096 Attachment 1
March 12, 2014
MC Minutes
MINUTES ATTACHMENT 1 REGULAR MEETING OF THE AC TRANSIT ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (AAC) MARCH 12, 2014 The meeting came to order at 12:05 p.m.
1. Roll Call and Introduction of Guests AAC members present: Janet Abelson Scott Blanks, Vice Chair Shirley Cressey Pam F adem, Chair (teleconference) Steve Fort Yuli Jacobson Don Queen James Robson Will Scott (arrived at 12:42 p.m.) Deborah Taylor (arrived at 12:10 p.m.) Marina Villena Hale Zukas
AAC members absent: Jim Gonsalves (excused)
Hector Varela (excused)
Staff:
Mallory Nestor-Brush, Accessible Services Manager Tammy Kyllo, Administrative Coordinator Kathleen Eichmeier, Assistant District Secretary
Guests:
None
2. Order of Agenda The order of the agenda was approved. 3. Approval of Minutes MOTION: Blanks/Cressey approved the February 11, 2014 AAC meeting minutes. 8 Yeas: Blanks, Cressey, Fort, Queen, Robson, Taylor, Villena, Zukas ONays 4 Abstentions: Abelson, Fadem, Jacobson, Scott 4. Completion of Conflict of Interest Form 700 All AAC Members that were present completed the Conflict of Interest Form 700 for calendar year 2013. 15
5. Discussion regarding Joint Meeting with the Board of Directors The committee reviewed the minutes regarding the Brainstorm Action Items for the 2013 AAC Top Priorities to see what concerns the Board of Directors may have with the action items. After a lengthy discussion the committee decided better communication with the board is needed to advise the Board of Directors ofthe AAC activities. 6. Public Comments None. 7. Member Communications and Announcements Jim Robson shared an email from the League of American Bicyclists regarding "Take Action: Bicyclist Safety MUST Be a Priority". The email is asking everyone to write to a member of Congress and request them to sign on to a critical bill that would require the U.S. Department of Transportation to establish a specific target to improve the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians. Staff will forward the email to the committee. 8. Staff Communications and Announcements None. 9. Set Next Agenda & Meeting Date The next AAC Meeting will be held Tuesday, April 8, 2014 at 1:00 pm at 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA, on the 2"d floor. Agenda items include Election of ChairNice Chair and Review of Quarterly Complaints. lO.Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
16
Staff Report 14-097
Approved Minutes Meeting of the AC TRANSIT RETIREMENT BOARD March 13, 2014
ROLLCALL
Chair Jeffrey Lewis called the meeting to order at 9:10 AM Members Present: Lewis Clinton, Davis Riemer, Joyce Willis, Chair Jeffrey Lewis, and Vice Chair Yvonne Williams, -- 5 Absent at Roll Call: None Members Absent: None Also Present: Hugo Wildmann, Retirement System Manager; Adelle Foley, Retirement System Administrator; Russell Richeda, Legal Counsel; (the following individuals were at part of the meeting) H.E. Christian Peeples, District Board Liaison; Carolyn Smith, NEPC. PUBLIC COMMENTS
None CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: WILLIAMS/WILLIS to adopt the Consent Calendar with correction of a typo in the year shown in the heading of the Financials (5-0-0-0)
Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent:
Members Clinton, Riemer, and Willis, Vice Chair Williams, and Chair Lewis-- 5 None None None
APPROVED
A.
Approval of Minutes for February 11, 2014
APPROVED B.
Approval ofFinancials for January 2014
17
AC Transit Retirement Board March 13,2014 APPROVED with correction of typo noted above. C.
Approval oflnvoices in the Amount of $212,203.65
APPROVED D.
Approval of Retirements for April2014 I. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Everett Bass Xavier Bums Frank Cambra Sandra Graves-Jackson James Lair
#80932 #30742 #30242 #31984 #41762
APPROVED REGULAR CALENDAR
E. Approval of Retirements for March 2014, Without conditions: 1. Amir Komarizadeh 2. Jerry Green
#32635 #40024
MOTION: RIEMER/WILLIAMS to approve the two retirements listed above effective March 2014. (5-0-0-0)
The Board congratulated retiree Everett Bass for 34 years of service, retiree Frank Cambra for 30 years of service, and retiree Xavier Bums for 27 years of service. F.
Rescission of Retirement for Brenda Jones The Board directed staff to resend the notification of the potential rescission to Ms. Jones.
(Carolyn Smith, NEPC joined the Board for Agenda Items G through N.) G. Asset Allocation and Rebalancing Carolyn distributed the "Flash Report," which showed investment market and Fund performance through February 2014. Returns improved in February. The best performers during the first two months of the new year were the worst in 2013, except for Emerging Markets, which continued to show negative returns. The total fund was up 1.4% year to date, matching the Allocation index and just behind the Policy index's 1.5% return. Active equity management added 1 to 2% over the preceding
2 18
AC Transit Retirement Board March 13, 2014 year. Sands did particularly well during the initial I \1, years of our investment. Fixed income matched the 2% return of the benchmark during the first two months of2014. Of the real estate managers, only JP Morgan reports monthly. Trumbull underperformed during the prior year. In the Global Asset Allocation (GAA) asset class, PIMCO's performance improved in February, but all three managers lagged their benchmarks year to date. The Board discussed the need to determine if the GAA managers are providing the benefits anticipated when they were hired. Carolyn stressed the need for three years of data for a meaningful comparison - that period would run through June to September 2014. Hugo pointed out that when the Board hired the GAA managers the particular managers the Board hired had performed well in the recent past. The concept of GAA is active management. The Board could discuss its faith in the GAA concept. Chair Lewis said that the important question is whether the GAA concept works in practice. Member Riemer agreed that the Board should discuss what the members believe, and if PIMCO's goal of CPI plus 5% (which is largely invested in Fixed Income assets with very low returns) requires timing interest rate changes. Carolyn told the Board that the other GAA managers held more equities.. Chair Lewis recommended that the Board schedule a discussion, after June, of the GAA concept, and the Board's concerns. Hugo referred to the Preliminary Asset Allocation table, included in the Board Package. He reviewed the report, including the adjustment for ADRs (international companies traded on US stock exchanges). Chair Lewis recommended that the Board look at the allocation report with and without the ADR adjustments, including a comparison with the Mix B target and the required change to meet that target. Hugo pointed out that given the issues, such as what should be included in "domestic," the numbers are not precise enough to consider fine tuning the allocations based on small differences from the target. He stressed that the important message is that the Plan's equities are above the target. He continued that is a result of our moving to Mix "B" and the fact that the "Private Debt" allocation has not been funded. We are waiting for the funding of one manager and the hiring of another. Carolyn told the Board that some plans are moving to global mandates, with more detailed reporting while others are maintaining the traditional approach. The Board discussed alternative approaches to asset allocation and the choice of managers and benchmarks, and limitations of categories. Member Riemer said that research shows that the greatest influence on prices of individual stocks is overall prices in their home market (where they are domiciled). Carolyn commented that whether the Board chose the traditional categories of managers or global managers, it would be important to have exposure to Emerging Markets and small cap managers.
3 19
AC Transit Retirement Board March 13,2014
The Board agreed to discuss the issues of passive vs. active management and global allocation vs. the current categories at a later date.
H. 2014 Suggested Priorities Memo Carolyn referred to the memorandum dated March 6, 2014, regarding 2014 Suggested Priorities, included in the Board Package. She recalled that the Board had agreed to move toward the target of Mix B, which includes a 5% allocation to Private Debt. US based Crescent was approved for half that allocation. NEPC has identified additional opportunities to diversity the portfolio, including European direct lending funds, noncore Real Estate, International small cap equity and small cap value managers. Carolyn discussed these investments in the order that she believed the Board should consider them. She recommended consideration of the European Private Debt managers in April and May, followed by International Small cap investments. Member Riemer requested a list of the international small cap managers on NEPC's Focused Placement List. J. European Focused Direct Lending and non-Core Real Estate Carolyn told the Board that NEPC's Focused Placement List includes-three European direct lending managers, but the most conservative, HayFin had a closing date too early for full consideration by the Board. The other two are: Alcentra European Direct Lending Fund and Park Square Credit Opportunities Fund II. Chair Lewis call a recess at I 0:36AM The meeting resumed at 10:43 AM Carolyn explained that European banks had provided about 70% of the capital for borrowers. Much like the US, European banks were required to increase reserves against loans under BASEL III, and the banks sold off assets and reduced their lending. Because European banks provided a larger proportion of capital to midsized firms, the impact was greater than in the US, and the need for capital is greater because other providers have not yet taken advantage of these opportunities in Europe. Carolyn reviewed these investment opportunities, which include senior debt, unitranch and subordinated debt. There may be some leveraged investments, and funds are locked in for a number of years. Hugo told the Board that outside counsel, Tom Hickey, had just let him know by email that the San Bernardino and Orange Counties' Retirement Boards had just closed investments with Alcentra and Park Square and that he had reviewed the documents. The Board discussed their impression of this opportunity. They raised issues such as investment in subordinated debt, defaults and recovery of funds, commitment to percentages in senior debt, uncertainties associated with a unitranch category, illiquidity, and the possibility that yields would decline as others entered this market.
4 20
AC Transit Retirement Board March 13,2014 They agreed to invite the two European managers to the next meeting. At that time, the Board could address their questions and concerns to the managers themselves, learn about this product, and make a decision about these investments. M. NEPC Work Plan The European Direct Lending managers will be invited to make presentations m April. I.
Investment Performance vs. the Benchmark Carolyn distributed a chart and table comparing active managers verse their benchmark and referred to similar tables by asset class, included in the Board Package. Hugo told the Board that these comparisons of active vs. passive performance will prove useful for future discussions. The discussion of this Agenda Item was tabled until later in the meeting.
K. Crescent Direct Lending Update Hugo reminded that Board that in February they approve that investment in Crescent contingent upon confirming that the line of credit with Wells Fargo did not involve leverage. He reported that he talked with Crescent and learned that there was no leverage involved. The line of credit was used to facilitate the closing of investments. The Board had instructed Hugo to determine if leverage was used and if it was not to obtain the approval of Members Williams and Lewis. He informed them of his finding via email and received an email from them instructing him to move forward with the investment. He expected to sign the documents this month and move the funds in April. L. New Custody Bank Tentative Recommendation
Hugo referred to his memorandum dated March 4, 2014, regarding the custody search and recommendation, and the detailed NEPC material, included in the Board Package. There were three bids: Wells Fargo bid about $35 thousand, Northern Trust bid about $50 thousand, and State Street, our current bank bid about $150 thousand. Hugo pointed out that Wells has little experience in this service, and currently AC Transit has a banking relationship with Wells. Hugo talked to other Pension fund staff, and found that Northern's clients were happy with the bank, and consider it a real "player" in this field. He recommended moving forward with Northern, with the objective of completing the transaction by July I, 2014. MOTION: RIEMER/WILLIAMS to authorize staffto enter contract negotiations with Northern Trust to become our custody bank effective July 1, 2014. (5-0-0-0)
Hugo will report to the Board regarding the contract, in April. N. Calendar for 2014
5 21
AC Transit Retirement Board March 13,2014 There were no changes to the Calendar for 2014
0. AB 1222, PEPRA and Plan Amendment 13-A-16 Hugo reported that the District Board will discuss the Joint Meeting agenda at its retreat at the end of April and asked if there were additional topics Board members would like to propose for the agenda. He added that District Board President Harper wanted more discussion of unfunded liability. Member Riemer remarked that people find unfunded liability hard to understand, and frightening. Vice Chair Williams raised the question of Plan Amendment 13-A-16, which implemented PEPRA. She wanted to know the status of that amendment. Hugo reported that he had discussed this question with General Manager Armijo, who said that it could take some time to resolve. Director Peoples reminded the Board that the appointment of a new AC Transit Interim General Counsel had slowed the process. Hugo added that the amendment does not affect a large number of employees at this time. Counsel Richeda stressed that the amendment is still in place, despite the facts that the Governor signed AB 1222, exempting "transit employees" from PEPRA, in October 2013, and we are not complying with the amendment. The Board discussed this situation and decided to go on record regarding the need to resolve this issue. MOTION: RIEMER/CLINTON to direct Counsel Richeda to draft a letter to the District Board of Directors asking them to address the status of amendment 13-A-16. Chair Lewis and Vice Chair Williams will review the letter. (5-0-0-0)
P. Website Hugo referred to the material on the Website included in the Board Package and described how a user would navigate the Website, including the path to the disclaimer material. The Board recommended a few format changes. Hugo said that he hoped to have the Website up and running soon. (Member Clinton left the meeting at this point.) I.
Investment Performance vs. the Benchmark (Continued) Hugo stressed that there is no one simple answer to the questions of active vs. passive management, or global allocation vs. asset category. That is why these questions are discussed continually. Carolyn told the Board that it makes sense to use active management for small cap equity, Emerging Markets and in some fixed income investments, as well as for Real Estate and GAA managers. Member Riemer reported seeing more of a tendency to group core assets and passive management in selected asset classes. He wondered how people conclude that large cap markets are suitable for passive management because they are efficient, but there is room for active
6 22
AC Transit Retirement Board March 13, 2014 management in small cap investments. Carolyn agreed to make a white paper on the question of efficient markets available through Hugo. R. Disability Determination Process The Board agreed to table this Agenda Item until the next meeting in order to have all Members present for this discussion Q. Update on Calculation of Pension Benefit for Former Union Officer James Gardner Nothing to Report. S. Retirement System Manager Report 1. Report on CALAPRS Advanced Principles of Pension Management Member Riemer thanked the Board for the opportunity to attend. Despite the differences among the retirement plans it was very helpful to share problems and procedures. The AC Transit Board appears to work a lot better than others described during the discussion. He recommends that others attend. 2. Report on CALAPRS Administrative and Benefits Roundtables Hugo reported on a discussion on how to deal with a perception of "unsustainable" pension costs and the politicization of the terms used during these discussions. Adelle reported on suggestions regarding methods of locating Term Vested retirees eligible to retire, and approaches used to resolve questions such as overpayment. The rules differ among retirement systems. 3. Report on CALAPRS General Assembly Hugo described the range of presentations 4. Form 700 Are due April!, 2014. T. (CLOSED SESSION) I) Matters Relating to Personnel: Disability Applicants' and Disability Retirees' Medical Records (Government Code Section 54957; 65 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 412 (1982) a. Ansar Muhanunad -- Occupational Disability b. Desiree Lambert- Occupational Disability c. Gwendolyn Randle- Total and Permanent Disability d. Zakiya Mawusi- Occupational Disability e. Aubrey Johnson- Total and Permanent Disability f. Brenda Walker - Occupational Disability g. Shauna Chappell - Occupational Disability h. Evelyn Jones-Mayfield- Occupational Disability i. Arsenia Legaspi- Total and Permanent Disability J. Keith Wade- Total and Permanent Disability Public Employee Performance Evaluation
7 23
AC Transit Retirement Board March 13,2014 (Government Code Section 54957) Title: Retirement System Manager U. (RESUME OPEN SESSION) 1) Report and/or Action on Closed Session Items There were no actions to report. STAFF COMMENTS None RETIREMENT BOARD COMMENTS None ATTORNEYS' REPORT None ADJOURNMENT The Board adjourned at 1:04 PM.
8 24
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR CALENDAR
April 23, 2014 Agenda Items 5A-5D
25
This page intentionally blank
26
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-085 April 23, 2013
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Contract Award, RFQ 2013-1263 Lead Artist for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Consider approving contract award for Lead Artist for the Bus Rapid Transit Art Enhancement. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The District initiated a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process to select up to three Lead Artists to design and fabricate Integrated Art Enhancements to the 34 BRT stations in Oakland and San Leandro. The RFQ was issued in accordance with Federal Transit Authority regulations pertaining to artistic enhancement as integrated with the station architecture design as promulgated in Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 36.6. Honor the Past and Celebrate the Future was the conceptual theme for these desired enhancements. All 34 BRT stations will receive the standard treatments and six of the 34 stations will receive enhanced treatments defined below and as depicted in Attachment 1.
•
Standard Treatment : Series of artistically enhanced panels integrated into railings.
•
Enhanced Treatment: The standard treatment plus the option of artistic enhancement of the upper windscreen/ lower windscreen and/or interior volume under the canopy roof.
During the selection process/ seven (7) semi-finalists for Lead Artist were selected for the development of concept proposals (Attachments 2 and 3) and in collaboration with one or up to two additional artists and/or artisans from a Pre-qualified Pool of Supporting Artists and Artisans (RFQ No. 2012-1264 - Pre-qualified Pool of Supporting Artists and Artisans). The Artist Selection Panel has recommended the lead artist team of Johanna Poethig of Oakland/ Californ ia/ and Mildred Howard of Berkeley/ California/ for the entire BRT corridor. The results were presented to the Policy Steering Committee on March 24 2014; the 1
committee recommended approval and adopted the staffs recommendation for the Lead Artist . The board can approve the recommendation from the Artist Selection Panel and the PSC and 27
Report No. 14-085 Page 2 of 5 allow staff to complete the procurement process, award the contract and issue the noticeto-proceed. The Board may also choose to reject the recommendation of the Artist Selection Panel and the PSC and advise staff to initiate a new procurement process. Delaying the integration of art into the design development process by initiating another procurement process would cause significant and adverse impacts to the project's cost and schedule. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
The budget for the Art Enhancement includes design, fabrication and fees for the artist team. The negotiated fees are between 1.41 million and 1.5 million (Attachment 4) and are 1.5% of the total estimated BRT construction cost (94 million-100 million). The funding source and the budgeted amounts are as shown in the following table, below.
Funding Source
Amount
FTA Small Starts
$1,200,000
Measure B
$50,000
Regional Measure 2
$250,000
Total Art Enhancement Budget
$1,500,000
BACKGROUND:
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) 2013-1263 was advertised nationwide for this project in October 2013, posted on the District's website and advertised in the Oakland Tribune. Additionally, there was a separate notification to 226 qualified Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). The RFQ was issued in accordance with Federal Transit Authority regulations pertaining to artistic enhancement as integrated with the architectural design of the stations as promulgated in Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) Subpart 36.6. The final step of the process is the review of the artist submissions by the Artist Selection Panel, which recommends the team of Johanna Poethig of Oakland, California, and Mildred Howard of Berkeley, California, as the 'Project Lead Artist' and 'Lead Artist', respectively.
Honor the Past and Celebrate the Future was the conceptual theme for these desired enhancements. The sum total of all integrated artistic enhancements at the stations will establish an identity for the BRT system as well as reflect neighborhood and community character. Artists were encouraged to broaden and further interpret the conceptual theme based on their ideas. There are two categories of artistic enhancement of station design elements. All 34 stations will receive the standard treatments and six of the 34 stations will receive enhanced treatments as depicted in Attachment 1.
28
Report No. 14-085 Page 3 of 5 • •
Standard Treatment: Series of artistically enhanced panels integrated into railings. Enhanced Treatment: The standard treatment plus the option of artistic enhancement integrated with the upper windscreen, lower windscreen and/or interior volume under the canopy roof.
There were 100 artists who responded to this RFQ and .of those, forty-one (41) were deemed responsive and responsible by the Procurement Department staff and later had their qualifications evaluated by a Technical Assistance Committee (TAC). The qualifications evaluation was conducted in several phases. First, the TAC convened to evaluate and rate each responsive and responsible applicant to the RFQ for Lead Artist. The TAC also reviewed and rated the responsive and responsible applicant for Supporting Artist or Artisan thereby establishing the Pre-Qualified Pool. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was comprised of: • • • • • •
City Manager, San Leandro Cultural Arts Manager, City of Oakland Principal, FMG Architects (BRT consultant design team) Oakland President, CD+A (BRT consultant design team) Oakland Senior Project Manager BRT, AC Transit Oakland Director of Legislative Affairs and Community Relations, AC Transit Oakland
The TAC evaluated the initial qualifications and concept plans and recommended a group of seven semi-finalists, "Lead Artists", to be evaluated by the Artist Selection Panel. The seven teams of semi-finalists are: Johanna Poethig & Mildred Howard- Oakland & Berkeley, CA- Attachment 2 Catherine Widgery, Cambridge, MA- Attachment 3, Page 1 Michael Davis, San Pedro, CA- Attachment 3, Page 2 Barbara Grygutis, Tucson, AZ- Attachment 3, Page 3 Bob Zoell, Pasadena, CA- Attachment 3, Page 4 Leticia Huerta, Helotes, TX- Attachment 3, Page 5 Nancy O'Neil, New Orleans, LA- Attachment 3, Page 6
The seven semi-finalists participated in a detailed webinar briefing on the BRT project and developed concept proposals (attachments 2 and 3). Concurrently, the District initiated a separate RFQ (RFQ No. 2012-1264- Pre-qualified Pool of Supporting Artists and Artisans) from which the Lead Artist would collaborate with one or up to two additional artists and/or artisans. The semi-finalists then submitted their concept proposals to the District, which were displayed during a public comment exhibition from February 19-21, 2014. On February 24, 2014, the semi-finalists presented their concept proposal before the Artistic Selection Panel in person or via web conference. The Artist Selection Panel comprised: • Director, Mexican Museum San Francisco 29
Report No. 14-085 Page 4 of 5 •
Community Leader Oakland; Oakland resident
•
Artist, CCA Faculty and member Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC) City of Oakland: Oakland resident
•
Artist and Exhibition Manager University of California Davis Design Museum; Oakland resident
•
Graphic Designer and President San Leandro Arts Council; San Leandro resident
The Panel reviewed and evaluated the submitted concept proposals and reviewed the comment cards collected from the public exhibit. The Panel scored and rated each semi-finalist concept proposal using the following criteria:
1. Artistic excellence and originality as evidenced by past work and supporting materials (20%). 2. Artist's past experience implementing public projects for government agencies or private entities (15%}. 3. Artist's past work as judged to be appropriate to the project including proven experience with community interface and evidence of Artist's potential to create art enhancements that address community context (25%}. 4. Artist's professional experience is adequate to meet the demands of the project (15%}. 5. The artist's availability to participate in design and implementation, including approval of their artistic enhancements, and to meet necessary deadlines in a timely and professional manner (25%). The Artist Selection Committee could have selected one (1) to three (3) artists to design and fabricate the integrated artistic enhancement component of the BRT. Unanimously and mainly for continuity reasons, the Artist Selection Committee felt strongly to be in the best interests of the District to have one artist team design and fabricate all artistic enhancements integrated with the architectural design of the BRT stations. The Artist Selection Panel has recommended the District select the lead artist team of Johanna Poethig of Oakland, California and Mildred Howard of Berkeley, California (Attachment 2). This recommendation was presented to the Policy Steering Committee on March 241h and the Committee recommended approval of staff's recommendation. With Board approval, the recommended Lead Artist will negotiate a contract with the District based on demonstrated competence, fee and qualifications for the required work.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: Advantages - Art enhancement is a FTA required component of this project, but more importantly exemplifies the District's partnership with the community and the people it will serve with the BRT.
Disadvantages- None. 30
Report No. 14-085 Page 5 of 5
ALTERNATIVES ANALVSIS: There is no alternative to meeting the FTA requirement.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None
ATTACHMENTS: 1:
Station Groupings for Artistic Design Enhancements
2: 3. 4.
Recommended Lead Artist Concept Design Non-Recommended Lead Artist Concept Designs Negotiated Fee, Fee justification & deliverables
Approved by:
David J. Armijo, General Manager Dennis W. Butler, Chief Planning and Development Officer
Reviewed by:
Lewis G. Clinton, Chief Financial Officer Chris Andrichak, Senior Analyst, Capital Planning and Grants Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel David Wilkins, Director of Bus Rapid Transit Jon Medwin, Director of Procurement & Materials
Prepared by:
Ram a Pochiraju, BRT Sr. Project Manager
31
This page intentionally blank
32
l> .... .... QJ n
;;r
3
ttl
.... :::::1
.... I
....
(/)
Station •Groupings· for Artistic Design Enhancements
-o-
:::::1
...0
Gl
s:::
Median Stotion (21) Curbsid~
QJ .... c;·
Station (12 pairs)
~. :::::1
-..."'
OQ
"'0"
Son Lcodro BART Station
Station Grouping for J::l U.ad Artist or lNd T•am
0
St.ltion ror Enhanced Artistic TrN tment
Ntighborhood Districts 0-lkl.>nd/Son U.ondro Boundory Crty Council District Boundary
7
Crty Council District Number
0
l> ~
iii" ....;:;·
0
ttl
"'
ciQ" :::::1
m :::::1
;;r
Rout• on Gty Srr.et
QJ :::::1
St.lt• Rout• lBS (C.Itrons right-or-woy)
n
ttl
3ttl
.... "' :::::1
SAN Ft1,~ ,,o~co
BAr
Fogure 1
33
Attachment 2 - Recommended Lead Artist Concept Design
Cultural Corridor Urban flow
Team: Johanna Poethig, Project lead Artist Mildred Howard. Project
Project Statement Cultural Corndgr/Urban Flow Will ~Tablish mulTiple pomrs of connecTion lor tho publie as they move Through These hrstorically evolving nerghbor· hoods. Urban-now is a way of Thinking about of the currents of hisiOI\' cwerlapprng wrth the svsrems of the built and natural environments whose common characteristrcs is The processes of ffow. To capture This C
Light and Shadow
of""'
!horocl ~v.ill ploywilli~lllld--ch.logo~ sl:ylnloighi-WOOifoglll
The xreens Will QPtute the rncwement o: ~ tr.arfic: 3I'G llk.mn.1l00 Signs
Honeycomb Framing System Mc:dutar
hOneyC:Qmtl an::1 rramn;~ syste."n Will
be .a cost ettcctlve vrn ot aeannQ ViN!IOf\"' desqt~
tfV'OI.I!1l lhe st
......
~
6 00 VI )>
Variations in Station Identities AlcM0C1ural
1):~1
Oov.on:go,o.n~
laWn Fron
&.11~ngs 111
........ Q)
n
::J
3
m
.... ::J N
34
P a g e 1 1- Attachment 3- Non-Recommended Lead Artist Concept Designs
Celebrate!
Vl
::0
wid~ery
studio 35
Pa g e
- ______
____
__ _____ _____ _ __ .. _.,._ ---·-·· ,....__._ ·-·-----·-------·--------·-.-.-______ _ _____ _____ .._ .....·--..__ --...._·-------·---------___ ___........------....._ ---··-·-----·--------...-.--·--· ---------... .,_.....
..,...
("
~
...
_.......,_.
..,.,
._.._
IIIl
·-~ · ------..-..------
..._.
......,._.,. .............
...
--..--~
I 2- Attachment 3- Non-Recommended Lead Artist Concept Designs
______ _ __ ____ __ _____ ___ _ __ __________ -------·--......-.---------- .-.------...-.. ------------... ------""-.
.
I
--..:. 36
..
...
...
-·----.--~ - -....
I I II
I I III - ~
..
~-----..-....-----
~~.~-
II I II
-
--· ·'4
-
-
Pa ge
__ -......_..._. . . ._____ ... ......,_ . . . _-·-...·- ·-!--· ...._ ... .... -.........----....... .. .......................... ............... .. _.......... .._____ -______ __ __ ---~n...
·~--- .........
.,.,_
.._.
· ~~
-
t
ed
.......
•
-- --~-"""11-
-
~......_._,__....,.__..,.,_.._..___...
__..,_,__ .........
....._~..._.__._.,__......,....,."-
~......----- ....... ~ _.....,..._............
.......__.
;-
~.---
..._.
~--........-..,.__,__.,.._
37
.....
-
...,
-
........_..._,..._._.
-
. ,__..,._...•.r--- --·--"··-·~------·-----+-
-: .
-
_ ...._..._......,_.... ......
~
,
I 3 -Att achment 3- Non-Recommended Lead Artist Concept Designs
Pa g e
CONC EPTS 48 ' Enhanced Med· on Stot1ons East Boy Bus Rapid Tronsit
,..----
I 4- Attachment 3- Non- Recommended lead Artist Concept Designs
----
r ·ers ct
38
0"'
---r - - - - ...,....-- ---~
--
page
1
s -Attachment 3- Non-Recommended Lead Artist Concept Designs
Integrated Artistic Enhancements at East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Stations
Polycarbonate and Cut Powdercoated Steel
Polycarbonate or Glass Sculpture inspired by Origami utilizing Solar Lighting
Alternate Roof Design inspired by Origami utilizing Solar Lighting
Alternate Rail Design Inspired by Talavera Tile Designs Lead Artist Semi Finalist: Leticia Huerta Supporting Artist: Joyce Hsu
39
p a g e 1 6- Attachment 3- Non-Recommended Lead Artist Concept Designs
East Bay Bus Rapid Tran i t Project - AC Tran it BRT ::
Xancy O'Xeil, lud Artht ~mi-Finalist Daniel Gahez. Supporting Artbt
__
.. .............. ........., __"""""'_. ~ · "'"",.,...,...... .-!
~~-
._
c
i!W•IIh
!lw~
""- r .. _..,IOdoo:ac~"'
--~.....,.........._...-~"""'*"7
.... ~~.......,J'IDIGIC~..,...,,_., r.
...
-·-o~-.,~,. -~ .. t..-w..cpa....-f~.,..."'...................
_ ---oo\lll><•_-,;_-.e.r•.. otr""'---.. ..._.;m .... _
--...,.---
SW....GIQ tt-r ,.._ ISXT~wtlor r--eo..~.,..,..,...
--"-U..Cilow-. .... - ....... < ..... _ . . . . , ... ,.......,.....,., _....,.,.._ ... h.:iil
~'""""
_,......,""""..
"hlch~-.... ~.~
---n..-:-_.....,.._ ____ ....... .
All"'w-~lllb
.._... .._., .-_ -o~-...~ ...... -. ..... """""""--
40
14-085 Att . 4
Project Budget AC Transit EB- BRT Art Enha ncement Preliminary Projecte d Budget
II~"fllllltlUtlll
'·' j~j ....
"
I
0/o
Services Mobilization Research to desig n/ fabricate and do basic testing Funds for the fabrication of full mock up Design: Art ist Lead Team Management of Updates, Meetings, Reports - 4 Team
Poethig • Howard Hsu • Richards JOHANNA POETHIG 6542 Whitney Oakland, CA 94609
PHONE 510 655-0441 Cel l 510 541 · 0202
EMAIL
[email protected]
~mtilJTilil
of Budget
1.5% of $ 100 1.5 % of $ 94 mm mm 2 $ 28,200.00 $ 30,000.00 1. 50 $22,500 .00 $21,150 0.5 $7,050.00 $7,500 .00
13 .75
$ 193, 875
$206 250.00
1
$14,100.00
$15,000.00
0 .75
$10,575.00
$11,250.00
Design Team Meetings- Working with design team to integrate artistic enhancement, Corridor-wide approach and develop final budget based on final design development & other project requirements
3
$42 300.00
$45 000.00
Design Development & Refinement- Creating station identity designs based on neighborhood location, working with community youth to create text. Creating concept sketches, photoshop files, color concepts in preparation for digital documents. Printing of digital designs, photography & project documentation/ refining budget
5
$70,500 .00
$75,000.00
Project Lead Management - To oversee project timeline, budget, subcontracts & submit documentation
3
$42 300.00
$45,000.00
Overview of Fabrication - Coordinate subcontractors, artist/ artisans and site visits, fabrication inspection
1
$14,100.00
$15,000 .00
5
$ 70, 500
$ 75,000.00
1
$14 100.00
$15 000.00
1
$14,100 .00
$15,000.00
1
$14 100.00
$15,000.00
3 Community Meetings I 2 - 4 Stakeholder Meetings Presentations of Concept, Outreach, Feedback, Briefings
Design: Artist/ Artisan Design Team Meetings -Working with Team to develop integrated design, materials approaches and specifications for fabrication Design Development - Working to develop corridorwide approach, designing panels and metal elements to integrate with Station designs Fabrication Design Implementation - Research and working with Fabricators to translate designs into station art enhancements, creating mock up Digita l Design Development Drawings : Creating drawing files to be used in the developing design elements
r: ~~::iSLl .'! :-11~:}\ ·:·:-;:_ I •
mi!.UJ:
·,· · r -~-
~!I ~.
::~.-,' )_
~~: :::
\
2
,, ) •.,
$28,200.00
li .
0/o
of Budget
-J:;
$30,000.00
•
•
.' :~
1 .5% of$ 100 1.5% of $ 94 mm mm
Se rvices Direct Services
2 . 25
41
$31,725.00
$ 33, 750.00
Project Budget AC Transit EB-BRT Art Enhancement Preliminary Projected Budget Legal Fees, Additional Insurance, Bookkeeping, youth
stipends
1.25 1
_j17,625.00 $14 100.00
$18,750.00 $15 000.00
64
$902,400.00
$960,000.00
36
$507,600.00
$540,000.00
$394,800.00
$420,000.00
25
$352,500.00
$375,000.00
13
$183,300.00
$195,000.00
cost that is dependent upon final design development
10
$141,000.00
$150,000.00
Metal for 34 additional stations including 12 paired curbside stations. Additional art metal will be determined by the amount of funds from the cost sharing of the polycarbonate
18
$253,800.00
$270,000.00
Transportation & Storage
3
$42 300.00
$45 000.00
Transportation, multiple shippings to staging areas
2 1
$28,200.00 $14,100.00
$30,000.00 $15,000.00
10
$141,000.00
$150,000.00
Architectural & Structural Engineering
Fabrication Total Mobilization To start fabrication of art enhancement elements based on 60% net 30 contracts with fabricators. Mobilization funds will be invoiced based on Timeline for construction of Stations and expected delivery.
Fabrication 8t Materials Balance Fabrication Elements
28 0/o of Fab
Polycarbonate Honeycomb Panels for 6 Enhanced Stations + Standard Stations depending on final design. Preliminary estimate based on cost sharing
with the construction budget assumes that part of this cost (the polycarbonate sheets included in. current design), will be added back into art enhancement budget. Final assembly and finishing cost will determine design and budget. Aluminum CNC routed, painted, anti-graffiti coated
for 6 Enhanced Stations - estimate budget based on design complexity and overall design Sandblasting - this is a preliminary estimated general
Storage if needed Contingency
Contingency
Any unused funds will be used for further enhancement of Standard Stations including design, fabrication and admistration
TOTALS
I
42
1
$1,410,ooo.ool iJ,,5oo,ooo.oo
POETHIG • HOWARD • HSU • RICHARDS
AC Transit EB-BRT Art Enhancement Preliminary Budget Justifications: Draft Johanna Poethig, March 18, 2014 • Based on $1,500,000.00 Budget • $200.00 an hour wage • Estimate 30 month Timeline starting April 2015 (to be verified) • These are all estimates and depending on required task will be adjusted between all 4 Team members. We have no information yet regarding Design Team progress or Timeline, Construction and Installation timeliile and expectations. Team Members: Johanna Poethig : Lead Artist and Prime Primarily responsible for contract and project. Attending Design Team, Community, Stakeholder meetings. Working with Youth on text. Design Developm1;1nt for 34 Stations and corredor-wide approach. Overview of fabrication, Project management, submitting invoices, reports and summaries as required. Mildred Howard: Lead Artist Responsible for Design Team, Community and Stakeholder meetings, Working with Youth on text, Design Development for 34 Stations and Corridor-wide approach, Overview of Design Development drawings and fabrication. Submitting reports and summaries as required Joyce Hsu: Supporting Artist Responsible for Design Team, Community and Stakeholder meetings. Design Development for 34 stations. Creating drawings for submittals through final Construction Document phase. Overview of metal fabrication,.final assembly, mock up sample and submitting reports and summaries as required. Assisting with project management. Peter Richards: Supporting Artist Responsible for Design Team, Community, Stakeholder meetings. Design Development for honeycomb panels and integration into existing station architecture. Work with fabricators.for research and development of panels and assembly with all elements. Creation of full mock up. Overview of fabrication, submitting reports and summaries as required.
43
Mobilization Research on design and Fabrication of panels with some basic testing. $30,000 Fabrication of Mock up. This will be taken from Fabrication costs primarily with some time from design development for Team to Work with Fabricator. DESIGN: Artist Lead Team 1. Updates, Meetings, Reports from all4 Team Members: $15,000.00 Estimate Total75 hours: • 60 hours for reports and updates • 15 hours for meetings 2. 3 Community Meetings/2-4 Stakeholder Meetings: $11 ,250.00 Estimate 56 hours for 4 Team members: Time includes preparation, meeting time, summary for all4 Team members • approximately 2 - 5 hours per community meeting • approximately 2 - 3 hours per Stakeholder meeting . • Conduct Community Meetings • !3riefStakeholder partners Ci~ of Oakland Public Art AdvisoriCorrimTt!ee (J=ll\AC) ariC:tl Qi!Y_Q!_~l!ll_l,.ealldrg. 3. Design Team Meetings: $45,000 Estimate 225 hours for 2 Lead Artists and 2 Team members as needed • Developing protocol and coordination between Artist Team and BRT Design Team • Preparation for meetings • Presentation of feedback from community, stakeholders and youth group • Working with Design Team to integrate artistic enhancement into 34 stations (46
E'fatformSi>, • Developing the corridor-wide approach, Integrated color plan, cost sharing • Understanding project requirements ~ncfoonsfriiints thereon 4. Design Development and Refinement: $75,000 Estimate 375 hours for 2 Lead Artists and 2 Team members as needed • Creating Art Enhancement station identity designs (not branding) for 34 stations based on neighborhood location and integrating with corridor-wide approach • Working with community youth to create text, stipend for youth participants • Creating concept sketches and preliminary photoshop design development files • Color concepts for corridor-wide approach
44
• Printing of digital designs, photography & project documentation • Refining budget
5. Project Lead Management: $45,000 Estimate 225 hours for 3o months+ an average of 7.5 hours a month with some months requiring more coordination that others. . • To coordinate team, oversee project timeline, budget, subcontracts & submit documentation 6. Overview of Fabrication: $15,000 Estimate 75 hours between 4 Team Members Team members will participate in process as appropriate and needed • Coordinate subcontractors, site visits, documentation and developing reports • Fabrication inspection • site inspection • scheduling delivery to staging areas
DESIGN: Artist/Artisan 1. Design Team Meetings $15,000 Estimate 75 hours for 2 Team members • Attending Design Team Meetings • Reports from research and development on panels and other materials • Working with BRT Design Team to integrate materials and designs • Developing specifications for fabrication • List of fabricators
2. Design Development: $15,000 Estimate 75 hours for 2 Team members • Creating station identity designs for 34 stations based on neighborhood location and integrating with corridor-wide approach • Designing panels and metal elements to integrate with Station designs • Developing specifications for fabrication 2. Fabrication Design Implementation: $15,000 Estimate 75 hours • Research working with fabricators to translate designs into station art enhancements • Coordinate the fabrication of single panel full sized mock up • Refining budget for fabrication
45
3. Design Development Digital Drawings: $30,000 Estimate 150 hours • Creating drawings and files to be used in the development of design elements for fabrication. This includes photoshop mock ups of stations, schematic design, design development t
46
POETHIG • HOWARD • HSU • RICHARDS
f'-.C Transit EB-BRT Preliminary Art Enhancement Deliverabl~s
Draft: Johanna Poethig, March 18, 2014 1. Mobilization:
Research for panels and full sized mock up sample 2. Pre Concept Design
• • • •
Research and Design for panels and materials Detail Briefing with key Design Team Members Artistic Enhancements weekly updates to BRT Senior Project Manager Community meeting presentation preparation o Refine presentation from selection concept proposal • Conduct Community meetings #1 # 2 #.3 • Community Meeting report #1 , # 2 and # 3 • Brief Stakeholder Partners - City of Oakland (including PMC) and City of San Leandro as reque~ted, up to 4 meetings (including coordination with AC Transit) • Summary analysis of stakeholder input
3. Design Development
• Design Development workshop with youth group on poetic text o photo documentation of workshop with list of participants o preliminary poetic text for approval •
Artistic Enhancement meetings with BRT Design Team (AC Transit and Consultants) o Protocol for ongoing coordination between Artist Team and BRT Design Team o Artistic Station Identity concepts for Enhanced and Standard Stations corridor-wide approach o Presentation of feedback from community, stakeholders and youth group o Preliminary color plan o Preliminary artistic integration with station design and approach to potential cost sharing o Report from Research Development on panels and materials
•
Summary Report_from Research and Design Development (establishes agreed-upon baseline for Schematic Design Work)
47
4. Schematic Design • 50% SO submittal o Photographic studies of station locations o Photoshop mock up of stations (enhanced and standard stations) o Concept sketches o Schematic engineering sketches o List of fabricators and fabrication cost proposal o Refine Artistic Enhancement Budget
•
100% SO submittal o Digitization of concept sketches for enhanced and standard stations showing integration with station design o Final list of fabricators and detailed cost estimate o Engineering calculation if necessary .
5. Design Development • Draft DO submittal o coordination of connection details between artistic enhancement elements and station structures represented in architectural drawings o refinement of design drawings • Final DO submittal o General connection and structural detail finalized with architectural drawings o Color scheme finalized o Color and material samples from fabricators
6. Construction Documentation • Preliminary Draft CD submittal o Individual drawing sets for each stations o All connection details reviewed and stamped by engineer as needed o Full size mock up of one single panel from fabricator for review • Final CD submittal o Final compilation of drawing sets ready for bid o incorporate final drawings with architectural drawing set 7. Mobilization for Fabrication • Make contracts with Fabricators and decide on terms of payment, schedule and delivery.
48
8. Construction Administration • Project coordination report with contractor and fabricator • Oversight to maintain fabrication schedule • Fabrication inspection • Site inspection • Schedule delivery to staging/storage area 9. As-Built Submittal and Final Reports • Revised 100% CD based on as built and site condition • Final photo documentation
49
POETHIG • HOWARD • HSU • RICHARDS
AC Transit EB-BRT Preliminary Art Enhancement Payment Schedule Draft: Johanna Poethig, March 18, 2014
Based on $1,500,000 Budget Invoice every 2 Weeks 15 Days Net These are general allocations as Team has had no briefing on schedule and sequence of payment depends on that. Payments will cover hours spent, reports, materials for production of design; drawings, submittals and documentation. Invoices will be submitted in response to these triggers: • Project Management hours • Direct Costs • mobilization and mock up funds • preparation for meetings • attending meetings • conducting community meetings • conducting youth workshops . • making presentations to stakeholders • submitting reports and documentation • in-progress preliminary plans for design including color, texts, stations designs • identifying cost sharing and other budget refinements • summary reports from research and design development • Schematic Design submittals • Design Development Drafts • Final Design Development • Construction Drafts • Final CD submittals • Mobilization for Fabrication • overview of fabrication • site inspection • Storage if needed • Transportations to site • Final reports • photo documentation
50
TIMELINE 1. Upon signing of contract: Mobilization Research and Design for panels and materials and construction of mock up
$30,000
70 days
3. Design Development/Direct Fees
6 0 days
$60,000
60 days
$50,000
4. Schematic Design/Direct Fees • 50% SD submittal • 100% SD submittal
5. Design Development/ Direct Fees • Draft DD submittal •Final DD submittal
60 days
$40,000
6. Construction Documentation /Direct Fees •Preliminary Draft CD submittal •Final CD submittal
60 days
$40,000
7. Mobilization for Construction To be invoiced according to construction timeline
$540,000
$435,000
8. Construction I Storage
• • • • •
$60,000
2. Pre Concept Design/ Direct Fees
9. Construction Administration Project coordination report with contractor and fabricator Oversight to maintain fabrication schedule Fabrication inspection Site inspection Schedule delivery to staging/storage area
$40,000
$45,000
10. Transportation
51
11. Contingency as needed To be used for further enhancement of Standard Stations Including fabrication, design, direct fees and management
12. As-Built Submittal and Final Reports • . Revised 100% CD based on as built and site condition • Final photo documentation
$150,000
. $10,000
TOTAL $1,500,000.00
52
~I
Report No: Meeting Date:
12-083b April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
East Bay BRT - Adopting Changes in the Environmental Re-evaluation {Section 130(c)) Report
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider adopting Resolution No. 14-018 approving the changes to the Locally Preferred Alternative as described in the environmental re-evaluation (Section 130{c)) Report and authorizing General Manager to file an amendment to the Notice of Determination {NOD) with the County of Alameda Clerk's Office and the State Clearinghouse. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The environmental re-evaluation {Section 130{c)) Report identifies changes to the approved Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) certified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/R) and approved in the Record of Decision (ROD, an action by FTA) and the Notice of Determination (NOD, an action by AC Transit). The changes are primarily the addition of two new BRT bus stations in East Oakland plus other minor adjustments. The Section 130{c) Report concludes that these modifications do not create new or additional significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of the environmental impacts previously analyzed in the FEIS/R. AC Transit's General Counsel has reviewed the information in the Section 130(c) Report and concurred with the Section 130{c) recommendations, concluding that a Supplemental EIR is not needed. The FTA submitted the Historcal Property Impact Evaluation Report {HPIER) addendum to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review and concurrence with the determination of No Adverse Effect. The SHPO concurred with the determination of "No Adverse Effect." FTA agreed with the No Adverse Effect conclusion. A Resolution from the Board will provide the FTA with the final documentation necessary to issue its decision of No Adverse Impact. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There are no budgetary/fiscal impacts associated with this action other than BRT Project funds paying the related filing fees to amend the NOD with the County and State.
53
Report No. SR 12-083b Page 2 of 7 BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Since issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), the District and its Agency partners have refined the project. The changes are proposed to enhance local access, pedestrian safety, and the operations of bus rapid transit (BRT) and local buses and also city emergency response vehicles. The changes respond to post-ROD project review comments made by residents and public officials of the two host cities, Oakland and San Leandro, as well as engineering refinements. They reflect advanced engineering studies to the 40 percent design level. These types of changes do not generate new environmental issues or negatively affect the project's benefits. The changes will, however, require additional time to design and construct, and the proposed opening date for the East Bay BRT project is now late 2017 rather than 2015 as assumed in the FEIS. The post-ROD project changes include: •
Adding two new BRT stations in East Oakland. These are median stations in the vicinity of 67th Avenue and 90th Avenue along International Boulevard. They improve BRT service access and were requested at public meetings during circulation of the FE IS and as part of the City of Oakland's Conditions of Approval for the project, a city resolution approved on July 17, 2012. Both station areas serve large minority and low income populations for whom transit is an important mobility option. The addition of the new stations will also improve local access to businesses by transit.
In both locations, the project design presented in the FEIS (bidirectional, contiguous transit lanes occupying the center two traffic lanes of International Boulevard) will be modified to include a center median station between the two BRT lanes, accessible from the nearest signalized intersection. The platforms will be approximately 60-feet in length, excluding the passenger access ramp and concrete pad for bike storage at either end, and raised approximately 13 inches above top of pavement for level boarding of articulated low-floor BRT vehicles. The stations are to include a protective passenger canopy and other amenities such as platform ticket vending machines, lighting, security cameras, and communications capabilities. The basic station configuration is the same as at other median station locations along the BRT alignment. Station platforms can be constructed without requiring changes to the roadway curb line or the acquisition of right-of-way. Because the center-median station requires BRT lanes and adjacent traffic lanes to shift out towards the curb in the vicinity of the station platform, additional parking is displaced along the curb. However, substitute replacement parking will be designated along nearby cross streets, the same parking mitigation strategy adopted elsewhere along the BRT alignment. Roadway capacity and nearby intersection geometry, including turn lanes, are unchanged from the conditions evaluated in the FEIS, and thus there are no new traffic impacts resulting from either station addition. The BRT project includes major roadway improvements (repaving of traffic lanes), and enhanced crosswalks, curbs, Americans with Disabilities (ADA) compliant ramps, and lighting in the vicinity of stations. These ancillary features will be implemented at the 67th Avenue and 90th Avenue stations. To further enhance pedestrian safety at 67th 54
Report No. SR 12-083b Page 3 of7 Avenue, a pedestrian-only signal will be added at the crosswalk serving the station and an approximately six-foot bulb of the southbound curb of International Boulevard constructed to shorten the crossing distance. These features were not identified in the FEIS/R, but they and all other improvements in the station area can be made within the project footprint shown in the FEIS. At 90th Avenue no additional features besides the standard, ancillary improvements for station areas are proposed.
•
Shifting BRT station locations. The distances stations have shifted vary. Most relocated platforms are within the same block or moved no more than one block from their locations proposed in the FEIS, for a total shift in all but two cases of 300 feet or less. Two station platforms are relocated approximately 500 to 600 feet or two city blocks. These stations are in the vicinity of the new BRT stations at 67th Avenue and 90th Avenue and shifted to improve overall station spacing in the several blocks on each side of the new stations. (The 34 BRT stations on the East Bay BRT Project involve the construction of 46 platforms when stations with two side platforms are accounted for. Twenty-four of these stations, involving 30 platforms, are being revised from their FE ISproposed locations.) The other station shifts have been made to (1) maintain minor cross street and local driveway access in several locations as requested by corridor cities and businesses in comments received during AC Transit's ongoing consultation and outreach after issuance of the ROD, and (2) improve pedestrian/passenger movements (and safety) at several stations. Also, at the northern terminus of the BRT alignment in Downtown Oakland, the Uptown Station will be moved one block from the existing Uptown Transit Center on 20th Street, west of Broadway, to be on Broadway between 19th and 20th Streets. This will improve bus operations and avoid congestion at the existing bus transit center on 20th Street.
•
Modifying the BRT median along International Boulevard to allow unobstructed crossing of the median by emergency response vehicles. Related to the station shifts described above, the station platforms at nine locations are being shifted to ensure fire and police vehicles do not need to made additional turns, including U-turns, to proceed from International Boulevard to minor cross streets and vice versa. An unlandscaped (colored concrete) median break with mountable curbs on each side of the median, sufficiently wide for fire trucks and police vehicles, will be constructed. Local traffic will still be restricted from crossing the median at these locations, thereby retaining the safety and operational benefits for BRT buses using the median transitway of International Boulevard. A similar median break treatment is to be provided at approximately 38 other cross streets along International Boulevard where there are no stations but where a landscaped median was proposed in the design concept presented in the FEIS. The change in median design in these locations has the same purpose of facilitating emergency vehicle crossings of International Boulevard but limiting turns by regular motor vehicles. Emergency vehicles may still use the BRT transitway as needed anywhere along the BRT alignment.
•
Modifying the median-to-side running transition in San Leandro. The median BRT transitway will end at E. 14th Street and Garcia Avenue, or approximately two to three blocks (depending upon direction of travel) north of the location for this transition described in the FEIS. At that point BRT buses traveling in the southbound direction
55
Report No. SR 12-083b Page 4 of 7 proceed from the median of E. 14th Street to operate in mixed-flow next to the curbside parking lane. This is referred to as side running. Buses will continue to the project's southern terminus at San Leandro BART, which does not change. BRT buses traveling in the northbound from San Leandro BART will transition from side to median running also at Garcia Avenue. This change is being done to respond to the City of San Leandro's July 16, 2012 council resolution, which recommended implementation of Option 2 from the staff report, as follows:
Option 2 - Request that AC Transit implement an LPA (locally preferred alternative) that modifies or eliminates elements of the original LPA that was introduced by AC Transit at the May 31st joint meeting. The modifications include reducing the dedicated lanes so that they end at (or) just south of Broadmoor Boulevard (the transition lanes would end at Garcia Avenue, one block south) and the relocated stations. These changes would: 1} eliminate turn restrictions except at Broadmoor Boulevard...2} reduce station distances from senior housing, and 3} reduce parking impacts. (regular text added for clarification) [File#: 12-372, Version] Reducing the extent of dedicated median BRT lanes and shifting to side running will improve local access in the city's view by reducing turn restrictions. The location is near the BRT line's southern terminus at San Leandro BART and will not adversely affect BRT operational reliability or ridership projections.
•
Expanding the parking loss mitigation program and increasing the number of replacement parking spaces in certain neighborhoods. This is a commitment made by the District in several neighborhoods concerned about parking displacements. The table below summarizes the parking impacts of the post-ROD project compared to the conditions at the time of the FE IS. Parking Supply
I!
Project Displacements Displacements ll Meters Displaced**
400!0 Design FEIS/R*
TOTAL
2134
491
ll
40%
(40%· FEIS/R)
FEIS/R*
40%
(40%· FEIS[RJ.
597
106
114
96
-18
Total Mitigation
FEIS/R* 40%
221
248
ll (40%· FEIS/R)
27
*Numbers are directly from FEIS/R **Included in Displacements number
The number of parking spaces displaced has increased compared to information presented in the FE IS for several reasons, including: the addition of the two new and the shifting of previously proposed BRT stations (see first two bullets); the separation of local bus from BRT stops in downtown Oakland and the restoration of local bus stops in several locations along the BRT alignment (following bullet); pedestrian crosswalk improvements that have included more curb bulbouts and ADA sidewalk ramp improvements (final bullet); and roadway geometric and striping refinements for left turn bays, merging traffic lanes, and the accommodation of bike lanes at several intersections. Total mitigation is the number of spaces required to replace/redesignate parking in accordance with the mitigation methodology adopted in the FEIS. An additional 27 replacement parking spaces (a total of approximately 248 spaces) will be provided 56
Report No. SR 12-083b Page 5 of 7 corridor wide. With the implementation of the mitigation measure, significant parking shortfalls would be avoided. As documented in the FEIS, occupancy does not consistently exceed 85 percent of designated public parking spaces. However, in response to business, community organization, and public officials' comments, the District has committed to replace more parking in at least two neighborhoods than necessary based on the findings of our updated impacts-mitigation analysis. The District is procuring and improving one offstreet lot in the Fruitvale district and one off-street lot in the Elmhurst district, both locations in East Oakland. The lot at International Boulevard at 35th Avenue in Fruitvale will have a capacity of approximately 21 spaces and the lot at International at 86th Avenue in Elmhurst will offer 16 spaces. Both lots were identified for possible acquisition for the project in the FEIS, and evaluation made of potential environmental issues and impacts associated with their acquisition. The additional parking replacement is one of AC Transit's many commitments to corridor communities to be a good neighbor on this project.
•
Separating local bus stops from BRT stops in downtown Oakland and modifying local bus service operating plans there and in the southernmost portion of the BRT alignment. AC Transit bus operations planners have determined that local and BRT buses can operate more effectively if not using the same stop locations where the two services overlap. Therefore, in downtown Oakland, along 11th Street southbound and 12th Street northbound between Broadway and Lake Merritt, existing local bus stops are proposed to remain where they are currently or be shifted slightly to allow for the construction of nearby BRT stations. In the FE IS, local and BRT bus stops were combined and shared the BRT platform, which provided space for a local and a BRT bus to stop almost simultaneously if necessary. The BRT platform length was extended to 120 feet to accommodate up to two articulated buses. In the post-ROD changes, local and BRT buses will continue to follow the same alignment along 11th and 12th Streets, stopping in the vicinity of each other, to just south of Lake Merritt. At 1st Avenue, local buses diverge from the BRT alignment along International Boulevard and E. 12th Street. These stop changes in downtown Oakland do not affect the level of service or the general service plan (route alignment, hours and frequency of operation) on either local or BRT routes compared to the service described in the FE IS. In San Leandro, bus service changes include the extension of local service in the BRT corridor north of downtown and San Leandro BART. This involves the retention of local service previously identified for removal and replacement by BRT-only service in the FEIS. Two local stops along E.14th Street (in each direction) north of Davis and a third local stop located along International Boulevard in Oakland just north of the San Leandro city limit will be provided by either retaining the existing bus stops or relocating them within the same or an adjacent block. At 103rd Avenue in Oakland, the local bus route diverges from the BRT corridor. The local stops are at the curb and separate from BRT stations. The BRT service plan through north San Leandro does not change. The continuation of local service through northern San Leandro, was requested in the San Leandro City Council action on July 16, 2012, as follows: 57
Report No. SR 12-083b Page 6 of 7
In conjunction with the commencement of the BRT service, AC Transit shall offer a frequent and continuous service on East 14th Street that allows riders to travel between the northern and southern San Leandro borders without transferring buses. [File#: 12-372, Version]
•
Expanding improvements to crosswalks and pedestrian facilities along the BRT alignment. Working with the cities, the District has been making design refinements that improve pedestrian crosswalks, including ensuring all ramps (i.e., curb cuts) along the BRT alignment are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and is providing other street improvements, such as curb bulbouts and in-street safety islands, which will further enhance the pedestrian environment throughout the corridor.
In its assessment, the District has concluded that these changes do not cause new adverse environmental effects or increase the level or severity of any of the environmental effects previously identified in the FEIS. The two areas of impacts identified in the FEIS, traffic and parking, are addressed in the revisions to the East Bay BRT project post-ROD. The traffic studies indicate that no proposed design changes would alter level of service, compared to the information presented in the FEIS. The proposed changes would trigger changes in the level and geographic distribution of parking loss from BRT construction absent implementing any mitigation measures. However, by implementing the same mitigation measure methodology presented in the FEIS, the post-ROD project changes would not reduce parking availability to unacceptable levels. Furthermore, as noted above, the District has committed to replace more parking than required based on results of our updated impacts-mitigation analysis. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for historic resources was expanded at both 67th and 90th Avenues where new BRT stations are proposed and at other locations where FEIS-proposed stations are shifting. Evaluation was performed of the historic character of all structures in the revised APE. A determination was made that no historic or potentially historic structures would be adversely affected by the new and relocated stations. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this determination in a letter to FTA dated February 26, 2014 (Attachment 3). Based on this and other studies made of the new locations, we conclude the station changes post-ROD do not introduce new adverse impacts or increase the severity of impacts already disclosed in the FE IS. Finally, the proposed changes have undergone considerable public discussion and extensive review and comment by city staffs with whom we continue to work closely. The changes have been presented to potentially affected businesses and neighborhoods along the project corridor. City councils have also reviewed the changes. A number of the proposed changes have been prompted by the comments of these various interested stakeholders. The major outreach and coordination meetings were undertaken during post-ROD project design changes.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: Adopting the resolution approving the proposed changes completes the Section 130(c) process required for the SSGA appliccation to secure the remaining FTA grant monies thereby keeping the project fully funded and on schedule.
58
Report No. SR 12-083b Page 7 of 7 There are no disadvantages to adopting the resolution approving the proposed changes.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: Given the concurance from Board FTA Region 9 and SHPO on the District's CEQA determination, there is no feasible alterantive to adopting the resolution
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Staff Report 12-083a- Certification of East Bay BRT Final EIR & Adoption of new LPA Board Resolution No. 12-018- Certifying Final EIR, selecting DOSL as LPA and authorizing to file NOD
ATTACHMENTS: 1:
Resolution 14-018
2:
General Counsel's Opinion: Next Steps Under CEQA Dated December 20, 2013
3:
Letter from the Office of Historic Preservation Dated February 26, 2014
4:
Summary of Station Location Changes
5:
Letter from the Federal Transit Administration Dated March 14,2014
6:
Letter to the Federal Transit Administration Dated March 7, 2014 I Section 130c Report and Supporting Documents
Department Head Approval:
Dennis W. Butler, Chief Planning and Development Officer
Reviewed by:
David Wilkins, Director of BRT Program Denise Standridge, Interim General Counsel
Prepared by:
Ram a Pochiraju, Sr. Project Manager
59
This page intentionally blank
60
SR: 12-083b Attachment 1
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 14-018 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INFORMATION AND THE MODIFICATIONS IN THE SECTION 130(C) REPORT FOR THE EAST BAY BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT; AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
WHEREAS, worsening traffic congestion has resulted in delays to transit and declining system reliability in communities throughout the Berkeley-Oakland-San Leandro corridor; and WHEREAS, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (the District) undertook a Major Investment Study to address these problems; and WHEREAS, in 2001, the District and the Cities of Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro selected Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as the Locally Preferred Alternative to address long-term solutions that will accommodate future growth in travel; and WHEREAS, in 2004, the District and the cities of Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro selected detailed alternatives for study in the Draft Environmental Impact Study/Report; and WHEREAS, in 2007, the District released the Draft Environmental Impact Study/Report and solicited public review and comments on the impacts and findings; and WHEREAS, in April and May 2010, the cities of Berkeley, Oakland and San Leandro advised the District of their recommended individual Locally Preferred Alternatives selected through their city processes; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors selected two alternatives to be considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Report: 1} the Full Alternative with a build investment that runs from the Oakland/Berkeley border to the San Leandro BART station; and 2) the Downtown Oakland-San Leandro Alternative (DOSL) with a build investment from Downtown Oakland to the San Leandro BART stations; and WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/R) was prepared consistent with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act and their implementing regulations; and WHEREAS, on February 3, 2012, the District released the Final Environmental Impact Study/Report and conducted seven associated public outreach meetings within the affected cities; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2012, the Board of Directors held public hearings at 2:30 p.m. and 5:30p.m. at the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit General Offices located 1600 Franklin Street
Resolution No. 14-018
Page 1 o/3 61
Final Environmental Impact Report for the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project and selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative for the Project; and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2012, the Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. 12-018 certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project; selecting the Downtown Oakland-San Leandro (DOSL) alternative as the Locally Preferred Alternative for the Project. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does resolve as follows:
The AC Transit Board of Directors (Board) certifies that:
Section 1: •
•
The Board has received, reviewed and considered the information contained in the General Counsel's Opinion dated December 20, 2013 regarding "East Bay Bus Rapid Transit-Next Steps Under CEQA". The Board has received, reviewed and considered the information contained in Staff Report 12-083b and the 130c Report regarding station location changes after publication of FEIS/R and issuance of Record of Decision (ROD).
Section 2: Staff Report 12-083b and the 130c Report containing the project modifications are hereby approved and incorporated into the record by reference. Section 3: The General Manager, or his designee, is authorized to file an amended Notice of Determination with the Alameda County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse (the State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit) and pay related filing fees for the above actions taken under this Resolution. Section 4: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of April, 2014.
Greg Harper, President Attest:
Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary
Page 2of3
Resolution No. 14-018 62
I, Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 23rd day of April, 2014 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary
Approved as to Form and Content:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel
Resolution No. 14-018
Page3of3 63
This page intentionally blank
64
Report 12-083b Attachment 2 David A. Wolf, General Counsel Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
To:
David Wilkins, Director, BRT Project
From: David Wolf, General Counsel
~
Date: December 20, 2013 Re:
East Bay Bus Rapid Transit- Next Steps Under CEQA
INTRODUCTION On November 25, 2013, you sent me an email from Ramakrishna Pochiraju, dated November 22, 2013, which indicated Federal Transit Administration, Region 9, (FTA) had questions related to changes in the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project (BRT or Project) contained in the draft Section 130c Report (Report). This Report identifies changes to the approved Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA} certified in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/R} and approved in the Record of Decision (ROD, an action by FTA} and the Notice of Determination (NOD, an action by AC Transit). The approved Project, consisted of 32 BRT stations (some located adjacent to existing curbs others located in the roadway median) over a 9.5 mile route from 20th and Broadway in the City of Oakland to the vicinity of the San Leandro BART station, together with appropriate infrastructure and aesthetic improvements. As a consequence of continued dialogue with representatives of the cities of Oakland and San Leandro, community meetings and completion of 40% of the BRT design, certain modifications to the approved Project are contemplated. These modifications have been analyzed in the Report, which concludes that the modifications do not create new or additional significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of the environmental impacts previously analyzed in the FEIS/R. The purpose of this opinion is to determine if further environmental review is necessary in order to proceed with the Project with the proposed modifications and how to include the modifications as part of the Project's record. ISSUES This Office has reviewed the Report and undertook appropriate research to answer the following questions:
1.
Given the changes in the Project identified in the Report, what, if anything, is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), i.e., a subsequent or supplemental EIR?
2.
What Board action, if any, is required?
1600 Franklin Street - O akland, CA 9461 2- TEL (5 10) 89 1-4 827 . FAX (5 10) 89 1-4724- www.actransil.a rg 65
f.
David Wilkins Re: East Bay Bus Rapid Transit- Next Steps Under CEQA December 20, 2013 Page2
ANSWERS
1.
Although neither a subsequent EIR or. supplement to the FEIR is required, the preparation of an addendum • in the form of a staff report to the AC Transit Board of Directors - is the recommended course of action.
2.
The Board should adopt a resolution receiving and approving the staff report and the 130c Report.
DISCUSSION Under CEQA once a project has been approved, the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Thus, once discretionary project approval is complete, no agency has jurisdiction to require a further EIR, a subsequent EIR under Public Resources Code section 21166 or a supplemental EIR. {14 California Code of Regulations section 1 1 15162{c) ; Me/om v. City of Madera {2010} 183 Cai.App.4 h 41, 106 Cai.Rptr.3d 755.} Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. {Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. California Dep't of Health SeNs. {1995} 38 Cai.App.4th 1574, 1597, 45 Cai.Rptr. 2nd 822.} All discretionary decisions for the BRT have been obtained, the necessary environmental procedures have been completed and certified and the statutory time period for challenging the approved FEIS/R passed without any challenges being filed. CEQA's goal of creating an Informational document for the decision makers, so they know the significant environmental consequences of the proposed Project and what measures, if any, exist to mitigate them, has been completed. {See section 21061; Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of lnyo {2007} 157 Cai.App.41h 1437, 70 Cai.Rptr.3d 59.} Since the BRT's approval, the District has taken steps to implement the Project which Include: undertaking engineering of the project - which has reached the 40% design level; continuing dialogue with the cities of Oakland and San Leandro regarding Implementation of mitigation measures associated with the Project; holding meetings with businesses, neighborhoods and community groups in the Project area; and conducting meetings with public safety agencies and utilities to further assess and address their needs. As a result of these implementation efforts, some changes have been proposed in the Project to address design issues, some of which were anticipated to occur during design and others that could not have been known at the time of approval, as well as to address mitigation issues 2 associated with the Project. These post-ROD/Notice of Determination changes include:
'Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references pertain to the Public Resources Code. All references to 14 California Code of Regulations shall be to 'CCR" or 'Regs." 2 GM Memo No. 12-083a, which accompanied Project approval Resolution No. 12-018, noted at page 4 that public comments received on the Project during the public comment period would be used to identify Project refinements during Preliminary Engineering, including 'shifting stations or adding 1-2 stations, adjusting safety and pedestrian features, increasing parking mitigation or other minor design adjustments."
66
David Wilkins Re: East Bay Bus Rapid Transit - Next Steps Under CEQA Decernber20,2013 Page3
•
Adding two new BRT stations in East Oakland in the vicinity of 67'h Avenue and 90th Avenue along International Boulevard to improve service access to a large minority and low income population in these areas and to meet the City of Oakland's July 17, 2012, Conditions of Approval. This would bring the total of BRT stations to 34.
•
The shifting of 24 BRT statlons to Improve station spacing, open up cross street and local driveway access, improve pedestrian/passenger movement and safety, and improve bus operations and avoid congestion at the bus transit center on 20th Street in Oakland.
•
Modifying the BRT median at select cross streets to allow crossing by emergency response vehicles, thereby improving additional benefits for local emergency access.
•
Modifying the transition between median and side running lanes in the City of San leandro. The end of dedicated lanes In the median of East 14th Street is shifted north by approximately three blocks as requested in the City of San leandro's July 16, 2012, resolution approving the modified Project, which will not adversely affect BRT operational reliability or ridership projections.
•
Increasing the number of replacement parking spaces in several neighborhoods.
•
Separating local bus stops from BRT stops in Downtown Oakland and modifying local bus service operating plans there and in the southernmost portion of the BRT alignment, a change that will not affect the BRT operations plan described In the FEIS/R.
•
Expanding improvements to crosswalks and pedestrian facilities along the BRT alignment to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and enhance the pedestrian environment.
3
Due to these changes to the Project, the question arises whether the District needs to undertake any further environmental review- such as a subsequent EIS/R, a supplement to it, or an addendum. To the extent any of the changes are ministerial or result in a change in a condition of approval that may be treated as being within the District's authority to interpret its own enactments, then no further environmental review is required. (Kosta & Zischke, Practice Under Cal. Environmental Quality Act (Cont.Ed.Bar 2011 Update) Sec. 19.32, p. 903.) Given the language in the conditions of approval and in the mitigation measures, the changes in bullets 3 through 6 are arguably within the exemption. In addition, the 130c Report prepared by the District indicates that these changes, as well as bullets 1 and 2, do not have any new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of the environmental impacts previously identified and addressed in the FEIS/R.
3
This number includes side platform stations, which count as one station relocation whether one or both platforms shift. Generally, the station shifts are minor and all for improved access and bus operations.
67
David Wilkins Re: East Bay Bus Rapid Transit- Next Steps Under CEQA December 20, 2013 Page4
SUBSEQUENT EIR Assuming that none of the changes listed in the above bullets are exempt from CEQA, then the District, as the CEQA Lead Agency, would be required to consider whether further CEQA review is required by section 21166. Under CCR sections 15162 and 15163, a determination whether or not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental impact report would have to made, based on substantial evidence in the 4 whole record. For a subsequent EIR, CCR section 15162 requires the consideration of the following: 1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which require major revisions of the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to new significant environmental effects or substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects; or 3. New information of substantial importance, which was unknown or with reasonable diligence could not have been known at the time of certification of the EIR that shows: A. B. C.
D.
There will be one or more significant effects not previously discussed; Previous significant effects will be substantially more severe; Unfeasible mitigation measures or alternatives would be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects, but the project proponents declined to adopt either of them; Considerably different mitigation measures or alternatives from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the 5 environment, but the project proponents declined to adopt either of them.
The provisions of sections 21166 and 15162 are not applicable to the proposed revisions identified and discussed in the 130c Report because none of the conditions required in subsections 1, 2 and 3, quoted above, are applicable to the proposed modifications. There is no evidence that the proposed modifications are "substantial changes", because they do not present any "new significant environmental effects or [cause a substantial] increase in the severity of previously Identified significant effects", as contemplated in subsection 1, above. 4
The 130c report would be provided to the AC Transit Board of Directors for consideration at the time of the receipt of the staff report outlining the changes to the Project and become part of the record. 'Substantial evidence' has been detenmined to be "relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, or evidence of ponderable legal significance that is reasonable, credible, and solid." Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cai.App.3d 1065, 1072, 230 Cai.Rptr. 413, 416. 5 Subsections 3.C and Dare not applicable to the issues discussed in this opinion.
68
David Wilkins Re: East Bay Bus Rapid Transit- Next Steps Under CEQA December 20, 2013 PageS
There are no substantial changes to the circumstances under which the Project was undertaken by the implementation of the proposed changes, per subsection 2, above. As shown in the Report, the changes improve the Project's impacts and do not create any new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the environmental effects contained in the FEIS/R. Also, as noted In footnote 1, supra, these additions were contemplated as possibilities at the time of the adoption of Resolution No. 12-018 (the Resolution). Finally, although there Is some new information about the Project which has been obtained from the 40% of final design (as well as from additional meetings with businesses, neighborhoods and the cities) to refine the Project and its mitigation measures, none of this information rises to the level set forth in subsection 3, quoted above. Also, as noted in footnote 1, supra, they are consistent with anticipated changes set forth In the staff report accompanying the Resolution. it is important to understand that section 21166 was intended to provide a balance against the burdens created by the environmental review process and to accord a reasonable measure of finality and certainty to the results achieved. The Appellate Court in Bowman v. City of Petaluma (1986) 185 Cai.App.3'd 1065, 1074; 230 Cai.Rptr. 413, opined that "this purpose appears not only from its prohibitory language ('no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report .•. unless ...') but also from legislative context and history. Chapter 6 of CEQA, in which section 21166 appears, is entitled 'limitations.' [The court then cites to 'similar procedural limits and protections that appear in that chapter and throughout the act.'] These statutes effectuate the Legislature's expressed concern for balancing environmental considerations against the social and economic burdens of compliance.'' The court went on to determine the test to be applied in reviewing the City of Petaluma's failure to prepare a subsequent EIR to be "whether the record as a whole contains substantial evidence to support a determination that the changes in the project were not so "substantial" as to require "major modifications to the EIR." (emphasis in original; Bowman, supra, at 1075.) SUPPLEMENT TO AN EIR The pertinent provision of CCR section 15163, for purposes of this opinion, is set forth in subsection (a). "A Lead or Responsible Agency may choose to prepare a supplement to an EIR rather than a subsequent EIR If: (1) Any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require the preparation of a subsequent EiR, and (2) Only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation." For the reasons discussed above under Subsequent EIR, since the conditions precedent to support the application of Section 15162 do not exist, there is no need to consider a supplement to the FEIS/R for the Project.
69
David Wilkins Re: East Bay Bus Rapid Transit- Next Steps Under CEQA December 20, 2013 Page&
ADDENDUM TO AN EIR It is the opinion of this Office that the modifications described in the Report should be brought to the attention of the AC Transit Board of Directors for their information and concurrence as an agenda item in open session. One way of doing this is to treat the modifications as an addendum under 40 CCR section 15164. Since there Is no justification for a subsequent or supplemental EIR, the preparation of an addendum represents a logical alternative for recognizing and authorizing the changes, with the understanding that the decision to approve the BRT has been made and not all provisions of CCR 6 section 15164 are applicable. There is no particular form required for an addendum under CEQA or its Guidelines. The courts have sustained reliance on a staff report or contents of a resolution to support an agency's decision as to whether any further environmental action is required due to project modifications. (See, Abott/ v. 1 Imperial lrrig. Dist. (2012) 205 Cai.App.4 h 650, 654, 140 Cai.Rptr.3d 647 (staff report); River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Dev. Bd. {1995) 37 Cai.App.4th 154, 177, 43 Cai.Rptr.2d 501 (resolution)). However, the record should reflect that the Board: (1) considered whether further environmental review was needed, (2) it determined whether any of the events triggering further environmental review occurred, and (3) its decision was based on a review of the appropriate facts. The above requirements can be accomplished by placing on an upcoming agenda the consideration of a resolution adopting an addendum, setting forth the justification for this procedure and incorporating by reference a staff report explaining the modifications, providing the basis for the recommendation that a subsequent or supplemental EIR is not required and attaching the Report as substantial evidence that the proposed modifications to the Project do not meet the criterion for adopting either a subsequent or supplemental EIR. CONCLUSION Although all discretionary approvals for the Project have been obtained and the FEIS/R, ROD, and NOD have been filed, some changes to the Project have been identified that should be considered under NEPA and CEQA. Some of the changes (e.g., the addition of two stations, the movement of some stations, bus bulbs and pedestrian access and safety improvements) were recognized as further refinements to the Project or the implementation of conditions of approval. Nonetheless, a 130c Report has been prepared that considered the proposed modifications and whether they created new environmental impacts or increased the severity of impacts previously analyzed under the FEIS/R for the Project, which would trigger either a subsequent EIR or a supplemental EIR. The 130c Report's analysis did not find either the creation of new environmental impacts or an increase in the severity of the identified impacts, as outlined above. However, to proceed with the modifications and include the 130c
6
For example, subsection (d) calls for consideration of the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project. Since the decision on the Project has occurred the addendum would be considered in conjunction with the adoption of the proposed resolution on the modifications.
70
David Wilkins Re: East Bay Bus Rapid Transit- Next Steps Under CEQA December 20, 2013 Page7
Report in the record of the Project it is recommended that the District adopt a resolution whereby it considers the information In the Report and approves the modifications. DAW/KCS/af cc:
David J. Armijo, General Manager Dennis Butler, Chief Planning and Development Officer
71
This page intentionally blank
72
Report 12-083b Attachment 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA- THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 1725 23'" Street, Suite 100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95816-7 100 (916) 445-7000 Fax: ( 916) 445-7053
[email protected] www.ohp.par ks.ca.gov
February 26, 2014 Reply To: FTA051227A Leslie T. Rogers Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration 201 Mission Street, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105-1839 Re: Continued Section 106 Consultation for the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project, Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, Alameda County, CA Dear Mr. Rogers : Thank you for your letter of February 11, 2014, continuing consultation for the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) for the above referenced undertaking in order to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and its implementing regulation at 36 CFR Part 800. You are requesting an expedited review per 36 CFR 800.3(g), and that I concur with the revised APE for the undertaking and additional determinations of eligibility and effect. FTA in cooperation with Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit District proposes a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project along an approximately 9.52-mile corridor on city streets and main arterials from downtown Oakland at the northern end to San Leandro at the southern end. Since the original consultation in 2005 and additional consultation in 2011 , FTA and AC Transit have further refined the original project scope and as a result the Area of Potential Effect (APE). FTA has defined the amended built environment APE for the undertaking as described in your letter and shown in Appendix A Maps of the 2013 Third Addendum Historic Properties Inventory and Evaluation Report (HPIER) and Finding of Effect (FOE) Report, included with your letter. The archaeological APE has not changed from previous consultation. I agree the APE is sufficient pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(1 )(a). Of the 66 historic-era resources within the new APE for this project, six resources were previously listed or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) a nd three were identified as eligible as part of this project. The resources identified in this survey are as follows : • I. Magnin Building, 2001-2015 Broadway, Oakland. Criterion A and Cas a contributor to the Uptown Shopping-Entertainment Historic District (previously determined individually eligible); • 1915 Broadway, Oakland . Criterion C, as a contributor to the Uptown ShoppingEntertainment Historic District;
73
February 26, 2014 Page 2 of 2
FTA051227A
• Lyon's Building, 1901 Broadway/464 191h Street, Oakland. Criterion A and Cas a contributor to the Uptown Shopping-Entertainment Historic District; • Tapscott Building, 1900 Broadway, Oakland. Criterion A and Cas a contributor to the Uptown Shopping-Entertainment Historic District; • Realty Syndicate Building, 1420-1440 Broadway, Oakland. Criterion A and C (previously determined eligible as a contributor to the Uptown ShoppingEntertainment Historic District); • 334-344 1ih Street, Oakland. Criterion A and Cas a contributor to the King Block Group Historic District. I concur with these determinations. FTA has also determined the proposed undertaking will have no adverse effect on historic properties. I concur with this determination. Be advised that under certain circumstances, such as unanticipated discovery or a change in project description, the FTA may have additional future responsibilities for this undertaking under 36 CFR Part 800. Thank you for considering historic properties in your planning process. If you have any questions, please contact Kathleen Forrest of my staff at (916) 445-7022 or e-mail at
[email protected]. Sincerely,
tL£~~J/iJ). Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D. State Historic Preservation Officer
74
AC Transit East Bay BRT Project TABLE & FIGURE INDEX Station location Changes After Publication of FEIS/R and Issuance of Record of Decision =Change from Final Environmental Impact Statement/Fi nal Env ironmental Impact Report location Sec l30C
Stn. Attach. 3 Table No. No. 1.1
Side
Downtown Oakland/14th St (NB}
Side Side
Downtown Oakland/ 14th St (SB)
Broadway SB at 14th St farside
Broadway SB at 14th St farside but on sidew alk p laza, not a curb extension•
City Cent er (NB}
12th Stat Broadway nearside
Side Side
City Center (SB) Harrison St (NB}
11th St at Broadway fa rside
12th St mid block between Broadway and Franklin St• 11th St midblock between Broadway and Franklin St*
12th St. at Harrison St farside
12th at Webster St nearside*
Side
Harrison St (SB)
11th Stat Harrison St farside
11th m idblock between Harrison Stand Alice St*
Side
Madison St (NB)
12th Stat Madison St n earside
12th at Madison St nearside* [NO CHANGE although platform is now 60', not 120']
Side
Madison St (SB)
6
Side Side
2nd Ave (NB) 2nd Ave (SB)
11th St at Madison St nearsi de International N Bat 2nd Ave farside
7
Side Side
5th Ave (NB)
E 12th St SB at 2nd Ave farside International N Bat 5th Ave farside
St h Ave (SB)
E 12th SB at 5th Ave fa rside
E 12th St SB at 5t h Ave farside [NO CHANGE]
Side Side
lOth Ave (NB) lOth Ave (SB)
International NB at l Ot h Ave fars ide
International NB at l Oth Ave nearside
E 12th St SB at lOth Ave farside
E 12th St SB at lOth Ave nearside
Side
14t h Ave (NB}
International NB at 14t h Ave fa rside
International NB m id block between 14th Ave and 15th Ave
Side Median
14th Ave (SB)
14th Ave SB at International nearside (EB traffic direction)
20th Ave
14th Ave SB at E 12th St fa rside South of 20th [NO CHANGE]
Miller Ave/ 24th Ave 28th Ave
Intern ational south of 20th Ave International mid-intersection at M iller Ave
3
4
1.5 s 1.5
1.5 1.5 1.5
Rnal40% Design Location
Uptown/ Bro adway (NB)
2
1.5 1.5
FEIS/R Location ("O~" Street at "Cross" Street)
Side Side
1
1.1 l.S l.S
ConfigBRT Station Name uration
8
9
1.5 10
Uptown/ Broadway (SB)
20th St NB (Uptown Transit Center), betw. Telegraph Ave & Broadway Broadway NB, curb extension farside of 19th St 20th St SB (Uptown Transit Center), betw. Telegraph Ave & Broadway Broadway SB, on sidewalk and minor curb extension farside of 20th St (midblock) Broadway NB at 14th St farside Broadway NB at 14th St farside, cur b extension• [NO CHANGE]
11th at M adison St nearside* [NO CHANGE although platform is now 60', not 120'] International NB at 2nd Ave nearside E 12th St SB at 2nd Ave farside [NO CHANGE ] International NB at 5th Ave farside [NO CHANGE]
1.4 1.4
11
12
Median Median
1.4
13
Median
Derby Ave/ 31st Ave
International mid-inter section at 28th Ave east leg International just north of 31st Ave
14
Median
Fruitvale
International south of 34th Ave east leg
South of 34th Ave east leg [ NO CHANGE]
1.4
15
Median
39th Ave
International mid-intersection at 39th Ave
North of 39th (between 38th Ave and 39th Ave, closer to 39th Ave)
South o f Miller Ave (between Miller Ave and 24th Ave east leg) North of 28th Ave (between Mitchell St east leg and 28th Ave-closer to 28th Ave) Mid block (between Derby Ave west leg and 31st Ave, just north of 31st Ave}
1.4
16
Median
High St [45th Ave]
Intern ational mid block between 44th Ave and 45th Ave
North of 45th Ave (still between 44th Ave a nd 45th Ave but closer to 45th Ave)
1.3
17
Median
50th Ave [fo rmerly 48th Ave]
International mid-intersection at 48th Ave east leg
North of 50th Ave (between 49th Ave west leg and 50th Ave)
1.3 1.4 1.3 1.1
18
Median
54t h Ave
International between 54th Ave east & west legs
North of 54th Ave east leg (between 53rd Ave west leg and 54th Ave east leg)
19 20
Median Median
Seminary Ave [at 58th Ave. ] 64th Ave [formerly 65th Ave]
International mid-intersection at 58t h Ave west leg International mid-intersection of 65th Ave east leg
North of 58th Ave west leg of intersection North of 64th Ave west leg (between 63rd Ave west leg an d 64th Ave west leg
21
Median
67th Ave
22
Median
South of 67th (between 67th Ave. east leg and 68th Ave. east leg) No FEIS/ R station in this block: New/added Station North of 72nd Ave (between 7 1st Ave west leg and 72nd Ave east leg) North of 72nd Ave (between 71st Ave west leg and 72nd Ave east leg) [ NO CHANGE ]
23
Median
72nd Ave/ Hegenberger Expy 77th Ave
24
Median
82nd Ave
1.4
25
Median
86th Ave/ Auseo n Ave
International between Auseon Ave and 87th Ave west leg
North of 82nd Ave east leg [NO CHANGE] South of 86th [between 86th Ave. west leg and Auseon Ave)
1.2
26
Median
90th Ave
No FEIS/ R station in this block: New/ added Station
South of 90th (between 90th Ave. east leg and 91st Ave. west leg}
1.3 1.4
27
Median
96th Ave (formerly 94th Ave]
International north of 94th Ave
North of 96th Ave (between 95th Ave west leg and 96th Ave-closer to 96th Ave)
28
Median
98th Ave [shifted to 99th Ave.]
International north of 99th Ave
29
Median
103rd Ave [formerly 104th Ave]
International south of 104th Ave east leg
Sout h of 99th Ave (between 99th Ave west leg and lOOth Ave east leg--closer to 99th) North of 103rd Ave west leg (between 103rd Ave east leg and 103rd Ave west leg)
30
Median
Durant Blvd
Side
Georgia W ay (NB) [formerly Euclid Ave] Georgia Way(SB) Begier Ave (NB)
E 14th St south of Du rant Blvd E 14th St NB at Euclid Ave farside
1.4
1.3 1.5
31
Side 1.5 1.5
32
33
1.5 34
International between 77th Ave east leg and 77th Ave west leg International north of 82nd Ave east leg
North of 77th Ave east leg (between 76th Ave west leg and 77th Ave east leg)
South of Durant Blvd [ NO CHANGE]
E 14th St SB at Georgia Way farside
E. 14th NB at Georgia Way farside E. 14th SB at Georgia Way farside [NO CHANGE] South of Lorraine Blvd at Haas Ave east leg (Haas Ave is T-intersection}
E. 14th NB at Haas Ave nearside
Side Side Side
Begier Ave (SB)
E 14th NB at Haas Ave farside E 14th SB at Lorraine Blvd farside
Downtown San Leandro (NB}
Davis St N B at Hays St fa rside
Davis Stat Hays St fa rside [NO CHANGE]
Side
Downtow n San Leandro (SB)
Davis St SB at Chumalia 5t/Hays St fars ide
Davis Stat Chumalia St/Hays St nearside
Side
San Leandro BART
In bus transit center at BART station
In bus transit center at BART station [NO CHANGE]
Notes: "Side" indicates curb extension unless stated otherwise; "Median" indicates in st reet median. "Farside" is after the i ntersection; "Nearside " is before the intersecti on NB= northbound BRT d irection i.e., to Downtown Oakland; 58= southbound BRT direction i.e., to San Leandro BART. Blvd=Boulevard; Ave=Avenue; St= Street; Expy=Expressway • Indicates BRT platforms to be 60 feet in length (excluding access ramps) instead of 120 feet. No longer a combined BRT and loco/ stop; local stops ore now separ ate.
75
This page intentionally blank
76
Report 12-083b Attachment 5
v\ •1
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration
REGION IX Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, Guam American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands
201 Mission Street Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105·1839 415-744-3133 415-744-2726 (fax)
MAR 14 2014
Mr. David J. Armijo General Manager Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project 23 CFR § 771.130(c)
The Fe era) Transit Administration (FTA) has completed its review of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District's (the District) 130(c) submission, dated March 7, 2014, detailing the design changes for and related impacts to the District's East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stations along the Downtown Oakland-San Leandro (DOSL) Alternative. The BRT was previously the subject of a Record of Decision that was issued by FTA on June 8, 2012. In its letter, the District indicated that neither the preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) nor an Environmental Assessment (EA) is necessary, in accordance with 23 CFR §§ 771 .115, 771.119, and 771.130(c), as a result of the design changes to the Project. Based on the environmental re-evaluation materials submitted and past experience with similar projects, FTA finds that the design changes: do not induce significant environmental impacts to planned growth or land use for the area; do not require the relocation of significant numbers of people; do not have a significant impact on natural, cultural, recreational, historical or other resources; do not involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts; do not have significant impacts on travel patterns; do not result in a use or constructive use of historic or other resources within the meaning of Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, 49 USC § 303; and do not otherwise, either individually or cumulatively, have any significant enviromnental impacts.
77
'
Attachment 5
The FTA determines that the proposed changes are not substantial, and with the mitigation specified in the re-evaluation materials, the changes will not cause significant environmental impacts that were not previously evaluated. Therefore, neither the preparation of an SEIS nor an EA is necessary. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Lucinda Eagle at (415) 744-0140. Sincerely,
?;~ Roger~
Leslie T. Regional
78
Admi~or
Report 12-083b Attachment 6
David J. Armijo . General Manager
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
March 7, 2014 Mr. Leslie T. Rogers Regional Administrator Federal Transit Administration, Region IX 201 Mission Street, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94105
ransi~~RT Project-Environmental Review of Project Changes Post Record of Decision
As directed in the June 8, 2012 letter from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District (District) transmitting the Environmental Record of Decision on the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project in Alameda County, California, the District is hereby notifying FTA of proposed changes to the project. These changes are summarized below and described in more detail in attachments to this letter. The District has assessed the potential environmental effects of the changes in an environmental re-evaluation, referred to as a Section 130c report, which is included in the attachments. Our determination from the re-evaluation is that the changes do not introduce new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of impacts relative to the impacts disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter, FEIS). No further supplemental environmental studies and preparation of a formal environmental document are necessary, consistent with the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). The District is requesting FTA concurrence with this determination. The District acknowledges, however, that FTA will review the proposed project changes in accordance with FTA environmental procedures !23 C.F.R. 771.130] on supplemental documentation. Summary of Project Changes Since issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), the District and its project partners have refined the project. The changes are proposed to enhance local access, pedestrian safety, and the operations of bus rapid transit (BRT) and local buses and also city emergency response vehicles. The changes respond to post-ROD proj ect review comments made by residents and public officials of the two host cities, Oakland and San Leandro, as well as engineering refinements. They reflect advanced engineering studies to the 40 percent design level. These types of changes do not generate new environmental issues or negatively affect the project's benefits. The changes will, however, require additional time to design and construct, and the proposed opening date for the East Bay BRT project is now late 2017 rather than 2015 as assumed in the FEIS. The post-ROD project changes include: •
Adding two new BRT stations in East Oakland. These are median stations in the vicinity of 6ih Avenue 1 and 90 h Avenue along International Boulevard . They improve BRT service access and were requested at public meetings during circulation of the FE IS and as part of the City of Oakland's Conditions of Approval for the project, a city resolution approved on July 17, 2012. Both station areas serve large minority and
1600 Franklin Street- Oakland, CA 94612 - TEL (51 O) 891-4753 - FAX (51OJ 891-7157- www.actransit.org 79
low income populations for whom transit is an important mobility option. The addition of the new stations will also improve local access to businesses by transit. In both locations, the project design presented in the FEIS (bidirectional, contiguous transit lanes occupying the center two traffic lanes of International Boulevard) will be modified to include a center median station between the two BRT lanes, accessible from the nearest signalized intersection. The platforms will be approximately 60-feet in length, excluding the passenger access ramp and concrete pad for bike storage at either end, and raised approximately 13 inches above top of pavement for level boarding of articulated low-floor BRT vehicles. The stations are to include a protective passenger canopy and other amenities such as platform ticket vending machines, lighting, security cameras, and communications capabilities. The basic station configuration is the same as at other median station locations along the BRT alignment. Station platforms can be constructed without requiring changes to the roadway curbline or the acquisition of right-of-way. Because the center-median station requires BRT lanes and adjacent traffic lanes to shift out towards the curb in the vicinity of the station platform, additional parking is displaced along the curb. However, substitute replacement parking will be designated along nearby cross streets, the same parking mitigation strategy adopted elsewhere along the BRT alignment. Roadway capacity and nearby intersection geometry, including turn lanes, are unchanged from the conditions evaluated in the FE IS, and thus there are no new traffic impacts resulting from either station addition. The BRT project includes major roadway improvements (repaving of traffic lanes), and enhanced crosswalks, curbs, Americans with Disabilities (ADA) compliant ramps, and lighting in the vicinity of stations. These ancillary features will be implemented at the 67th Avenue and 90th Avenue stations. To further enhance pedestrian safety at 67'h Avenue, a pedestrian-only signal will be added at the crosswalk serving the station and an approximately six-foot bulb of the southbound curb of International Boulevard constructed to shorten the crossing distance. These features were not identified in the FEIS/R, but they and all other improvements in the station area can be made within the project footprint shown in the FEIS. At 90th Avenue no additional features besides the standard, ancillary improvements for station areas are proposed.
•
Shifting BRT station locations. The distances stations have shifted vary. Most relocated platforms are within the same block or moved no more than one block from their locations proposed in the FEIS, for a total shift in all but two cases of 300 feet or less. Two station platforms are relocated approximately 500 to 600 feet or two city blocks. These stations are in the vicinity of the new BRT stations at 67'h Avenue and 90th Avenue and shifted to improve overall station spacing in the several blocks on each side of the new stations. (The 34 BRT stations on the East Bay BRT Project involve the construction 46 platforms when stations with two side platforms are accounted for. Twenty-four of these stations, involving 30 platforms, are being revised from their FEIS-proposed locations.) The other station shifts have been made to (1) maintain minor cross street and local driveway access in several locations as requested by corridor cities and businesses in comments received during AC Transit's ongoing consultation and outreach after issuance of the ROD, and (2) improve pedestrian/passenger movements (and safety) at several stations. Also, at the northern terminus of the BRT alignment in Downtown Oakland, the Uptown Station will be moved one block from the existing Uptown Transit Center on 20th Street, west of Broadway, to be on Broadway between 19th and 20th Streets. This will improve bus operations and avoid congestion at the existing bus transit center on 20th Street.
2 80
•
Modifying the BRT median along International Boulevard to allow unobstructed crossing of the median by emergency response vehicles. Related to the station shifts described above, the station platforms at nine locations are being shifted to ensure fire and police vehicles do not need to made additional turns, including U-turns, to proceed from International Boulevard to minor cross streets and vice versa. An unlandscaped (colored concrete) median break with mountable curbs on each side of the median, sufficiently wide for fire trucks and police vehicles, will be constructed. Local traffic will still be restricted from crossing the median at these locations, thereby retaining the safety and operational benefits for BRT buses using the median transitway of International Boulevard. A similar median break treatment is to be provided at approximately 38 other cross streets along International Boulevard where there are no stations but where a landscaped median was proposed in the design concept presented in the FEIS. The change in median design in these locations has the same purpose of facilitating emergency vehicle crossings of International Boulevard but limiting turns by regular motor vehicles. Emergency vehicles may still use the BRT transitway as needed anywhere along the BRT alignment.
•
Modifying the median-to-side running transition in San Leandro. The median BRT transitway will end at E.14th Street and Garcia Avenue, or approximately two to three blocks (depending upon direction of travel) north of the location for this transition described in the FEIS. At that point BRT buses traveling in the southbound direction proceed from the median of E.14th Street to operate in mixed-flow next to the curbside parking lane. This is referred to as side running. Buses will continue to the project's southern terminus at San Leandro BART, which does not change. BRT buses traveling in the northbound from San Leandro BART will transition from side to median running also at Garcia Avenue. This change is being done to respond to the City of San leandro' s July 16, 2012 council resolution, which recommended implementation of Option 2 from the staff report, as follows: Option 2- Request that AC Transit implement an LPA (locally preferred alternative) that modifies or eliminates elements of the original LPA that was introduced by AC Transit at the May 31 51 joint meeting. The modifications include reducing the dedicated lanes so that they end at (or) just south of Broadmoor Boulevard (the transition lanes would end at Garcia Avenue, one block south) and the relocated stations. These changes would: 1) eliminate turn restrictions except at Broadmoor Boulevard...2} reduce station distances from senior housing, and 3) reduce parking impacts. (regular text added for clarification) [File #: 12-372, Version] Reducing the extent of dedicated median BRT lanes and shifting to side running will improve local access In the city's view by reducing turn restrictions. The location is near the BRT line's southern terminus at San Leandro BART and will not adversely affect BRT operational reliability or ridership projections.
•
Expanding the parking loss mitigation program and increasing the number of replacement parking spaces In certain neighborhoods. This is a commitment made by the District in several neighborhoods concerned about parking displacements. The table below summarizes the parking impacts of the postROD project com pared to the conditions at the time of the FE IS.
Parking Supply
'
40% Design
TOTAL
2134
Displacements FEIS/R* 491
40% 597
Project Displacements Meters Displaced *~ 4 (407'· FEJS/R)
106
FEIS/ R* 114
40% 96
A (40%· FEIS/R)
-18
Total Mitigation FEIS/R* 221
~
248
A {40%· FEJS/R)
27
• Numbers are directly from FEIS/R • • tncluded In Displacements number
3 81
The number of parking spaces displaced has increased compared to information presented in the FE IS for several reasons, including: the addition of the two new and the shifting of previously proposed BRT stations (see first two bullets); the separation of local bus from BRT stops in downtown Oakland and the restoration of local bus stops in several locations along the BRT alignment (following bullet); pedestrian crosswalk improvements that have included more curb bulbouts and ADA sidewalk ramp improvements (final bullet); and roadway geometric and striping refinements for left turn bays, merging traffic lanes, and the accommodation of bike lanes at several intersections. Total mitigation is the number of spaces required to replace/redesignate parking in accordance with the mitigation methodology adopted in the FEIS. An additional 27 replacement parking spaces (a total of approximately 248 spaces) will be provided corridor wide. With the implementation of the mitigation measure, significant parking shortfalls would be avoided. As documented in the FEIS, occupancy does not consistently exceed 85 percent of designated public parking spaces. However, in response to business, community organization, and public officials' comments, the District has committed to replace more parking in at least two neighborhoods than necessary based on the findings of our updated impacts-mitigation analysis. The District is procuring and improving one off-street lot in the Fruitvale district and one off-street lot in the Elmhurst district, both locations in East Oakland. The lot at International Boulevard at 35'h Avenue in Fruitvale will have a 1 capacity of approximately 21 spaces and the lot at International at 86 h Avenue in Elmhurst will offer 16 spaces. Both lots were identified for possible acquisition for the project in the FEIS, and evaluation made of potential environmental issues and impacts associated with their acquisition. The additional parking replacement is one of AC Transit's many commitments to corridor communities to be a good neighbor on this project.
•
Separating local bus stops from BRT stops in downtown Oakland and modifying local bus service operating plans there and in the southernmost portion of the BRT alignment. AC Transit bus operations planners have determined that local and BRT buses can operate more effectively if not using the same stop locations where the two services overlap. Therefore, in downtown Oakland, along 11th Street 1 southbound and 12 h Street northbound between Broadway and lake Merritt, existing local bus stops are proposed to remain where they are currently or be shifted slightly to allow for the construction of nearby BRT stations. In the FE IS, local and BRT bus stops were combined and shared the BRT platform, which provided space for a local and a BRT bus to stop almost simultaneously if necessary. The BRT platform length was extended to 120 feet to accommodate up to two articulated buses. In the post-ROD changes, local and BRT buses will continue to follow the same alignment along 11th and 12'h Streets, stopping in the vicinity of each other, to just south of lake Merritt. At 1" Avenue, local buses diverge from the BRT alignment along International Boulevard and E. 12th Street. These stop changes in downtown Oakland do not affect the level of service or the general service plan· (route alignment, hours and frequency of operation) on either local or BRT routes compared to the service described in the FEIS. In San leandro, bus service changes include the extension of local service in the BRT corridor north of downtown and San leandro BART. This involves the retention of local service previously identified for removal and replacement by BRT-only service in the FE IS. Two local stops along E.14th Street (in each direction) north of Davis and a third local stop located along International Boulevard in Oakland just north of the San leandro city limit will be provided by either retaining the existing bus stops or relocating them within the same or an adjacent block. At 103'' Avenue in Oakland, the local bus route
4 82
diverges from the BRT corridor. The local stops are at the curb and separate from BRT stations. The BRT service plan through north San leandro does not change. The continuation of local service through northern San leandro, was requested in the San leandro City Council action on July 16, 2012, as follows:
In conjunction with the commencement of the BRT service, AC Transit shall offer o frequent and continuous service on East 14th Street that allows riders to travel between the northern and southern San Leandro borders without transferring buses. [File#: 12-372, Version] •
Expanding improvements to crosswalks and pedestrian facilities along the BRT alignment. Working with the cities, the District has been making design refinements that improve pedestrian crosswalks, including ensuring all ramps (i.e., curb cuts) along the BRT alignment are compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act, and is providing other street improvements, such as curb bulbouts and in-street safety islands, which will further enhance the pedestrian environment throughout the corridor.
In its assessment, the District has concluded that these changes do not cause new adverse environmental effects or increase the level or severity of any of the environmental effects previously identified in the FEIS. The two areas of impacts identified in the FEIS, traffic and parking, are addressed in the revisions to the East Bay BRT project post-ROD (See Attachments 3 and 4). As discussed in Attachment 4, traffic studies indicate that no proposed design changes would alter level of service, compared to the information presented in the FEIS. The proposed changes would trigger changes in the level and geographic distribution of parking loss from BRT construction absent implementing any mitigation measures. However, by implementing the same mitigation measure methodology presented in the FEIS, the post-ROD project changes would not reduce parking availability to unacceptable levels. Furthermore, as noted above, the District has committed to replace more parking than required based on results of our updated impacts-mitigation analysis. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for historic resources was expanded at both 67th and 90th Avenues where new BRT stations are proposed and at other locations where FEIS-proposed stations are shifting. Evaluation was performed of the historic character of all structures in the revised APE. A determination was made that no historic or potentially historic structures would be adversely affected by the new and relocated stations. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this determination in a letter to FTA dated February 26, 2014 (see Attachment 4). Based on this and other studies made of the new locations, we conclude the station changes post-ROD do not introduce new adverse impacts or increase the severity of impacts already disclosed in the FE IS. Finally, the proposed changes have undergone considerable public discussion and extensive review and comment by city staffs with whom we continue to work closely. The changes have been presented to potentially affected businesses and neighborhoods along the project corridor. City councils have also reviewed the changes. A number of the proposed changes have been prompted by the comments of these various interested stakeholders. The major outreach and coordination meetings undertaken during post-ROD project design are part of Attachments 2 and 5 to this letter.
5 83
Should FTA have any questions, please contact David Wilkins, BRT Project Director (510-891-5427 or 510-8822500 [cell];
[email protected]). We look forward to discussing with you this report and the progress we have been making towards construction of this very important District project.
Enclosures 1: Background for the Environmental Re-evaluation 2: Correspondence and Local Agency Action 3: Impacts Assessment of Proposed BRT Station Changes Post ROD: BRT Stations Index: List of New and Relocated Stations Evaluated Summary Table 1- Cumulative Effects, and Detailed Tables 1.1- 1.6- Detailed Impacts 4: Technical Studies Supporting the Re-evaluation Findings: Traffic Impacts Technical Memoranda, summarizing updated analysis of intersections potentially affected by post ROD project improvements. 2013 Third Addendum to the Historic Property Survey Report for the AC Transit East Bay BRT Project State Historic Preservation Office Letter of Concurrence on Third Addendum 5: Summary of Outreach and Coordination Post-ROD to Refine BRT Design 6: AC Transit CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Determination AC Transit Legal Department, General Counsel Report to David Wilkins, Director, BRT
6 84
l Due to its size, this document is available as a separate attachment.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District East Bay Bus Rapid Tt·ansit (BRT) Project
Technical Documents Supporting the Environmental Review of Project Changes Post Record of Decision
I ' I I I
I
I
I
Ii I Attachments 1-6 to the Section 130 C Letter Report to the Federal Transit Administration
Ma-rch 7, 2014
Due to it's size, this document is available as a separate download. Please find information and download link on the following page. 85
II !
BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 23, 2014
Staff Report 12-083B Technical Documents Supporting the Environmental Review of Project Changes Post Record of Decision Part 1: Transmittal Letter to FTA, Attachments 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 Part 2: Attachment 3 - Impacts Assessment of Proposed Station Changes Post FTA Record of Decision Third Addendum: Finding of Effect Third Addendum: Historic Properties Inventory and Evaluation The above listed documents may be downloaded from: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/a6tlqiuzrvpom2z/mftJp8 VEHi
86
BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 23, 2014
Staff Report 14-123 Consider the options for appointment of a NonATU Employee Representative to the AlamedaContra Costa Transit District Retirement Board and adoption of Resolution 14-022
CURRENTLY NOT AVAILABLE WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT THE TIME IT IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
87
This page intentionally blank
88
VERBAL REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING April 23, 2014 Agenda Item 5D Announcement regarding the appointment of a Board liaison representative to the Transbay Task Force
89
This page intentionally blank
90
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
April 23, 2014 Agenda Items A-1 – A-2
91
This page intentionally blank
92
~I
Report No:
T/?9.NS/T
Meeting Date:
14-098 April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
External Affairs Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Monthly Legislative Report
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION{S}:
Consider recommending receipt of the monthly legislative report and approval of legislative positions. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Key Committees in both The House and Senate recently held hearings regarding future funding of the nation's transportation infrastructure given the September 30, 2014 end of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) funding authorization . Assemblymember Tonie Atkins (D- San Diego) has been elected to succeed Speaker John Perez. The State Senate Budget Subcommittee #2 has approved the appropriation of $963 in Proposition lB bond funds. Staff recommends positions on the following state bills: Watch on AB 1684 (Chavez - R) to authorize the use of three position bicycle racks; Lean Support on SB 1122 (Pavley- D) to create funding programs for sustainable communities and competitive grants; Support in Concept on SB 1204 (Lara- D) to create a program to use cap & trade revenue. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Federal Legislation Update
Key Committees have met to discuss future transportation funding. The House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) held a hearing to continue funding oversight for Department of Transportation modes including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Acting FTA Administrator Therese McMillan testified on the importance of the need for public transit funding. 93
Report No. 14-098 Page 2 of 2 The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing entitled, "MAP-21 Reauthorization: State and Local Perspectives on Transportation Priorities and Funding." Witnesses included representatives from big city Mayors, Departments of Transportation, and County officials. Much of the hearing focused on the need to address the Highway Trust Fund financing crisis. State Legislation Update
1) New Assembly Speaker elected. The Assembly unanimously voted to elect Assemblywoman Toni Atkins- San Diego as the next Speaker of the Assembly. She will likely succeed Assembly Speaker John Perez as leader of the House in mid to late May and consider possibilities for her leadership team. 2) Proposition lB Bonds have been appropriated. The Senate Budget Subcommittee #2, chaired by Senator Jim Beal reviewed and took action on the non-controversial transportation items included in the Governor's budget including the approval of $963 million in Prop lB bond funds. 3) Legislative Matrix Refer to Attachment 3 for the legislative matrix from Platinum Advisors. The matrix lists Board positions. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
This report is being provided to inform the Board of monthly legislative activities. This provides clear direction to legislators, and other bodies, of AC Transit's positions. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
This report provides an update of monthly legislative activities. AC Transit could opt to defer from legislative positions and operate without making its positions known, leaving the District vulnerable to unfavorable legislation. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
Staff Report 14- 028: 2014 Federal and State Legislative Advocacy Programs ATTACHMENTS: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5:
Federal Update from Van Scoyoc Associates State Legislative Report from Platinum Advisors State Legislative Matrix FY 2014 Federal Advocacy Program FY 2014 State Advocacy Program
Department Head Approval: Prepared by:
Dennis W. Butler, Chief Planning & Development Officer Beverly Greene, Director of Legislative Affairs & Community Relations 94
SR 14-098 Attachment 1
VANSCOYOC A
8
8
0
C
I
A
T
E
S
Transportation Update March 31, 2014
Steven 0. Palmer, Vice President David Haines, Manager
This Week
Hearing: FY 2015 Btu/get - CBP.
On Wednesday, April 2 , the House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security will hold a hearing on the budget proposal for the Customs and Border Protection (CBP). R. Gil Kerlikowske, CBP Commissioner, will testify.
Hearing: FY 2015 Budget - DOT Modes. On Thursday, April 3, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development Agencies is scheduled to hold a hearing to continue funding oversight on the different DOT modes. Witnesses scheduled to testify include: Michael Huerta, FAA Administrator; Greg Nadeau, Acting FHW A Administrator; Joseph Szabo, FRA Administrator; Therese McMillan, Acting FTA Administrator; Cynthia Quarterman, Administrator of Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; Anne Ferro, Administrator of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; and Paul Jaenichen Sr., Acting Administrator of Maritime Administration.
Last Week Senate
Hearing: MAP-21 Reauthorization. On March 27, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held a hearing entitled, "MAP-21 Reauthorization: State and Local Perspectives on Transportation Priorities and Funding." Witnesses included representatives from the Mayors of Indianapolis and Oklahoma City, Directors of the Vermont and Rhode Island Depat1ments of Transportation, and County officials from Louisiana, Wyoming, and Delaware. Much of the hearing focused on the need to address the Highway Trust Fund financing crisis. House
Hearing: TSA Budget. On March 25, the House Appropriations Committee held a hearing on the proposed FY 2015 TSA budget. Administrator John Pistole testified at the hearing.
Field Hearing: LAX Shooting.
On March 28, the House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation Security held a field hearing at Los Angeles International Airport entitled "Lessons from the LAX Shooting: Preparing for and Responding to Emergencies at Airports." Witnesses included John Pistole, TSA Administrator; Gina Marie Lindsey, Executive Director of Los Angeles World Airports; Patrick Gannon, Chief of Airport Police of Los Angeles
95
2 World Airports; and J. David Cox, National President of American Federation of Government Employees. FHWA
Published Rulemaking: Highway Safety Improvement Program. On Friday, March 28, the Federal Highway Administration published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes to modifY data, analysis, and reporting requirements of the Highway Safety Improvement Program as directed by MAP-21. Comments are required by May 27,2014. ###
96
SR 14-098 Attachment 2
April 4, 2014 TO:
Director Greg Harper, President, and Members of the Board David J. Armijo, General Manager Beverly Greene, Director, Community Relations & Legislative Affairs
FR:
Steve Wallauch Platinum Advisors
RE:
Legislative Update
Last week, the Senate voted 28-1 to suspend the three lawmakers who have been embroiled in legal woes distracting the body and the publ ic from the normal business of the Legislature. Senator Leland Yee from San Franci sco shocked his colleagues last week when he was indicted on gun trafficking charges. You may recall that last year he received a letter threatening his life over his legislation to make gun laws stricter. On the Senate floor on Friday, Republicans were irritated that Senate Pro Tern Steinberg had delayed a vote on suspending Senators Ron Calderon and Rod Wright for several weeks after Republicans had been requesting the body take action. As a result, many of the Republicans chose to abstain from voting. The lawmakers will receive pay during their suspension, although Steinberg is attempting to remedy that issue by introducing a constitutional amendment to allow the Legislature the power to hold suspended lawmaker's pay as well. New Speaker: As previously reported the Assembly unanimously voted to elect Assemblywoman Toni Atkins- San Diego as the next Speaker of the Assembly. It is now expected that Speaker-elect Atkins will take over the role of Speaker by May lih. This transition date is two days before the release of the May Revise of the Governor Budget, and means Speaker-elect Atkins will be in charge of negotiating the budget which must be approved by June 15th. State Budget: Revenues: April is the biggest revenue month for the state. With the anticipation of a growing surplus, the LAO will be providing daily updates on the income tax tally. While personal income tax receipts are about $1 billion ahead of projections, it is still too early to tell if April will shatter current expectations. The DOF' s current projections for income tax receipts for April is 1
97
$11 billion, which is 15.5% lower than what was collected in April 2013. Collections for the first few days of April have reached $897 million, which is slightly ahead of the amount collected in the first few days of April 2013. Assembly Budget Sub 3 on Transportation- The Assembly Budget Subcommittee #3, chaired by Assemblyman Richard Bloom held a mostly informational hearing on transportation budget items. However, the Assembly Subcommittee did take adopt the non-controversial transportation items included in the Governor's budget. This included approving the appropriation of $963 million in Prop 1B bond funds, and the transfer of $4 million from the Local Airport Loan Account to the local airport grant program. The vast majority of the items reviewed were "held open" and will be considered at a future date.
The Subcommittee received a lengthy update on the status ofthe High Speed Rail project. The Subcommittee also received an update on the status of implementing the findings of the SSTI report, which consisted of being told that CaiSTA has created 8 internal working groups aimed at implementing the recommendations in the report. An announcement is imminent on implementing the first steps, which include greater design flexibility for locals. The initial changes will be implemented administrative, but it is unclear if these changes will require legislative fixes. Senate Budget Subcommittee #2: This past week the Senate Budget Subcommittee #2 held a lengthy informational hearing on the Governor's Cap & Trade proposal. Senator Beall, who chairs the Subcommittee, made it clear he wants each project proponent to tell him the amount greenhouse gas will be reduced, how it will be calculated and verified, and how quickly will the benefits be realized? Senator Beall grilled representatives from CARB and other agencies for this information. As with other cap & trade hearings, no action was taken. However, Senate leadership is expected to announce its cap & trade funding priorities next week.
Legislation No Weight Fees for Bond Debt: Over the past week a few more bills were amended that would end the practice of using vehicle weight fees to fund the debt payment on transportation bonds. In order to address a staggering deficit over the past several years, the Gas Tax Swap was created as a roundabout means to use transportation funds to relieve the general fund of transportation bond debt payments. With a much brighter economic outlook, many believe it
is time revisit ending the use transportation funds for general obligation bond debt. This was originally included on the Assembly Republican transportation package, but is has expanded to become a bipartisan issue. The following are the bill in print so far: •
AB 2651 (Linder): This bill would, starting on January 1, 2016, prohibit the use of truck
weight fee as the source of debt payments for transportation bonds. This would free-up about $900 million for transportation projects.
2 98
•
•
AB 2728 (Perea): This bill would, until January 1, 2019, prohibit the transfer of transportation funds to the Transportation Debt Service Fund, and prohibit these funds from being loaned to the general fund. AB 2728 would only provide relief for the next four years, unless extended by the Legislature. SB 1418 (DeSaulnier): This bill would also end the practice of using transportation funds for debt service payments. SB 1418 makes ALL of the amendments to numerous code sections in order to unequivocally end this practice.
Green Stickers: AB 2013 (Muratsuchi) is on a fast track. This bill would double from 40,000 stickers to 85,000 stickers that the state can issue to specified vehicles that grant unrestricted use of HOV lanes. In the past two weeks, AB 2013 was approved by the Assembly Transportation Committee and the Appropriations Committee with strong bipartisan support. The bill was also amended on April 2, to add an urgency clause. Based on comments made by the Governor's staff, this bill will likely be signed as soon as it reaches the Governor's desk. So far no opposition has surfaced. Cap & Trade Legislation: SB 1122 (Pavley) was unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. This bill creates two cap & trade funding programs, one for the Strategic Growth Counsel to administer grants to local agencies for implementing sustainable communities and other greenhouse gas reduction plans. The second pot of funds would be allocated to MPOs on a per capita basis to be used for competitive grants for projects within the region. The regional grants would be awarded pursuant to guidelines adopted by the Strategic Growth Council. The bill was recently amended to lists the types of eligible projects for the regional funds, which include funding for public transportation operations, maintenance, and capital costs as well as transportation demand management projects.
SB 1204 (Lara & Pavley) was unanimously approved by the Senate Committee on Transportation Housing. This bill would create the California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology Program, which would use cap & trade auction revenue to fund development, demonstration, pilot projects, and commercial deployment of zero- and near-zero-emission truck, bus, and off-road vehicle and equipment technologies. Specifically the bill would fund large scale pilots of zero-emission buses to demonstrate the impact of clean buses in disadvantaged communities, the difficulty of transit operators to afford clean buses, and the possibility of finding applications for these technologies in other heavyduty vehicles. SB 1204 would also fund the development and demonstration of zero- and nearzero-emission medium- and heavy-duty truck technology projects including port equipment, and marine and rail equipment Republican Transportation Proposal: A couple more pieces to the Assembly Republican Caucus's transportation proposal were unveiled last week. The package appears to be slightly scaled back because these measures do not change how the diesel fuel taxes are allocated, which means no impact to public transit funding. However, an additional round of amendments could change that. The new bills include the following:
3 99
•
AB 2652 (Linder): This bill would require up to $2.5 billion in unanticipated revenue to be used to repay all remaining debts owed to transportation accounts. However the funds would not be returned to the accounts that loaned the funds, but to cities and counties for local street and road projects. Unanticipated revenue would be what remains of any surplus after schools and other mandated programs receive their allotment. AB 2652 specifies that 50% of the unanticipated revenue, not to exceed $2.5 billion, would be appropriated to cities and counties for local street and road projects. The allocation to cities and counties would be based on the existing "HUTA" formula. The remaining 50% would be deposited into the Budget Stabilization Account.
•
AB 2653 (Linder): This bill would redirect the "non-Article 19" funds from the Transportation Debt Service Fund and allocate these funds to the STIP (44%), SHOPP (12%), and cities and counties (44%). AB 2653 would also direct all ofthe 17 cent excise tax that was added to gasoline sales as part of the Gas Tax Swap to cities and counties for local street and road projects. These funds would be allocated based on the HUTA formula whereby 50% ofthe funds are allocated to cities on a per capita basis, and 50% is allocated to counties based on 75% on the number of registered vehicles and 25% on the number of county maintained road miles.
4
100
SR 14-098 Attachment 3:
April 4, 2014 Table 1 Proposed Board Actions Subject
Bills AB 1684 (Chavez R) Vehicles : length limitations: buses: bicycle ransportation devices. SB 1122 (Pavley D) Sustainable communities: Strategic Growth Council.
SB 1204 (Lara D) California Clean rrruck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment rrechnology Program.
Status
~B 1684 was recently amended to authorize the
~SSEMBLY TRANS
North County Transit District to use the longer !three position bicycle racks.
~B 1122 was approved by the Senate Committee SENATE RLS
on Environmental Quality. SB 1122 creates two funding programs. One for he Strategic Growth Counsel to administer grants o local agencies for implementing sustainable communities and other greenhouse gas reduction plans. The second pot of funds would be allocated to MPOs on a per capita basis to be used for competitive grants for projects within he region. The regional grants would be awarded pursuant to guidelines adopted by the Strategic Growth Council. The bill lists the types of eligible projects for the regional funds, which include funding for public transportation operations, maintenance, and capital costs. SB 1204 was approved with bipartisan support by SENATE E.Q. he Senate Committee on Transportation & Housing.
ACTransit RECCOMENDED POSITION Recommended Position: WATCH
Recommended Position: LEAN SUPPORT
Recommended Position : SUPPORT IN CONCEPT
This bill creates a California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology Program. The purpose of this bill is to use cap & lrade auction revenue to fund the development, demonstration, and commercial deployment of zero- and near-zero-emission truck, bus, and offroad vehicle . In particular this bill would create large scale zero emission bus demonstration program aimed at making zero emission bus lechnology commercially available.
1
1
1
101
Table 2· Board Action Positions Bills AB 1720 {Bloom D) !vehicles: bus gross weight. ~B 2445
(Chau D) Community colleges: ransportation fees.contracts.
~
{Steinberg D) Sustainable Communities Investment ~uthority.
~
{Pavley D) Alternative fuel and vehicle echnologies: funding programs.
SCA4 (Liu D) Local government ransportation projects: special
Status
Subject
'"his bill would extend the sunset date for the bus ASSEMBLY TRANS axle weight exemption by one year from January 1, 2015 to January 1, 2016. This bill would also likely be used to implement any agreement reached this year on the axle weight issue. ASSEMBLY FLOOR AB 2445 was unanimously approved by the Assembly Committee on Higher Education. This bill makes clarifying changes in existing law o allow a community college district to impose a ee approved by the students for transportation services on a campus by campus basis. Some believe existing law limits the approval of the fee o a district wide vote. Senate FloorSB 1 would create a new form of tax increment inancing that would allow local governments to Inactive File create a Sustainable Communities Investment Authority to finance specified activities within a sustainable communities investment area.
Client - Position AC Transit - Support
AC Transit- Support
~C Transit - Support
The Governor's Office asked the authors' ofthe various tax increment measures to hold-off sending these bills to his desk last year. With the Governor's IFD proposal released as part of the budget, negotiations over the structure of a new ax increment financing proposal will heat-up during the budget process. ~B 11 originally proposed to extend the deadlines fl\SSEMBLY TRANSP. AC Transit - Support and make the same changes in AB 8. SB 11 was amended to address chaptering out issues with AB 8, but analogous amendments were not amended into AB 8. Rather than send both bills o the Governor, it was decided to send only AB 8. ~B 11 is now a two year bill, and will likely be used for another purpose. SCA 4 is in the Senate Committee on SENATE APPRS Appropriations. Constitutional amendments are exempt for the House of Origin deadline.
~C Transit - Support
~CA 4 has been amended ta require a percentage
of the sales tax revenue be used for projects that educe GHG emissions from transportation 2
102
axes: voter approval.
ources, and require a portion of the funds used on state highway project be given to the state for 'uture maintenance needs. This measure would amend the Constitution to lower the voter approval threshold to 55% for the imposition, extension, or renewal of a local tax for ransportation projects. SCA 4 was amended to require a local measure to include the following in order to be approved with a 55% vote:
•
• •
Includes a specific list of projects and programs that will be funded and limits the use of the funds for those purposes, Includes a requirement for annual audits, and Requires the creation of a citizens' oversight committee.
SCAS (Corbett D)
SENATE APPRS sCA 8 is in the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Constitutional amendments are exempt from the House of Origin deadline.
AC Transit - Support
Transportation projects: special ~CA 8 is another measure that would amend the axes: voter approval. Constitution to lower the voter approval 1,hreshold to 55% for the imposition, extension, or renewal of a local tax for transportation projects. ~CA 8 was also amended to require a local measure to include the following in order to be approved with a 55% vote: Includes a specific list of projects and programs that will be funded and limits the use of the funds for those purposes, Includes a requirement for annual audits, and Requires the creation of a citizens'
• • •
oversight committee. SCA11 (Hancock D)
Local government: special taxes: voter approval.
SENATE APPRS r>CA 11 is in the Senate Committee on ~ppropriations. SCA 11 is an "umbrella measure" pn lowering the voter threshold from 2/3 to 55% ~or local sales taxes and parcel taxes. This measure would lower the vote threshold for any purpose.
AC Transit -Support
~CA
11 was also amended to require the ~ollowing elements in the local measure in order o be approved by 55%: 3
103
• •
•
Includes a specific list of projects and programs that will be funded and limits the use of the funds for those purposes, Includes a requirement for annual audits, and Requires the creation of a citizens' oversight committee.
Table 3: Board Watch Positions Bills
Subject
Status
~B 2707
~his bill would authorize the Los Angeles County
{Chau D) Vehicles: length limitations: buses: bicycle ransportation devices. SB 33 (Wolk D) Infrastructure financing districts: voter approval: repeal.
Metropolitan Transportation Authority to utilize he longer 3 position bicycle racks.
ASSEMBLY PRINT
SB 33 is the reintroduction of SB 214 from last fA,SSEMBLY FLOORsession. SB 214 along with SB 1156 and AB 2144 Inactive File were all vetoed by the Governor. ~wo-Year Bill While SB 1 makes changes based on existing redevelop law, SB 33 would create a new tax increment financing structure based on Infrastructure Financing District (IFD} law.
Client - Position fA,c Transit - Watch
AC Transit - Watch
.SB 33 would eliminate the vote requirement to create an IFD and expands the type of projects an IFD may fund. The bill also specifies the composition of the IFD governing board.
SB 556 Previously SB 556 would prohibit (Corbett D) nongovernmental person or entity contracting Agency : twith a public agency from displaying a seal or ostensible: emblem ofthat public agency on a uniform or nongovernmental tvehicle unless a disclosure statement is also entities. conspicuously displayed identifying the uniform twearer or vehicle operator as not a government employee.
Assembly Floor-Inactive File
fA,C Transit - Watch
Two-Year Bill
~B 566 was amended on September 4th to limit 1 ~he application ofthe disclosure requirements to contracts dealing with public health or safety services. The bill no longer applies to any transit service contracts. 4 104
Chaptered or Dead Bills Bills
Subject
Status
Client - Position
~C Transit- Support
~
~lternative fuel and vehicle technologies: funding Signed Into Law
(Perea D)
programs.
Chapter #401
AB 160 (Alejo D)
California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013: exceptions.
DEAD
~c Transit -Watch
AB 179 (Bocanegra D)
Public transit: electronic transit fare collection systems: disclosure of personal information.
Signed Into Law Chapter #375
AC Transit -Watch
lAB 206 (Dickinson D)
Bicycle transportation devices.
Signed Into Law Chapter #95
AC Transit- Support
lAB 210 (Wieckowski D)
!Transactions and use ta xes: County of Alameda .
Signed Into Law Chapter #194
AC Transit- Support
AB 431 (Mullin D)
County Employees Retirement Law of 1937: ~ederallaw compliance
DEAD
AC Transit- Watch
lAB 730 (Alejo D)
Monterey-Salinas Transit District.
Signed Into Law Chapter #394
~C Transit- Watch
AB 574 (Lowenthal D)
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: DEAD Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: sustainable communities strategies.
~C Transit- Support
AB 1002 (Bloom D)
!Vehicles: registration fee : sustainable communities strategies.
DEAD
~C Transit - Watch
AB 1051 (Bocanegra D)
Housing
DEAD
~C Transit- Watch
AB 1222 (Bloom D)
Public employees' retirement: collective bargaining : ransit workers : transportation .
Signed Into Law Chapter #527
AC Transit: SUPPORT
!Vetoed
AC Transit- Watch
Transportation planning. AB 1290 (John A. Perez D) SB 13 (Beall D)
Public employees' retirement benefits.
Signed Into Law Chapter #528
AC Transit- Watch
SB 142 (DeSaulnier D)
Public transit
Signed Into Law Chapter #655
AC Transit - Support
SB 791
Motor vehicle fuel tax: rate adjustment
DEAD
AC Transit: Oppose
(W~Iand R)
5
105
This page intentionally blank
106
SR 14-098 Attachment 4
2014 Federal Advocac Program Funding •
FY 2014 Grant Opportunities- Secure federal funds for key capital projects and support funding for 2014 Project Priorities for: o East Bay BRT Improvements within the Small Starts Program and other programs o AC Transit's Intelligent Transportation and Communication System upgrades o Bus lifting equipment program o Rehabilitation of aging facilities
•
Advocate for supplemental funding through the Federal Transit Administration to offset rising operating costs without jeopardizing total funding available for capital projects.
•
Support funding for the Transbay Terminal.
•
Support/seek additional funding for lifeline services including, but not limited to services for access to work, school or medical facilities.
•
Support efforts to rescind the planned across-the-board cuts to all federal programs, called "Sequestration," as enacted under the Budget Control Act of 2011 . Such cuts would reduce funding for the Small Starts Program, which could impact the East Bay BRT project schedule.
Transportation Authorization Principles •
Support efforts to increase the gas tax or to increase other revenues to replenish and sustain long-term growth of the Highway Trust Fund/Mass Transit Account.
•
Support transportation authorization reform that emphasizes greater funding levels to urban mass transit systems, and oppose efforts to reduce spending on transit formula programs.
•
Support FTA and Congressional efforts to make State of Good Repair for transit bus systems a strategic priority.
Page
11 107
•
Support broad funding eligibility for BRT projects in federal transit programs, including New Starts and Small Starts programs,
•
Seek revisions to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) grandfather clause that supports the direct representation of transit properties on local transportation policy boards.
Other Advocacy •
Advocate for transit-supportive legislation that mitigates global warming and/or calls for environmental stewardship and related funding.
•
Support funding and coordination between Health and Human Service (HHS) agencies and other transportation agencies to provide services to HHS clients.
•
Support modal parity in the commute tax benefits.
•
Support legislation that relieves the fiscal burden of mandatory regulations.
Page
12 108
SR 14-098 Attachment 5
T~NS7T
2014 State Advocacy Program Funding •
Support efforts to implement the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and future transportation authorizations that at least maintains funding level for mass transit projects and programs for bus operators in the Bay Area.
•
Support the development and implementation of an expenditure plan for AB 32 cap and trade revenue that provides an equitable investment in mass transit capital improvements, operations, and infill/transit oriented development.
•
Support efforts that create new sources of operating funds with equitable distribution to reflect urban transit needs.
•
Support efforts to sustain existing transit revenues.
•
Support efforts that would exempt public transit providers from state sales tax.
•
Support efforts to provide funding for lifeline services including, but not limited to, services for access to work, school or medical facilities.
•
Support local ability to increase fees and gas taxes to be used for local mass transit purposes.
•
Support legislation and programs that would provide funding to offset the costs of global warming initiatives, clean air and clean fuels and implementation of AC Transit's Climate Action Plan.
•
Seek funding to support and promote Bus Rapid Transit projects.
•
Support congestion pricing strategies and legislation that provide an equitable multimodal distribution of generated revenues.
•
Support legislative or administrative action to remove State barriers so that Medicaid transportation funds can be used for public transit services, including ADA paratransit services.
•
Support funding and coordination between Health and Human Service (HHS) agencies and other transportation agencies to provide services to HHS clients.
P age ll 109
•
Support legislation and programs that would provide funding for employee benefits programs.
•
Support funding initiatives that relieve the fiscal burden of mandatory regulations.
Equipment and Operations •
Support legislation or administrative action that would direct Caltrans to establish and maintain HOV lanes on state highway routes and to improve existing HOV lane management to maximize throughput.
•
Support incentives to provide bus contra flow lanes on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to/from the Transbay Terminal.
•
Support legislation to exempt public transit vehicles from state and local truck route ordinances.
•
Support legislation or administrative action that would direct Caltrans to permit permanent use of freeway shoulders by public transit buses.
Transit Incentives •
Support legislation to provide incentives for employees and employers to use public transportation to commute to work, including tax credits for purchasing transit passes.
•
Support Clean Air Initiatives that encourage increased public transit use.
•
Support incentives that would give auto insurance credits to heavy transit users.
•
Support common fare programs between Bay Area systems.
•
Support legislation to provide incentives for local governments and developers to incorporate transit passes into the cost of housing.
Environment and Transit Supportive Land Use
•
Support efforts that provide a new form of tax increment financing that promotes economic investment through transit oriented development, and requires the approval of all affected taxing entities.
•
Advocate for transit-supportive legislation that addresses climate change, healthy communities and environments.
Page
12 110
•
Foster transit supportive land use initiatives that require coordination with transit providers in the initial stages of local planning or project development that impacts transit, including density level decisions or transit oriented developments (TODs); and advocate for the required use of: o Transit streets agreements, and o Complete streets plans in which local transportation plans anticipate use of all modes.
•
Support legislation that requires reporting of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) annually through DMV renewal.
Policy Interests •
Support simple majority vote for local transportation ballot tax initiatives.
•
Support legislation to allow District to ban persons for specified offenses from entering district property.
•
Seek revisions to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) grandfather clause that supports direct representation of transit properties on local transportation policy boards.
•
Support legislation for STA formula reform that includes federal operating funding as eligible revenue.
•
Support efforts that maintain existing Workers' Compensation regulation.
Page
13 111
This page intentionally blank
112
SR 14-098 Attachment 5
20 14 State Advocacy Program Funding •
Support efforts to implement the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and future transportation authorizations that at least maintains funding level for mass transit projects and programs for bus operators in the Bay Area.
•
Support the development and implementation of an expenditure plan for AB 32 cap and trade revenue that provides an equitable investment in mass transit capital improvements, operations, and infill/transit oriented development.
•
Support efforts that create new sources of operating funds with equitable distribution to reflect urban transit needs.
•
Support efforts to sustain existing transit revenues.
•
Support efforts that would exempt public transit providers from state sales tax.
•
Support efforts to provide funding for lifeline services including, but not limited to, services for access to work, school or medical facilities.
•
Support local ability to increase fees and gas taxes to be used for local mass transit purposes.
•
Support legislation and programs that would provide funding to offset the costs of global warming initiatives, clean air and clean fuels and implementation of AC Transit's Climate Action Plan.
•
Seek funding to support and promote Bus Rapid Transit projects.
•
Support congestion pricing strategies and legislation that provide an equitable multimodal distribution of generated revenues .
•
Support legislative or administrative action to remove State barriers so that Medicaid transportation funds can be used for public transit services, including ADA paratransit services.
•
Support funding and coordination between Health and Human Service (HHS) agencies and other transportation agencies to provide services to HHS clients.
Page
11 113
•
Support legislation and programs that would provide funding for employee benefits programs.
•
Support funding initiatives that relieve the fiscal burden of mandatory regulations.
Equipment and Operations •
Support legislation or administrative action that would direct Caltrans to establish and maintain HOV lanes on state highway routes and to improve existing HOV lane management to maximize throughput.
•
Support incentives to provide bus contra flow lanes on the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to/from the Transbay Terminal.
•
Support legislation to exempt public transit vehicles from state and local truck route ordinances.
•
Support legislation or administrative action that would direct Caltrans to permit permanent use of freeway shoulders by public transit buses.
Transit Incentives •
Support legislation to provide incentives for employees and employers to use public transportation to commute to work, including tax credits for purchasing transit passes.
•
Support Clean Air Initiatives that encourage increased public transit use.
•
Support incentives that would give auto insurance credits to heavy transit users.
•
Support common fare programs between Bay Area systems.
•
Support legislation to provide incentives for local governments and developers to incorporate transit passes into the cost of housing.
Environment and Transit Supportive Land Use
•
Support efforts that provide a new form of tax increment financing that promotes economic investment through transit oriented development, and requires the approval of all affected taxing entities.
•
Advocate for transit-supportive legislation that addresses climate change, healthy communities and environments.
Page
12 114
•
Foster transit supportive land use initiatives that require coordination with transit providers in the initial stages of local planning or project development that impacts transit, including density level decisions or transit oriented developments (TODs); and advocate for the required use of: o Transit streets agreements, and o Complete streets plans in which local transportation plans anticipate use of all modes.
•
Support legislation that requires reporting of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) annually through DMV renewal.
Policy Interests •
Support simple majority vote for local transportation ballot tax initiatives.
•
Support legislation to allow District to ban persons for specified offenses from entering district property.
•
Seek revisions to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) grandfather clause that supports direct representation of transit properties on local transportation policy boards.
•
Support legislation for STA formula reform that includes federal operating funding as eligible revenue.
•
Support efforts that maintain existing Workers' Compensation regulation.
Page
13 115
This page intentionally blank
116
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-121 April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
External Affairs Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) Outreach Flyer
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider approving the Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) Outreach Flyer to be used by the AAC Committee members to promote AC Transit accessible bus services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In accordance with Board Policy 505, this report requests approval of the AAC Outreach Flyer, with the addition of the AC Transit logo, to promote AC Transit accessible bus services. The Outreach Flyer includes information on the AAC Committee, Outreach goals, Accessible Bus Services and how to contact the Customer Relations Department regarding a complaint or commendation. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
At the December 10, 2014 Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC) meeting while reviewing the Action Items for the 2013 AAC Top Priorities, the committee decided to form an Outreach subcommittee. The Outreach sub-committee identified two outreach goals: • •
Help spread the word about accessibility services and programs available from AC Transit for senior and people with disabilities; and Help facilitate the feedback- both positive and negative -about transit experiences of seniors and people with disabilities.
To accomplish these goals, the AAC created an outreach flyer that provides information to seniors and people with disabilities about the AAC, bus accessibility features, how to file a complaint or commendation, and an invitation to attend monthly AAC meetings. The accessibility features include: • •
Reduced Fares Travel Training Referrals
• • 117
Priority Seating NextBus
Report No. 14-121 Page 2 of 2 • •
Wheelchair Marking and Tether Strap Program Passenger Lift/Ramp/Kneeler
• •
Community Presentations Automated Vehicle Announcements (AVA)
At the April 8, 2014 AAC meeting the committee members requested that Staff move forward and request that the Board of Directors approve the Outreach Flyer with the AC Transit logo. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The Outreach flyer promotes AC Transit services, including bus accessibility, to make travel more accessible for seniors and people with disabilities. This informational flyer is intended for distribution by the AAC members at various events and will ensure consistent messaging among the members. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
There are no practical alternatives to the course of action recommended in this report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
Board Policy 505- Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District's Registered Logo. ATTACHMENTS:
1:
Accessibility Advisory Committee Outreach Flyer
Department Head Approval:
Dennis W. Butler, Chief Planning and Development Officer
Reviewed by:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Mallory Nestor-Brush, Accessible Services Manager Kim Ridgeway, Accessible Services Specialist Victoria Einhaus, Customer Service Manager
Prepared by:
Tammy Kyllo, Administrative Coordinator
118
Need Accessible Bus Services?
AC TRANSIT'S ACCESSIBILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
AC Transit has services to make bus travel more accessible for seniors and people with disabilities, including:
The Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC), established by the AC Transit Board of Directors in 1991, reviews, comments and advises the Board of Directors and District staff regarding the implementation and enhancement of planning programs and services for seniors and people with disabilities. The AAC consists of 14 members who are seniors ' individuals with a disability and/or represents such groups.
• • • • •
Reduced Fares • Passenger Lift/Ramp/Kneeler Travel Training Referrals • Community Presentations Priority Seating • Automated Vehicle NextBus Announcements (AVA) Wheelchair Marking and Tether Strap Program
Have you had a good bus experience? A bad bus experience? We want to know! Contact the AC Transit Customer Relations Department to let AC Transit know the good, the bad and/or to access services listed above. By contacting the Customer Relations Department, AC Transit will have a record of your complaint or commendation, and refer you to the right department.
The AAC has identified two Outreach goals: • Help spread the word about accessibility services and programs available from AC Transit for seniors and people with disabilities; and • Help facilitate the feedback - both positive and negative - about transit experiences of seniors and people with disabilities.
Tel:
511 or 510-891-4700 M-F 6am- 7pm, Sat-Sun 9am-5pm TDD/TTY: 711 or 800-735-2929 . Mail: AC Transit 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, CA 94612 Attn: Customer Relations www.actransit.org/feedback Online:
To accomplish these goals, the AAC invites seniors and people with disabilities to check out the different services listed below, contact AC Transit, and come to the monthly AAC meetings. You are invited to come to the AC Transit Accessible Advisory Committee meetings on the second Tuesday of every month at 1:00 pm, 1600 Franklin St., Oakland, 2nd floor.
Help make AC Transit an accessible system for everyone! Let us hear from you!
~,~~ 119
This page intentionally blank
120
VERBAL REPORT
FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE April 23, 2014 Agenda Item A-3 Consider recommending support of Measure AA the Alameda County healthcare services tax
121
This page intentionally blank
122
FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
April 23, 2014 Agenda Items B-1 – B-8
123
This page intentionally blank
124
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-099 April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Monthly Report on Investments
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION IS):
Consider Receiving Monthly Report on Investments for February 2014. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As of February 28, 2014 the District had the following investments: Repurchase Agreement (REPO)
$25 million (Collateralized 102%)
Money Market Account
$ 84.17 million (Collateralized 110%)
Money Market Account
$1.75 million (small banks; all FDIC insured)
BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no budgetary or fiscal impacts associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
In compliance with Section 15.0 of Board Policy 336, Investment Policy, the Monthly Report on Investments for February 2014 is forwarded to the Board of Directors for review. The portfolio contained in the Report for February 2014 is in compliance with Board Policy 336, Investment Policy. The District is able to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months. Return on the District's investments is small due to the market conditions and ultra conservative investment approach. Daily roll-over of REPO and collateralized money market accounts is done with preservation of principal foremost in mind.
125
Report No. 14-099 Page 2 of 2
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: This report is being provided to inform the Board of activities of the Treasury Department.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy 336, Investment Policy
ATIACHMENTS:
1:
Monthly Report on Investments on February 2014.
Department Head Approval:
Lewis G. Clinton, Jr., Chief Financial Officer
Prepared by:
Beverly Abad-Fitzgerald, Treasury Administrator
126
ALAMEDA - CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT MONTHLY REPORT ON INVESTMENTS FOR THE GENERAL FUND FEBRUARY 28, 2014
en :J)
... ~
I
0
"'"'> ..... .....
:..
127
ALAMEDA - CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT MONTHLY REPORT ON INVESTMENTS
Table of Contents
Investment Summary
1
Investment Overview
2
Return on Investments
3
Detail of Portfolio
4
Repurchase Agreements
5
Government Securities (General Fund)
6
128
INVESTMENT SUMMARY FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS/OTHER FUND FEBRUARY 28, 2014
TYPE MONEY MARKET ACCOUNTS REPO'S TREASURY BILLS DISCOUNT NOTES AGENCY BONDS
Average Interest Rate% 0.248% 0.013% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%
TOTAL GENERAL FUND INVESTMENTS
TYPE MONEY MARKET REPO'S DISCOUNT NOTES AGENCY BONDS
Average Interest Rate% 0.070% 0.000% 0.000% 0.000%
TOTAL OTHER (CaiEMA/Bus Proc.) INVESTMENTS
Carrying Value
Par Value
Fair Value
%of Total
$25,168,950.70 $25,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$25,168,950.70 $25,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$25,168,950.70 $25,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
50.17% 49.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
$50,168,950.70
$50,168,950.70
$50,168,950.70
100.00%
Carrying Value
Par Value
Fair Value
%of Total
$60,753,669.77 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$60,753,669.77 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$60,753,669.77 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
$60,753,669.77
$60,753,669.77
$60,753,669.77
100.00%
Page 129 1
ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT INVESTMENT OVERVIEW FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS PROCUREMENT/OTHER FUND FEBRUARY 28, 2014 2013 DESCRIPTION
YTD
2014
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
AVERAGE
CURRENT MONTH AVERAGE INTEREST RATES
Repurchase Agreements (current month) Money Market Accounts (current month) Govt Securities held at month end Treasury Bills (purchased in current month) Discount Notes (purchased in current month) Agency Bonds (purchased in current month)
0.012% 0.070%
0.020% 0.070%
0.015% 0.070%
0.032% 0.070%
0.033%
0.025%
0.070%
0.070%
0.008% 0.070%
0.070%
0.020% 0.070%
0.080% 0.070%
0.072% 0.070%
0.061%
0.070%
0.051% 0.070%
0.041% 0.070%
0.034% 0.070%
0.031% 0.070%
0.028% 0.070%
0.050% 0.070%
0.060% 0.030% 0.139% 0.083%
0.110% 0.040% 0.136% 0.077%
0.100% 0.010% 0.133% 0.069%
0.090% 0.045% 0.127% 0.062%
0.090% 0.080% 0.120% 0.060%
0.100% 0.065% 0.118% 0.058%
0.130% 0.055% 0.115% 0.057%
0.100% 0.045% 0.110% 0.050%
0.098% 0.046% 0.125% 0.065%
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
7
9
7
7
7
8
7
7
7
$25,000,000 $93,625,417
$25,000,000 $93,631,187
$25,000,000 $93,636,924
$25,000,000 $93,642,075
$25,000,000 $85,907,055
$25,000,000 $85,912,951
$25,000,000 $85,922,620
$25,000,000 $85,922,620
$25,000,000 $89,775,106
0.013%
AVERAGE INTEREST RATE Repurchase Agreements (12-month avg) Money Market Accounts (12-month avg) Govt Securities held at month end Treasury Bills (Portfolio) Discount Notes (Portfolio) Agency Bonds {Portfolio) INVESTMENT BENCHMARKS Current Month Daily Fed Funds Average Current Month Daily 3 Month T Bill Rate Average Monthly Avg of Daily Fed Funds (12 month avg) Monthly Avg 3 Month T Bill Rate (12 month avg) AVERAGE MATURITY OF INVESTMENTS Repurchase Agreements Treasury Bills Discount Notes Agency Bonds
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
INVESTMENTS AT CARRYING VALUE Repurchase Agreements Money Market Treasury Bills Discount Notes Agency Bonds
INVESTMENTS AT COST
$118,625,417
$118,631,187 $118,636,924 $118,642,075
$110,907,055 $110,912,951
$110,922,620
$110,922,620
$0
$0
$0
$0
$114,775,106
$118,625,417
$118,631,187 $118,636,924 $118,642,075
$110,907,055 $110,912,951
$110,922,620
$110,922,620
$0
$0
$0
$0
$76,516,737
Page2
130
ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RETURN ON INVESTMENTS FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS PROCUREMENT/OTHER FUND FEBRUARY 28, 2014
RETURN ON INVESTMENTS
JUL
2013 SEP
AUG
Repurchase Agreements
$389
$410
$306
Money Markel
5,392
5,446
5,287
0 0
0 0 $5 856
0 0 $5593 $292
5,392
$389 5.467
$5 781
$5 856
2014 OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
$667 5,464
$687
$632 5,004
$181
$222
5,139
5,052
4,520
0 0
0 0
$6131
$5826
0 0 $5636
0 0 $5233
0 0 $4 742
$632 5,499
$632
$757
5,194
$194 4.548
$6131
$5826
4,879 $5636
$194 5,039 $5233
$4742
MAR
FEB
APR
JUN
MAY
$3,494 $41,304
Treasury Bills Discount Notes
Bonds Total return on investments
$5 781
Interest received Accrued interest Total return on investments
$389
5,301
$5593
YTD TOTAL
0 0
!9
0 0 $0
0 0 $0
0 0 !0
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
$0 $0 !0 $44 798 $3,479 $41319
$44 798
PORTFOLIO INVESTED Average daily portfolio available for investment Average daily portfolio invested
$69,327,568 $31.250,000
$69,327.568 $31,250,000
45.08%
45.08%
% of average daily portfolio invested
CARRYING VALUE GENERAL FUND PORTFOLIO Jul2013 A"g Sep
Oct Nov
Dec Jan 2014 Feb
$45,496,647 $46.135,214 $46,136,641 $47,548,538 $47,550,347 $47,552,300 $50,167,447 $50,168,951
Oct Nov
Dec Jan 2013 Feb
Mac
Mac
Ape
Ape
May Joo
May Joo
CARRYING VALUE SUS/OTHER PORTFOLIO
Oct Nov
Dec Jan 2014 Feb
$73,128,770 $72,495,973 $72,500,284 $71,093,538 $63,356,709 $63,360,651 $60,749,907 $60,753,670
Jul2011 A
Oct Nov D~
Jan 2012 Feb
Mac Ape
May Joo
FY 12113
FY 13114 Jul2013 Avg Sep
$42,603,947 $42,607' 123 $42,610,779 $42,931,605 $42,935,324 $42,939,037 $42,940,095 $43,416,351 $45,493,510 $44,777,188 $45,220,228 $45,493,510
Jul2012 A
$34,705,371 $34,707,265 $34,709,158 $49,291,355 $49,293,816 $49,296,513 $49,299,100 $50,975,655 $48,916,111 $49,623,413 $49,184,941 $48,916,111
Jul2012 A
Oct Nov
Dec Jan 2013 Feb
Mac
Mac
Ape
Ape
May Joo
May Joo
131
Page3
FY 10/11
FY 11/12
FY 12113
FY 13/14
$35,460,813 $25,463,299 $25,464,942 $25,465,414 $40,467,036 $40,468,599 $40,837,954 $40,840,300 $40,843,075 $41,844,149 $42,597,995 $42,601,366
Jul2010 A
Oct Nov
Dec Jan 2011 Feb
Mac Ape
May Joo
FY 10111
FY11/12 Jul2011 A"g Sep
Oct Nov D~
Jan 2012 Feb
Mac Ape
May Joo
$5,743,559 $5,743,605 $5,743,649 $5,743,695 $5,743,739 $5,743,817 $5,375,346 $5,375,389 $34,699,100 $32,551,967 $32,553,678 $34,703,831
$25,423,957 $15,427,078 $15,429,234 $15,429,332 $45,432,936 $45,437,277 $45,442,015 $45,447,053 $45,451,256 $45,453.059 $45,456,386 $40,459,599
Jul2010 A
Oct Nov
Dec Jan 2011 Feb
Mac Ape
May
Joo
$5,742,841 $5,742,990 $5,743,090 $5,743,140 $5,743,184 $5,743,245 $5,743,291 $5,743,332 $5,743,378 $5,743,423 $5,743,468 $5,743,513
ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT DETAIL OF PORTFOLIO FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS PROCUREMENT/OTHER FUND FEBRUARY 28, 2014 Purchased From
TYPE
Settlement Date
Maturity Date
Days to Maturity
Purchased
Rato%
Maturity Rate%
Carrying Value
Par Value
Fair Value
MONEY MARKET ACCOUNTS Wells Fargo
0.070% 0.425% 0.248%
0.070% 0.425% 0.248%
23,414,038.44
23,414,038.44
1,754,912.26 25,168,950.70
1,754,912.26 25,168,950.70
23,414,038.44 1,754,912.26 25,168,950.70
0.010%
0.010%
25,000,000.00
25,000,000.00
25,000,000.00
TOTAL DISCOUNT NOTES
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL BONDS
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,168,950.70
50,168,950.70
50,168,950.70
Local Banks TOTAL MONEY MARKET ACCOUNTS
REPO'S
Bank of America
TREASURY BILLS:
02125114
TOTAL REPO
03104114
7
TOTAL TREASURY BILLS
AGENCY DISC NOTES;
AGENCY BONDS:
IPORTFOLIO - GENERAL FUND MONEY MARKET:
Wells Fargo MONEY MARKET ACCOUNTS
CaiEMA CaiEMA Grant No. 6461
Bus Procurement
0.070% 0.070% 0.070%
0.070% 0.070% 0.070%
2,208.68 1,200.30 60,750,260.79 0.00
2,208.68 1,200.30 60,750,260.79 0.00
2,208.68 1,200.30 60,750,260.79 0.00
0.070%
0.070%
60,753,669.77
60,753,669.77
60,753,669.77
110,922,620.47
110,922,620.47
110,922,620.47
TREASURY BILLS: AGENCY DISC NOTES:
AGENCY BONDS:
IPORTFOLIO - OTHER (CaiEma/Bus Procurement)
ITOTAL PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION OF PORTFOLIO : Money Market
GENERAL FUND
50.17% 49.83% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
Repurchase Agreements Treasury Bills Discount Notes Bonds
Page4
132
OTHER (CaiEma/Bus Procurement)
100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00%
ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE MONTH ENDED FEBRUARY 28,2014
SETTLEMENT DATE
MATURITY DATE
DAILY ''REPO" INVESTMENT$
CURRENT # INTEREST OF DAYS RATE
INTEREST EARNED
INTEREST RECEIVED
CASH RECEIPT
AIR ACTIVITY
NET ACTIVITY
AVERAGEINVESTMEN AMT. INV • #OF DAYS/ DAYS IN MONTH:
28
BANK OF AMERICA
01/28/14 02/04/14 02/11/14 02/18/14 02/25/14 TOTAL
02/04/14 02/11/14 02/18/14 02/25/14 03/04/14
$25,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00
7 7 7 7 7
0.0000% 0.0100% 0.0100% 0.0200% 0.0100%
0.00 48.61 48.61 97.22 27.78
0.00 48.61 48.61 97.22 0.00
25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.83
-25,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25,000,000.00
6,250,000.00 6,250,000.00 6,250,000.00 6,250,000.00 6,250,000.00
$100,000,000.00
7
0.0125%
$222.22
$194.44
$125,000,000.00
$20.83
$0.00
$31,250,000.00
Page5 133
ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT GENERAL FUND GOVERNMENT SECURITIES SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH ENDED
FEBRUARY 28, 2014 CUSIP
AGENCY
NUMBER
OATC
Treasu
Bills Matured:
Treasu
Bills Held at Month End:
RATe
TOTAL TREASURY BILLS
VALUE
CARRYING VALUE
-;"""T;;_
__!!!! ~
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Ol RING
--"'~NiB_
0.00
"O.;o;~c;"
--"""""-
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Discount Note5 Matured:
Discount Notes Held at Month End:
TOTAL DISCOUNT NOTES Agency Bond Matured
Agency Bond Held at Month End:
TOTAL BONDS TOTAL GOVERNMENT SECURmES
I
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Government Securities 90 days and less
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Government Securities over 90 days
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Government Securities -Aged
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Variance
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
134
Page6
-At
Report No: Meeting Date:
T/WNS/T
14-049 April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit Distr.ict
STAFF REPORT TO:
Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Board Policy 320- Debt Limitations
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Review and approval of Board Policy 320 Debt Limitations Policy with no changes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In accordance with Board Policy 302, "the Board of Directors shall review each fiscal policy of the District once every two years with the exception of the investment policy which shall be reviewed annually. Staff is currently not recommending any changes to Board Policy 320. In addition, as a result of the District's most recent review by Standard and Poors (S&P) utilizing their new ratings methodology, the District's debt policy was viewed and rated as "very good" and was considered in S&P's overall reaffirmation of the District's current A+ rating, and was instrumental in the District receiving an indicative Standalone Credit Profile (SACP) of aa/aa-. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: In accordance with Board Policy No. 302, "the Board of Directors shall review each fiscal policy of the District once every two years with the exception of the investment policy which shall be reviewed annually." This is in direct agreement with the Government Finance Officers Association' s (GFOA's) recommended Best Practices. The GFOA also states "a jurisdiction's adopted financial policies should be used to form major policy initiatives" and "should be reviewed to identify any gaps that should be addressed with new policies." Staff has reviewed Board Policy 320 to determine if there are any gaps in the policy that do not address recent changes related to debt issuance or capital markets. The debt policy provides a guideline and restrictions that affect the amount and type of debt issued by the District. Adherence to the debt policy will enhance the District's ability to maintain its investment grade underlying rating. Policy 320 currently conforms to Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) guidance, and staff is not recommending any changes. 135
Report No. 14-049 Page 2 of 2
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: This report does not recommend an action.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: GM Memo No. 12-078 Policy No. 320-Debt limitations Policy
ATTACHMENTS: 1: Board Policy No. 320 Debt limitations Policy
Department Head Approval: Reviewed
by:
Prepared by:
Lewis G. Clinton, Jr., Chief Financial Officer Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel Lewis G. Clinton, Jr., Chief Financial Officer
136
SR 14-049 ATT.1
AC Transit BOARD POLICY
Policy No. 320
Category: FINANCIAL MATTERS
DEBT LIMITATIONS 1. Capital projects funded through the issuance of bonds, certificates of participation or other evidences of indebtedness shall be financed for a period not to exceed the expected useful life of the project, provided that said financing term, in the event financed by the issuance of bonds, shall not be less than 10 years nor more than 50 years. 1b. All professional service providers (underwriters, financial advisors, bond insurer's, etc.) shall be selected in accordance with Board Policy No. 350 (Procurement Policy). This will require a request for proposal process unless waived by the Board of Directors. 2. Long-term debt or bond financing shall not be used to support operating expenses. 3. Prior to the issuance of long-term (in excess of one year) debt, the impact of annual debt services costs on annual operating expenses shall be analyzed. Total annual debt service expense shall not exceed ten percent of operating revenue (including subsidies) provided and in no event shall such indebtedness exceed 20% of the assessed value of all real and personal property within the District. 4. The Board of Directors may consider the cosUbenefit to the District of using lease purchase agreements or cross-border leasing arrangements to finance capital projects that would otherwise be funded through an annual appropriation of District funds. 5. Reserve accounts shall be maintained as required by bond requirements and where deemed advisable by the District's Board. The District shall structure such debt service reserves so that they do not violate IRS arbitrage regulations.
Page 1 of 1
Adopted: Amended:
137
4/92 12/01:08/04:06/05: 12/06: 04/12
This page intentionally blank
138
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-116 April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
MTC's FY 2013-14 Transit Performance Initiative -Investment Grant Application
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-020 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) FY 201314 Transit Performance Initiative -Investment (TPI-Investment) grant program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The District plans to apply for up to $8 million in federal Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (STP/CMAQ) funds through MTC's FY 2013-14 TPI-Investment program to implement the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement Project along major portions of Lines 97 and 99. Attachment 1 provides an analysis of all the major corridors in the District's service area in support of this application based on conditions of the corridor, overall cost in comparison to funds available, and geographic equity. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff anticipates receiving up to $8 million in federal STP/CMAQ funding. The local match requirement of 11.47% (up to $1.03 million) will be added to the FY 2015 Capital Budget if awarded. Staff will seek other funding sources for the match as available.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
The MTC recently announced the second round of the TPI-Investment program, which was established as part of the One BayArea Grant (OBAG) program as a step towards integrating the region's federal transportation program and its land-use and housing policies. The intent ofthe TPI-Investment Program is to fund low-cost capital improvements that improve operations and customer experience in the region's urban trunk network of major transit lines. This round of the grant program has $19 million and all regional agencies are eligible. Applications are due April 25, 2014. Staff analyzed the District's top lines by ridership to determine what would be the most competitive project to apply for given existing funding arrangements, overall suitability for this call for projects, and MTC's criteria. See Attachment 1 for a line by line comparison. MTC's 139
Report No. 14-116 Page 2 of 3 criteria includes the ability to deliver the project within 12-24 months, evidence of engineering and operational support from local jurisdictions, travel time savings, operating cost savings, and other benefits to riders. MTC will also prioritize corridors that have more frequent service and higher passenger volumes. Given the short timeline imposed by MTC for implementation of projects and the likely funding amounts in the $8 million range, staff focused on possible improvements that can be done relatively quickly with a willing city partner. This effectively means the scope of the project will include traffic signal priority installations and a small amount of corridor modifications, such as moving bus stops to the far side of intersections where parking is minimally affected. The suitability analysis, which included eliminating projects that will receive future funding, projects that were too expensive for this program, and geographic equity considerations, resulted in proposing a project that addresses travel time improvements along major corridors in South County. Possible corridors for improvement include Alvarado-Niles Road, Decato Road, East 141h Street, Fremont Boulevard, Hesperian Boulevard, Mission Boulevard, and Union City Boulevard. The bulk of the ridership along these corridors is on Lines 97 and 99, but the corridors also include Lines S; SB; Union City Transit -lA, lB, 3; 210; 801; 93; 22; 200; 232; 275; DB; DBl; and U. Staff also discussed with MTC the various ideas and lines being considered for the TPIInvestment program to get its feedback on what projects were likely to be competitive for funding. MTC staff expressed its desire to coordinate their Next Generation Arterial Operations Program with the TPI-Investment program to allow for pilot installations of adaptive signal controls. MTC staff has already reached out to cities to determine interest in installing adaptive signal controls, and Fremont and Hayward have indicated that they are very interested in signal improvements along Mission and Fremont Boulevards. Staff has also reached out to Union City, Alameda County, and Union City Transit to determine interest in partnership. This built in partnership further supports the staff recommendation to pursue TPI-Investment funding for capital improvements (including adaptive traffic signals) for the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement Project. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The advantage of pursuing this grant is that it would fund improvements along the District's trunk lines that would improve on time performance and efficiency. Staff cannot identify any disadvantages to pursuing this grant. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
If staff did not apply for the funds, a different funding source would have to be identified for any improvements contemplated. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
None ATIACHMENTS:
140
Report No. 14-116 Page 3 of 3 1: Line Comparison Chart 2: Resolution 14-020 Department Head Approval:
Tom Prescott, Chief Performance Officer
Reviewed by:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel Lewis G. Clinton, Chief Financial Officer Dennis Butler, Chief Planning and Development Officer Robert Del Rosario, Director of Service Development Kiran Bawa, Manager, Capital Planning and Grants
Prepared by:
Ben Stupka, Senior Capital Planning Specialist
141
This page intentionally blank
142
SR 14-116 Attachment 1 2014 Transportation Performance Initiative- Major Corridor Ridership & On-Time Performance (North County & West County) Weekday Rank 1
Line(s) 51A, 51B
On-
Avg. Daily
Peak Freq.
time
Passengers
[avg.]
{%)
21,119
10,10
70.7
[10)
Primary Streets Webster, Santa Clara, Broadway
Notes
Cities Alameda, Oakland, Berkeley
(Alameda), Broadway {Oakland),
Improvements programmed under
Line 51 Project.
College, University 2
72, 72M,
15,765
1, 1R
58.9
San Pablo, MacDonald
Oakland, Emeryville, Berkeley,
[6.7]
72R 3
30, 30, 12
13,336
15,12
53.0
International, East 14'" Only
Albany, El Cerrito, Richmond, San
funds available in FY 15 for this
Pablo
corridor.
San Leandro, Oakland
[6.7] 4
57, 58L,
11,843
15,30,30
Improvements programmed under
BRT. 63.0
40'", West Grand, MacArthur
Oakland
[7.5)
NL
Funding planned by MTC. NoTPI
Potentially large scale investment due to age of infrastructure. Intention to use future funding from a separate source. Improvements in
Oakland are already underway (Line 51 and BRT projects). 5
40
10,588
10
69.4
Foothill
Oakland
Potentially large scale investment due to age of infrastructure. Improvements in Oakland are
already underway (Line 51 and BRT projects). 7
18
8,293
15
68.5
Shattuck, Martin Luther King, Park
Oakland, Berkeley
Potentially large scale investment
due to age of infrastructure.
Improvements in Oakland are already underway (Line 51 and BRT projects). 8
1, 1R
6,829
15, 12
53.0
Telegraph Only
Oakland, Berkeley
Potentially large scale investment
due to age of infrastructure.
[6.7]
Improvements in Oakland are
already underway through the Line 51 and BRT projects.
Pagelof2
143
SR 14-116 Attachment 1 2014 Transportation Performance Initiative- Major Corridor Ridership & On-Time Performance (South County) Weekday Rank 6
Line(s) 97, S, SB,
On-
Avg. Daily
Peak Freq.
time
Passengers
[avg.)
(%)
<10 min
66.3
Hesperian, Union City Blvd,
San Leandro, Unincorporated
Good use for adaptive signals.
(97
Alvarado-Niles
Alameda County, Hayward, Union
Strong partnerships with cities.
8,651
UCT-1A, 1B &3
Primary Streets
only)
Cities
City
Notes
Modern infrastructure. Opportunity for a project in South County.
9
99, 210,
6,555
<10 min
68.1
801,93,
(99
22,200,
only)
East 14tn, Mission, Decato, Fremont
San Leandro, Unincorporated
Good use for adaptive signals. Strong
Alameda County, Hayward, Union
partnerships with cities and Caltrans.
City, Fremont
232, 275
Modern infrastructure. Opportunity for a project in South County.
DB, DB1
u
sec
Includes
15,206
South County Corridor
all lines on the routes
East 14th, Mission, Decato,
of the 97
Fremont, Hesperian, Union City
and99
Blvd, Alvarado-Niles
San Leandro, Unincorporated
Good use for adaptive signals at
Alameda County, Hayward, Union
multiple locations. Strong
City, Fremont
partnerships with cities. Modern
·infrastructure over wide areas including communications trunks. Opportunity for a project in South County.
1.
The above table shows the top corridors based on the fall2013 ridership counts unless otherwise noted. Average Weekday Daily Passengers is the sum of ridership for all lines operating on each corridor. AII-
2.
The 97 includes the ridership of the 1 and 1R between Bayfair BART and downtown San Leandro (2,793 boardings) based on BRT plan. It also includes Transbay lines Sand SB and Union City Transit Lines 1A, 18
3.
The 99 corridor also includes the ridership of Line 210 on the Fremont Boulevard segment of the corridor (929), numerous local lines and the DB, 081 and U Transbay lines.
4.
The 1 and 1R today carry 22,958 passengers in its current route from downtown Berkeley to Bayfair BART, currently the line with the highest ridership.
5.
The Telegraph and International/East 14tl1 segments were separated to reflect recent decisions on the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Locally Preferred Alternative. Conversely, the 51A and 51B were combined to
Nighter lines were included in ridership totals but not for on-time performance. On-time performance figures are weighted percentages by line from the March 2014 OTP reports. and 3.
reflect capital improvement plans currently being prepared corridor-wide. 6.
Line NL carries 3,193 riders daily, the second highest of the Trans Bay lines. The NX series was not included in corridor ridership calculations due to the short segments of MacArthur used.
7.
Union City Transit carries peak weekday ridership of 530 passengers in this corridor (March 2012 UCT SRTP).
8.
Transbay lines operate predominantly westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening. For these lines, boardings (wb) + alightings (eb) were added to calculate ridership. Ridership of local bus lines are boardings only.
Page 2 of2
144
SR 14-116 Attachment 2 ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 14-020 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO FILE AND EXECUTE APPLICATIONS TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (MTC) FOR MTC'S FY 2013-14 TRANSIT PERFORMANCE INITIATIVE -INVESTMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (herein referred to as APPLICANT) is submitting an application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) for $5 million in funding assigned to MTC for programming discretion, including but not limited to, federal funding administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) such as Surface Transportation Program (STP) funding, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) funding and/or Transportation Alternatives (TA) funding (herein collectively referred to as REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING) for the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement Project (herein referred to as PROJECT) for the Transit Performance Initiative Investment Program (herein referred to as PROGRAM); and WHEREAS, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (Public Law 112-141, July 6, 2012) and any extensions or successor legislation for continued funding (collectively, MAP 21) authorize various federal funding programs including, but not limited to, the Surface Transportation Program (STP) (23 U.S.C. § 133), the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) (23 U.S. C. § 149) and the Transportation Alternatives Program (TA) (23 U.S.C. § 213); and WHEREAS, state statutes, including California Streets and Highways Code sections 182.6 and 182.7 provide various funding programs for the programming discretion of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA); and WHEREAS, pursuant to MAP-21, and any regulations promulgated thereunder, eligible project sponsors wishing to receive federal funds for a project shall submit an application first with the appropriate MPO for review and inclusion in the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP); and WHEREAS, MTC is the MPO and RTPA for the nine counties of the San Francisco Bay region; and WHEREAS, MTC has adopted a Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) that sets out procedures governing the application and use of federal funds; and WHEREAS, APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING;
and WHEREAS, as part of the application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING, MTC requires a resolution adopted by the responsible implementing agency stating the following:
Resolution No. 14-020
Poge 1 of4 145
SR 14-116 Attachment 2
1. the commitment of any required matching funds of at least 11.47%; and 2. that the sponsor understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING is fixed at the programmed amount, and therefore any cost increase cannot be expected to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and 3. the project will comply with the procedures, delivery milestones and funding deadlines specified in the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised); and 4. the assurance of the sponsor to complete the project as described in the application, and if approved, as included in MTC's federal Transportation Improvement Program (TIP}; and 5. the project will comply with all project-specific requirements as set forth in the PROGRAM; and 6. the project (transit only) will comply with MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised, which sets forth the requirements of MTC's Transit Coordination Implementation Plan to more efficiently deliver transit projects in the region; and WHEREAS, the APPLICANT is authorized to execute and file an application for funding for the PROJECT for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING under MAP-21 for continued funding; NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does resolve as follows:
Section 1.
The APPLICANT by adopting this resolution does hereby affirm and
acknowledge that: 1. APPLICANT will provide matching funds; and 2. APPLICANT understands that the REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the project is fixed at the MTC approved programmed amount, and that any cost increases must be funded by the APPLICANT from other funds, and that APPLICANT does not expect any cost increases to be funded with additional REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING; and 3. APPLICANT understands the funding deadlines associated with these funds and will comply with the provisions and requirements of the Regional Project Funding Delivery Policy (MTC Resolution No. 3606, revised) and APPLICANT has, and will retain the expertise, knowledge and resources necessary to deliver federally-funded transportation projects, and has assigned, and will maintain a single point of contact for all FHWA-funded transportation projects to coordinate within the agency and with the respective Congestion Management Agency (CMA), MTC, Caltrans and FHWA on all communications, inquires or issues that may arise during the federal programming and delivery process for all FHWA-funded transportation projects implemented by APPLICANT; and 4. PROJECT will be implemented as described in the complete application and in this resolution and, if approved, for the amount approved by MTC and programmed in the federal TIP; and 5. APPLICANT and the PROJECT will comply with the requirements as set forth in MTC programming guidelines and project selection procedures for the PROGRAM; and
Resolution No. 14-020
Page2of4 146
SR 14-116 Attachment 2 6. APPLICANT (for a transit project only) agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC's Transit Coordination Implementation Plan as set forth in MTC Resolution No. 3866, revised.
Section 2. funded projects.
APPLICANT is an eligible sponsor of REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING
Section 3. APPLICANT is authorized to submit an application for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT. Section 4.
There is no legal impediment to APPLICANT making application for the
funds.
Section 5. There is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed PROJECT, or the ability of APPLICANT to deliver such PROJECT. Section 6. APPLICANT authorizes its General Manager, or designee, to execute and file an application with MTC for REGIONAL DISCRETIONARY FUNDING for the PROJECT as referenced in this resolution and take any further action necessary to carry out this resolution. Section 7. A copy of this resolution will be transmitted to the MTC in conjunction with the filing of the application. Section 8. The MTC is requested to support the application for the PROJECT described in this resolution and to include the PROJECT, if approved, in MTC's federal TIP. Section 9. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of April 2014.
Greg Harper, President Attest:
Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary I, Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 23rd day of April, 2014 by the following roll call vote:
Page 3 of4
Resolution No. 14-020 147
SR 14-116 Attachment 2
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary
Approved as to Content and Form:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel
Resolution No. 14-020
Page 4of4 148
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-117 April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
FY 2014-15 Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Funds
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION IS):
Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-021 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications for the Alameda County Transportation Commission's (ACTC) FY 2014-15 Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) program. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The ACTC announced a call for projects for FY 2014-15 TFCA program funding for projects that result in the reduction of motor vehicle emissions within the Air District's jurisdiction in addition to meeting other program requirements. The District plans to apply for matching funds for the pending Low or No Emission Vehicle Deployment Program grant (LoNo). BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
Staff plans on applying for up to $500,000 for the Low or No Emission Vehicle Deployment Program match.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
TFCA is a local fund source of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District). As the TFCA program manager for Alameda County, the Alameda CTC is responsible for programming 40 percent ofthe $4 vehicle registration fee collected in Alameda County for this program. The ACTC recently announced the FY 2014-15 TFCA Program call for projects. Eligible projects must result in the reduction of motor vehicle emissions within the Air District's jurisdiction. Reductions are measured in terms of cost effectiveness calculations established by the Air District. A project must have a cost effectiveness rating of $90,000 in TFCA funds per ton of emissions reduced to qualify for funding. Approximately $3.35 million is available in funding for the FY 2014-15 program in Alameda County, of which approximately $710,000 is allocated for the discretionary program for transit-related projects. Projects approved for FY 2014-15 TFCA funding are required to start by December 31, 2015. Applications are due in late April/early May. 149
Report No. 14-117 Page 2 of 3 Staff is planning on submitting an application for the Low or No Emission Vehicle Deployment Program Match project. The District recently applied for $2.7 million in FTA funds to cover the incremental
costs of purchasing six zero-emission
buses and
any required
facility
improvements. This mini-fleet would operate in the Oakland B Shuttle service, replacing the existing Van Hool buses. The procurement for these buses would be open to the zero-emission propulsion technology (essentially either hydrogen fuel cell or battery electric) as long as the bus met the other District and FTA requirements. If AC Transit receives the FTA grant award, the TFCA funds would cover the local match portion of the request. Similar to the LoNo program, the District has two main reasons for pursuing this opportunity. First is to offset against the likely future requirements from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for transit fleet emissions. CARB has previously suspended implementation of a rule to require 15% of fleet purchases to be low or no emissions, but has announced its intentions of finalizing a ruling by the end of 2014. The other reason is to provide a zero-emissions fleet for the Oakland B Shuttle service so the City of Oakland will have a stronger opportunity to compete for partial grant funding from the Air District through its regional TFCA grants. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
Not applying for the funds would cause the district to forgo approximately $500,000 in TFCA funds for an opportunity to evaluate the performance of the electric transit bus. This· grant would also limit the amount of District Capital funds that would be needed to match the LoNo project. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
There are no recommended alternative actions at this point. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
14-068 - Federal Transit Administration Low or No Emission Vehicle Deployment Grant Application ATTACHMENTS:
1: Resolution 14-021 Department Head Approval:
Tom Prescott, Chief Performance Officer
Reviewed by:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel Lewis Clinton, Chief Financial Officer Kiran Bawa, Manager of Capital Planning and Grants
Prepared by:
Ben Stupka, Senior Capital Planning Specialist
150
SR14-117 Attachment 1 ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 14-021 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER OR HIS DESIGNEE TO FILE AND EXECUTE APPLICATIONS TO THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR FUNDS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 WHEREAS, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District {BAAQMD) made funds available from the four dollar {$4) motor vehicle registration fee via the Transportation Fund for Clean Air {TFCA) Grant Program for public agencies to implement projects to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles in accordance with the requirements of State Law and the BAAQMD's "Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy; and WHEREAS, the statutory authority for the TFCA, the eligible types of projects, and the requirements that govern administration of the program, are set forth in California Health and Safety Code, Sections 44241 and 44242; and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) is authorized to identify projects eligible to receive funding from the TFCA Grant Program for fiscal year 20142015;and WHEREAS, the BAAQMD has authorized the ACTC to administer the TFCA Grant Program for Alameda County; and WHEREAS, the ACTC has established a process whereby eligible transportation project sponsors may submit funding requests for TFCA Grant Program funding for cost-effective projects which will decrease motor vehicle emissions and improve air quality; and WHEREAS, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District {District) is an eligible applicant for TFCA funds; and WHEREAS, there is no legal impediment to the District making the funding request; and WHEREAS, there is no pending or threatened litigation which might in any way adversely affect the ability of the District to deliver the proposed projects for which funds are being requested. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does resolve as follows:
The District is an eligible sponsor of projects in Alameda County as a public transit operator.
Section 1.
Section 2.
The District is authorized to submit applications for the Fiscal Year 201415 Transportation Fund for Clean Air {TFCA) Grant program.
Resolution No. 14-021
151
Poge 1 of3
SR 14-117 Attachment 1
Section 3. for TFCA funds.
There is no legal impediment to the District making allocation requests
Section 4. There is no pending or threatened litigation that might in any way adversely affect the proposed project, or the ability of the District to deliver such project. SectionS. The District indemnifies and holds harmless ACTC, its Commissioners, representatives, agents, and employees from and against all claims, injury, suits, demands, liability, losses, damages, and expenses, whether direct or indirect (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therewith), incurred by reason of any act or failure to act of the District, its Directors, its officers, employees or agents, or subcontractors or any of them in connection with its performance of services should this request of TFCA funds be granted. Section 6. The District authorizes its General Manager, or his designee, to execute and submit an allocation request for TFCA funds and take other steps necessary to secure the funding. Section 7. The General Manager, or his designee, is hereby delegated the authority to submit the applications and make non-substantive changes or minor amendments to any allocation documents as he deems appropriate, should the project be funded. Section 8. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to ACTC in conjunction with the filing of the AC Transit application referenced herein. Section 9. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of April 2014.
Greg Harper, President Attest:
Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary
Resolution No. 14-021
152
Pogel o/3
SR 14-117 Attachment 1 I, Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors held on the 23rd day of April, 2014 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary
Approved as to Content and Form:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel
Resolution No. 14-021
153
Page3of3
This page intentionally blank
154
Report No: Meeting Date:
10-227B April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Finance & Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Workers' Compensation Contract Renewal
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider authorizing the General Manager to renew the c_ o ntract with Sedgwick Claims Management as the District's Third Party Administrator (TPA) for Workers' Compensation Claims. The renewal would consist of the exercising third and last option of Contract 20101137. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Sedgwick Claims Management has been administering and managing Workers' Compensation claims for the District since October 1, 2011. Sedgwick maintains a dedicated claims staff to administer the District's 890 open indemnity and medical only claims. A survey of major competitors in the market indicates that the cost is fair and reasonable. Considering the cost and performance of Sedgwick, staff is recommending that the District exercise this final option. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
Total cost to renew option three (3) is $1,255,543. This expenditure is planned for inclusion in the FY 2014-15 annual budget.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
Workers' Compensation is a state mandated benefit for injured workers. Effective March 1, 1993, the District received a Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure for its Workers' Compensation claims from the State of California Department of Industrial Relations. This certificate permits the District to contract its Workers' Compensation claims administration to a Third Party Administrator. Contract 2010-1137 was awarded to XChanging, which was subsequently acquired by Sedgwick. The contract remains intact and unchanged as a result of the purchase of Xchanging. Sedgwick has maintained the same staff assigned to the District's account, with the exception of a few replacements due to attrition. Contract 2010-1137 includes two (2) base years and three (3) one (1) year renewal options. Option two (2) was exercised and will expire November 21, 2014. Total cost of Contract 20101137 over a five (5) year period is $5,955.987. Listed below is the breakdown of contract cost as applied over a five (5) year period: 155
Report No. 10-227B Page 2 of 3 $2,298,000- Two (2) year base $1,183,470- November 2013- Option One (1) Renewal $1,218,974- November 2014- Option Two (2) Renewal $1,255,543- November 2015- Option Three (3) Renewal- End of Contract Staff previously surveyed other local transit agencies regarding the cost of their third party administrator and found that it was difficult to compare third party administrator costs between agencies. There were significant differences in programs and types of claims . Overall, staff determined that BART and San Francisco- MTA had somewhat lower costs while VTA's costs per claim were higher. The San Francisco- MTA program is part of a much larger contract including all city and county employees. The BART third party administrator costs are somewhat lower but AC Transit requires a higher level of staffing for the TPA. Specifically, AC Transit requires an additional two examiners above what BART currently requires for their contract . The staffing level required by AC Transit is consistent with industry standards and is vital to maintaining the appropriate caseload per claims examiner which allows for effective management of claims. This information was gathered in October 2013 and has not changed significantly. Agency Name
Claims Inventory
Name of Third Party Administrator
Contract Duration
Total Contract Costs
BART
800 - Indemnity and Medical
Athens Claims Management
3 yrs. w/2 yr. options
$5,118,000
San Francisco MTA
2419- Indemnity and Medical
lntercore Claims Management
3 yrs. w/ 2 yr. options
$13,493,598
Santa Clara- VTA
474 - Indemnity and Medical
TriStar Risk M anagement
5 years w/ no
$5, 108,782
j options I
AC Transit
867- Indemnity and Medical
Sedgwick Claims Management
1 2 y~s. w/3 yr. opt1on
I
$5,955,987
Staff also solicited information from the workers' compensation consultant regarding claims administration fees. The cost estimates received from several sources averaged higher than our renewal option (even without considering the District's higher than normal demands from our TPAs). These cost estimates indicated that the cost of the third year option is fair and reasonable. In addition, Staff considered current program enhancements such as litigation reviews with law firms, bill and utilization review and chart reviews with medical providers focusing on claims 156
Report No. 10-2278 Page 3 of 3 resolution and cost containment. Sedgwick has supported these initiatives. They also have a dedicated, experienced staff and utilize a new claims management software system (JURIS}. Staff believes the performance of Sedgwick has been strong enough to warrant exercising this last option year. Another consideration is that the Leave Management Unit has experienced a change in leadership with the retirement of its manager. A new manager has been selected and is currently evaluating the effectiveness of the program. Extending this one year option, with the understanding that a full solicitation will need to be prepared for the following year, will provide the needed time to conduct a thorough assessment. The assessment will impact the scope of work for the upcoming solicitation. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
Advantages: The dedicated claims management team at Sedgwick is familiar with the District's Sedgwick is familiar with the policies, procedures and collective bargaining agreements. history of some very complex claims. Disadvantages: If Option Three (3) is not renewed, the District will need to immediately begin the solicitation process and plan for possible transition of claims to a new third party administrator. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
The alternative to the requested action is to not renew the final option. This would result in the disadvantages noted above. Staff would immediately begin a procurement process without the new manager having the benefit of being able to thoroughly evaluate the desirability of changes to the scope of work for this contract. It is not known whether the cost of the TPA contract would increase or decrease. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
Board approved Contract 2010-1137 for Third Party Administrator Services for Workers' Compensation Benefits.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
Department Head Approval:
Kurt De Stigter, Chief Human Resources Officer
Reviewed by:
Denise Standridge, Interim General Counsel Lewis Clinton, Chief Financial Officer Due Le, Human Resources Manager
Prepared by:
157
This page intentionally blank
158
-.II
Report No: Meeting Date:
TR/1/VS/T
14-026c April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Draft FV 2014-15 Annual Operating and Capital Budget
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider receiving report on draft FY 2014-15 Annual Operating and Capital Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This initial draft of the Annual Operating and Capital Budget for FY 2014-15 is being provided for Board consideration and feedback. The draft budget includes total projected operating revenues of $344.0 million and operating expenses of $343.4 million, which allows for a small surplus of$ 0.6 million. The draft budget is still under review and subject to further refinement and discussion, and it represents a starting point for discussion of the priorities to be pursued in the next fiscal year. The report reflects operating revenues and subsidies growing at an aggregated rate of 2% over the FY 2013-14 Mid-Year Budget, based on recent trends seen in the East Bay and in the general Bay Area economy. Some of these revenues are subject to uncertainty with early forecasts by Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and other funding agencies showing slower revenue growth compared to FY 2013-14; however, staff is anticipating positive regional economic trends to continue for at least a year. Farebox revenue is expected to continue the positive trend seen in FY 2013-14 and contribute favorably to overall revenue growth. Operating Expenses are projected to grow slightly faster than revenues at approximately 2.4%, which is primarily due to contractual wage increases, healthcare cost increases, and an increase in projected costs associated with casualty and liability insurance and claims that is forecast to grow by 39.5% over FY 2013-14. This report also includes an initial draft proposal for a FY 2015 Capital Budget of $84.2 million funded by an assortment of Federal, State, Local and District capital funds. Federal funding for the FY 2015 Draft Capital Budget is significantly higher than previous years as the District has discontinued the use of FTA formula funds for preventive maintenance. While it is important to maintain a surplus for emergencies or changes in the economic climate, staff is prepared to receive recommendations from the Board for consideration in the budget development process and will provide a final Proposed Budget in late May.
159
Report No. 14-026c Page 2 of 5 BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
The draft Operating Budget is projected to grow by 2% to $344.0 million in the next fiscal year and will allow for modest service improvement initiatives. The draft capital budget is projected at $84.2 million for replacement of buses, facility improvements, technology system-wide enhancements.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
FY 2014-15 GENERAL FUND OPERATING BUDGET DRAFT The draft Operating Budget includes a working surplus of $ 0.6 million, with total operating revenues projected at $ 344.0 Million and total operating expenses estimated at $ 343.4 million. Operating revenues and subsidies are projected to grow at an aggregated rate of 2% over the FY 2013-14 Mid-Year Budget, based on recent trends in the East Bay and in the general Bay Area economy. Please refer to (Attachment1) for a detailed overview of all the operating revenues by category. While some subsidy revenues remain uncertain with early forecasts by MTC and other funding agencies showing slower revenue growth compared to FY 2013-14 staff anticipates that the positive regional economic trends will continue for at least this next year. The level of subsidies for FY 2015 will become more certain as more financial information becomes available as the budget development process continues into May. Staff will continue to review Sales Tax-based subsidies (like TDA funds), as well as Property Tax subsidies. Farebox revenue is expected to continue the positive growth trend that occurred in FY 2013-14 and contribute favorably to overall revenue growth with continued ridership growth. The increase in revenue is due to ridership growth on existing service without the expenses associated with providing additional service over current service levels. Operating expenses are projected to grow slightly faster than revenues at 2.4% which is primarily due to contractual wage increases, healthcare cost increases, and an increase in projected costs associated with casualty and liability insurance and claims that is forecast to grow by 39.5% over FY 2013-14 (please refer to Attachment 2}. Staff continues to research the casualty and insurance costs for a more definitive premium expense as part of presentation. The increase in casualty and liability costs are the result of legacy claims and activity that occurred several years ago and is expected to reach resolution during the upcoming fiscal year. Staff has invested considerable time in developing accident reduction strategies and implementing action plans associated with safety initiatives to effect lasting systemic positive changes in the safety culture for the District. Labor costs are projected to continue their positive trend, with increases associated with agreed upon labor contracts or projected increases in healthcare costs and other benefits. The lower cost in Operations staffing that resulted in reductions in pay-to-platform cost factors and similar pay to base variables is expected to stabilize during the upcoming fiscal year. The change 160
Report No. 14-026c Page 3 of 5 in the composition of the workforce is expected to continue to reduce or maintain the baseline cost of wages, as more workers in the Operations workforce are now in the less senior ranges ofthe pay scale. Services expenses are expected to increase due to salary and benefit increases for the contracts with the Alameda and Contra Costa County Sheriff departments, as well as a potential need to continue managing more complicated legal cases. Staff will continue to review services to ensure that they are clearly associated to specific performance outcomes prioritized during this budget process. Other Expenses are expected to show a significant increase due to the known costs of elections for Board members, which happen every two years. The draft budget is based on a projected 1.65 million revenue service hours, 22.0 million operated miles, and 1,897 full-time equivalent positions. FY 2014-15 CAPITAL BUDGET DRAFT Staff is recommending a draft FY 2015 Capital Budget of $84.2 million funded with a mix of Federal, State, Local and District capital funds. Federal funding for the draft FY 2015 Capital Budget is significantly higher than previous years as the District has discontinued the use of FTA formula funds for preventive maintenance. Additionally, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC) 15-year Core Capacity Challenge Grant Program will allow the District to advance Federal funds for capital projects including vehicle replacement and expansion, and facility rehabilitation and replacement. State 1-Bond funds along with appropriate other local and District funds will be used as matching funds and to fully fund other projects. Funding is proposed for twenty-six new projects in FY 2015 (see Attachment 3). The proposed projects fall in four major categories- fleet replacement; facilities & maintenance; technology; . and system-wide enhancements. The draft FY 2015 Capital Budget also includes reprogramming of funds for four projects to free up State 1-Bond funds which are more flexible and can be used as match funds for other large projects. The table below provides a summary of funding by category for FY 2015 Draft Capital Budget. Category
District
Federal
State
Local
Total
Fleet Replacement & Expansion
$0.3
$35.7
$8.9
$0.0
$44.9
Facilities & Maintenance
$1.4
$16.7
$5.2
$0.0
$23.3
Technology
$1.9
$0.0
$0.0
$0.0
$1.9
System-wide Enhancements
$7.2
$0.0
$2.1
$3.3
$12.6
Adjustments
$0.1
$16.8
($15.5)
$0.0
$1.4
$10.9
$69.2
$0.8
$3.3
$84.2
Sub-total
161
Report No. 14-026c Page 4 of 5 Fleet Replacement & Expansion - FY 2015 vehicle procurements consist of (80) revenue vehicles along with $300,000 for non-revenue vehicles. The procurements include a mix of hybrid and diesel fueled vehicles, as per the Fleet Replacement Plan, as well as an additional (15) 40 foot vehicles to support service expansion. Facilities and Maintenance- The major projects recommended for funding include Division 3 refurbishment, Operations Control Center relocation, and other miscellaneous facility upgrades at various divisions. Technology - District funds will be utilized for replacement of the Storage Area Network, PeopleSoft version upgrade, and minor equipment replacement. System-wide Enhancements - The FY 2015 proposal includes funding to address a portion of the District's capital commitment for the Transbay Terminal project, Richmond Parkway Transit Center improvements, local matching funds for Contra Costa College Transit Center improvements, and the San Leandro BART Terminus project. Adjustments- The use of FY 2015 Federal funds in lieu of previously programmed State 1-Bond funds will free up this flexible source of funds for potential use as matching funds for other large projects, such as bus procurements and Division 3 refurbishment.
The District's projected capital needs over the next five years exceed $300 million. The proposed budget addresses roughly one-third of the existing requests within a five-year window. Additional funding towards these projects needs to be identified as part of future capital budget development. MTC's Core Capacity program is providing assistance in funding the District's capital needs, including vehicle replacements and facility refurbishment and upgrades for the next 15 years. Attachment 4 provides a status of projects in the existing Capital Budget of $454.5 million, including a breakdown of all current major projects funded by a mix of federal, state, local and District capital funds as shown in the chart below.
Capital Program Funding Summary Federal,
$191,447,492 1 42%
21%
Local,
District,
$49,006,643 11%
$118,050,868 1 26%
1
162
Report No. 14-026c Page 5 of 5
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report is being provided as an initial draft budget, so at this point, this report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages. Staff will continue developing the budget and will report back to the Board in late May.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: This report is being provided to inform the Board of the activities associated with the development of the FY 2014-15 budgets. Staff is still in the process of refining alternatives and will evaluate any suggested alternatives proposed by the Board , in support of a plan to present a more comprehensive and finalized budget proposal in the next round of budget deliberations with the Board.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: SR 13-285 Budget Development Process and Calendar November 13, 2013 SR 14-033 Short Range Transit Plan February 12, 2014 SR 14-048 Receive the FY 2013-14 Mid-Year Operating and Capital Budget Review and Adopt Resolution No. 14-012 February 26, 2014 SR 14-026 FY1415 Proposed Budgeting Framework, March 26, 2014 Board Policy 312 Budget Policy
ATTACHMENTS: 1: Operating Budget Draft FY14-15 Revenues and Expenses FY 2014-15 Operating Revenues Detail 3: FY 2015 Draft Capital Budget 4: Existing Capital Budget
~:
Department Head Approval: Prepared by:
James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer I Chief Operating Officer Hernan Vargas, Budget Manager Kiran Bawa, Capital Planning and Grants Manager
163
This page intentionally blank
164
SA 14-026C ATT.1
AC TRANSIT DRAFT- FY1415 OPERATING BUDGET LAST YEAR
FY 2013 Actuals
NEXT YEAR
THIS YEAR FY 2014 Adopted Budget
FY 2014 Mid-Year Budget
,_
FY 2015 Operating Budget Draft
FEB 2014 Change Fav I (Unfav)FY2015 over FY 2014 Mid Year
$
%
REVENUES AND SUBSIDIES 012erating 1.a Farebox 1.b Contract Services 2 BART Transfers 3 Interest Income 4 Advertising 5 Other Revenue 6 Rental Income 7 Other Operating Revenues 8 Total Operating Revenues
I
51,434 5,602
52,438 5,017
53,000 5,600
2,460 72 1,819 3,729 324 8,404
3,460 50 1,185 1,700 290 6,685
65,440
64,139
53,980 34,812 24,657 10,071
9,376
11 ,379 4,347
-
3,600 50 1,919 2,081_ 350 8,000
2,650
55,650 5,600
.
-
3,600 70 1,977 1,600 350 7,597
66,600
68,847
54,029
57,543
60,128
34,500 24,436
35,850 24,000
20 58 (481)
(403) 2,247
FY 2014 % Change Actuals as overFY of Feb 2014 2013
1-
5.0% 0.0%
36, 150 3,083
5.0% -1.0%
0.0% 40.0% 3.0% -23.1% 0.0% -5.0%
4,215 41 1,084 1,044 239 6,623
157.0% -9.0% 4.0% -7.9% 25.0%
3.4%
r--
45,856
Subsidies 9 Transportation Develop. Act (TDA) 10AB1107 11 Measure B 12 State Transit Assistance (STA) 13 Measure J 14 Total Sales-Tax based Subsidies
4.5%
37,720 24,252 5.0% 116,386 8.3%
-14.5% 2.9%
9,084 2,716
5.0% 5.0% 2.0% -33.0% 14.0%
127,498
4,475 126,816
133,119
137,976
4,857
79,360 29,439
75,500 29,241
76,500 29,241
79,942
3,442
29,241
-
0.0%
108,799
104,741
105,741
109,183
3,442
3.3%
70,496
18 ADA Paratransit Fund (inc. fares) 19 Federal Assistance (ADA) 20 ADA Paratransit Vehicles
6,043 2,476 1,088
5,550 3,988 1,433
5,922 3,988 1,433
5,812 4,1 07 1,476
(1 10) 119 43
-1 .9% 3.0% 3.0%
4,620 600
Total ADA related Subsidies
9,607
10,970
11,343
11 ,395
52
0.5%
5,220
22 Fed Assis • Prev Maint. 23 Capital Funds Exchange 24 Total Prev Maint & related Subs
7,657
-
-
7,657
-
-
25 Supplemental Service 26 Labor Reimbursement
2,000 2,469
2,000 2,008
0.0% -1.2%
1,575
18.0%
9,715
19.0%
15 Property Taxes 16 Measure ANBBNV 17 Total Property Taxes Subsidies
21
26.a BART Escrow Acct 27 RM2 subsidies, DB local assist 29 Federal Assistance Section 5307 Capital Funding
3,978
2,585 1,793 37,643 26,000 f - 2,000 (1 ,649} 9,730 128 4,475
-
-
-
4.5% f--- 51,000 19,496
2,225
2,225
-
1,821
1,800
(21) (2,722)
-100.0%
(60)
-0.5%
3,000
2,722
-
12,229
12,660
12,600
-
.
-
-
-
31 TPI 32 Lifeline STA JARC, AB664, other
9,686
2,928
989
34 Total Other Federal, State Local
26,963
22,165
20,417
16,625
34 Total Subsidies
280,524
264,692
270,620
275,179
35 Total Revenues and Subsidies
345,964
328,831
337,220
344,026
.
87.0% -45.0%
-
-
.
7.0% -1 .0%
.
-
12,808
165
-
3.6% f - 90,158
(989)
-100.0%
(3,792)
-18.6%
11,290
4,559
1.7%
177,164
6,805
2.0%
223,020
4/10/2014 4:18 PM
This page intentionally blank
166
ACTRANSIT OPERATING BUDGET DRAFT- GENERAL FUND, BUDGETARY BASIS With Staff's FY1415 revenues, FY1213 F/S Act on Budgetary Basis
4/4/2014
FY1314 Adopted Operating Budget
FY1213Act Gral Fund, Budgetary Basis
FY1314 Adopted Mid Year Operating Budget
FY1415 Operating Budget Draft
Change Fav I (Unfav) vs FY1314 Mid Year
%change Fav I (Unfav)
CONSOLIDATED Revenues
Operating
65,440,767
Subsidies
280,524,042
$ 264,692,065
$ 270,620,065
345,964,809
328,831,327
337,220,327
$
64,139,262
$
2,246,308
3.4%
$ 275,178,950 $
4,558,885
1.7%
$
6,805,193
2.0%
Total s&w
$ 104,886,756 $ 107,780,647 $ 107,915,647 $ 106,135,159 $
1,780,488
1.6%
Fringe Benefits Pension Contrib, Normal Cost PEPRA
$ $
Baseline Labor Costs
$ 198,687,852 $ 204,178,859 $ 204,963,859 $ 205,068,091 $ $ 23,049,000 $ 23,049,000 $ 23,948,000 $ 23,948,000 $
!Total Revenues
$
66,600,262
$
68,846,570
344,025,520
Operating Expenses
UAAL Pension Amortization
77,837,261 $ 15,963,835 $ 0 $
79,247,211 $ 17,801,000 $ (650,000) $
ITotal Labor Costs
$ 221,736,852 $ 227,227,859
$ $ $
81,131,931 17,801,000
-2.4% $ (1,884,720) 0.0% $ $ n/a (104,232)
-0.1%
0.0%
$ (2,973,673)
-61.2%
$ 233,768,154 $ 236,846,059 $ (3,077,905)
-1.3%
$
Contracts and labor agreements
79,247,211 17,801,000
4,856,295
$
7,829,968
District's Operating Expenses to be
(1,000,000) $
(1,000,000) $
(1,000,000) $
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
22,274,859 $ 19,147,833 $ 15,765,348 $ 5,928,865 $ 10,090,000 $ 1,234,902 $ 27,011,513 $ 1,026,897 $
22,474,859 $ 19,147,833 $ 15,765,348 $ 5,928,865 $ 10,090,000 $ 1,234,902 $ 27,011,513 $ 1,026,897 $
23,324,859 $ (850,000) 18,647,833 $ 500,000 15,265,348 $ 500,000 6,078,865 $ (150,000) 14,080,000 $ (3,990,000) 1,100,000 $ 134,902 26,761,513 $ 250,000 2,326,897 $ (1,300,000)
-126.6%
$ 322,001,516 $ 328,708,076 $ 335,448,371 $ 343,431,374 $ (7,983,003)
-2.4%
$
Services Fuel and Lubricants Other Materials and Supplies Utilities and Taxes Casualty and Liability Interest Expenses ADA and DB purchased transp Other Expenses
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $
Total Operating Expenses CONSOLIDATED Operating Surplus I (Deficit) 4/4/20144:07 PM
(884,695) $
Capitalized
$
20,525,415 18,613,380 13,910,844 5,566,599 11,528,753 1,324,017 26,754,351 2,926,000
23,963,293
$ 167
123,251 $
1,771,956
$
594,146 $ (1,177,810)
0.0% -3.8%
2.6% 3.2%
-2.5% -39.5% 10.9% 0.9%
(f)
:c
... ~
I
0
"'0
Q)
,.
..... .....
-66.5%
;..,
FY1415 Operating Budget Draft v1 Apr4pm
This page intentionally blank
168
SR 14-026c Attach-3
FY 2015 CAPITAL BUDGET PRIORITIES Category
Project Description
Fleet Replacement & Expansion Fleet Replacement & Expansion
Federal
State
(25) 40ft Urban Hybrid Bus
15,460,000
3,865,000
19,325,000
(40) 40ft Urban Diesel Bus
14,720,000
3,680,000
18,400,000
Fleet Replacement & Expansion
( 15) 40ft Expansion Buses
5,520,000
1,380,000
6,900,000
Fleet Replacement & Expansion
Non Revenue Fleet Replacement
Facilities & Maintenance
D3 Major Rehabilitation
13,360,000
4,640,000
18,000,000
2,400,000
600,000
3,000,000
Facilities & Maintenance
OCC Relocation (D2 to CMF)
Facilities & Maintenance
D6 Roof Replacement
Facilities & Maintenance Facilities & Maintenance
District
Local
300,000
Grand Total
300,000
198,000
462,000
GO- Fire pipe corrosion repair
87,000
203,000
290,000
Training Education Ctr Parking Lot Gate
99,000
231 ,000
330,000
Facilities & Maintenance
Boardroom Enhancements
Facilities & Maintenance
Districtwide Hazardous Waste Awng
Facilities & Maintenance
Districtwide Pigeon Abatement
660,000
250,000
250,000
60,000
60,000
105,000
105,000
Facilities & Maintenance
Main! Equipment> $1,000
120,000
120,000
Facilities & Maintenance
Facilities Equipment Replacement
130,000
130,000
Facilities & Maintenance
Automated Extnl Defibrillator
120,000
120,000
Facilities & Maintenance
Emergency Facilities Maintenance
200,000
200,000
Facilities & Maintenance
Finance Equipment > $1,000
10,000
10,000
Technology
Storage Area Network Replacement
750,000
750,000
Technology
Upgrade PeopleSoft Version 9.2
970,000
970,000
Technology
IS Equipment Replacements
185,000
Systemwide Enhancements
Transbay Terminal Capital Contribution
185,000
7,000,000
2,148,000
Systemwide Enhancements
Contra Costa Coli Transit Ctr (Match)
Systemwide Enhancements
211 Marketing NF (Match)
Systemwide Enhancements
Richmond Parkway Transit Center
Systemwide Enhancements
San Leandro Bart Terminus
Adjustments
(27) 60ft BRT Bus
(1,368,794)
1,534,424
Adjustments
CAD/AVL
(1 ,350,777)
16,160,000
(13,566,249)
1,940,000
(1,940,000)
Adjustments
Fareboxes I SGR
Adjustments
Major Corridor Study
Adjustments
D4 Chiller Replacement TOTAL
9,148,000
165,000
165,000
10,000
4 11,200
(411,200)
2,424,000
(2,424,000)
10,874,629
Page 1 of 1
169
10,000
69, 155,224
3,000,000
3,000,000
321,000
321,000 165,630
806,751
1,242,974
3,321 ,000
84,157,604
SR 14-026c Attach-4
EXISTING CAPITAL PROGRAM STATUS OVERVIEW ID
Project
2017
23 x 60' Articulated Buses
Category
Project Cost
Amount Spent
Vehicles
18,778,743
18,778,288
%Spent 100%
2018
65 x 40' Urban Buses
Vehicles
29,958,513
29,192,671
97%
2019
16 x 40' Transbay Buses
Vehicles
7,556,969
7,556,969
100%
2021
38 x 40' Transbay Buses
Vehicles
18,213,042
18,252,874
100%
2030
Automatic Passenger Counters
Vehicles
133,500
130,228
98%
2034
Replace Non-Revenue Vehicles
Vehicles
203,314
203,723
100%
2040
Replace Fareboxes
Vehicles
11 ,800,000
11,287,455
96%
2050
(51) Diesel Paticulate Filters
Vehicles
1,590,450
1,431,392
90%
2060
MCI Exhaust Retrofits
Vehicles
55,000
2066
68 x 40' Urban Buses
Vehicles
31,436,761
2068
27 x 60' BRT Hybrid Buses
Vehicles
25,006,405
TBD
10 x Small Vehicles
Vehicles
1,150,000
0% 31,105,287
99% 0% 0%
1829
Internal Text Messaging Signs
Technology
1,700,000
1,271 ,902
1836
Peoplesoft Server Migration
Technology
397,574
249,574
1857
Disaster Plan-ITS Systems
Technology
458,630
424,678
93%
2029
IS-Claims System
Technology
143,000
43,022
30%
2033
NextBus Replacement
Technology
120,000
81,014
68%
2047
IS-Unity upgrade to 8.x
Technology
60,000
38,860
65%
10019
Hastus Integrated Operations
Technology
3,515,000
2,284,478
65%
75% 63%
1366
Richmond Parkway Transit Center
Other
650,000
645,107
99%
2055
Spectrum Ridership Growth
Other
2,036,232
630,676
31%
2078
Corridor Study
Other
460,000
0%
TBD
211 Marketing Mobility Management
Other
290,000
0%
Other
14,140,012
Various Transbay Terminal Contribution
14,140,012
100%
1691
ZEBA Bus Maintenance
Hydrogen
2,267,484
3,286
0%
1701
Oakland Hydrogen Fueling Facility
Hydrogen
13,908,782
12,348,320
89%
326,924
68%
1704
Marketing and Outreach - ZEBA
Hydrogen
482,495
2027
D2-Hydrogen Maintenance Bay
Hydrogen
650,000
1655
66th Avenue
Facilities
1808
D2-Storm Drains
Facilities
1856
State of Good Repair-Veh.
Facilities
1861
CAD/AVL/Radio System Replace
Facilities
38,500,000
2010
Rework GO Office Conftg
Facilities
100,000
2011
GO-Fire Code Compliance
Facilities
59,485
0% 55,630
94%
1,036,304
727,044
70%
7,403,000
2,026,842
27%
2,359,462
6%
211 ,000
67,144
32%
95,770
48%
2012
Boardroom AV
Facilities
200,000
2023
D6-Reroof Maint & Mack Bldgs
Facilities
548,000
2024
D6/D4- Purchase solar PV
Facilities
1,500,000
0%
0% 0%
2025
D6-Pavement Rehabilitation
Facilities
500,000
72,074
2026
D2-Replace concrete at Fl
Facilities
209,000
559
14% 0%
2028
Upgrade Hazmat berms
Facilities
474,600
158
0%
2032
Finance Equipment
Facilities
94,000
9,976
11%
2037
Photovoltaic Solar Panels Ph2
Facilities
2,982,526
2,724,985
91%
48,050
9%
2044
D4-Garage Deck Repair, Phase 1
Facilities
532,000
2049
GO-Relocate Guard Desk Phase 1
Facilities
134,000
Page 1 of 2 170
0%
SR 14-026c Attach-4
EXISTING CAPITAL PROGRAM STATUS OVERVIEW ID 2054
Project San Leandro BART Terminal
Category Facilities
Project Cost
Amount Spent
% Spent
3,929,026
448
0% 12%
2056
02-Roof Replacement /Equipment
Facilities
655,000
76,528
2058
D4-Trans. Bldg./Chiller Replacement
Facilities
3,030,000
3,271
0%
2064
Concrete Repairs/Drain Trench
Facilities
351,250
2079
Emergency Facilities Repair
Facilities
215,000
102,840
48%
2080
Maintenance Equipment
Facilities
15,000
7,697
51%
2081
IS-Equipment Replacement
Facilities
150,000
103,806
69%
2082
Contra Costa College Transit Center
Facilities
660,000
0%
2089
Bus Washer Rehab
Facilities
3,000,000
0%
2090
External Painting of Divisions-02, 04, D6
Facilities
700,QOO
2091
04-Environmental Cleanup
Facilities
200,000
0%
0% 177,572
89%
2094
Lift & Hoist Replacement
Facilities
1,500,000
10009
GO-Replace Fire Alarm Panel
Facilities
880,000
862,453
98%
10011
District-wide Elevator Modernization
Facilities
2,661,742
2,366,329
89%
10016
D2/D6-Study Parking Structures
Facilities
76,000
74,426
98%
10033
District-Wide Weatherproofing
Facilities
128,555
107,110
83%
10036
GO Weatherization
Various Facilities SGR Projects 2042
Line 51 Corridor TPI
0%
Facilities
5,349,600
463,805
9%
Facilities
806,000
198,462
25%
Corridors
10,639,445
2,065,140
19%
2001
BRT Right Of Way/TPA
BRT
3,163,000
1,817,500
57%
2002
BRT Preliminary Engineering
BRT
5,421,850
5,288,135
100%
10,143,761
69%
2003
BRT Final Design , Plans & Spec
BRT
14,642,000
2004
BRT Construction
BRT
99,945,000
0%
2005
BRT Vehicles
BRT
2,580,000
0%
2006
BRT Proj Mgt/Constr Mgt
BRT
43,511,000
7,786,368
18%
BRT
8,635,708
8,635,708
100%
454.490,996
198,895,792
44%
Various BRT Environmental Totals
Page 2 of 2 171
This page intentionally blank
172
13-159A
Report No: Meeting Date:
April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Classification and Compensation Study For Unrepresented Positions
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider accepting this report and authorizing the General Manager to implement the recommended classification and compensation structure for unrepresented employees included in this report effective July 1, 2014. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
AC Transit has not conducted an independent classification and compensation study since 2002. Since then AC Transit has undergone many significant changes, including layoffs in 2009, 2010 and 2011; and is currently experiencing a hiring increase to replace positions that were not filled due to attrition. Best practices indicate that classification and compensation studies be conducted approximately every five years to ensure both internal and external equity. The Hay Group was selected for the current study through a competitive bid process. The Hay Group is a well-respected and recognized compensation consulting firm, with over 80 years of experience in both public and private sector compensation consulting. Having the Hay Group conduct the study ensures an objective analysis. The Hay Group was asked to assess the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District's ("AC Transit") classification and compensation structure for the unrepresented job classifications. Specifically, the Hay Group evaluated the classification and compensation structure to ensure both internal equity and external competitiveness. Based on their assessment, the Hay Group made recommendations how to align AC Transit's classification and compensation structure with best practices. The Hay Group was also asked to update the existing classification specifications. BUDGETARY/FISCALIMPACT:
The cost to bring existing staff to the minimum of range is approximately $ 1,557 on an annual basis.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Methodology:
The Hay Group studied approximately 45 classifications with 65 incumbents. Employees were asked to complete a position description questionnaire (PDQ). The job content 173
Report No. 13-159A Page 2 of 4 was verified with the respondent's supervisor and reviewed by human resources staff. Some employees were interviewed to get further clarification of the duties reported. The job content was then evaluated using the Hay Group's proprietary methodology. Attachment 1 shows how each job was leveled relative to other jobs across departments and functions. This matrix provided the foundation for the salary benchmark study. The Hay Group conducted a meeting with Executive Staff to identify comparator The group identified the following organizations and benchmark positions. organizations:
· ···· .· · .. · lo.~~fTranslt Mil.rket ,_,,_., -- . ' . ".
,.';
- '•_
'
-~
. 1· ·.' ~atlonal'tr~n$1t Market . .
·. ·....·. ·.·,•· · ·.••.· ~oF~I ~on,'tra!i~lfMa~k~C , . .·.
,lb•u!~er~~l.!J) •··
·•
•
,
1
s •·>
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
King County Metro, Seattle
Alameda County
Golden Gate Transit*
Maryland Transit Administration *
Berkeley City College
SF Municipal Transportation Agency (MUNI)*
Metropolitan Transit Authority, Houston
California State University, East Bay
San Mateo County Transit District*
Metropolitan Transit, Minneapolis*
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority*
Miami-Dade Transit
Contra Costa Community College District
Regional Transportation District,
East Bay Municipal Utility District
·······'
>
City of Oakland*
Denver*
Golden Gate University Orange County Transportation Port of Oakland*
Authority*
University of California, Berkeley* Contra Costa County
University of San Francisco*
• Data collected Since it was not practical to survey every classification, the classifications listed below were selected as benchmarks for the salary survey because they are representative of different levels across departments and job families. These jobs are indicative of fullyqualified classifications as opposed to entry level position and are reliably matched to the market (i.e., roles that tend to be found in most organizations). The survey conducted by the Hay Group only focused on base pay. Variable pay such as bonuses and incentive pay were not taken into consideration.
• • • •
•
• • •
Chief Financial Officer Director of Transportation
• • • • • • • • •
Director Maintenance Controller Attorney Ill Budget Manager Senior Project Manager Human Resource Manager
174
Maintenance Superintendent Transportation Superintendent Principal Financial Analyst Senior Human Resources Administrator Internal Auditor Labor Relations Representative Management Analyst Executive Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant
Report No. 13-159A Page 3 of 4 Job Evaluation Findings: Most classification specifications reasonably described the positions within those classifications. The Hay Group did identify some inconsistencies between how the job was being described by the incumbent and how the job classification specification was written. The job evaluation process focuses on the job as it is meant to be performed and not the person in the job. Where there are discrepancies the Hay Group recommended that additional review take place with department managers. In some instances reclassification may be warranted. Internal Equity Analysis: The Hay Group found there was some grade overlap in the District's existing structure. Also, for higher level grades, AC Transit's current grade structure does not consistently convey the relative contribution each position makes to the organization as identified in the job matrix. While there was generally a positive correlation between job size and base salary, the Hay Group found that, relative to the size and scope of the job, base pay is higher for administrative and support level jobs than it is for management and executive levels. This practice is seen in the public sector. Salary Survey Findings: In addition to surveying the comparator organizations noted above, the Hay Group also used salary data from their database of comparable positions. Overall, the Hay Group found that base salary levels were around the median of the market trend: • • •
Support and administrative positions tend to be paid above market Professional roles and some managers tend to be paid at market Higher-level directors and executives generally fall below the market
Recommendations: Hay Group prepared a model structure for AC Transit to consider implementing using market data. The recommended structure midpoints are closer to the 501h percentile (median) of the market than AC Transit's current structure. Hay Group also recommended that some of AC Transit grades be combined, decreasing the number of grades from 14 to 10. Please see Attachment 2. In line with salary administration best practice, the Hay Group recommended expanding the salary ranges to 50% wide from the current 20% wide. This will begin to address compression issues and give AC Transit more flexibility in setting pay based on a range around the market median. Hay Group also recommended implementing a pay for performance model. This can be achieved through a variety of means including but not limited to a merit pay and/or an incentive pay program.
175
Report No. 13-159A Page 4 of 4
Next Steps: Pending Board approval of the proposed classification and compensation structure, Staff will prepare recommendations for approval for the following:
1. Salary administration guidelines for approval, which will include a merit/incentive pay component. 2. Revisions to Unrepresented Employees- Policy No. 201 to reflect changes in Section 2.3: Salary Step Advances. 3. Revisions to classification specifications to update and clarify duties, with the input from Hay Group. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The recommended salary schedule moves AC Transit towards our goals of hiring and retaining a highly qualified workforce. It also allows for movement away from automatic salary increases based on "steps" to performance related increases.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: The alternative is to maintain the existing salary structure for unrepresented classifications.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Unrepresented Employees- Policy No. 201
ATTACHMENTS: 1: Job Leveling Matrix
2:
Recommended Salary Structure
Department Head Approval:
Kurt De Stigter, Chief Human Resources Officer
Reviewed by:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel Lewis G. Clinton, Chief Financial Officer (remove if not required) Due Le, Human Resources Manager
Prepared by:
176
SR 13-159A Attachment 1 Job leveling Matrix Hay Reference Level
Executive Management
Operations
Planning& Development
Performance
Technology
Finance
Legal
Human Resources
Chief Operating Officer Chief Financial Officer
Director of Maintenance Director of Transportation
Chief Planning & Development Officer Director of Bus Rapid Transit Director of Service Development & Planni Director of Legislative Affairs & Communit y Relations.!.
Chief Performance Officer
Chief Technology Officer
Chief Human Resources Officer
Procurement & Materials Director Director of Project Controls & Systems Analysis Director of
Attorney IV
Controller
Senior Project Manager
Trea sury Ma
177
Attorney Ill
Human Resources Manager
Hay Reference Level
Executive Management
Internal Audit
Operations
Planning&
Performance
Technology
Finance
Legal
Human Resources
Development
Protective Services Manager Superintendent, Operations Control Center Training and Education Manager
Manager of Capital Pla nning and Grants
Budget Manager
Attorney II
Payroll Manager
Manager- Safety & Environmental EEO Program Administrator
Transportation Superintendent
Manager of Special Projects (Planning)
Manager of Special Projects (GM)
Maintenance Superintendent
Real Estate Manager
Senior Labor Relations Administrator
Sr. HR Admin istrator
General Services Manager Principal Financial Analyst
Internal Auditor
Human Resources Administrator Labor Relations Representative
Management Analyst
Executive Administrative Assistant (Planning)
Executive Coordinator (Legal)
Executive Administrative Assistant {IT).!.
Executive Administrative Assistant (Finance)
Executive Administrative Assistant (HR)
Senior Administrative Assistant Administrative Assistant )>CJ)
::;;;:o ~~
Ow
-=·en 3~
I'D
::I(D
-> ....
178
SR 13-159A Attachment 2 Recommended Annual Salary Structure
Hay Grade
Current Structure
E4 E3 E2 E1 H200
AC Transit Grade EXEC EXEC EXEC EXEC 15
$144.8
H200
14
H190 H180
Min
- - - --
-
Recommended Structure
Max
Min
Mid
Max
$158.8
$172.9
$184.0 $166.4 $151.6 $142.3 $139.2
$230.0 $208.0 $189.5 $177.9 $174.0
$134.1
$147.1
$160.1
$139.2
$174.0
$276.0 $249.6 $227.4 $213.5 $208.8 n 0 3 !:2': $208.8 ::J
13 12
$124.2 $115.0
$136. 2 $126.1
$148.3 $137.3
$119.2 $103.2
$149.0 $129.0
H180
11
$106.7
$117.1
$127.4
$103.2
$129.0
H170 H160 H150 H140
10 9 8 7
$98.8 $91.4 $84.7 $78.5
$108.4 $100.3 $92.9 $86.1
$118.0 $109.1 $101.1 $93.6
$89.6 $78.4 $68.9 $61.2
$112.0 $98.0 $86.2 $77.5
$134.4 $117.7 $103.4 n $93.7 0 3
H140
6
$72.7
$79.8
$86.8
$61. 2
$77.5
$93.7
H130
5
$54.4
$68.0
$81.6
Mid
tt>
$178.8 $154.8 n 0 3 !:2': $154.8 ::J tt>
0"
H130
4
$62.3
$68.3
$74.3
$54.4
$68.0
H120 H110
3 2
$57.7 $53.5
$63.3 $58.6
$68.9 $63.9
$49.0 $44.6
$61.2 $55.8
Dollars in Thousands
179
$81.6 $73.4 $66.9
s· tt>
n 0
3 0" 5' tt>
Report No: Meeting Date:
T/?1'1/VS/T
14-118 April 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel
SUBJECT:
Binding of the Proposed 2014-2015 Excess liability and Travel Insurance Policies
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider authorizing the binding of the proposed 2014-2015 Excess Liability Insurance and Travel Insurance Policies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District's excess liability and travel coverage will expire at 12:01 a.m., April 26, 2014. Wells Fargo is the District's insurance broker and has the responsibility to procure insurance for the District. The broker has been gathering information and marketing the District's program to a variety of insurers for excess liability and travel insurance to obtain the best cost proposals for the District. Staff met with the broker on April 8, 2014, who provided the attached proposal. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: To renew the insurance with a $2,000,000 SIR, the cost is $3,942,438. To renew the insurance with a $1,000,000 SIR, the cost is $5,158,280. The cost of the travel policy is $2,000.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Wells Fargo is the District's Insurance Broker. The Broker has been marketing the District in order to procure excess liability insurance for the 2014-2015 fiscal year. In FY 2013-14, the District's excess liability policy was $3,788,312, which provided $53 million of excess liability insurance. The Board of Directors also agreed to an increase in the self-insured retention (SIR) from $1 million to $2 million, which resulted in a 13% premium reduction . For FY 2014-15, the District has received a proposal from the Broker for the same level of insurance, $53 million, at a cost of $3,942,438. This is a premium increase of $154,126, or 4.07% for renewal at the same SIR. The first layer has increased its premium by almost 27%, which is a direct result of the District's insurance experience. Two of the remaining layers have implemented smaller premium increases while three have reduced premiums.
180
Report No. 14-118 Page 2 of 3
Option to Return to a $1,000,000 SIR The Broker also provided an option, as part of the attached proposal, to reduce the current SIR from $2,000,000 to $1,000,000. The cost of this option is an additional $1,215,842. If the District continues to have just one major exposure per policy year, this reduction may not be worth the extra cost. However, if the District were to have more than one major incident that penetrates into the excess layer, the cost of the increased premium would be worth the benefit ofthe lower SIR. Staff does not recommend the reduction of the SIR for the following reasons: 1} the additional $1,215,842 payment would have a direct impact on the budget for FY 2013-14, as payment is due April 26, 2014; 2) should the District experience a major accident during the new policy period that reached beyond the SIR, it would take two to three years before the District would have to pay the cost, thereby retaining the premium amount in the current budget; and 3} since the increase in the SIR, the District has implemented the Accident Reduction and Safety Committee which has had a positive impact with a decrease in the number of accidents. Staff believes that the SIR increase caused the District to focus on accident reduction and safety, which resulted in fewer accidents. Because of this program, staff would be surprised if there were an increase in accidents. The expectation is that our accident experience will continue to decrease and the $2,000,000 SIR is a good incentive to continue the safety culture that has been instituted. Staff met with the Broker April 8, 2014, to go over the proposal options. Additionally, staff participated in a phone conference on April 15, 2014 with Princeton, the carrier whose proposal allows the District to have a $1,000,000 SIR. As a result of this conference, Princeton confirmed the proposal without conditions. For reasons set forth above, staff recommends that the Board authorize the binding of the excess liability insurance with a $2,000,000 SIR, as presented in the attached proposal. Staff also recommends the binding of the Travel Insurance Policy at the cost of $2,000. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: Authorizing the binding of the insurance proposal will ensure that the District has coverage. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: The District could decide to self-insure. Staff does not recommend this alternative, as it would be cost prohibitive. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: GC Memo No. 13-117
181
Report No. 14-118 Page 3 of 3
ATTACHMENTS: 1:
Excess Liability Insurance Proposal
Approved by:
David J. Armijo, General Manager Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel
Reviewed by:
Lewis Clinton, Chief Financial Officer
Prepared by:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel
182
$53M
Expiring 2013/2014 Program Structure Total Premium: $3,788,312
Berkley National $15,000,000
$53M
Renewal 2014/2015 Program Structure Total Premium: $3,942,438
$53M
Berkley National $10,000,000
Berkley National $10,000,000
Total Premium : $101,000 $43M Total Premium : $227,250 $38M
National Casualty/HCC $10,000,000
Allied World Assurance $10,000,000
$33M
(50%/50%) Total Premium : $205,502 $28M
Berkley National $15,000,000
$28M
Total Premium: $559,540 $13M
National Casualty $5,000,000
Lexington $5,000,000
$13M
National Casualty $5,000,000 Total Premium: $474,528
$8M
$8M
Total Premium: $1,875,960 $3M
$3M s2M GL I SlM Auto I S4M Aggregate Total Premium : 5665,000 $2M Auto SIR
Allied World Assurance $10,000,000 Total Premium: $130,000 Casualty $5,000,000 m: 000 Total Berkley National $15,000,000
Total Premium: $600,950 National Casualty $5,000,000 Total Premium: $474,528 Lexington $5,000,000
Lexington- $5,000,000
Total Premium: $1,772,019 $3M
$28M Berkley National $15,000,000
Total Premium: $600,950 $13M
Total Premium: $499,000 $8M
Total Premium: $101,000 $43M
Total Premium: $130,000 $33M
Option 1 2014/2015 Program Structure Total Premium : $5,158,281
$2M
Total Premium: $1,875,960 Princeton- $1,000,000 Total Premium: $780,842 Genesis sl.SM GL I slM Auto I $3.0M Aggregate Tota l Premium: $1,100,000 SlM Auto SIR
$1M SIR GL PL EPLI
1
$500,000 SIR GL PL EPLI Wells Fargo Insurance Confidential. Modification or reproduction is prohibited .
183
This page intentionally blank
184
REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES
The District Secretary will report on the recommendations made by the Committees, including those items referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda.
PLEASE REFER TO THE COMMITTEE SECTIONS OF THIS AGENDA PACKAGE FOR STAFF REPORTS
185
This page intentionally blank
186
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
I .··· May
•
A review of the proposed Oakland Bicycle Riders Bill of Rights and either 1) recommend comments by AC Transit to the Oakland City Council; or 2) report back on what it means to AC Transit. [Requested by Director Peeples- 3/26/14]
June
•
Follow-up report on the benefits the District receives by having a lobbyist, how the lobbyist has helped the District over past year, and what staff expects the lobbyist to do in the future. [Requested by Director Young- 3/26/14]
Monthly
Legislative Report [Updates on State, Federal, Regional and Local Legislation, including Measure Band the APTA Reauthorization process for T-4]. Annual
State/Federal Advocacy Program Pending Not Scheduled
•
•
Status report on the Oral History Project. [Request from Director Peeples to retain on long-term pending. Staff to continue efforts to locate funds, hire personnel utilizing grant funds, and contact local museums to determine if there is interest in taking on the project]. Planning staff to provide comments and recommendations pertaining to California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) Reform. [Requested by Director Peeples -10/24/12] Submission of request to hold a future California Transit Association conference in Oakland. [Requested by Director Williams- 11/14/12] Long-range strategy to obtain better information as to why people choose not to ride the bus. [Requested by President Harper- 5/22/13]
I May
•
•
Report on the programs being crafted by CARB, California Energy Commission, etc. to fund the District's fuel cell program as a result of recent legislation signed into law and what the District's plan is to apply for the funding. [Requested by Director Peeples- 11/13/13] Follow-up report from the Internal Audit Department regarding. the costs associated with legal services provided by outside counsel. The report to provide 1) an analysis of what the outside firms were used for, 2) what kind of work was being sent out to these firms, 3) whether that was a good idea or not, and 4) whether the historical balance between what went to outside counsel and what was handled by inside counsel had changed drastically under the. prior general counsel or was the same. [Requested by Director Peeples- 12/12/12; Retained in Committee -10/23/13] Report on contract compliance approval [Requested by Director Ortiz- 6/12/13] Report on the implications of the Affordable Care Act on AC Transit. [Requested by President Harper1/22/14]
Agenda Planning April 23, 2014
Page 1 of 5 187
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Finance and Audit Committee, Cont. Examination of and recommend solutions for the following issues related to Board Policy 350 (Procurement Policy): 1) contract amendments (i.e. cardinal changes and amendments worth 15% or more of the original contract value); 2) DBEs; 3) the role of the Contracts Compliance Administrator; 4) contracts and amendments that are "included in the budget"; and 5) timely requests for Board approval of contracts. [Requested by Director Ortiz- 3/26/14] September Development of a policy concerning ex parte communications and disclosures by Directors during the entire procurement process from issuance of an RFP, IFB, or RFQ through protest. It was suggested
that staff review the policies of the California Public Utilities Commission pertaining to ex parte situations. [Requested by Director Peeples- 9/5/12] •
Report on why the District's unfunded liability associated with the retirement plan has not improved over the past three years. [Requested by President Harper - 11/15/13] Referred to Joint
Board/Retirement Board Meeting. October A review of the medical post-retirement medical benefits provided to all employee groups for the purpose of identifying any disparities that may exist and whether other government entities offer similar benefits [Requested by President Harper- 3/26/14] Referred to a Board Retreat. Monthly • Report on Investments Fiscal Policies (Review one per month) Budget Update Bi-Monthly Budget Update Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb. May, Aug) Board/Officer Travel/Meeting Expense Employee Out-of-State Travel Surplus/Obsolete Materials • Update on DBE Goal • Contracts/Purchasing Activity Report Semi Annual Reports DBE/FTA Report and Goal Update (May/Nov) Annual Reports Appropriations limit (June); Adoption (July) Audit Engagement Letter (June) Budget Calendar (Nov)
Agenda Planning April 23, 2014
Page 2 of 5 188
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITIEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Operations Committee, Cont.
•
Externally Funded Welfare to Work (Nov) Parcel Tax Oversight Committee (Dec to Board) Year-End Audited Financial Statements (Nov)
April • Report on technology infrastructure (i.e. CAD/AVL system). [Requested by President Harper 5/22/13]- Future Board Retreat June Review the use of bus shelters, which are being occupied by the homeless in Oakland, and what can be done about it. [Requested by Vice President Wallace- 3/26/14] Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug) Operations Performance Report (Next report to include the total number of trips and actual missed trips as well as on-time performance figures for more of the routes.] Clipper Outreach efforts [Next report to include the number of Clipper tags for UC Berkeley and the cost to the District and the status of regional transfer agreements.] Semi Annual Reports (Feb/Aug) Customer Service Call Center Pending Not Scheduled • Request for staff investigate reports that bus stops are being painted over with grey paint and provide a report on whether there is a cost effective way to determine if these incidents were isolated or more frequent occurrences and what could be done. [Requested by Director Peeples -7/9/11] Report on the savings associated with the October service cuts. [Requested by Director Harper 2/23/11] • Report on the closure of the print shop. Retained in Committee pending further study of the placement of Print Shop employees into other positions, the anticipated cost savings, capital investments and useful life of capital equipment, and to explore whether the Print Shop can in-source work from outside of AC Transit (Retained in Committee 8/15/12). Implementation of a District-wide calendaring system to track contracts, license renewals, etc. [Requested by Director Peeples- 4/25/12] • Discussion regarding suggestions for a Board Policy on exit interviews and to what extent those interviews, and the reporting thereof, should be different if the person who exited reports directly to a Board Officer. [Requested by Director Peeples- 11/14/12] Investigate the creation of a District store which would have hats, clothing and other items available or sale. [Requested by Director Williams -8/28/13] • Report on strategies to improve access to Clipper, i.e. increasing locations, marketing, and a shortterm discount ride program. [Requested by Director Davis -11/13/13]
Agenda Planning April 23, 2014
Page 3 of 5 189
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITIEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Operations Committee, Cont.
•
Creation of a video privacy policy specifically for all of the video associated with the BRT stations once operational. [Requested by Director Peeples - 2/12/14. Director Peeples to provide additional information to be included in the draft policy.] Report on the new fare boxes and how they are working. [Requested by Director Young- 3/26/14]
I June
•
Development of a policy to officially require regular ridership surveys every four or five years. [Requested by Director Peeples- 6/24/09]
October
•
Report on AC Transit's attitude toward shuttles. [Requested by Director Harper - 5/9/12] To be Discussed at October Board Retreat
•
Board Policy 550- Service Standards and Design. [Requested by the Board- 12/17/08; 2/12/14] To be Discussed at October Board Retreat
Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug(
• •
Bus Rapid Transit Project MTC Sustainability Process Transbay Transit Center Project Update on District Involvement in External Planning Processes. ·:· Lake Merritt Area Plan [Requested by Director Peeples- 3/9/11] ·:· Oak to 9'h Street project and details of the commitments made by and to Signature Properties [Requested by Director Peeples- 3/25/06]
Annual Reports
Update on CARB (Jun) Update on Service and Operations Special District 2 (Oct) Pending Not Scheduled
•
•
Update of the Designing with Transit document which is to Include the development of bus shelter design standards. [Requested by Director Peeples -10/27/10] Review Board Policy 163 with respect to environmental issues. (Board Policy 512) [Requested by Director Peeples] Report on the implications of a study by the California Transportation Commission on anticipated transportation needs in California and the implications to AC Transit. [Requested by Director Peeples11/16/11] Report Due Upon Conclusion of the Tri-Valley Transit Study: Report on how to better serve lower density diffuse communities and increase the use of public/private shuttles, including: ·:· General Purpose Demand Rapid Transit [Requested by Director Davis -1/28/09] + Trends regarding the use of private shuttles, carpools, van pools and taxis to serve the public and how it has changed over time [Requested by Director Davis- 2/9/11]
Agenda Planning April23, 2014
Page 4 of 5 190
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Planning Committee, Cont.
•
Update on the status of the customer satisfaction survey. Matter was retained in committee on July 9, 2008 pending receipt of proposed survey. On 9/30/09 Director Peeples requested the report include staffs analysis of surveys conducted in Europe, specifically surveys conducted in Helsinki Finland, to determine how surveys can be done cheaper, better and more often. [Requested by Director Peeples -5/28/081 Report on the feasibility of cancelling the Bus Rapid Transit Project. [Requested by Director Peeples7/31/13] Outcome of staff's investigation to see if it is possible to be more nimble in restoring service in areas where the Oakland Running Festival has concluded. [Requested by Director Peeples- 3/26/14] Report on whether bus stops on the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge can be utilized to let people from San Francisco and parts of the East Bay off so they can access the Bay Bridge Trail Pathway. [Requested by President Harper- 3/26/14]
Agenda Planning April 23, 2014
PageSofS 191
