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, July 23, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Closed Session: 4:00 p.m. (Items 9A-9D)
Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS GREG HARPER, PRESIDENT (WARD 2) JOE WALLACE, VICE PRESIDENT (WARD 1) ELSA ORTIZ (WARD 3) MARK WILLIAMS (WARD 4) JEFF DAVIS (WARD 5) JOEL YOUNG (AT-LARGE) H. E. CHRISTIAN PEEPLES (AT-LARGE) Teleconference: Greg Harper, President (Ward 2) Cody Motor Lodge 1455 Sheridan Avenue, Cody, WY 82414 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. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 23, 2014 1
Page 1 of 7
MEETING PROCEDURES Public Comment: Members of the public wishing to present comments should complete a Speaker’s Form and submit it to the District Secretary. For subjects not listed on this agenda, the public will be invited to speak under the "PUBLIC COMMENTS" section of the agenda. For specific agenda item(s), speakers will be invited to address the Board/Standing Committee(s) at the time the item is being considered. All speakers are allowed two (2) minutes to present comments. Individuals wishing to present more detailed information are encouraged to submit comments in writing. Written comments are included in the record for meeting(s), and as such, are available for public inspection and may be posted to the District’s website. Electronic Devices: All electronic devices (cell phones, pagers and similar-sounding devices) shall be placed on mute, vibrate or silent mode during Board and Committee meetings pursuant to District Ordinance No. 12. Time of Meetings: Times included on this agenda for commencement of Standing Committee meetings are estimates only. Committee meetings will commence when the Board of Directors recesses to a Committee of the Whole. Order of Agenda Items: The Board or Standing Committee(s) may discuss any item listed on this agenda and in any order. Agenda Planning: The Agenda Planning portion of the agenda is designed to assist the Board and staff in the preparation of future Board and Committee agendas. Each item requested shall have the concurrence of at least two Directors in order to place a proposed agenda item on a future agenda. LIVE AUDIO STREAMING OF BOARD AND COMMITTEE MEETINGS Live audio streaming and an archive of previously recorded meetings is available on the District’s website at www.actransit.org. For technological reasons, recordings of meetings held outside of the Board Room cannot be streamed to the web. AVAILABILITY OF AGENDA RELATED MATERIALS Written agenda related materials for all open session regular meetings are available to the public 72 hours prior to the meeting or at the time the materials are distributed to a majority of the Board. Written materials presented at a meeting by staff or a member of the Board will be available to the public at that time, or after the meeting if supplied by an outside party. Agenda related materials are available on the District’s website or by contacting the District Secretary’s Office. ACCESSIBLE PUBLIC MEETINGS Meetings of the Board of Directors are accessible to individuals in wheelchairs. The Board Room is equipped with Assistive Listening Devices for individuals with a hearing impairment. Written materials in appropriate alternative formats, disability-related modification/accommodation as well as sign language and foreign language interpreters must be made 72 hours in advance of the meeting or hearing to help ensure availability. Please direct requests for disability related modification or accommodation and/or interpreter services to Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary, 1600 Franklin Street, Oakland, California, 94612 or call (510) 891-7201. AC Transit’s General Offices are generally served by bus lines 1, 11, 12, 51A, 72, 72M. The nearest accessible bus th service is provided at the intersection of Broadway and 17 Street in Oakland. The nearest accessible BART station th is the 19 Street Station in Oakland. District Ordinance No. 13 prohibits bringing non-service animals to District facilities unless specifically authorized by federal or state law. To accommodate individuals with severe allergies and environmental illnesses, meeting participants should refrain from wearing scented products to the meeting.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 23, 2014 2
Page 2 of 7
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING – Greg Harper, President Wednesday, July 23, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. 1.
ROLL CALL
2.
GENERAL MANAGER’S REPORT
3.
PRESENTATION State legislation impacting public transit.
4.
PUBLIC COMMENT
5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact or Presenter
David Armijo Josh Shaw California Transit Association
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.
5A. Consider approving Board of Directors and Standing Committee minutes of June 25, 2014.
Linda Nemeroff 891-7284
5B. Consider approving Board of Directors and Standing Committee minutes of July 9, 2014.
Linda Nemeroff 891-7284
5C. Consider receiving Retirement Board Minutes of June 16, 2014 (Report 14-180).
Hugo Wildmann 891-4889
6.
REGULAR CALENDAR
6A. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-040 confirming the approval of a collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 3916 (Report 14-218).
Tom Prescott 891-7221
6B. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-036 establishing the Appropriations Limit for FY 2014-15 at $411,195,815 (Report 14-171a).
Jim Pachan 891-4752
6C. Consider approving the agenda for the joint meeting of the Board of Directors and Retirement Board scheduled for September 24, 2014 (Report 14-179).
Linda Nemeroff 891-7284
6D. Consider abolishing the limited-purpose Negotiating Committee. (verbal)
Linda Nemeroff 891-7284
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 23, 2014 3
Page 3 of 7
RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole)
Speakers will be invited to address a Committee at the time an item on the agenda is being considered or under Public Comment for items not on the agenda. Immediately following the Standing Committee Meetings, the Board meeting will reconvene at which time the Board may take action on any of the following Committee agenda items.
ALL COMMITTEES ARE ADVISORY ONLY. A.
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 14-182).
B.
FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE – Jeff Davis, Chairperson Held immediately following the External Affairs Committee meeting.
Dennis Butler 891-4798
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 May, 2014 (Report 14-224).
Jim Pachan 891-7215
B-2.
Consider recommending receipt of the Bi-monthly Budget Update for April and May, 2014 (Report 14-183).
Jim Pachan 891-7215
B-3.
Consider recommending that the General Manager be authorized to execute a funding agreement with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District for $99,000 in BART general funds to be used to expand the Transit Information Displays program to 18 additional BART stations (Report 14-187).
B-4.
Consider recommending that the General Manager or his designee be authorized to apply for a Federal Transit Administration Ladders of Opportunity Initiative grant for a portion of the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement Project and the Reopening of the Richmond Division 3 Project (Report 14-197).
Tom Prescott 891-7221
B-5.
Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-037 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to submit an allocation request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Regional Measure 2 Funds and execute any documents necessary for the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project (Report 14-199).
Tom Prescott 891-7284
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 23, 2014 4
Tom Prescott 891-7221
Page 4 of 7
Briefing/Action Items: B-6.
Consider recommending receipt of report regarding the Government Finance Officers Association Business Review of the District’s budgeting and financial reporting practices, and discussion of staff’s proposed roadmap for the design and implementation of planning, budgeting, performance monitoring, and business intelligence processes and applications (Report 14-062).
Tom O’Neill 891-7278 Jim Pachan 891-7215
B-7.
Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-027 approving amendments to Board Policy 332 – Fixed Asset Procedures and repealing Resolution No. 12-028 (Report 14-137).
Jim Pachan 891-7215
B-8.
Consider recommending approval of amendments to Board Policy 356 – Disposition of Surplus Equipment, Supplies and Other Tangible Personal Property of the District (Report 14-139).
Jim Pachan 891-7215
B-9.
Consider recommending receipt of an update on the 2013 Transit Sustainability Project Strategic Plan as required by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Report 14-112).
Jim Pachan 891-7215 Dennis Butler 891-4798
RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING – Greg Harper, President
Staff Contact or Presenter(s)
7.
REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES
The District Secretary will report on the recommendations made by the Committees, including those items referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda. If discussion or comment is desired, any person may request that an item be considered individually.
A. EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: A-1. Consider receiving of the Monthly Legislative Report and approval of legislative positions (Report 14-182). B. FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE: B-1. Consider receiving the Monthly Report on Investments for May, 2014 (Report 14-224). B-2. Consider receiving the Bi-monthly Budget Update for April and May, 2014 (Report 14-183). B-3. Consider authorizing the General Manager to execute a funding agreement with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District for $99,000 in BART general funds to be used to expand the Transit Information Displays program to 18 additional BART stations (Report 14-187). B-4. Consider authorizing the General Manager or his designee to apply for a Federal Transit Administration Ladders of Opportunity Initiative grant for a portion of the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement Project and the Reopening of the Richmond Division 3 Project (Report 14-197). Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 23, 2014 5
Linda Nemeroff 891-7284
Dennis Butler 891-4798
Jim Pachan 891-7215 Jim Pachan 891-7215 Tom Prescott 891-7221
Tom Prescott 891-7221
Page 5 of 7
B-5.
B-6.
B-7. B-8. B-9.
Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-037 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to submit an allocation request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Regional Measure 2 Funds and execute any documents necessary for the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project (Report 14-199). Consider receiving report regarding the Government Finance Officers Association Business Review of the District’s budgeting and financial reporting practices, and discussion of staff’s proposed roadmap for the design and implementation of planning, budgeting, performance monitoring, and business intelligence processes and applications (Report 14-062). Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-027 approving amendments to Board Policy 332 – Fixed Asset Procedures and repealing Resolution No. 12-028 (Report 14-137). Consider approving amendments to Board Policy 356 – Disposition of Surplus Equipment, Supplies and Other Tangible Personal Property of the District (Report 14-139). Consider receiving an update on the 2013 Transit Sustainability Project Strategic Plan as required by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Report 14-112).
8.
CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA
9.
CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT
Tom Prescott 891-7284
Tom O’Neill 891-7278 Jim Pachan 891-7215
Jim Pachan 891-7215 Jim Pachan 891-7215 Jim Pachan 891-7215 Dennis Butler 891-4798
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.
Denise Standridge 891-4833
9A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))
DeShazer v. AC Transit, WCAB Case No. ADJ8364305
9B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Potential Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) (Two Cases)
9C. Conference with Labor Negotiators
(Government Code Section 54957.6): Agency Designated Representative: David J. Armijo, General Manager Employee Organizations: ATU Local 192, AFSCME Local 3916, IBEW Local 1245, Unrepresented Employees
9D. Public Employee Performance Evaluation
(Government Code Section 54957) Title: General Manager, Interim General Counsel, District Secretary
10.
AGENDA PLANNING
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 23, 2014 6
Page 6 of 7
11.
BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS
12.
ADJOURNMENT Next Meeting: August 13, 2014, at 5:00 p.m.
(Government Code Section 54954.2)
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 23, 2014 7
Page 7 of 7
This page intentionally blank
8
PRESENTATION
July 23, 2014 State legislation impacting public transit
9
This page intentionally blank
10
BOARD OF DIRECTORS CONSENT CALENDAR
July 23, 2014 Agenda Items 5A-5C
11
This page intentionally blank
12
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT MINUTES Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors and the External Affairs and Finance and Audit Committees AC Transit General Offices 2nd Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612
Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. Closed Session: 3:30p.m. 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
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
June 25, 2014
13
Page 1 of 11
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- Greg Harper, President Wednesday, June 25, 2014 at 5:00p.m.
ACTION SUMMARY
i The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Board of Directors held a [ regular meeting on Wednesday, June 25, 2014. \
i The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. for the purpose of I Closed Session. All Board members were present, with the exception
l of
Director Young who arrived at 3:37 p.m. The District Secretary ! announced that the Board would convene in Closed Session to discuss [ Items 9A-D as listed on the agenda. Closed Session concluded at 4:40 ' i p.m. i
i At 5:05 p.m., President Harper called the Board of Directors meeting I to order. I items were taken out of sequential order but are reported in sequential
! order in the minutes far ease in reading. I
1.
I ~~~~~:~rtiz, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Young, Wallace, Harper i
2.
l GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT I General Manager David Armijo reported on the following:
INFORMATION ONLY
'
Update on the July 1st fare implementation, testing of Clipper, farebox improvements, and communications with riders and employees; 1• Full bus wraps in service; New Gillig buses have arrived and have been placed into service; ' • One-third of the bus fleet replaced in the last two years; and Launch of mobile device website. The report was presented for information only.
3.
PUBLIC COMMENT ' • Jane Kramer commented on transparency and accountability with regard to overstepping Board prerogative by President Harper concerning statistical analysis at a prior meeting. She also said that public comment is just that and the Board should not interfere. She suggested that the Board hold a workshop on the Brown Act and take its provisions to heart. Lisa Harlow commented on AFSCME negotiations, thanking the Board for their involvement. She said that one sticking point continues to be the retirement issue. She said members will not embrace a contract with two-tier language in it, but would embrace the ATU language. She urged the Board to be reasonable on this issue.
1
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
June 25, 2014 14
Page 2 of 11
I 4.
Maria Campos, AFSCME, commented that contract negotiations seemed to be making progress and management appeared open to options. She added that members wanted a fair deal, not a fight, and parity with ATU workers. Dwain Crawley, AFSCME, commented on negotiations and requested a fair and equitable contract. He added that the District's tone has been more agreeable lately and he would like to wrap up a contract. Yvonne Williams, President and Business Agent for ATU Local 192, commented on Staff Report 14-163 from the previous meeting regarding the Heavy Duty Coach Mechanic Apprenticeship Program. She said that ATU strongly disagreed with the report, which omitted important information for the Board to consider and that it ignored the grievance filed by ATU challenging the Maintenance Department's attempts to circumvent the apprenticeship program provisions of the labor agreement. The grievance is pending arbitration proceedings. (Handout submitted).
I CONSENT CALENDAR
i MOTION: I Consent j
PEEPLES/WALLACE to approve or receive the items on the Calendar as presented. The motion carried by the following
APPROVED OR RECEIVED AS INDICATED
vote:
I AYES:7: Peeples, Wallace, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Young, Harper I
4A.j Consider approving i (Report 14-167).
Retirement Board minutes of May 8, 2014
4B.I Consider receiving the Quarterly Retirement Board Report (Report j 14-126).
I
4c.l Consider approving Accessibility Advisory Committee minutes of May i 13, 2014 (Report 14-166). j
5.
I REGULAR CALENDAR
SA. ! Consider the adoption of Resolution No. 14-035 confirming the approval of a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the International [ Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), Local 1245 (Report 14! 192).
I
RESOLUTION ADOPTED
i
I
i There
was no presentation of the staff report. Chief Performance Prescott advised that because of the action taken by the ! Board on Item 5B, a discussion would need to occur with IBEW since a i Tier 2 plan was to be effective today upon approval of the agreement by the Board.
! Officer Tom
i !
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
June 25, 2014 15
Page 3 of 11
MOTION: ORTIZ/YOUNG to adopt Resolution No. 14-035 confirming the approval of a Collective Bargaining Agreement with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Ortiz, Young, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Wallace, Harper 5B. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-031 confirming the inclusion of employees hired July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014 in the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan (Tier 1) and repealing Resolution Nos. 12-030 and 13-006 (Report 14-186).
RESOLUTION ADOPTED
Interim General Counsel Denise Standridge presented the staff report.
[A revised resolution was provided at the meeting for the Board's consideration.] President Harper expressed the need to maintain some semblance of a Tier 2 pension plan and offered the following option: That Resolution No. 12-030 not be repealed and that unrepresented employees be given the Tier 2 benefits provided under the resolution as of July 1, 2014, and that the Board take the necessary steps to amend those benefits into the Retirement Plan. Members of the Board considered and debated the option offered by President Harper. Opinions were split with some Directors agreeing with the philosophical merits of the proposal while others felt a more conservative approach in line with the staff recommendation was warranted. Director Peeples argued that a plan amendment was needed that does not make reference to the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act and would have to go through the lengthy vetting process outlined in Board Policy 170. Also discussed was the effective date of the Tier 2 plan. President Harper suggested that the Tier 2 plan apply to employees hired on or after July 1, 2014. Ms. Standridge advised that her office was recommending a January 1, 2015, effective date in order to allow ample time to develop the plan and go through the approval process. The District would also be able to provide new hires with accurate information about the plan that was applicable to them.
Public Comment: Yvonne Williams, President and Business Agent for ATU Local 192, commented that contrary to the statements made by President Harper, the Retirement Board is making sound judgments and the plan is doing well. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
June 25, 2014 16
Page 4 of 11
MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to adopt Resolution No. 14-031 with the following amendments: 1) Section 1 to reflect that employees hired from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2014 will be included in the Tier 1 Plan; and Section 4 (erroneously labeled Section 3) to reflect that a Tier 2 Plan would be effective for unrepresented employees hired on or after July 1, 2014, and IBEW employees hired on or after January 1, 2015. The motion failed by the following vote: AYES:3: Peeples, Wallace, Harper NOES:4: Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Young MOTION: DAVIS/YOUNG to adopt Resolution No. 14-031 confirming the inclusion of employees hired July 1, 2012 through December 31, 2014 in the AC Transit Employees' Retirement Plan (Tier 1) and repealing Resolution Nos. 12-030 and 13-006 as presented. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Davis, Young, Ortiz, Williams, Peeples, Wallace, Harper 6.
BOARD WORKSHOP
GA. Consider receiving report on the implications of the Affordable Care Act on AC Transit [Requested by President Harper- 1/22/14) (Report 14-133).
INFORMATION ONLY
Senior Human Resources Administrator Rachel Lightburn presented the staff report. Kimberly Miller, Assistant Vice President of Alliant Employee Benefits, presented an overview of the Affordable Care Act and addressed questions from the Board. No action was taken. The item was presented for information only. RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole) The Board meeting recessed to the Standing Committees at 6:19 p.m. ALL COMMITTEES ARE ADVISORY ONLY. A.
I EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE- Elsa Ortiz, Chairperson ! The External Affairs Committee convened at 6:19 p.m. All Committee
i members were present.
ACTION SUMMARY
I Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) ; There was no public comment offered.
! Briefing/Action Items: A-1.
i
i Consider recommending receipt of the monthly legislative report and
i approval of legislative positions (Report 14-168).
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
June 25, 2014 17
RECOMMEND APPROVAL PageS of 11
Director of Legislative Affairs and Community Relations Beverly Greene presented the staff report. With regard to Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Director Peeples pointed out that the Federal Transit Administration guidance appeared to be issued before the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which was unusual. General Manager David Armijo reported that a Preliminary Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was issued last year and it was at that time AC Transit commented. He added that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) had discussed the issue at their meeting held earlier in the day and was taking the issue more seriously. Ms. Greene advised that staff would work with the District's lobbyist and BART to address the issue in way that includes AC Transit and BART on MTC. MOTION: YOUNG/WILLAIMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt of the report. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Young, Williams, Wallace, Harper, Davis, Peeples, Ortiz Consider recommending receipt of report on the activities, benefits, and future activities of the District's federal lobbyist [Requested by Director Young- 3/26/14) (Report 14-169).
A-2.
RECOMMEND RECEIPT
Director of Legislative Affairs and Community Relations Beverly Greene presented the staff report. MOTION: WALLACE/HARPER to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Wallace, Harper, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Young, Ortiz The External Affairs Committee adjourned at 6:33 p.m.
B.
FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE- Jeff Davis, Chairperson The Finance and Audit Committee convened at 6:33 p.m. All Committee members were present.
ACTION SUMMARY
j Public Comment (for items not on the agenda)
I Ms.
Fowles, Civic Action Coalition, asked if the Board had made any decisions regarding elimination of the 25 cent transfer given concerns ! raised by Director Wallace regarding the safety of operators in dealing j with irate customers. She also asked if there is a deduction on the I Clipper card for full fare when going from one place to another. [Staff
I
i was directed to address Ms. Fowles concerns.] Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
June 25, 2014 18
Page 6 of 11
Consent Items: MOTION: PEEPLES/ORTIZ to forward all items to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt or approval as indicated. The motion carried by the following vote:
RECOMMEND RECEIPT OR APPROVAL AS INDICATED
AYES:7: Peeples, Ortiz, Wallace, Harper, Williams, Young, Davis Consider recommending receipt of the Investments for April 2014 (Report 14-170}.
B-1.
B-2.
Monthly
Report
on
I
i Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-026 providing notice of the scheduled adoption of an appropriations limit for FY 2014-15 (Report 14-171}.
B-3.
I B-4.
Consider recommending receipt of the Financial Audit Plan for FY 2013-14 and the Audit Engagement Letter for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2014 (Report 14-172}.
Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-029 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications and funding agreements with the California Department of Transportation for FY 2014-15 Public Transportation , Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account program funds for use towards the District's capital contribution to I the Transbay Transit Center Project (Report 14-178}.
i
Briefing/Action Items:
B-5. , Consider recommending approval of amendments to Board Policy 364 1-Revenue Policies (Report 14-140}.
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
Treasury Manager Sue Lee presented the staff report. President Harper commented that he would like to see more than one presented by staff with regard to how grant funds can be used.
! alternative
MOTION: ORTIZ/PEEPLES to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval as presented. The motion carried by the ! following vote: AYES:7: Ortiz, Peeples, Wallace, Harper, Peeples, Young, Davis
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
June 25, 2014
19
Page 7 of 11
B-6.
Consider recommending receipt of report on the Executive Retiree Life Insurance Plan (Report 14-176).
RECOMMEND RECEIPT
Senior Human Resources Administrator Rachel Lightburn presented the staff report and explained the options available to retired executives regarding the retiree paid life insurance program. Director Peeples suggested that the staff report be provided to the eight affected retirees and to allow two weeks for a response as to which option they select. General Manager David Armijo advised that staff would contact the retirees to solicit which option they wanted. MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Peeples, Wallace, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Young, Davis B-7.
Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-034 approving a 3% merit pool for FY 2014-15 for unrepresented employees, excluding contract employees and Board Officers (Report 14-194).
PULLED OFF THE AGENDA
Item B-7 was pulled off the agenda by the General Manager. B-8.
Consider recommending receipt of report on proposed amendments to Board Policy 201 - Personnel Policies for Unrepresented Employees, concerning the implementation of a Merit Pay Structure for unrepresented employees (Report 14-195).
RECOMMEND RECEIPT
Human Resources Manager Due Le presented the staff report. Concerns continued to be raised about the implementation of a merit pay system, the appeals process, merit pay options (bonuses, lump sum, etc.), goal setting and training for supervisors and managers on how to conduct a performance evaluation. Director Ortiz asked what other agencies were doing with respect to merit pay. Mr. Le advised that staff had benchmarked other agencies both locally and nationally and found that many local agencies did not have a merit pay system. In addition, while some national transit systems had a merit program, what they called merit was similar to AC Transit's automatic step increase. Chair Davis commented that he had some new ideas that he wanted the Board to consider, one of which was similar to Option 1 in the staff report. He added he would like to see a merit system that rewards employees for coming to work and doing the work competently and Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
June 25, 2014 20
Page 8 of 11
gaining a year of experience. He also suggested that the merit increase be provided as a lump sum payment for work done beyond competence. General Manager David Armijo advised that issue of merit pay was a work in progress and felt it would be better to move forward with a cost of living increase for unrepresented employees and phase-in the merit system in the coming year. Director Young raised the issue of quantifying performance results when one manager rates their employees differently from another. He also commented on the goal setting process, noting that while some goals are quantifiable, other goals may be difficult to measure and factor differently into a performance evaluation. Director Young requested to see some examples of goals that have been established. Chief Performance Officer Tom Prescott assured the Board that managers and supervisors would receive the necessary training over the next year with regard to performance evaluations. President Harper commented that the overhead associated with implementing a merit system to distribute $100,000 in merit pay needed to be realistic. MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Peeples, Wallace, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Young, Davis The Finance and Audit Committee adjourned at 7:20p.m.
I RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- Greg Harper, President ! The Board of Directors meeting reconvened at 7:20 p.m. All Board ! members were present. 7.
i REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES
ACTION SUMMARY
REPORT GIVEN
i District Secretary linda Nemeroff reported that all of the items from i the
External Affairs and Finance and Audit Committee meetings had Consent Calendar Addenda recommending presented, with the exception of Item B-7, [ which was pulled off the agenda. Item A-1 was referred ! recommending receipt only.
I been referred to the I receipt or approval as
8.
' Ii CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA
i MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to receive or approve the items referred
I to the
Consent Calendar Addenda as indicated on the agenda. The I motion carried by the following vote:
Alameda·Contra Costa Transit District
June 25, 2014
21
RECEIVED OR APPROVED AS INDICATED
Page 9 of 11
AYES:7: Peeples, Wallace, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Young, Harper
A.
A-1. A-2.
B.
B-1. B-2.
B-3.
B-4.
B-5. B-6. B-7.
B-8.
9.
The items brought before the Board were as follows: EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE:
Consider receipt of the monthly legislative report (Report 14-168). Consider receipt of report on the activities, benefits, and future activities of the District's federal lobbyist [Requested by Director Young - 3/26/14] (Report 14-169). FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE:
Consider receipt of the Monthly Report on Investments for April 2014 (Report 14-170). Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-026 providing notice of the scheduled adoption of an appropriations limit for FY 2014-15 (Report 14-171). Consider receipt of the Financial Audit Plan for FY 2013-14 and the Audit Engagement Letter for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2014 (Report 14-172). Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-029 authorizing the General Manager or his designee to file and execute applications and funding agreements with the California Department of Transportation for the FY 2014-15 Public Transportation Modernization, Improvement, and Service Enhancement Account program funds for use towards the District's capital contribution to the Transbay Transit Center Project (Report 14-178). Consider approving amendments to Board Policy 364 - Revenue Policies lReport 14-140). Consider receipt of report on the Executive Retiree Life Insurance Plan (Report 14-176). Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-034 approving a 3% merit pool for FY 2014-15 for unrepresented employees, excluding contract employees and Board Officers (Report 14-194). Consider receipt of report on proposed amendments to Board Policy 201 - Personnel Policies for Unrepresented Employees, concerning the implementation of a Merit Pay Structure for unrepresented employees (Report 14-195). NO REPORT
CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT
There was nothing to report out of Closed Session. 9A.
Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))
Arul Edwin v. AC Transit, ACSC No. RG12-637734
98.
Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) (Two Cases)
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
June 25, 2014 22
Page 10 of 11
9C. I Conference with Labor Negotiators I
(Government Code Section 54957.6): I Agency Designat ed Representative: David J. Armijo, General Manager Employee Organizations: AT U Local 192, AFSCME Local 3916, IBEW Local 1245, Unrepresented Employees
I
9D.
Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957) Title: General Manager, Interim General Counsel, District Secretary
10.
AGENDA PLANNING Referred to next Board meeting , ' Director Williams requested a resolution in memoriam of Julie Cunningham, the Chief Executive Officer of the Conference of Minority ~. Transportation Officials. (Director Peeples concurred)
I
Referred to a Finance and Audit Committee Director Williams requested an annual report on the status of the various Successor Agency Oversight Boards and how much money the District has received. (Director Peeples concurred)
11.
12.
BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS Members of the Board commented on meetings and events attended since the last meeting.
1
'I
J
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Board of Directors, the meeting was adjourned at 7:27 p.m. in memory of Julie Cunningham, the Chief Executive Officer of the Conference of Minority Transportation Officials. The next meeting of the Board of Directors is 1 scheduled for Wednesday, July 9, 2014.
Respectfully submitted,
Qi~'!t7~ District Secretary
Alameda-Contra Costa Tra nsit District
June 25, 2014
23
Page 11 of 11
This page intentionally blank
24
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT
MINUTES Regular Meetings of the Board of Directors and the Planning and Operations Committees Special Meeting of the Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit General Offices 2nd Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612 Wednesday, July 9, 2014, at 5:00p.m. Closed Session : 4:00 p.m. (Items 9A-9E} 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 MANAG ER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, INTERIM GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July9, 2014 25
Page 1 of 13
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- Greg Harper, President Wednesday, July 9, 2014, at 5:00p.m.
ACTION SUMMARY
: The Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Board of Directors held a I regular meeting on Wednesday, July 9, 2014.
I The meeting was called to i Closed Session. All Board
order at 4:03 p.m. for the purpose of members were present, with Director I Peeples arriving at 4:05 p.m. and Director Young arriving at 4:07 p.m. [ The District Secretary announced that the Board would convene in Closed Session to discuss Items 9A-E as listed on the agenda. Closed I Session concluded at 4:19 p.m. i
i
I At 5:05
I !
1.
2.
p.m., President Harper called the Board of Directors meeting to order.
l ROLLCALL
I Present: Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Young, Wallace, Harper I GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT I General Manager David Armijo reported on the following: i..
•
·
INFORMATION ONLY
Anniversary of the Urban Mass Transportation Act enactment; Update on the implementation of the fare policy July 1, 2014, with appreciation to staff for their efforts; Bus Rapid Transit Information Center opening on Friday, July 11,
2014; ' • Participation in the Alameda Fourth of July Parade; Completion of the annual California Highway Patrol inspection; and Emeryville/AC Transit Liaison Committee meeting and discussions concerning the Emery Go-Round.
1
I The report was presented for information only. !
3.
li PUBLIC COMMENT i • Jane Kramer commented on transparency and accountability with
i•
regard to the discussion of Board Policy 364 (Revenue Policies) at the June 25, 2014 meeting, concerning the administrative regulation requirement. David Vartanoff complained about the reliability of the service on the 1/1R, noting that he cannot depend on the service to show up when it is predicted or according to the schedule. He asked if an extra run could be added to the service.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 26
Page 2 of 13
4.
CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: WILLIAMS/PEEPLES to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. The motion carried by the following vote:
APPROVED
AYES:6: Williams, Peeples, Ortiz, Young, Wallace, Harper ABSENT:1: Davis (out of seat) 4A. Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-039 honoring the legacy of Ms. Julie Cunningham, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Conference of Minority Transportation Officials. 4B. Consider authorizing the General Manager to attend the Conference of Minority Transportation Officials CEO Summit on July 14, 2014, in Atlanta, Georgia (Report 14-220}. 5.
REGULAR CALENDAR
SA. Consider authorizing the General Manager to negotiate and execute documents related to a Consortium Agreement with the Contra Costa County Transit Authority for the procurement of up to ninety-six {96} 40-foot Gillig buses (Report 14-091}.
APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS
[Letters from the Accessibility Advisory Committee and a copy of the Operations Support Group's Alternative Seating Analysis are incorporated in the file by reference.] Manager of Technical Services Stuart Hoffman presented the staff report. Director Peeples asked why the MCI buses were not going to be refurbished and used for the Dumbarton service. Chief Operating Officer Jim Pachan advised that the current fleet of MCI's were 14 years old, had high mileage, and required considerable money to refurbish. In addition, if funds were available, the District could purchase additional Gillig buses and provide more frequent service. With regard to the hybrid vehicles, Director Peeples asked if staff was looking at parallel or series hybrid technology or both. Mr. Hoffman advised that staff was looking at both technologies, but would eventually need to select one or the other. General Manager David Armijo advised that the Board could move forward with the purchase and staff could come back to the Board in 60-90 days with a recommendation on which hybrid technology to select. He added that it was important to try and stick with one technology. Director Peeples referenced the letter from the Accessibility Advisory Committee and the report on the Denver stroller issue and asked that Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 27
Page 3 of 13
issues related to the seating configuration, width of the modesty panels, etc. be worked out before the interior specifications were finalized. Mr. Hoffman that there is ample time to work out the issues and staff planned to meet with the driver's committee and follow-up with the AAC. He added that the AAC's recommendations seemed reasonable.
Public Comment: • David Vartanoff requested that the Clipper reader be moved to the left side of the entry door so Clipper users aren't delayed by cash customers using the farebox. He also requested readers at the rear doors and all-door boarding. • Joyce Roy said the seats on the new Gilligs are uncomfortable because of the bumps. She added that it's the slope of the seats rather than the little bumps that keep people from sliding forward. She also encouraged widening the aisle between the modesty panels. • Janet Abelson said she had trouble riding the Gillig buses because of the aisle width issue. Drivers can't load more than one wheelchair in the available space because the flip seats on the side are thick and there isn't room for two wheelchairs to maneuver. She suggested thinner seats and two one-seat panels rather than one two-seat panel. She reminded the Board that wheelchair boarding is an ADA issue. • Hale Zukas referenced a study done by Denver RTD which found that thinner flip seats gave 4 to 8 extra inches of space for wheelchairs. He showed a photo of a bus. that depicted the extra space afforded by the narrow modesty panel and thinner flip seats. • Jane Kramer found that the new seats were problematic and if covered with material rather than plastic they might absorb vibration from the bus. She also requested more hand straps on the new buses. • Jerry Grace spoke about problems boarding the bus. He said there needs to be more wheelchair and bike space on the buses. MOTION: PEEPLES/ORTIZ to authorize the General Manager to negotiate and execute documents related to a Consortium Agreement with the Contra Costa County Transit Authority for the procurement of up to ninety-six (96) 40-foot Gillig buses; and staff is directed to return to the Board for a decision regarding 1} the type of hybrid technology to use and 2) decisions concerning the interior design of the bus. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Peeples, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Young, Wallace, Harper
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 28
Page 4 of 13
APPROVED
5B. Consider authorizing the Board President to sign a letter to the San Francisco Planning Department concerning the proposed residential project located at 525 Harrison Street and its potential impact with regard to future consideration of a contra flow lane on the Bay Bridge (Report 14-219).
Director Peeples requested that copies of the letter be sent to San Francisco Mayor Ed lee, Executive Director of the Transbay Joint Powers Authority Maria Ayerdi-Kaplan, and San Francisco Supervisor Jane Kim. MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to authorize the Board President to sign a letter to the San Francisco Planning Department concerning the proposed residential project located at 525 Harrison Street and its potential impact with regard to future consideration of a contra flow lane on the Bay Bridge. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Peeples, Wallace, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Young, Harper 6.
BOARD WORKSHOP
6A. Consider receiving update on the development of the Short Range Transit Plan (Report 14-033b).
INFORMATION ONLY
Senior Transportation Planner Nathan landau presented an overview of several sections of the Short Range Transit Plan {SRTP). After hearing the staff presentation, the following changes to the SRTP were recommended: Attachment 3 (Capital Budget): Remove the reference to a future Bus Rapid Transit line in favor of a metro rapid transit network. Governance Structure: Correct Director Young's name. Add a section about technology to address changing perceptions and demands about how the transit system is supposed to work given that technology is likely to be cheaper, more ubiquitous, and easier to use. Director Williams asked about the use of shuttles and what staff is doing to plan for more local service in place of the city-sponsored shuttle services. Mr. landau advised that there needs to be a service plan going forward to determine whether shuttles remain a separate form of transit, whether AC Transit should expand its local network, or assimilate shuttles into the service. Several Directors expressed a desire to have more local service in lieu of shuttle expansion.
Alameda·Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 29
I Page 5 of 13
Public Comment: David Vartanoff commented on the omission of the fare policy from the document, noting there was no mention of Proof-of-Purchase, rear door boarding and nothing about making fare collection faster. No action was taken. The item was presented for information only.
RECESS TO STANDING COMMITTEES (as the Committee of the Whole) The Board meeting recessed to the Standing Committees at 6:12p.m. ALL COMMITTEES ARE ADVISORY ONLY. A.
PLANNING COMMITTEE- Mark Williams, Chairperson ! The Planning Committee convened at 6:12 p.m. All Committee members were present. j
ACTION SUMMARY
i
i Public Comment (for items not on the agenda)
I Jerry Grace commented that some people on the bus have a sticker I and wanted to know how the farebox knows if someone is an
adult or
! not an adult, or who is disabled and who isn't.
i Briefing/Action Items: A-1.
I Consider recommending receipt of report on
routine service changes scheduled for implementation on August 17, 2014, in conjunction I with the Fall signup (Report 14-188).
RECOMMEND RECEIPT
I Director of Service Development Robert del Rosario presented the staff
! report. I Overcrowding
on Line 72 was discussed at length. Mr. del Rosario that while a few minutes had been added to the 72 on ! Saturdays to help on-time performance and spacing, the addition of a I Rapid on Saturday would be costly and other fixes would be considered ! as part of the Comprehensive Operations Analysis. General Manager I David Armijo advised that staff would review how buses are assigned I on Saturdays and investigate whether there is enough room to assign l articulated buses to the route. He added that it might be possible to ! add more trips later this year.
I advised
I
i MOTION:
PEEPLES/YOUNG to forward to the Consent Calendar j Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following
! vote: I AYES:7: Peeples, Young, Harper, Wallace, Ortiz, Davis, Williams i
I The Planning Committee adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 30
Page 6 of 13
B.
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE- Joe Wallace, Chairperson The Operations Committee convened at 6:25 p.m. All Committee members were present.
ACTION SUMMARY
I Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) I
I There was no public comment offered. I
Consent Items: f MOTION: YOUNG/PEEPLES to forward items 8-1 and B-2 to the ' Consent Calendar Addenda recommending approval as indicated. The motion carried by the following vote: j
RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS INDICATED
AYES:7: Young, Peeples, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Wallace I
B-1. [ Consider recommending approval to award a two-year, fixed price ! contract with GIRO for consultant services related to Hastus training I and operational support (Report 14-198):
I President Harper commented on the expansion of the HASTUS system, ! noting it should have been discussed during a recent update on the
i future
of the District's information systems. Chief Planning and ! Development Officer Dennis Butler explained that the system was J expanding to take over the role of Vehicle Dispatch System, Operator Timekeeping System, and Transportation Information System to form a [ more integrated system. President Harper said that at some point, it i would be good to hear how the integration of all of the various systems I is being planned out.
i j'
B-2.
i Consider recommending that the General
Manager be authorized to [ exercise a one-y~ar option to renew contracts for the District's i architectural and engineering contract pool (Report 14-196).
l
i Briefing/Action Items:
B-3.
i Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-033 amending [ Board Policy No. 201- Personnel Policies for unrepresented employees; adoption of a new salary plan for unrepresented j employees; authorizing a three percent {3%) wage increase for i unrepresented employees for FY 2014-15; and a three percent (3%) merit pool and a one percent (1%) bonus pool for unrepresented employees for FY 2015-2016 (Report 14-191).
l
RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS
[A revised Resolution No. 14-033 approving salary adjustments for 1 unrepresented employees, excluding unrepresented employees with [ employment contracts and Board Officers was provided at the meeting [ for the committee's consideration.] Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 31
Page 7 of 13
There was no presentation of the staff report. MOTION: ORTIZ/WALLACE that the. following items associated with Staff Report 14-191 be postponed for future consideration: 1) Board Policy No. 201-Personnel Policies for unrepresented employees; 2) adoption of a new salary plan for unrepresented employees; and 3) a three percent (3%) merit pool and a one percent (1%) bonus pool for unrepresented employees for FY 2015-2016. The motion carried by consensus (7-0). MOTION: YOUNG/PEEPLES to forward revised Resolution No. 14-033 approving salary adjustments for unrepresented employees, excluding unrepresented employees with employment contracts and Board Officers to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending adoption. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Young, Peeples, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Wallace B-4.
Consider recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-032 approving new classification specifications for Chief Administrative Services Officer; Chief Information Services Officer; Chief Planning, Engineering & Construction Officer; Contracts Services Manager; Director of Labor Relations; Director of Management and Budget; Director of Systems & Software Development; Manager of Systems Analysis; Operations Data Systems Administrator; and Senior Advisor (Report 14-190).
RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH MODIFICATIONS
Acting Chief Human Resources Officer Tom Prescott presented the staff report. Director Ortiz asked if the head of Human Resources would be eliminated. Mr. Prescott advised that the Human Resources and Labor Relations functions would fall under the new Chief Administrative Officer classification. With regard to recruitment, General Manager David Armijo advised that the District was taking steps to hire a recruiter for the executive level positions and the other positions would be posted internally and externally and handled by Human Resources. He added that the recruitments would involve an open and competitive process and would utilize interview panels composed of members from outside of AC Transit. With regard to the Contract Services Manager classification, Director Peeples recalled that a prior triennial audit found that the purchasing and contracting functions should not be in separate departments. Mr. Prescott advised that while these functions would be separated, they would remain in the same department.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 32
Page 8 of 13
With regard to salary grades, Mr. Prescott advised that the "Chief' positions would be grade 15, the "Director" positions grade 13, and the "Manager" positions Grade 10. MOTION: PEEPLES/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-032 as presented with the inclusion of amendments to Exhibits A-J to reflect the appropriate salary grades stated herein. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Peeples, Williams, Harper, Ortiz, Davis, Young, Wallace B-5.
Consider recommending receipt of an update on recruitment efforts by the Human Resources Department (Report 14-185).
RECOMMEND RECEIPT
Acting Chief Human Resources Officer Tom Prescott presented the staff report. MOTION: YOUNG/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar , Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following i vote:
I AYES:7: B-6.
Young, Williams, Harper, Ortiz, Davis, Peeples, Wallace
!
.
Consider recommending receipt of report on system security and new [ initiatives for AC Transit Police Services (Report 14-162).
1
'
RECOMMEND RECEIPT
i Protective Services Manager Kerry Jackson presented the staff report.
l
i Discussion
ensued regarding the presence and treatment of the
I homeless occupying bus stops, the need to eliminate a bus stop that is
i not
1
used on Broadway and 12 h in Oakland, grant funds, the public J awareness campaign regarding thefts, and the process for reporting 1 problems at bus stops. Public Comment: Jerry Grace asked how often and how many deputies ride the bus. [Chairman Wallace responded that deputies board buses at random , and in uniform.]
Ii MOTION:
PEEPLES/YOUNG to forward to the Consent Calendar I Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following
] vote:
!
! AYES:7: Peeples, Young, Harper, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Wallace
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 33
Page 9 of 13
B-7.
Consider recommending receipt of the Triennial Performance Audit conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Report 14-094}.
RECOMMEND RECEIPT
Capital Planning and Grants Manager Kiran Bawa presented the staff l 1 report. MOTION: YOUNG/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending receipt. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Young, Williams, Harper, Ortiz, Davis, Peeples, Wallace The Operations Committee adjourned at 7:20p.m. C.
I SPECIAL FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE- Jeff Davis, Chairperson
ACTION SUMMARY
! The Finance and Audit Committee convened at 7:20 p.m. All
I Committee members were present.
I Public Comment (for items not on the agenda) / There was no public comment offered.
I Briefing Items: ;
C-1.
I Consider
I
recommending approval of a five-year contract award to Buck Consultants for actuarial services (Report 14-173).
RECOMMEND APPROVAL
I
i Controller Ralph Martini presented the staff report. [ Discussion ensued as to why there was only one responsive bidder. j Chief Performance Officer Tom Prescott advised that reasons included I the broad scope of the contract, the issue of subcontracting to competitors, and because it is easier for firms to bid on private sector I work than on public sector work.
l
i President f
Harper advised that unrealistic requirements were also part of the problem.
i MOTION:
liability
insurance
YOUNG/WILLIAMS to forward to the Consent Calendar
! Addenda recommending approval. The motion carried by the following i 1
vote:
I AYES:7:
' Young, Williams, Wallace, Harper, Ortiz, Peeples, Davis
The Finance and Audit Committee adjourned at 7:30p.m.
Alameda·Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 34
Page 10 of 13
RECONVENE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING- Greg Harper, President The Board of Directors meeting reconvened at 7:30 p.m. All Board members were present.
Ii REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES I District Secretary Linda Nemeroff reported that all
7.
I
!
i
ACTION SUMMARY
REPORT GIVEN
of the items from [ the Planning, Operations and Special Finance and Audit Committee i meetings had been referred to the Consent Calendar Addenda l recommending receipt, approval, or adoption with the following ! modifications: . 1) Item B-3 was forwarded to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending adoption of revised Resolution No. 14-033 approving salary adjustments for unrepresented employees, excluding unrepresented employees with employment contracts and Board Officers; and 2) Item B-4 was forwarded to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-032 as presented with the inclusion of amendments to Exhibits A-J to reflect the appropriate salary grades.
8.
i CONSENT CALENDAR ADDENDA j MOTION: PEEPLES/WALLACE to receive or approve the items referred
[ to the Consent Calendar Addenda as indicated on the agenda with the
RECEIVED OR APPROVED AS INDICATED
I following modifications: 1) Item B-3 was forwarded to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending adoption of revised Resolution No. 14-033 approving salary adjustments for unrepresented employees, excluding unrepresented employees with employment contracts and Board Officers; and 2) Item B-4 was forwarded to the Consent Calendar Addenda recommending adoption of Resolution No. 14-032 as presented with the inclusion of amendments to Exhibits A-J to reflect the appropriate salary grades. The motion carried by the following vote: i j
AYES:7: Peeples, Wallace, Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Young, Harper
I The items brought before the Board were as follows: A. A-1.
PLANNING COMMITTEE: receiving report on routine service changes scheduled for j implementation on August 17, 2014, in conjunction with the Fall signup i (Report 14-188). 1
I Consider i
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 35
Page 11 of 13
B. B-1.
B-2.
B-3.
B-4.
B-5. B-6. B-7.
C.
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE: Consider approving award a two-year, fixed price contract with GIRO for consultant services related to Hastus training and operational support (Report 14-198). Consider authorizing the General Manager to exercise a one-year option to renew contracts for the District's architectural and engineering contract pool (Report 14-196). Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-033 amending Board Policy No. 201- Personnel Policies for unrepresented employees; adoption of a new salary plan for unrepresented employees; authorizing a three percent (3%) wage increase for unrepresented employees for FY 201415; and a three percent (3%) merit pool and a one percent (1%) bonus pool for unrepresented employees for FY 2015-2016 (Report 14-191). Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-032 approving new classification specifications for Chief Administrative Services Officer; Chief Information Services Officer; Chief Planning, Engineering & Construction Officer; Contracts Services Manager; Director of Labor Relations; Director of Management and Budget; Director of Systems & Software Development; Manager of Systems Analysis; Operations Data Systems Administrator; and Senior Advisor (Report 14-190). Consider receiving update on recruitment efforts by the Human Resources Department (Report 14-185). Consider receiving report on system security and new initiatives for AC Transit Police Services (Report 14-162). Consider receipt of the Triennial Performance Audit conducted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (Report 14-094).
SPECIAL FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE:
C-1.
Consider approving a five-year contract award to Buck Consultants for actuarial services (Report 14-173).
9.
CLOSED SESSION/REPORT OUT
REPORT GIVEN
Interim General Counsel Denise Standridge reported out on the following: MOTION: ORTIZ/WILLIAMS to approve settlement in the amount of $325,000 in the matter of Bennett v. AC Transit, WCAB Case No. ADJ6442052. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES:7: Ortiz, Williams, Davis, Peeples, Young, Wallace, Harper 9A.
Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9 (a))
Chaz Bennett v AC Transit, WCAB Case No. ADJ6442052
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 36
Page 12 of 13
98.
Conference with Legal Counsel - Potential Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(b)) (Two Cases)
9C.
Conference with Labor Negotiators (Government Code Section 54957.6): Agency Designated Representative: David J. Armijo, General M anager Employee Organizations: ATU Local 192, AFSCME Loca l 3916, IBEW Local 1245, Unrepresented Employees
9D.
Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Government Code Section 54957) Title: General Manager, Interim General Counsel, District Secretary
9E.
I
I Conference with Labor Negotiators
I (Governm ent Code Section 54957.6) : Negotiator: Board President, Greg Harper I Unrepresented Employee(s): General Manager 1
I Director Young left the meeting at 7:32p.m. I 10.
11.
AGENDA PLANNING Director Ortiz requested that staff find out what other public agencies ! are doing as part of the ongoing conversation of the merit pay issue. i (President Harper concurred)
I I BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS i
: 1
I I
I
Members of the Board commented on meetings and events attended since the last meeting.
I
12. ! ADJOURNMENT I There being no further business to come before the Board of Directors, 1 the meeting was adjourned at 7:47p.m. The next meeting of the Board ! of Directors is scheduled for Wednesday, July 9, 2014. Respectfully submitted,
District Secretary
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
July 9, 2014 37
Page 13 of 13
This page intentionally blank
38
Staff Report 14-180
Approved Minutes Meeting of the AC TRANSIT RETIREMENT BOARD June 16, 2014
ROLLCALL
Chair Jeffrey Lewis called the meeting to order at 9:06 AM Members Present: Sue Lee, 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, and Kevin Novak, NEPC; Graham Schmidt and Tim Doyle, Cheiron; Bob McCrory Cheiron (by phone); Osvaldo Pereira, Park Square Capital, (by phone); Tom Hickey, Outside Counsel (by phone), Robert Griffin, Williams, Adley. None CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: WILLIAMS/RIEMER to adopt the Consent Calendar with two typographical corrections to the minutes for May 2014 (5-0-0-0)
Ayes: Noes: Abstain: Absent:
Members Lee, Riemer, and Willis, Vice Chair Williams, and Chair Lewis -- 5 None None None
APPROVED A. Approval of Minutes for May 8, 2014
APPROVED With the editorial changes mentioned above.
39
AC Transit Retirement Board June 16, 2014 B. Approval ofFinancials for Apri12014 APPROVED C. Approval oflnvoices in the Amount of$223,253.68 APPROVED D. Approval of Retirements for July 2014 I. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Iqbal Ahmed John Butterfield Leander Edwards Barbara Parker Connie Tolefree Dana Williams Courtland Layman John Simpson
#33013 #32910 #31717 #33092 #31044 #1075 #81 130- Term Vested #32719- Term Vested
APPROVED REGULAR CALENDAR
E. Approval of Retirements for May/June 2014 with conditions, if any: I. Charles Montgomery
2. Jerry Bowen
#1379 (July)- Contingent upon completion of the Benefit Option Form in June. #1832 (June)- Term Vested
MOTION: WILLIAMS/RIEMER to approve the two retirements listed above effective June/July 2014 with the conditions as stated. (5-0-0-0)
The Board congratulated retiree Courtland Laymen and Dana Williams for 34 years of service. (Carolyn Smith and Kevin Novak ofNEPC joined the Board for the discussion of Agenda Items F through I.) F. Additional Information Pertaining to Park Square Hugo recalled that the Board had approved a $12 million investment in Park Square's European Direct Lending fund, in April. They reviewed the details of the investment, in May, and agreed to continue to move forward while they reviewed in greater detail the issues pertaining to leverage and the legal structure of the investment. The June
2 40
AC Transit Retirement Board June 16, 2014 discussion continued that process to ensure the Board's conceptual understanding of, and comfort with, this asset. There were several issues raised during the Board's discussion. Counsel Richeda noted that Park Square operates under the laws of Guernsey, which might mean that a ruling in a US court could not be enforced. Chair Lewis asked for clarification of the charts provided by Park Square, depicting the account structure with Credit Suisse, and the statements in the material provided by Tom Hickey that allows for the use of a variety of financial instruments, up to 35% of the capital commitments of the Fund in companies to be outside of Europe, and more with the approval of the Advisory Committee. Carolyn explained that Wells Fargo provided a bridge loan to cover the period before the funding was provided by the Limited Partners. Credit Suisse holds the funds and buys the assets for a Total Return Swap (TRS), with a leverage ratio of I to I. Hugo asked why Park Square did not simply borrow the money. Carolyn replied that there is no currency risk with this arrangement. The fees deducted from earnings are the interest paid to Credit Suisse and the interest paid to Wells Fargo until the capital comes in from the Limited Partners. Kevin told the Board that operating in Guernsey is the most efficient way to collect the funds and has a tax advantage. Holding the investment in Luxemburg also provides a tax advantage. Member Riemer voiced his concern that each complication results in increased risk. Carolyn agreed to find out if other NEPC clients invest in a similar structure, but she added that this structure is common to private investment assets. (Some Agenda Items were taken out of order to accommodate the schedules of outside presenters.) (Osvaldo Pereira, Park Square Capital, joined the discussion of Agenda Item H by phone.) H. Additional Questions for Park Square Chair Lewis asked why Park Square operated under the laws of Guernsey. Osvaldo replied that Guernsey uses English law. Like the Caymans and Delaware it is a tax domicile and provides tax advantages that increase returns. Chair Lewis asked about Park Square's ability to invest outside of Europe. Osvaldo told the Board that these investments have been in the US and Canada, with one in Australia. These are US dollar deals by European companies. With regard to the variety of financial instruments, Osvaldo explained that historically they have invested in derivatives, not other instruments. Regarding
3 41
AC Transit Retirement Board June 16, 2014 Guernsey and Luxemburg, Osvaldo told the Board that the partnership is in Guernsey and the interest is received in Luxemburg, which has dual tax treaties. He added that most private investments have this sort of structure. Osvaldo reviewed the structure of the Park Square investment and worked through the math of the example in the Board Package. The Board thanked Osvaldo. (Osvaldo left the call at this point.) Member Riemer asked Carolyn if future assets might be in Africa or East Asia, if the funds had failed to close in the expected time, and if any of these investments had been made. Chair Lewis called a recess at I 0:30 AM The meeting reconvened at I 0:37AM (Outside Counsel Tom Hickey joined the discussion of Agenda Item G, by phone.) G. Review of Legal Structure of Park Square Investment Chair Lewis asked Tom if the Park Square contract is standard among European direct lending investments. Tom replied that Park Square is in "the middle of the pack." He added that this in a relatively new investment strategy and we have not yet seen a full life cycle. Tom told the Board that Park Square is an English Limited Liability Partnership, not a registered investment advisor. He added that the Orange County Pension fund had invested in Park Square last year, and Park Square agreed to follow the strict prudent person standard. Orange County did due diligence and was satisfied with this investment. Tom said he would make sure that any suit associated with AC Transit's investment would be in Alameda County, but he is not sure if it would be enforceable in Guernsey. Tom saw no alarm bells in Park Square's contract. He considered it typical and had seen some more aggressive, and some more conservative firms in his experience. Some had far more leverage and more complex structures. With BASEL III banks have backed away and cannot fill the need for loans. The Board thanked Tom. (Tom Hickey left the call at this point.) I.
Next Step(s) with Park Square
4 42
AC Transit Retirement Board June 16,2014 Chair Lewis asked if the Board was still comfortable investing in European Direct Debt and if they wished to reconsider Alcentra. Member Riemer asked if the Plan could get a satisfactory return without a complicated structure or investments in smaller companies. Carolyn said that NEPC's research team had identified three funds with high quality assets and modest or no leverage, but the third fund was no longer open. She considered Park Square and Alcentra equally risky, but the risks were different. Member Riemer said that the underlying risk is that the company would not pay back the investment. Larger, more stable companies are more reliable, so he saw no need to revisit Alcentra. The Board agreed to continue the discussion of Park Square in July. Chair Lewis called a recess at II :20 AM The meeting reconvened at II :24 AM (Graham Schmidt and Tim Doyle, Cheiron, joined the discussion of Agenda Items J, K, andY. Bob McCrory joined the discussion by phone.) J. 2014 Actuarial Cost Letter K. 2014 Economic Assumptions for the Actuarial Valuation Bob referred to his June 16 letter regarding the Actuarial Valuation as of January I, 2014, included in the Board Package. He told the Board that this letter was virtually the same as the May report. However, it did have more details on the impact of prospective changes in the actuarial mortality standards. Bob pointed out that the cost of the Plan declined by I% during 2013, mostly due to the favorable investment return in 2013 and the fact that the substantial loss of2008 was no longer included in the five years of smoothing. He added that the unfunded liability was amortized over 14 years and the expected return was reduced from 7.38% to 7.25% Hugo recalled that the Board had sent a letter asking the District Board to consider holding the contribution at the higher prior-year level. He reported that the District Board and District staff preferred to reduce the contribution. Director Peeples stressed the need to use the funds to increase service. Hugo raised the question of the economic assumptions of an expected return of 7.25%, and an inflation rate of 3%. The Board and actuary discussed the expected return and inflation figures. MOTION: WILLIAMS/RIEMER to approve the return assumption of 7.25% and an inflation rate of 3%. (5-0-0-0)
Graham discussed alternative methods of amortizing the unfunded liability. Bob said that the Board would receive the final valuation in July.
5 43
AC Transit Retirement Board June 16, 2014
MOTION: RIEMER/WILLIAMS to approve the cost letter as presented by Cheiron. (5-0-0-0)
Hugo mentioned that at the May meeting Cheiron had told the Board of a proposed change in the calculation of mortality. The Board had asked for an estimate of its potential impact on the District contribution. Graham told the Board that the Society of Actuaries had studied changes in life expectancy and the rate of improvement, and strongly encouraged their members to include these changes in their actuarial assumptions. Including projected improvements. Cheiron has estimated the cost impact of these changes at about 4.5% of payroll - a possible increase in the District contribution of $5.7 million. Graham said that there is no requirement to adopt the new tables, but the actuarial valuation must divulge the methodology. The tables assume a reduction in mortality of 1% per year. Bob noted that studies have found that life expectancy is improving. The new tables incorporate this reality into projections and funding. During the discussion of the District contribution it was noted that the payout by the Pension fund is about the same as the District contribution. Graham explained that these relative levels depend on the maturity of the plan. The payout and contribution are questions of cash flow and liquidity. Hugo agreed that similar levels are not necessarily good or bad. Y. AB 1222,PEPRAandPlanAmendment 13-A-16 Hugo began to describe the status of the amendment, and possible next steps to resolve the issue. Director Peeples continued, telling Board that the District Board was working on resolving the question of the PEPRA amendment. He recalled that the District Board had passed a second tier for unrepresented employees, but had not incorporated it in a Plan amendment. He added that the second tier for the unrepresented staff must be resolved before the District can address the second tier in collective bargaining. Board Members reiterated the pressing need to rescind the PEPRA amendment incorporated in Chair Lewis' letter to the District Board asking them to address the status of the Amendment 13-A-6. Counsel Richeda noted the Retirement Board's legal quandary. Graham pointed out that employee contributions had been discontinued, but the Pension Fund was receiving the full contribution from the District. Bob added that the valuation excludes any consideration of PEPRA. Director Peeples told the Board that the District Board would discuss this issue in open session at the end of June.
6 44
AC Transit Retirement Board June 16,2014 MOTION: WILLIAMS/WILLIS: to direct staff to send a letter to all employees hired after January I, 2013, providing an update on their retirement benefits.
The discussion centered around the timing of a communication to employees, and the possibility of tabling the motion until the July meeting, when the Retirement Board could assess the District Board's actions. MOTION: WILLIS/REIMER to table the prior motion and to investigate further action if the PEPRA amendment is not rescinded. (4-0-0-1) Member Lee voted "no."
(Robert Griffin, Williams, Adley, joined the Board for Agenda Item W.) W. Draft Financials Hugo told the Board that there were few, if any, substantive changes in the material in the Board Package compared to the version discussed in May. Bob Griffin distributed the draft communication letter, which was missing only the final dates. He said the financials were complete except for minor editorial changes. They must be filed with the State Controller before June 30. The Board discussed adding a sentence regarding the anticipated revocation of amendment 13-A-16. Counsel Richeda will draft that sentence, and send it to Bob Griffin after Member Willis reviews the language. J. 2014 Actuarial Cost Letter (Continued) K. 2014 Economic Assumptions for the Actuarial Valuation (Continued) Graham showed the Board the projected funded ratio for the Plan, which reaches 92% in 2024. He also reviewed the charts presenting the District contribution and the percentage of payroll. He told the Board that the new generational mortality assumptions will be incorporated in the final valuation along with the new graphs. L. Draft of Quarterly Report #2 to the District Board
Hugo referred to the draft report included in the Board Package. The Board discussed references to Plan amendment 13-A-16. They agreed to place this item first in the report and to reword the item to stress the pressing need to rescind the amendment. R. Update on Custody Bank Transition to Northern Trust S. Documents Required for Transition to Northern Trust Hugo told the Board that the transition to Northern Trust will be completed on schedule on July I. He explained the paperwork included in the Board Package, spelling out authorization to initiate, verifY and authenticate requests to move funds.
7 45
AC Transit Retirement Board June 16, 2014 MOTION: WILLIAMS/RIEMER to approve the initiation, verification and authentication policy and the individuals named to fill these roles. (5-0-0-0) Q. Crescent Direct Lending Investment Update
Hugo reported that the Plan has placed $7 million with Crescent, and another $1 million will be invested by the end of June. X. Retiree Health Insurance Costs Hugo distributed tables of the 2013-2014 cost of Medical Insurance, and the increase from 2012-2013. He mentioned how the cost of medical insurance continues to increase and the impact it has both on retirees and employees considering retirement. Z. Update on Calculation of Pension Benefit for Former Union Officer James Gardner Hugo told the Board that there had been a meeting with the union, and Counsel Richeda is working on his opinion concerning Mr. Gardner's claim. The following Agenda Items were not discussed at the June Meeting M. N. 0. P.
Asset Allocation and Rebalancing International Small-Cap Review International Small-Cap Equity Manager Search Next Step(s) in International Small-Cap AA Disability Determination Process BB Retirement System Manager Report 1. Report on Benefits Roundtable These items will be discussed at the July meeting.
T. NEPC Work Plan- Carolyn Smith The International Small-Cap Equity review and manager search will take place in July. U. Calendar for 2014- Hugo Wildmann V. Joint Meeting with the District Board There were no changes to the schedule. CC (CLOSED SESSION) 1) Matters Relating to Personnel: Disability Applicants' and Disability Retirees' Medical Records (Government Code Section 54957; 65 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 412 (1982) a. Desiree Lambert- Occupational Disability
8 46
AC Transit Retirement Board June 16,2014 b. c. d. e. f. g.
Gwendolyn Randle- Total and Permanent Disability Zakiya Mawusi- Occupational Disability Aubrey Johnson- Total and Permanent Disability Arsenia Legaspi - Total and Permanent Disability Keith Wade- Total and Permanent Disability Ray Dunhams- Total and Permanent Disability
DD (RESUME OPEN SESSION) I) Report and/or Action on Closed Session Items There were no actions to report. STAFF COMMENTS
None RETIREMENT BOARD COMMENTS
None ATTORNEYS' REPORT
None ADJOURNMENT
The Board adjourned at I :30 PM.
9 47
This page intentionally blank
48
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR CALENDAR
July 23, 2014 Agenda Item 6A-6D
49
This page intentionally blank
50
BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 23, 2014
Staff Report 14-218 Consider adoption of Resolution No. 14-040 confirming the approval of a collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Local 3916
CURRENTLY NOT AVAILABLE WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AT THE TIME IT IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
51
This page intentionally blank
52
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-171a July 23, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
STAFF REPORT TO:
AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
FY 2014-15 Appropriations Limit
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider the adoption of Resolution 14-036 establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2014-15 at$ 411,195,815. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Article XIII B of the California Constitution places limitations on the annual appropriations of the State and each local government. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7910, the Board of Directors must establish the District's Appropriations Limit at a regularly scheduled or special meeting, and the documentation used in the determination of the Appropriations Limit shall be made available to the public fifteen days prior to the meeting. The District's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2014-15 is set at $411,195,815. The main contributor to the increase in the District's Appropriations Limit of 1.01212% over Fiscal Year 2013-14 is the "Change in Population" factor of 1.01445% which was strongly influenced by population growth in Alameda County. The remaining contributing factor is the "Per Capita Personal Income" factor of -0.23%. This is a statewide factor. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Article XIII B ofthe California Constitution places limitations on the annual appropriations of the State and each local government. Pursuant to Government Code Section 7910, the Board of Directors must establish the District's Appropriations Limit at regularly scheduled or special meeting, and the documentation used in the determination of the Appropriations Limit shall be made available to the public fifteen days prior to the meeting. The District's Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2014-15 is set at $411,195,815. The limit for any fiscal year is equal to the previous year's limit, adjusted for population changes and by a cost of living factor, like the change in the United States or San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index, or California per Capita Personal Income, etc. The necessary statistical 53
Report No. 14-171a Page 2 of 2 information is provided by the California Department of Finance in May of each year. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2014, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2014-15. Special districts are required by law to calculate their appropriations limit and must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits. For the District, the FY 2014-15 Appropriations limit allowable growth factor was positively influenced by the 1.5% annual growth rate in population in Alameda County, as seen in Exhibit B Computation of Growth factors. This helped offset a negative or decreasing factor caused by the fall in California Per Capita Personal Income of -0.23% for the same period, as reported by the California Department of Finance. The documentation reflected in Exhibits A, B, and C to Resolution 14-036 Establishing the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2014-15 at $411,195,815 became available for public review commencing June 25, 2014 at the Office of the District Secretary. This information was also available on the District's external website, and posted in the Administrative Office Lobby.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
Staff found no practical alternatives to the course of action recommended in this report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
Staff Report 14-171 and Resolution No. 14-026 Notice of Scheduled Adoption of Appropriations Limit for FY 2014-15 ATTACHMENTS: 1: Resolution No. 14-036 with Exhibits A-C Department Head Approval: James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Reviewed by: Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel Prepared by: Hernan Vargas, Budget Manager
54
SR 14-171A ATT.1
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 14-036 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 AT $411,195,815 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII B OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, Article XIII B to the Constitution of the State of California places appropriations limitations on the fiscal powers of the State and each local government; and WHEREAS, the Board of Directors on June 25, 2014, adopted Resolution No. 14-026 providing notice to the public, as required by Government Code Section 7910, that the Board of Directors would establish the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2014-15 at its regularly scheduled meeting on July 23, 2014; and WHEREAS, no public comment was received regarding the District's appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 2014-15. NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does resolve as follows: Section 1. The Board of Directors hereby establishes the Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2014-15 for the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District at $411,195,815 as documented in Exhibits A, B and C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. Section 2. 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 July 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 July, 2014 by the following roll call vote:
Resolution No. 14-036
Pagel of2 55
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary
Approved as to Form and Content:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel
Resolution No. 14-036
Page2of2 56
EXHIBIT A ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATION For the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2015
2013/2014 Appropriations Limit
$406,271,801
Change in Per Capita Personal Income
-0.23
Weighted Average Change in Population
1.01445
Factor to apply to 2013/2014 Limit 2014/2015 Appropriations Limit
1.01212 $411,195,815
57
This page intentionally blank
58
Exhibit B COMPUTATION OF ALLOWABLE GROWTH FACTORS As of Fiscal Year Ending June 30,2015
Change in Per Capita Personal Income CPI change converted to a ratio:
-0.23
(-0.23+100) 100
0.9977
Weighted Population percentage change Alameda County percent change in population
1.50
Percent of Property taxes from Alameda County Alameda County population change (1.50+100) converted to a ratio and weighted 100 for property taxes received
89.47%
X 89.47%
0.90812
Weighted Population percentage change Contra Costa County percent change in population
0.98
Percent of Property taxes from Contra Costa County (0.98+100) Contra Costa County population change converted to a ratio and w 100 weighted for property taxes received
10.53%
10.53%
0.10633
Weighted Average Change in Population (.90812 +.10633)
1.01445
Factor to Apply to 2013/2014 Limit (0.9977 x 1.01445)
1.01212
X
$ 411,195,815
FY 2014/2015 Appropriations Limit (406,271 ,801 X 1.01212)
59
This page intentionally blank
60
EXHIBITC ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF HISTORICAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT As of Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2015 Total District Appropriations for FY 1978/79 Less:
$101,094,137
Non-Proceeds of Taxes
37,897,550
Appropriations Subject to Limitation for FY 1978/79
$63,196,587
1979/80 growth factor
1.10324
$69,721,153
1980/81 growth factor
1.12962
$78,758,434
1981/82 growth factor
1.09851
$86,517,009
1982/83 growth factor
1.07687
$93,167,603
1983/84 growth factor
1.05134
$97,941,217
1984/85 growth factor
1.10071
$107,805,137
1985/86 growth factor
1.04907
$113,095,216
1986/87 growth factor
1.04442
$118,119,089
1987/88 growth factor
1.05679
$124,826,900
1988/89 growth factor
1.05602
$131,819,995
1989/90 growth factor
1.06586
$140,501,916
1990/91 growth factor
1.05874
$148,754,999
1991/92 growth factor
1.05847
$157,452,704
1992/93 growth factor
1.00989
$159,009,900
1993/94 growth factor
1.04394
$165,996,795
1994/95 growth factor
1.01778
$168,947,431
1995/96 growth factor
1.0472
$179,287,014
1996/97 growth factor
1.0556
$189,255,372
1997/98 growth factor
1.0638
$201,329,865
1998/99 growth factor
1.0632
$214,053,912
1999/00 growth factor
1.0596
$226,811,525
61
EXHIBITC ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF HISTORICAL APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT As of Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2015
2000/01 growth factor
1.0599
$240' 397' 535
2001/02 growth factor
1.0958
$263,427,619
2002/03 growth factor
1.0034
$264,336,199
2003/04 growth factor
1.0322
$272,848,058
2004/05 growth factor
1.0407
$283,957' 170
2005/06 growth factor
1.0606
$301 '159,939
2006/07 growth factor
1.0469
$315,279,978
2007/08 growth factor
1.0554
$332,761 ,463
2008/09 growth factor
1.05672
$351,634,961
2009/1 0 growth factor
1.01867
$358,199,986
2010/11 growth factor
0.98533
$352,945,192
2011112 growth factor
1.03317
$364,652,384
2012/13 growth factor
1.04769
$382,042,656
2013/14 growth factor
1.06342
$406,271 ,801
2014/15 growth factor
1.01212
$411,195,815
62
~t-lT 0~:--
..,>lt'A ...
~
"'
0
'
... "1-
..z n
_..
"' DEPARTMENT OF"
<:-""'t.,,·,u:~.to~.\'" F
1 N A N C E --;;==-::==-~=-:-:-=:-=-:::-E:O:o::;.M;::.u=:,N=:o:-:G:;:::..,.O'.B:;:R,:;C;-:W:.;N:..,.;::~:;,R;,..-::•-::::"G':::c:::v:,:"'o.:R.::,:N.:::D~R
OF'F"ICE OF' THE: DIRECTOR
STATE CAPITOL. ROOM
1 14!5. SACRAMENTO C A . 9 5 8 1 4 - 4 9 9 8 . WWW.OOFol:lA.GOV
May 2014 Dear Fiscal Officer: Subject: Price and Population Information Appropriations Limit The California Revenue and Taxation Code, section 2227, mandates the Department of Finance (Finance) to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2014, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2014-15. Attachment A provides the change in California's per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population percentage change factor to calculate the 2014-15 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides city and unincorporated county population percentage change. Attachment C provides population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations. Population Percent Change for Special Districts Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. Consult the Revenue and Taxation Code section 2228 for further information regarding the appropriations limit. Article XIII B, section 9(C), of the State Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. The Code and the California Constitution can be accessed at the following website: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml. Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this issue should be referred to their respective county for clarification, or to their legal representation, or to the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits. Population Certification The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. Revenue and Taxation Code section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller's Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 1, 2014. Please Note: Prior year's city population estimates may be revised. If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086. MICHAEL COHEN Director By: KEELY M. BOSLER Chief Deputy Director Attachment
63
May 2014
Attachment A
A.
Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2014-15 appropriation limit is: Per Capita Personallncorne
B.
Fiscal Year (FY)
Percentage change over prior year
2014-15
-0.23
Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2014-15 appropriation limit.
2014-15: Per Capita Cost of Living Change= -0.23 percent Population Change= 0.95 percent
Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio:
-0.23 + 100 = 0.9977 100
Population converted to a ratio:
0.95 + 100 100
Calculation of factor for FY 2014-15: 0.9977
64
X
1.0095
=1.0095 =1.0072
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change In Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Alameda
Alameda Albany Berkeley Dublin Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro Union City Unincorporated County Total
1.07 0.14 1.35 7.49 2.07 1.74 1.44 1.74 1.09 1.16 1.13 1.57 1.09 1.06 1.05
73,973 18,446 115,814 48,049 10,278 220,133 148,895 83,404 43,383 399,699 10,900 71,939 86,748 71,396 143,871
74,762 18,472 117,372 51,846 10,491 223,972 151,037 84,852 43,856 404,355 11 ,023 73,067 87,691 72,155 145,377
75,988 18,472 117,372 53,462 10,491 223,972 151,037 84,852 43,856 404,355 11,023 73,067 87,691 72,155 145,461
1.50
1,546,928
1,570,128
1,573,254
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
65
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Total Population
1-1-2014
Alpine Unincorporated County Total
0.09
1,078
1,079
1,079
0.09
1,078
1,079
1,079
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
66
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Amador Amador
lone Jackson Plymouth Sutter Creek
Unincorporated County Total
-1.10 -1.17 -1.02 -1.21 -1.21 -1.30
181 3,946 4,592 988 2,472 21,474
179 3,900 4,545 976 2,442 21,194
179 6,759 4,545 976 2,442 21,250
-1.24
33,653
33,236
36,151
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
67
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
I2l!L
Population
1-1-2014
Butte
Biggs Chico Gridley Oroville
Paradise Unincorporated County Total
-0.24 0.98 0.40 0.17 0.34 0.23
1,688 87,534 6,712 15,953 26,020 83,220
1,684 88,389 6,739 15,980 26,109 83,415
1,684 88,389 6,739 15,980 26,109 83,415
0.54
221,127
222,316
222,316
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
68
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Calaveras Angels City
Unincorporated County Tatal
-0.80 -0.71
3,756 41,108
3,726 40,818
3,726 40,924
-0.71
44,864
44,544
44,650
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
69
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
I2mL
Population 1-1-2014
Colusa
Colusa
2.49
Williams Unincorporated
2.11
County Total
-2.29
6,021 5,252 10,363
6,171 5,363 10,126
6,171 5,363 10,126
0.11
21,636
21,660
21,660
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
70
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change In Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Po~ulatlon
1-1-13
Minus Exclusions
1-1-14
Po~ulatlon
1-1-2014
Contra Costa
Antioch Brentwood
Clayton Concord Danville El Cerrito
Hercules Lafayette Martinez Moraga
Oakley Orinda Pinole Pittsburg
Pleasant Hill Richmond San Pablo San Ramon Walnut Creek
Unincorporated County Total
1.12 2.60 0.82 0.54 0.85 0.59 0.55 1.28 0.58 0.54 2.06 0.77 0.55 1.43 0.56 0.40 0.53 1.10 0.61 1.25
105,272 53,356 11,109 123,725 42,783 23,945 24,438 24,347 36,526 16,260 37,308 17,951 18,692 65,435 33,682 105,715 29,309 76,429 65,780 163,912
106,455 54,741 11 ,200 124,388 43,146 24,087 24,572 24,659 36,739 16,348 38,075 18,089 18,794 66,368 33,672 106,138 29,465 77,270 66,183 165,964
106,455 54,741 11,200 124,656 43,146 24,087 24,572 24,659 36,642 16,348 38,075 18,089 18,794 66,368 33,872 106,136 29,465 77,270 66,183 166,046
0.98
1,075,974
1,086,553
1,067,008
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
71
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change In Population Minus Exclusions• January I, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
!2l!L
Population
1-1-2014
Del Norte Crescent City
Unincorporated County Total
0.56 0.43
4,257 21,005
4,281 21,095
6,935 21,196
0.45
25,262
25,376
28,131
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and
federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
72
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
I2!!L
Population
1-1-2014
ElDorado
Placerville South Lake Tahoe Unincorporated County Tatal
0.97 -0.26 0.23
10,426 21,464 149,996
10,527 21,409 150,339
10,527 21,409 150,468
0.21
181,886
182,275
182,404
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
73
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Pogulation Minus Exclusions 1-1-14 1-1-13
I2!!L
Pogulatlon 1-1-2014
Fresno Clovis Coalinga Firebaugh Fowler Fresno Huron
Kerman Kingsburg Mendota Orange Cove Parlier Reedley Sanger San Joaquin Selma Unincorporated County Total
2.10 0.42 0.31 1.31 1.30 0.68 0.69 0.72 0.31 0.50 0.88 0.52 0.72 0.55 0.64 0.75
100,091 12,056 7,785 5,807 508,917 6,797 14,241 11 ,602 11,190 9,363 14,888 24,993 24,729 4,034 23,825 167,419
102,188 12,107 7,809 5,883 515,513 6,843 14,339 11,685 11,225 9,410 15,019 25,122 24,908 4,056 23,977 168,675
102,188 16,467 7,809 5,883 515,609 6,843 14,339 11,685 11,225 9,410 15,019 25,122 24,908 4,056 23,977 169,500
1.16
947,737
958,759
964,040
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
74
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Glenn Orland Willows Unincorporated County Tatal
1.13 0.28 0.11
7,597 6,137 14,402
7,683 6,154 14,418
7,683 6,154 14,516
0.42
28,136
28,255
28,353
*Exclusions indude residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and
federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
75
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Pooulation Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Humboldt
Arcata Blue Lake Eureka Ferndale Fortuna Rio Dell Trinidad Unincorporated County Total
·0.23 -0.32 -0.03 -0.29 0.54 -0.06 -0.55 -0.06
17,774 1,255 26,921 1,361 11,838 3,349 363 71,627
17,734 1,251 26,914 1,357 11 ,902 3,347 361 71 ,581
17,734 1,251 26,914 1,357 11,902 3,347 361 71,782
-0.03
134,488
134,447
134,648
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
76
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Total Population 1-1-2014
Imperial Brawley Calexico Calipatria El Centro
Holtville Imperial Westmorland Unincorporated County Total
0.28 0.49 0.25 0.27 0.34 3.80 -0.04 0.40
25,825 40,367 3,658 44,192 6,133 16,097 2,302 33,762
25,897 40,564 3,667 44,311 6,154 16,708 2,301 33,896
25,897 40,564 7,517 44,311 6,154 16,708 2,301 37,220
0.67
172,336
173,498
180,672
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
77
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions* January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014
Total County City
Percent Change
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
lnyo
Bishop
Unincorporated County Total
-0.36 -0.25
3,889 14,629
3,875 14,592
3,875 14,715
-0.28
18,518
18,467
18,590
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
78
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total
County City
Percent Change
2013·2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Pooulation
1·1·2014
Kern Arvin Bakersfield California City Delano Maricopa McFarland Ridgecrest Shafter Taft Tehachapi Wasco Unincorporated County Total
0.94 1.86 0.67 1.14 0.94 3.62 0.75 1.12 0.71 0.67 1.72 1.01
20,037 360,569 11,746 43,733 1,169 12,031 27,687 17,096 6,606 8,864 20,822 305,048
20,226 367,282 11,825 44,230 1,180 12,467 27,896 17,287 6,653 8,923 21,180 308,120
20,226 367,315 13,276 52,591 1,180 13,745 28,638 17,461 8,942 13,346 26,159 310,213
1.42
835,408
847,269
873,092
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
79
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions* January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
Population
1-1-14
1-1-2014
Kings Avenal
Corcoran Hanford Lemoore Unincorporated County Total
-0.27 -0.39 0.29 0.74 -0.16
9,191 12,744 55,122 25,096 26,923
9,166 12,694 55,283 25,281 26,879
13,239 22,515 55,283 25,281 33,863
0.18
129,076
129,303
150,181
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
80
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions"' January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County City
Percent Change
Population Minus Exclusions
2013-2014
Im!!..
Population 1-1-2014
Lake Clearlake Lakeport
Unincorporated County Total
0.03 2.02 0.15
15,190 4,712 44,526
15,194 4,807 44,595
15,194 4,807 44,698
0.26
64,428
64,596
64,699
*Exclusions indude residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
81
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Pooulation Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
I2mL
Population
1-1-2014
Lassen Susanville
Unincorporated County Total
-2.78 -2.96
9,404 15,438
9,143 14,981
15,832 16,749
-2.89
24,842
24,124
32,581
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
82
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions* January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Pogulation Minus E!!;Ciusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Total Pogulation
1-1-2014
Los Angeles Agoura Hills Alhambra
Arcadia Artesia Avalon Azusa Baldwin Park Bell
Bellflower Bell Gardens Beverly Hills Bradbury Burbank
Calabasas Carson Cerritos Claremont
Commerce Compton Covina Cudahy
Culver City Diamond Bar Downey Duarte El Monte
EISegundo Gardena Glendale
Glendora Hawaiian Gardens Hawthorne Hermosa Beach Hidden Hills Huntington Park Industry Inglewood Irwindale La Canada Flintridge
0.47 0.48 1.05 0.51 0.55 1.62 0.46 0.47 0.53 0.46 0.47 0.74 0.47 0.53 0.42 0.47 0.42 0.47 0.49 0.46 0.47 0.68 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.49 0.49 0.61 1.05 1.17 0.50 1.31 0.43 0.64 0.63 0.23 0.50 0.76 0.41
20,528 84,290 56,901 16,606 3,799 47,614 76,362 35,604 77,330 42,463 34,515 1,074 105,045 23,816 92,251 49,506 35,766 12,942 97,606 46,367 24,028 39,233 56,133 112,629 21,567 114,503 16,615 59,602 193,769 50,697 14,364 65,526 19,666 1,669 58,661 437 111,236 1,455 20,452
20,625 84,697 57,500 16,690 3,820 48,385 76,715 35,972 77,741 42,667 34,677 1,062 105,543 23,943 92,636 49,741 35,920 13,003 98,062 48,619 24,142 39,579 56,400 113,363 21,668 115,064 16,697 60,062 195,799 51,290 14,456 86,644 19,750 1,901 59,033 436 111,795 1,466 20,535
20,625 84,697 57,500 16,776 3,820 48,385 76,715 35,972 77,741 42,667 34,677 1,062 105,543 23,943 92,636 49,741 35,920 13,003 96,082 46,619 24,142 39,579 56,400 113,363 21,666 115,064 16,897 60,062 195,799 51,290 14,456 86,644 19,750 1,901 59,033 436 111,795 1,466 20,535
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
83
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County City
Pers;:ent Change
2013-2014
Po(!ulatlon Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Pogulation
1-1-2014
Los Angeles (Continued) La Habra Heights Lakewood
La Mirada Lancaster La Puente
La Verne Lawndale Lomita Long Beach
Los Angeles Lynwood Malibu Manhattan Beach Maywood Monrovia Montebello Monterey Park Norwalk Palmdale
Palos Verdes Estates Paramount Pasadena Pica Rivera
Pomona Rancho Palos Verdes Redondo Beach Rolling Hills Rolling Hills Estates
Rosemead San Dimas
San Fernando San Gabriel San Marino Santa Clarita Santa Fe Springs
Santa Monica Sierra Madre Signal Hill South El Monte South Gate South Pasadena
0.69 0.49 0.45 0.78 0.58 0.53 0.46 0.50 0.51 1.00 0.42 0.71 0.49 0.47 0.53 0.48 0.48 0.42 0.66 0.50 0.72 0.55 0.47 0.53 0.52 0.42 0.48 0.48 0.49 1.09 0.54 0.34 0.66 1.98 3.12 1.20 0.58 1.65 0.50 0.93 0.53
5,383 80,830 48,958 153,809 40,245 32,059 33,077 20,528 467,817 3,863,013 70,685 12,774 35,445 27,627 36,966 63,222 61 ,482 105,501 154,629 13,597 54,657 140,102 63,572 150,814 42,121 67,437 1,886 8,145 54,497 33,706 24,093 40,178 13,254 205,075 16,781 91,094 11,030 11,226 20,325 95,173 25,874
5,420 81,224 49,178 155,012 40,478 32,228 33,228 20,630 470,184 3,901,605 70,980 12,865 35,619 27,758 37,162 63,527 61,777 105,948 155,657 13,665 55,051 140,879 63,873 151,611 42,341 67,717 1,895 8,184 54,762 34,072 24,222 40,313 13,341 209,130 17,304 92,185 11 ,094 11,411 20,426 96,057 26,011
5,420 81,224 49,178 159,878 40,478 32,228 33,228 20,630 470,292 3,904,657 70,980 12,865 35,619 27,758 37,162 63,527 61,777 106,630 155,657 13,665 55,051 140,879 63,873 151,713 42,358 67,717 1,895 8,184 54,762 34,072 24,222 40,313 13,341 209,130 17,349 92,185 11,094 11,411 20,426 96,057 26,011
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
84
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13
1-1-14
Population 1-1-2014
Los Angeles (Continued) Temple City Torrance
Vernon Walnut West Covina West Hollywood Westlake Village Whittier Unincorporated County Total
0.44 0.52 0.83 0.49 0.48 0.56 0.47 0.46 0.54
35,974 146,949 121 29,966 107,313 34,875 8,347 86,144 1,039,757
36,134 147,706 122 30,112 107,828 35,072 8,386 86,538 1,045,382
36,134 147,706 122 30,112 107,828 35,072 8,386 86,538 1,046,557
0.78
9,953,626
10,031,664
10,041,797
•Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
85
Fiscal Year2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1·1·14
I2!!L
Population
1-1-2014
Madera Chowchilla Madera Unincorporated County Total
-0.38 0.08 -0.28
12,143 62,960 72,119
12,097 63,008 71,918
18,971 63,008 71,918
-0.14
147,222
147,023
153,897
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
86
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County City
Percent Change
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Marin
Belvedere Corte Madera Fairfax Larkspur Mill Valley
Novato Ross San Anselmo San Rafael
Sausalito Tiburon Unincorporated County Total
0.14 0.37 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.55 0.33 0.39 0.39 0.55 0.38 0.38
2,091 9,346 7,520 12,054 14,186 52,345 2,453 12,466 58,339 7,136 9,056 63,349
2,094 9,381 7,541 12,102 14,257 52,633 2,461 12,514 58,566 7,175 9,090 63,587
2,094 9,381 7,541 12,102 14,257 52,967 2,461 12,514 58,566 7,175 9,090 67,698
0.42
250,341
251,401
255,846
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
87
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions"' January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County City
Percent Change
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
I2!!L
Population 1-1-2014
Mariposa
Unincorporated County Total
0.60
18,255
18,365
18,467
0.60
18,255
18,365
18,467
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
88
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population 1-1-2014
Mendocino Fort Bragg Point Arena Ukiah Willits Unincorporated County Tatal
0.31 0.89 0.52 0.67 0.63
7,327 450 16,101 4,904 59,532
7,350 16,185 4,937 59,910
7,350 454 16,185 4,937 60,103
0.59
88,314
88,836
89,029
454
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
89
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change In Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County City
Percent Change
2013-2014
Pooulation Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
Pooulation
1-1-14
1-1-2014
Merced
Atwater
Dos Palos Gustine Livingston Los Banos
Merced Unincorporated
County Total
0.45 0.32 0.44 1.89 0.44 0.69 1.49
28,921 5,034 5,623 13,537 37,004 80,572 90,119
29,050 5,050 5,648 13,793 37,168 81,130 91,463
29,050 5,050 5,648 13,793 37,168 81,130 93,083
0.96
260,810
263,302
264,922
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
90
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions* January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
!2!!!..
Population
1-1-14
1-1-2014
Modoc Alturas
Unincorporated County Total
-1.55 -1.89
2,710 6,560
2,668 6,436
2,668 6,529
-1.79
9,270
9,104
9,197
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
91
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1·1·14
Total Population
1·1-2014
Mono Mammoth Lakes Unincorporated County Tatal
-1.21 -0.99
8,197 5,972
8,098 5,913
8,098 6,045
-1.12
14,169
14,011
14,143
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and
federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
92
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment 8 Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions* January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
!.2li!!...
Population 1-1-2014
Monterey Carmel-By-The-Sea Del Rey Oaks
Gonzales Greenfield King City
Marina Monterey Pacific Grove Salinas Sand City
Seaside Soledad
Unincorporated County Total
0.00 0.73 0.72 0.80 0.72 0.65 0.80 0.74 0.97 1.18 0.39 1.19 1.26
3,722 1,653 8,323 16,784 13,116 20,137 24,076 15,318 153,713 339 29,321 16,100 101,825
3,722 1,665 8,383 16,919 13,211 20,268 24,269 15,431 155,205 343 29,436 16,291 103,112
3,722 1,665 8,383 16,919 13,211 20,268 28,381 15,431 155,205 343 33,534 24,997 103,697
0.95
404,427
408,255
425,756
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
93
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Pooulation
1·1·2014
Napa American Canyon Calistoga Napa St Helena Yountville Unincorporated County Tatal
0.43 0.29 0.34 1.24 0.70 0.29
19,916 5,209 78,093 5,870 2,003 25,454
20,001 5,224 78,358 5,943 2,017 25,527
20,001 5,224 78,358 5,943 3,017 26,712
0.38
136,545
137,070
139,255
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
94
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total
County City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Pooulation Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Nevada Grass Valley Nevada City Truckee Unincorporated County Total
-0.06 -1.85 0.24 0.11
12,675 3,073 15,942 65,394
12,668 3,016 15,981 65,465
12,668 3,016 15,981 65,560
0.05
97,084
97,130
97,225
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
95
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Pogulation Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Pogulatlon
1-1-2014
Orange Aliso Viejo
Anaheim Brea Buena Park Costa Mesa Cypress Dana Point Fountain Valley Fullerton Garden Grove Huntington Beach Irvine Laguna Beach Laguna Hills Laguna Niguel Laguna Woods La Habra Lake Forest La Palma Los Alamitos Mission Viejo Newport Beach Orange Placentia Rancho Santa Margarita San Clemente San Juan Capistrano Santa Ana Seal Beach Stanton Tustin Villa Park Westminster Yorba Linda Unincorporated County Total
0.84 0.51 2.55 0.38 0.36 0.58 0.40 0.81 1.20 0.45 1.12 4.88 0.41 0.39 0.50 0.38 0.75 0.53 0.38 0.77 0.56 0.39 0.26 0.37 0.47 0.40 1.52 0.47 0.33 0.40 0.37 0.47 0.42 0.84 0.78
49,533 346,536 41,341 82,035 111,120 48,602 33,902 56,244 138,466 173,182 193,836 231,363 23,131 30,737 64,138 16,519 61,255 78,723 15,836 11,639 94,799 86,534 138,913 51,900 48,606 64,615 35,361 330,407 23,948 38,808 78,071 5,907 91,272 66,512 120,533
49,951 348,288 42,397 82,344 111,524 48,886 34,037 56,702 140,131 173,953 195,999 242,651 23,225 30,857 64,460 16,581 61,717 79,139 15,896 11,729 95,334 86,874 139,279 52,094 48,834 64,874 35,900 331,953 24,027 38,963 78,360 5,935 91,652 67,069 121,473
49,951 348,305 42,397 82,344 111,846 48,886 34,037 56,702 140,131 173,953 195,999 242,651 23,225 30,857 64,460 16,581 61,717 79,139 15,896 11,729 95,334 86,874 139,279 52,094 48,834 64,874 35,900 331,953 24,591 38,963 78,360 5,935 91,652 67,069 121,473
0.93
3,084,324
3,113,088
3,113,991
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
96
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County City
Percent Change
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Placer Auburn Colfax Lincoln Loomis Rocklin Roseville Unincorporated
County Total
1.72 0.50 2.20 0.82 1.09 1.83 1.01
13,570 1,988 44,231 6,554 59,029 124,673 110,757
13,804 1,998 45,206 6,608 59,672 126,956 111,871
13,804 1,998 45,206 . 6,608 59,672 126,956 111,871
1.47
360,802
366,115
366,115
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
97
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Plumas Portola
Unincorporated County Total
-1.49 -1.26
2,012 17,377
1,982 17,158
1,982 17,158
-1.28
19,389
19,140
19,140
•Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
98
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Pog;ulatlon Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1·1·14
IemL
Po12ulatlon 1-1-2014
Riverside
Banning Beaumont Blythe
Calimesa
Canyon Lake Cathedral City Coachella
Corona Desert Hot Springs Eastvale
Hemet Indian Wells Indio Jurupa Valley Lake Elsinore La Quinta Menifee
Moreno Valley Murrieta Norco Palm Desert Palm Springs
Perris Rancho Mirage Riverside San Jacinto Temecula Wildomar Unincorporated County Total
0.49 2.74 0.55 1.67 0.51 0.47 1.96 1.45 0.60 3.35 0.79 1.06 1.21 0.52 2.30 1.61 1.70 0.54 0.53 0.53 0.91 0.90 1.58 0.58 0.64 0.74 1.32 1.62 1.29
30,177 39,787 13,458 8,096 10,771 52,296 42,795 156,864 27,835 57,266 80,899 5,083 81,415 97,272 55,299 38,412 82,314 198,183 105,860 23,189 49,962 45,724 70,983 17,643 311,976 45,229 104,907 33,182 358,570
30,325 40,876 13,532 8,231 10,826 52,543 43,633 159,132 28,001 59,185 81,537 5,137 82,398 97,774 56,573 39,032 83,716 199,258 106,425 23,311 50,417 46,135 72,103 17,745 313,975 45,563 106,289 33,718 363,186
30,325 40,876 18,992 8,231 10,826 52,595 43,633 159,132 28,001 59,185 81,537 5,137 82,398 97,774 56,718 39,032 83,716 199,258 106,425 26,582 50,417 46,135 72,103 17,745 314,034 45,563 106,289 33,718 363,590
1.12
2,245,447
2,270,576
2,279,967
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
99
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change In Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Total Population 1-1-2014
Sacramento Citrus Heights Elk Grove
Folsom Galt
Isleton Rancho Cordova
Sacramento Unincorporated
County Total
0.45 1.23 1.66 0.65 0.25 1.58 0.55 0.64
84,166 158,734 67,285 24,133 813 66,784 472,511 563,461
84,544 160,688 68,399 24,289 815 67,839 475,122 567,095
84,544 160,688 74,014 24,289 815 67,839 475,122 567,095
0.76
1,437,887
1,448,791
1,454,406
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
100
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
San Benito Hollister San Juan Bautista Unincorporated County Total
0.84 0.58 0.64
36,370 1,894 18,815
36,676 1,905 18,936
36,676 1,905 18,936
0.77
57,079
57,517
57,517
*Exclusions indude residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
101
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions11
January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population 1-1-2014
San Bernardino Adelanto Apple Valley
Barstow Big Bear Lake Chino Chino Hills Colton Fontana Grand Terrace Hesperia Highland Lorna Linda Montclair Needles Ontario Rancho Cucamonga Redlands Rialto San Bernardino Twentynine Palms Upland
Victorville Yucaipa Yucca Valley Unincorporated County Total
2.06 0.83 0.73 0.57 2.71 0.51 0.57 0.98 0.50 0.49 0.58 0.96 0.54 0.31 0.69 1.10 0.46 0.53 0.41 0.78 0.70 0.67 0.57 0.48 0.69
31 '172 70,173 22,687 5,092 73,002 75,747 52,758 200,221 12,224 91,057 53,724 23,330 37,172 4,893 166,241 170,427 69,560 100,896 210,283 17,262 74,628 114,865 52,354 20,952 286,233
31,814 70,755 22,853 5,121 74,978 76,131 53,057 202,177 12,285 91,506 54,033 23,554 37,374 4,908 167,382 172,299 69,882 101,429 211,151 17,396 75,147 115,630 52,654 21,053 288,201
32,511 70,755 23,292 5,121 81,747 76,131 53,057 202,177 12,285 91,506 54,033 23,614 37,374 4,908 167,382 172,299 69,882 101,429 212,721 26,576 75,147 120,590 52,654 21,053 297,425
0.78
2,036,953
2,052,770
2,085,669
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
102
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Po(2ulation Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Total Pogulation
1-1-2014
San Diego Carlsbad Chula Vista
Coronado Del Mar El Cajon Encinitas Escondido Imperial Beach
La Mesa Lemon Grove National City Oceanside Poway San Diego San Marcos Santee Solana Beach Vista Unincorporated County Tatal
1.63 1.66 0.73 0.69 0.65 1.05 0.68 0.54 0.76 1.32 0.86 0.94 0.72 1.29 3.46 1.26 0.72 0.76 1.04
108,401 251,674 16,468 4,205 100,602 60,568 146,115 26,533 58,328 25,590 53,969 169,593 48,628 1,309,688 87,165 55,110 13,006 95,398 452,066
110,169 255,841 16,588 4,234 101,256 61,204 147,102 26,675 58,769 25,928 54,435 171 '183 48,979 1,326,543 90,179 55,806 13,099 96,122 456,785
110,169 256,139 23,419 4,234 101,256 61,204 147,102 26,675 58,769 25,928 59,381 171,183 48,979 1,345,895 90,179 55,806 13,099 96,122 498,823
1.23
3,083,107
3,120,897
3,194,362
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
103
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions* January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
Ie!!L
Population
1-1-14
1-1-2014
San Francisco
San Francisco County Total
1.29
825,762
836,388
836,620
1.29
825,762
836,388
836,620
"Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
104
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
San Joaquin Escalon Lathrop
Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton
Tracy Unincorporated County Total
1.10 2.74 0.66 1.92 1.22 0.65 0.81 1.77
7,243 19,282 63,233 71,507 14,676 297,757 84,466 140,916
7,323 19,811 63,651 72,880 14,855 299,697 85,146 143,407
7,323 19,831 63,651 72,880 14,855 300,899 85,146 146,146
1.10
699,080
706,770
710,731
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
105
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change In Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County City
Percent Change
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Im!L
Population
1-1-2014
San Luis Obispo
Arroyo Grande Atascadero El Paso De Robles Grover Beach Morro Bay Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo Unincorporated County Total
-0.47 0.33 -0.24 -0.55 -0.51 -0.27 -0.26 0.51
17,415 27,595 30,541 13,226 10,329 7,726 45,593 113,806
17,334 27,685 30,469 13,153 10,276 7,705 45,473 114,381
17,334 28,675 30,469 13,153 10,276 7,705 45,473 119,272
0.09
266,231
266,476
272,357
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
106
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Total Population
1-1-2014
San Mateo Atherton Belmont Brisbane Burlingame Colma Daly City East Palo Alto Foster City Half Moon Bay Hillsborough Menlo Park Millbrae Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Mateo South San Francisco Woodside Unincorporated County Total
0.25 0.82 1.07 0.77 0.75 1.56 0.79 3.25 1.10 1.20 0.72 0.77 0.80 0.61 2.03 0.81 0.89 0.95 0.79 0.92 0.80
6,900 26,344 4,384 29,458 1,459 103,458 28,706 31,154 11,593 11,127 32,521 22,432 37,988 4,453 79,159 42,874 28,962 99,167 65,198 5,446 63,670
6,917 26,559 4,431 29,685 1,470 105,076 28,934 32,168 11,721 11,260 32,754 22,605 38,292 4,480 80,768 43,223 29,219 100,106 65,710 5,496 64,177
6,917 26,559 4,431 29,685 1,470 105,076 28,934 32,168 11,721 11,260 32,896 22,605 38,292 4,480 80,768 43,223 29,219 100,106 65,710 5,496 64,177
1.17
736,453
745,051
745,193
*Exclusions indude residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
107
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County City
Total Percent Change
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Santa Barbara Buellton Carpinteria Goleta Guadalupe
Lompoc Santa Barbara Santa Maria Solvang Unincorporated County Total
0.51 2.51 0.69 0.51 1.21 0.68 0.69 1.23 1.10
4,868 13,113 29,994 7,108 39,369 89,753 100,411 5,298 132,732
4,893 13,442 30,202 7,144 39,846 90,365 101,103 5,363 134,196
4,893 13,442 30,202 7,144 43,314 90,385 101,103 5,363 137,552
0.92
422,646
426,554
433,398
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
108
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions* January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Po[;!ulatlon Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
I2!!L
1-1-14
Po12ulatlon 1-1-2014
Santa Clara Campbell Cupertino Gilroy Los Altos Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos Milpitas Monte Sereno Morgan Hill Mountain View Palo Alto
San Jose Santa Clara Saratoga Sunnyvale
Unincorporated County Total
4.01 0.62 1.76 0.67 1.16 1.02 3.31 0.97 2.87 0.76 0.82 1.72 0.86 0.66 0.82 0.26
40,373 59,575 51,505 29,769 8,258 30,225 67,845 3,417 40,049 76,204 66,318 983,574 120,196 30,683 145,864 86,022
41,993 59,946 52,413 29,969 8,354 30,532 70,092 3,450 41,197 76,781 66,861 1,000,536 121,229 30,887 147,055 86,243
41,993 59,946 52,413 29,969 8,354 30,532 70,092 3,450 41,197 76,781 66,861 1,000,536 121,229 30,887 147,055 87,263
1.50
1,839,877
1,867,538
1,868,558
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
109
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County City
Percent Change
2013-2014
Pooulation Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Im!L
Population 1-1-2014
Santa Cruz
Capitola Santa Cruz Scotts Valley Watsonville Unincorporated County Total
0.89 1.20 1.77 1.13 1.33
10,047 62,686 11,746 51,919 131,706
10,136 63,440 11,954 52,508 133,459
10,136 63,440 11,954 52,508 133,557
1.27
268,104
271,497
271,595
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
110
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Shasta Anderson Redding Shasta Lake Unincorporated
County Total
0.72 0.38 0.08 0.02
10,287 90,848 10,120 67,590
10,361 91,197 10,128 67,602
10,361 91,207 10,128 67,716
0.25
178,845
179,288
179,412
*Exclusions indude residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and
federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
111
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• 'January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Ism!L
Population
1-1-2014
Sierra
Loyalton Unincorporated County Total
-0.68 -0.88
734 2,381
729 2,360
729 2,360
-0.83
3,115
3,089
3,089
•Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
112
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change In Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Total Population 1-1-2014
Siskiyou Dorris Dunsmuir Etna
Fort Jones Montague Mount Shasta Tulelake Weed
Yreka Unincorporated County Total
0.54 0.49 0.54 0.56 0.49 0.56 0.70 -0.64 0.51 0.77
933 1,637 734 711 1,433 3,373 1,004 2,975 7,800 24,289
938 1,645 738 715 1,440 3,392 1 ,011 2,956 7,840 24,476
938 1,645 738 715 1,440 3,392 1,011 2,956 7,840 24,556
0.58
44,889
45,151
45,231
*Exclusions indude residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
113
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County City
Percent Change
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Solano
Benicia Dixon Fairfield Rio Vista Suisun City
Vacaville Vallejo Unincorporated County Total
0.59 2.52 1.25 3.90 0.63 0.95 0.69 0.77
27,293 18,538 104,088 7,636 28,369 86,617 117,654 18,238
27,454 19,005 105,392 7,934 28,549 87,442 118,470 18,378
27,454 19,005 110,018 7,934 28,549 93,613 118,470 19,190
1.02
408,443
412,624
424,233
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
114
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
Pooulation
1-1-14
1-1-2014
Sonoma Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma Windsor
Unincorporated County Total
0.06 0.08 0.66 0.72 0.05 0.46 0.31 1.03 0.28 0.27
8,636 7,282 11,465 58,581 40,700 169,452 7,417 10,691 27,028 145,996
8,641 7,288 11,541 59,000 40,722 170,236 7,440 10,801 27,104 146,390
8,641 7,288 11,541 59,000 40,722 170,236 7,440 10,801 27,104 147,713
0.39
487,248
489,163
490,486
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
115
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
City
Percent Change 2013-2014
Pooulation Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Stanislaus
Ceres Hughson Modesto
Newman Oakdale Patterson Riverbank Turlock Waterford Unincorporated County Total
0.52 2.20 0.59 0.43 1.19 0.58 0.62 0.56 0.47 0.36
46,223 6,965 205,562 10,622 21,190 20,802 23,100 69,744 8,579 110,251
46,463 7,118 206,785 10,668 21,442 20,922 23,243 70,132 8,619 110,650
46,463 7,118 206,785 10,668 21,442 20,922 23,243 70,132 8,619 110,650
0.57
523,038
526,042
526,042
"Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
116
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014
Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Sutter Live Oak Yuba City
Unincorporated County Total
2.27 0.33 0.14
8,293 65,464 21,545
8,481 65,677 21,575
8,481 65,677 21,575
0.45
95,302
95,733
95,733
"Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
117
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
POPUlation
1-1-2014
Tehama Corning Red Bluff
Tehama Unincorporated County T atal
-0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.42
7,599 14,132 417 41,175
7,598 14,131 417 41,347
7,598 14,131 417 41,571
0.27
63,323
63,493
63,717
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
118
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Total Population
1·1·2014
Trinity
Unincorporated County Total
-0.10
13,286
13,273
13,389
-0.10
13,286
13,273
13,389
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
119
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions* January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County City
Percent Change
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Total Population 1-1-2014
Tulare Dinuba
Exeter Farmersville Lindsay Porterville Tulare Visalia
Woodlake Unincorporated County Total
2.47 0.42 0.36 0.93 0.38 1.01 0.82 0.52 0.50
23,096 10,495 10,893 12,533 55,074 61,238 128,525 7,671 145,974
23,666 10,539 10,932 12,650 55,285 61,857 129,582 7,711 146,709
23,666 10,539 10,932 12,650 55,697 61,857 129,582 7,711 146,812
0.75
455,499
458,931
459,446
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
120
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014
Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
Population
1·1·14
1-1-2014
Tuolumne Sonora Unincorporated
County Tatal
0.10 -0.08
4,784 45,850
4,789 45,814
4,789 48,815
-0.06
50,634
50,603
53,604
*Exclusions indude residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and
federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
121
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Ventura Camarillo Fillmore
Moorpark Ojai Oxnard Port Hueneme San Buenaventura Santa Paula
Simi Valley Thousand Oaks Unincorporated County Tatal
0.40 0.99 0.68 0.53 1.30 1.35 0.53 1.56 0.51 0.61 0.51
66,485 15,188 34,934 7,554 201,029 19,692 108,327 29,979 125,667 128,252 94,262
66,752 15,339 35,172 7,594 203,645 19,957 108,903 30,448 126,305 129,039 94,742
66,752 15,339 35,172 7,594 203,645 22,399 108,961 30,448 126,305 129,039 97,313
0.79
831,369
837,896
842,967
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
122
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 Total County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
Population
1-1-2014
Yolo Davis West Sacramento
Winters Woodland Unincorporated County Total
0.80 1.28 0.59 1.08 -1.59
66,125 50,195 6,938 56,610 25,085
66,656 50,836 6,979 57,223 24,687
66,656 50,836 6,979 57,223 24,687
0.70
204,953
206,381
206,381
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
123
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment B Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 and Total Population, January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
City
2013-2014
Population Minus Exclusions 1-1-13 1-1-14
Total Population
1-1-2014
Yuba Marysville VV'heatland Unincorporated County T atal
0.34 0.29 0.63
12,224 3,485 55,896
12,266 3,495 56,248
12,266 3,495 57,921
0.56
71,605
72,009
73,682
*Exclusions indude residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
124
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment C Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 County
Alameda Incorporated County Total
Percent Change 2013-14
Population
1-1-13
Minus
Exclusions 1-1-14
1.55 1.50
1,403,057 1,546,928
1,424,751 1,570,128
0.00 0.09
0 1,078
0 1,079
-1.12 -1.24
12,179 33,653
12,042 33,236
County Total
0.72 0.54
137,907 221 '127
138,901 222,316
Calaveras Incorporated County Total
-0.80 -0.71
3,756 44,864
3,726 44,544
2.32 0.11
11,273 21,636
11,534 21,660
0.93 0.98
912,062 1,075,974
920,589 1,086,553
County Total
0.56 0.45
4,257 25,262
4,281 25,376
ElDorado Incorporated County Tatal
0.14 0.21
31,890 181,886
31,936 182,275
Fresno Incorporated County Tatal
1.25 1.16
780,318 947,737
790,084 958,759
Alpine
Incorporated County Tatal Amador
Incorporated County Total
BuHe Incorporated
Colusa Incorporated County Total Contra Costa
Incorporated County Total Del Norte Incorporated
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
125
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment C Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change
Pgoylatjon
2013-14
1-1-13
Minus
Exclusions 1-1-14
Glenn Incorporated
0.75
13,734
13,837
County Total
0.42
28,136
28,255
Humboldt
Incorporated
0.01
62,861
62,866
County Total
-0.03
134,488
134,447
Incorporated
0.74
138,574
139,602
County Total
0.67
172,336
173,498
Imperial
lnyo
Incorporated
-0.36
3,889
3,875
County Total
-0.28
18,518
18,467
Incorporated
1.66
530,360
539,149
County Tatal
1.42
835,408
847,269
Kings Incorporated
0.27
102,153
102,424
County Total
0.18
129,076
129,303
Kern
Lake Incorporated
0.50
19,902
20,001
County Total
0.26
64,428
64,596
Lassen Incorporated County Total
-2.78
9,404
9,143
-2.89
24,842
24,124
Los Angeles Incorporated
0.81
8,913,869
8,986,282
County Tatal
0.78
9,953,626
t0,031,664
Madera Incorporated
0.00
75,103
75,105
County Total
-0.14
147,222
147,023
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
126
Fiscal Year2014-15
Attachment C Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change 2013-14
Population 1-1-13
Minus
Exclusions 1-1-14
Marin
0.44 0.42
186,992 250,341
187,814 251,401
0.00 0.60
0 18,255
0 18,365
0.50 0.59
28,782 88,314
28,926 88,836
0.67 0.96
170,691 260,810
171,839 263,302
-1.55 -1.79
2,710 9,270
2,668 9,104
-1.21 -1.12
8,197 14,169
8,098 14,011
County Total
0.84 0.95
302,602 404,427
305,143 408,255
Napa Incorporated County Total
0.41 0.38
111,091 136,545
111,543 137,070
Nevada Incorporated County Total
-0.08 0.05
31,690 97,084
31,665 97,130
0.94 0.93
2,963,791 3,084,324
2,991,615 3,113,088
Incorporated
County Total Mariposa
Incorporated County Total Mendocino Incorporated
County Total Merced Incorporated County Total Modoc
Incorporated County Total
Mono Incorporated County Total Monterey Incorporated
Orange
Incorporated County Total
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
127
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment C Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions* January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change 2013-14
PoPulation
Minus
Exclusions
1-1-13
1-1-14
1.68 1.47
250,045 360,802
254,244 366,115
-1.49 -1.28
2,012 19,389
1,982 19,140
1.09 1.12
1,886,877 2,245,447
1,907,390 2,270,576
0.83 0.76
874,426 1,437,887
881,696 1,448,791
0.83 0.77
38,264 57,079
38,581 57,517
0.79 0.78
1,750,720 2,036,953
1,764,569 2,052,770
1.26 1.23
2,631,041 3,083,107
2,664,112 3,120,897
1.29 1.29
825,762 825,762
836,388 836,388
0.93 1.10
558,164 699,080
563,363 706,770
-0.22 0.09
152,425 266,231
152,095 266,476
Placer Incorporated County Total Plumas Incorporated County Total Riverside
Incorporated County Total Sacramento Incorporated County Total
San Benito Incorporated
County Total San Bernardino
Incorporated County Total San Diego
Incorporated County Total San Francisco
Incorporated County Total San Joaquin Incorporated County Total San Luis Obispo
Incorporated County Total
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
128
Fiscal Year2014-15
Attachment C Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 County
Percent Change 2013-14
Population 1-1-13
Minus
Exclusions 1-1-14
San Mateo
1.20 1.17
672,783 736,453
680,874 745,051
0.84 0.92
289,914 422,646
292,358 426,554
1.56 1.50
1,753,855 1,839,877
1,781,295 1,867,538
1.20 1.27
136,398 268,104
138,038 271 ,497
0.39 0.25
111,255 178,845
111,686 179,288
-0.68 -0.83
734 3,115
729 3,089
County Total
0.36 0.58
20,600 44,889
20,675 45,151
Solano Incorporated County Tatal
1.04 1.02
390,205 408,443
394,246 412,624
Sonoma Incorporated County Total
0.45 0.39
341,252 487,248
342,773 489,163
0.63 0.57
412,787 523,038
415,392 526,042
Incorporated County Total
Santa Barbara
Incorporated County Total Santa Clara
Incorporated County Total Santa Cruz Incorporated County Tatal Shasta
Incorporated County Total Sierra Incorporated County Total
Siskiyou Incorporated
Stanislaus Incorporated County Total
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
129
Fiscal Year 2014-15
Attachment C Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions• January 1, 2013 to January 1, 2014 County
Population 1-1-13
Percent Change
2013·14
Minus
Exclusions
1·1-14
Sutter
0.54 0.45
73,757 95,302
74,158 95,733
Incorporated
·O.Q1
County Total
0.27
22,148 63,323
22,146 63,493
0.00 ·0.10
0 13,286
0 13,273
0.87 0.75
309,525 455,499
312,222 458,931
0.10 ·0.06
4,784 50,634
4,789 50,603
0.82 0.79
737,107 831,369
743,154 837,896
1.02 0.70
179,868 204,953
181,694 206,381
0.33 0.56
15,709 71,605
15,761 72,009
Incorporated County Tatal Tehama
Trinity Incorporated County Total Tulare Incorporated
County Total
Tuolumne Incorporated County Total Ventura
Incorporated County Tatal
Yolo Incorporated County Total Yuba
Incorporated County Total
*Exclusions indude residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.
130
Staff Report 14-179
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT
AGENDA Special Joint Meeting of the AC Transit Board of Directors and Retirement Board AC Transit General Offices 2"d Floor Board Room 1600 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94612
Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 1:00 p.m.
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}
MEMBERS OF THE RETIREMENT BOARD JEFFREY LEWIS, CHAIR YVONNE M. WILLIAMS, VICE CHAIR SUE LEE, TRUSTEE DAVIS RIEMER, TRUSTEE JOYCE M. WILLIS, TRUSTEE
AC TRANSIT BOARD OFFICERS DAVID J. ARMIJO, GENERAL MANAGER DENISE C. STANDRIDGE, INTERIM GENERAL COUNSEL LINDA A. NEMEROFF, DISTRICT SECRETARY RETIREMENT SYSTEM STAFF HUGO WILDMANN, RETIREMENT SYSTEM MANAGER
To access live and archived audio of Board of Directors meetings as well as agendas, staff reports, and the schedule of future meetings please visit www.actransit.org and click on "Board Meetings". Dial (510) 891-7200 to access agendas by telephone. For questions, contact the District Secretary's Office at (510) 891-7201.
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
September 24, 2014 131
Page 1 of 3
Staff Report 14-179 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND RETIREMENT BOARD President Greg Harper and Chair Jeffrey Lewis Presiding Wednesday, September 24, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. 1.
ROLL CALL
2.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Staff Contact or Presenter
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.
3.
i
4.
INTRODUCTION OF PARTICIPANTS DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. District contribution and the funded ratio of the Plan (historical and going forward). B. District's unfunded actuarial accrued liability.
Bob McCrory Cheiron
C.
Carolyn Smith NEPC
New investment allocations and portfolio performance.
D. Tier 2 Pension Plan and update on the status of the Public Employees' Pension Reform Act.
Denise Standridge
Hugo Wildmann
E. Disability retirement.
Charlie Chittenden Buck Consultants
F. New GASB Accounting Standards.
Hugo Wild mann
G. Retirement System Financials.
S.
Hugo Wildmann/ Bob McCrory Cheiron
BOARD/STAFF COMMENTS (Government Code Section 54954.2)
6.
ADJOURNMENT
Alameda·Contra Costa Transit District
September 24, 2014 132
Page 3 of 3
VERBAL REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 23, 2014 Agenda Item 6D Consider abolishing the limited-purpose negotiating committee
133
This page intentionally blank
134
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
July 23, 2014 Agenda Item A-1
135
This page intentionally blank
136
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-182 July 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. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Legislation has been introduced to shore up the Highway Trust Fund by Senator Wyden through December 31, 2014. The California Legislature has recessed for the summer and will return in August. The clean-up bill for the Cap & Trade regulations, SB 862, is currently being negotiated to provide the opportunity for public transit to participate in the Transit & Intercity Rail Program. There are no staff recommendations on proposed legislation at this time. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Federal Legislation Update Senator Ron Wyden (D-ORL the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, introduced the "Preserving America's Transit and Highways Act of 2014" -the PATH Act, a bill which would transfer $9 Billion (a subsequent version reduces it to $8 Billion based on updated CBO estimates) from the General Fund to the Highway Trust Fund to ensure its solvency through December 31, 2014. The transferred funds would be "paid for" by a variety of sources. Wyden's initial plan included only one transportation-related "pay for", an increase in the heavy vehicle use tax, but that proposal was later dropped. Wyden had hoped to act on the bill in committee, but the ranking Republican, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) strongly opposed the plan, primarily because of the offsets.
Wyden agreed to pull the bill and work with the
Republicans to come up with a bi-partisan plan. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the 137
Report No. 14-182 Page 2 of2 Senate EPW Committee indicated her support for Wyden's bill despite her strong desire to avoid short-term fixes in favor of a longer term approach, such asS. 2322, the six-year MAP-21 reauthorization bill she recently moved through her committee. State Legislation Update
The promised clean-up bill to SB 862 (Cap & Trade Bill) has yet to be revealed because negotiations continue on stickier issues like net-metering and forestry projects. Commitments have been made to amend the Transit & Intercity Rail Program to clarify that bus projects and bus operators can apply for these funds. As currently drafted, AC Transit is not eligible to apply based on the definition in SB 862. Amendments have been circulated to correct this oversight, as well as clarify that bus projects are eligible. Currently there is agreement on these changes, but negotiations on unrelated areas must be resolved before moving forward with the clean-up bill. 2) 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 VanScoyoc 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
138
SR 14-182: Attachment 1
VANSCOYOC A
S
S
0
C
I
A
T
E
S
Transportation Update June 30,2014
Steven 0. Palmer, Vice President Dan Neumann, Director David Haines, Manager
This Week The House and Senate are both out of session this week for the Independence Day Recess. They will reconvene on Monday, July 7. Last Week
Hearing: Canine Teams and Transportation Security. On June 24, the House Homeland Security Committee's Subcommittee on Transportation Security held a hearing on "Utilizing Canine Teams to Detect Explosives and Mitigate Threats." The hearing focused on TSA's use of canine teams for screening of passengers, baggage, and air cargo. Senate
Markup: DHS Appropriations. On June 26, the full Senate Appropriations Committee approved its FY 2015 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security, which includes TSA and Customs and Border Protection. The House Appropriations Committee approved its FY 20 15 Homeland Security appropriations bill on June ll. Hearing: NextGen Implementation. On June 25, the Aviation Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation held a hearing entitled "NextGen: A Review of Progress, Challenges, and Opportunities." The hearing assessed FAA's progress towards implementing NextGen, and the further steps the agency will need to complete the implementation in a timely manner, as well as management and funding obstacles that might hinder FAA's progress in implementing NextGen. Hearing: Travel and Tourism. On June 26, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's Subcommittee on Tourism, Competitiveness, and Innovation held a hearing entitled "The State of U.S. Travel and Tourism: Government Efforts to Attract l 00 Million Visitors Annually." The hearing examined the federal government's role in efforts to support the U.S. travel and tourism industry as well as the success of Brand USA, a public-private corporation charged with promoting travel in the U.S. One of the major topics of discussion at the hearing was the issue of long wait times at U.S. airports for travelers arriving on international flights, and potential solutions for shortening these wait times.
139
2 Legislation: Highway Trust Fund. Last week, Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR) introduced legislation that would maintain solvency of the Highway Trust Fund through December 31,2014. Known as the Preserving America's Transit and Highways (PATH) Act, this bill would fund the Trust Fund mostly through strengthening compliance with existing tax laws, not through the imposition of new fees or taxes. The Committee plans to markup the legislation during the week of July 7. White House
Nomination: NTSB Chairman. Last week, the White House nominated Chris Hart to be the next Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Mr. Hart is currently the ViceChairman and has served on the Board since 2008. Government Accountability Office
Report: Transportation Security Information Sharing.
On June 24, GAO issued a report on Transportation Security Information Sharing. The report measured stakeholder satisfaction with TSA's security-related products and mechanisms across all modes of transportation. In general, public transit and pipeline stakeholders were the most satisfied (about 80% of respondents satisfied), while aviation, highway, and rail stakeholders were considerably less satisfied (about 60% of respondents satisfied).
Report: Rural and Tribal Transit. On June 24, GAO issued a report on the FTA's grant program for rural and tribal transit providers. In conducting the study, GAO spoke with 30 rural and tribal transit providers about the challenges they face and the importance offederal funding to their operations.
Report: FM's Safety Management System. On June 25, GAO issued a report on the FAA's implementation of its Safety Management System (SMS). SMS is an approach to collect and analyze safety data to identify hazards, manage risks, and take corrective action before an accident occurs.
140
SR 14-182: Attachment 2
July 1, 2014 TO:
Director Greg Harper, President, and Members of the Board David J. Armijo, General Manager Beverly Greene, Director, Community Relation s & Legislative Affairs
FR:
Steve Wallauch Platinum Advisors
RE:
Legislative Update
Summer recess begin s upon adjournment on Thursday. The Legi slature leaves town and will not return until August 4th. While coming weeks will be slow, the la st couple of weeks was a flurry of policy committee hearings lasting late into the evenings in an effort to meet the policy committee deadline on June 27th. The summer recess will, however, be filled with negotiations on the water bond and proposals mandating regulations of groundwater supplies. We will also likely see the initial hearings on the development of various cap & trade program guidelines. Once the Legislature returns, we will face the fiscal committee deadline whereby all bills must be out of the Appropriations Committees on August 16th. The Legislature will then adjourn the 2013-14 session by midnight on August 31 5 t.
SB 862 Clean-up: The promised clean -up bill to SB 862 (Cap & Trade Bill) has yet to be revealed becau se negotiations continue on stickier issues like net-metering and fore stry projects. Commitments have been made to amend the Transit & Intercity Rail Program to clarify that bus projects and bus operators can apply for these fund s. As currently drafted, AC Transit is not eligible to apply based on the definition in SB 862. Amendments have been circulated to correct this oversight, as well as clarify that bus projects are eligible. Currently there is agreement on these changes, but negotiations on unrelated area s must be resolved before moving forward with the clean-up bill.
There are also potential clean -up changes for the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, but these changes might be addressed through a letter to the Journal explaining the Legislature's intent. The issue is with the developm ent of guidelines for this program. Under the Transit & Intercity Rail Ca pital Program the statute includes specific requirements for public hearings and 1 141
to provide 30 day public review of draft guidelines. These requirements are not specified in the Transit Operations Program. However, it is the intent of CaiSTA and Caltrans to follow the same public comment and hearing process.
Guidelines: With the singing of SB 862, we now await the start of the guideline development process. SB 862 requires the development of guidelines for numerous components of the expenditure plan. This includes guidelines for the Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program, the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, and the Affordable Housing & Sustainable Community Program among others. The following is a brief summary of the guidelines to be developed in the coming months: •
Quantification- The Air Resources Board is charged with developing guidelines for state agencies that receive cap & trade funds to follow on the information that must be submitted to quantify how the AB 32 goals are being met.
•
Disadvantaged Communities- SB 862 requires Cal EPA to hold at least one public workshop prior to finalizing its identification of disadvantaged communities. SB 862 also directs CARB and CaiEPA to develop guidelines on how to maximize the benefits to disadvantaged communities. The identification process will rely on the CaiEnviroscreen process, which currently does not adequately identify the disadvantage communities in the Bay Area. Participating in the workshop will be critical to try to adjust the screening process to address cost of living and other unique factors in the Bay Area.
•
Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program- SB 862 directs CaiSTA to hold at least two public workshops on the draft guidelines. The draft guidelines must be available on CaiSTA's website at least 30 days prior to the first workshop. This Program includes a disadvantage community benefit goal of 25%.
•
Low Carbon Transit Operations- SB 862 specifies that each transit operator's share of these funds will be determined by the STA formula; however, receipt of these funds will require a determination made by Caltrans, in coordination with CARB, that the use of the funds meet the requirements specified in the guidelines. Caltrans in coordination with CARB is directed to develop guidelines that specify the methodology used by transit operators to illustrate that the use of the funds meet the following requirements: 1. Expenditures support new or expanded bus or rail services, or expanded intermodal transit facilities, and may include equipment acquisition, fueling, and maintenance, and other costs to operate those services or facilities. 2. Demonstrates that each expenditure directly enhances or expands transit service to increase mode share. 3. Demonstrates that each expenditure reduces greenhouse gas emissions. 4. For transit agencies whose service areas include disadvantaged communities at least 50 percent of the total moneys received pursuant
2 142
to this chapter shall be expended on projects or services that benefit the disadvantaged communities. As previously mentioned the statute does not specify a public review and comment process for the development of the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program guidelines. However, CaiSTA and Caltrans have made a commitment to follow the same public review process specified in the Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program. A letter to the Senate and Assembly Journal is being considered to underscore this intent.
•
Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities Program- SB 863 directs the Strategic Growth Council to administer this program and develop guidelines and project selection criteria. Similar to the Capital Program, the SGC is required to hold at least two public workshops, one in northern California and one in southern California, and provide the draft guidelines 30 days prior to the first workshop. In addition, the statute specifies that the SGC shall consider the comments from local governments and other stakeholders, as well as conduct outreach to disadvantage communities. Under this program there is a goal of expending 50% of the funds on projects benefiting disadvantaged communities.
Strategic Growth Council: The SGC has scheduled a meeting for July 10'h to begin the process of developing the guidelines for the Affordable Housing & Sustainable Communities Program. Transit capital projects and programs are an eligible expense for these funds. The agenda includes an overview of SB 862, and an action item to commence the process for developing the draft guidelines. The proposal is for the Department of Housing & Community Development to take the lead on drafting the guidelines for the housing, transportation and infrastructure components of the program because the of the Departments experience with administering the Prop 1C Transit Oriented Development and lnfill programs. The agricultural lands preservation component of this program would be developed by the Natural Resources Agency.
Delay Inclusion of Fuels: A group of 16 Assembly members signed a letter to CARB Chair, Mary Nichols, urging the Board to delay including transportation fuels in the cap & trade auction. The signatories include East Bay Assembly members Susan Bonilla, Joan Buchanan, and Jim Frazier. Beginning next year, transportation fuels will be included in the cap & trade auction limits. This will result in higher fuel prices ranging from 15 cents to over 20 cents per gallon. The letter does not provide an alternative plan other than point out that CARB is not mandated to generate revenue through the auction and it could give away these credits. AQIP: The California Air Resources Board adopted the 2014-15 Air Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) last week. This expenditure plan outlines how CARB plans to spend the $200 million in cap & trade auction revenue that was appropriated in the budget, and it will be used as the basis for future cap & trade allocations. As specified in SB 863 future allocations for this program will be subject annual appropriations from the 40% of cap & trade funds set aside for 3 143
various state programs. While the bulk of the funds in the AQIP plan are dedicated to the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program, $85 million is dedicated to advancing zero and near-zero emission truck and bus programs. This includes $20-25 million for large scale pilot projects for zero emission technologies for the freight and transit sectors. Workshops on this program are expected in the coming months. November Ballot: Last week was the deadline for initiatives to qualify for the November ballot. Including the measures placed on the ballot by the legislature, the following six propositions will appear on the November ballot.
• • •
•
•
•
Proposition 43: Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2012- This $11 billion water bond measure will be replaced or moved to 2016. Proposition 44: ACA 1 -This is the new Rainey Day Fund proposal. Proposition 45: Approval of Health care Insurance Rate Changes- This proposal would give the state insurance commissioner greater authority to regulate health insurance rates. Proposition 46: Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors/Medica/ Negligence lawsuits- This proposal would raise the cap on medical malpractice damages and require drug testing of doctors. Proposition 47: Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties- This proposal would reform criminal sentences to lower to misdemeanors certain crimes such as minor drug possession and petty theft. Proposition 48: Overturn Indian Gaming Compacts- This referendum seeks to overturn two gaming compacts approved by the Legislature and the Governor last year.
There is still time for the Legislature to amend the statutory deadlines and place additional measures on the ballot. This includes a new water bond proposal, a possible school bond, and a Constitutional amendment to allow the Senate or Assembly to suspend a member without pay.
4 144
SR 14-182: Attachment 3
July 1, 2014
Dead Bills: Several of the bills below are marked "DEAD" because they have failed to meet the hearing deadlines. While waiving the rules for any of these dead bills is always possible, it is unlikely.
Table 1: Board Action Positions Bills AB 1720 (Bloom D) Vehicles: bus gross weight.
Subject
Status
SENATE FLOORfl\B 1720 was unanimou sly approved by the ~enate Committee on Tran sportation & Housing. Consent Calendar It now moves to the Senate Floor before moving o the Governor's desk.
Position f\C Transit - Support
lfhis bill would extend the sunset date for the bu s 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. AB 2445 (Chau D) Community colleges: ra nsportation fees.contracts.
~B 2445 has been signed into law.
AB 2707 (Chau D) Vehicles: length limitations: buses: bicycle transportation devices.
This bill was unanimously approved by the !ASSEMBLY FLOORSenate. AB 2707 authorizes any tran sit operator Concurrence in o utilize bicycle racks that can accommodate 3 Senate Amendment bicycles.
Signed Into Law
lAC Transit - Support
~his bill makes clarifying changes in existing law
Chapter #63, Statutes o allow a community college district to impose a of 2014 ee approved by the students for transportation services on a campus by campus basis. Some believe existing law limits the approval of the f ee o a district wide vote. AC Transit - Support
Specifically, the bill would allow transit buses of no more than 40 feet in length to be equipped with a front-mounted bicycle rack that extends up o 40 inches from the front body of the bu s when ully deployed rath er than the 36 inches allowed under current law, and limits the handlebars of a bicycle that is being transported on such a rack 1 145
Bills
Subject
Status
Position
rom extending more than 46 inches from the ront of the bus rather than the 42 inches allowed under current law.
ID (Steinberg D) Sustainable Communities Investment Authority.
~B
1 would create a new form of tax increment inancing that would allow local governments to ~reate a Sustainable Communities Investment ~uthority to finance specified activities within a ~ustainable communities investment area.
oenate FloorInactive File
AC Transit - Support
~he Governor's Office asked the authors' ofthe ~arious tax increment measures to hold-off
~ending these bills to his desk last year. With the
~
(Pavley D) Alternative fuel and vehicle echnologies: funding programs.
Governor's IFD proposal released as part ofthe 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 ~SSEMBLY TRANSP. AC Transit - Support and make the same changes in AB 8. SB 11 was amended to address chaptering out issues with ~B 8, but analogous amendments were not amended into AB 8. Rather than send both bills l'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.
SB 1236 ~B 1236 was unanimously approved by the ASSEMBLY FLOOR (Monning't>) ~ssembly Appropriations Committee. ~ransit districts: ~ransit offenses ~B 1236 would authorize the governing board of a ransit district to designate district employees, and enforcement. except as specified, or security officers contracted by the district, to enforce state laws relative to certain prohibited acts on or in public ransportation systems or on the property,
SCA4 (Liu D)
The bill would also make it an infraction to knowingly give false information to an enforcement officer or otherwise obstruct the issuance of a citation. SCA 4 is in the Senate Committee on ~ENATE APPRS Appropriations. Constitutional amendments are
AC Transit- Support
~C Transit- Support
2
146
Bills local government ransportation projects: special axes: voter approval.
Subject
Status
Position
exempt for the House of Origin deadline.
~his measure would amend the Constitution to lower the voter approval threshold to 55% for the imposition, extension, or renewal of a local tax fo ~ransportation projects.
SCAB (Corbett D) Transportation projects: special axes: voter approval.
f5CA 8 is in the Senate Committee on SENATE APPRS f,ppropriations. Constitutional amendments are exempt for the House of Origin deadline.
SCAll (Hancock D) local government: special taxes: voter approval.
~CA 11 is in the Senate Committee on SENATE APPRS ~ppropriations. SCA 11 is an "umbrella measure" on 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.
f.c Transit -Support
~CA 8 is another measure that would amend the Constitution to lower the voter approval hreshold to 55% for the imposition, extension, or renewal of a local tax for transportation projects. AC Transit -Support
Table 2· Board Watch Positions Bills AB 1684 (Chavez R) ~ehicles: length limitations: buses: bicycle
Subject
Status
~B 1684 was recently amended to authorize the North County Transit District to use the longer hree position bicycle racks.
Position
ASSEMBLY TRANS-- AC Transit - Watch DEAD
~ransportation
devices.
~
SB 33 is the reintroduction of SB 214 from last ASSEMBLY FLOOR(Wolk D) session. SB 214 along with SB 1156 and AB 2144 Inactive File Infrastructure ~ere all vetoed by the Governor. Two-Year Bill financing districts: voter While SB 1 makes changes based on existing approval: repeal. redevelop law, SB 33 would create a new tax increment financing structure based on Infrastructure Financing District (IFD) law.
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 ofthe IFD governing board.
SB 556
Assembly Floor--
Previously SB 556 would prohibit
AC Transit -Watch
3 147
Bills
Subject
Status
(Corbett D) nongovernmental person or entity contracting Agency: with a public agency from displaying a seal or ostensible: emblem of that public agency on a uniform or nongovernmental vehicle unless a disclosure statement is also entities. conspicuously displayed identifying the uniform wearer or vehicle operator as not a government employee.
Position
Inactive File Two-Year Bill
~B
566 was amended on September 4th to limit he application of the disclosure requirements to contracts dealing with public health or safety services. The bill no longer applies to any transit service contracts.
SB 1122 ~B 1122 was approved by the Senate Committee SENATE APPR {\C Transit- Watch (Pavley D) on Environmental Quality. Held on Suspense File Sustainable ~B 1122 creates two funding programs. One for --DEAD communities: ~he Strategic Growth Counsel to administer grants Strategic Growth ~o local agencies for implementing sustainable Council. 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 ~trategic Growth Council. The bill lists the types of eligible projects for the regional funds, which include funding for public transportation pperations, maintenance, and capital costs. SB 1204 SB 1204 was approved with bipartisan support by ASSEMBLY APPR ~C Transit -Watch (Lara D) he Assembly Committee on Transportation. California Clean h"ruck, Bus, and This bill creates a California Clean Truck, Bus, and Off-Road Vehicle Off-Road Vehicle and Equipment Technology and Equipment Program. The purpose of this bill is to use cap & rade auction revenue to fund the development, ~echnology Program. 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 echnology commercially available.
4
148
Chaptered or Dead Bills Bills
Subject
Status
Position
~
~lternative fuel and vehicle technologies: funding Signed Into Law
(Perea D) AB 160 (Alejo D)
programs.
Chapter #401
California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013: exceptions.
DEAD
~C Transit -Watch
Signed Into Law Chapter #375
~C Transit -Watch
Signed Into Law Chapter #95
AC Transit -Support
~ign ed Into Law Chapter #194 DEAD
AC Transit -Support
Public transit: electronic transit fare collection AB 179 systems: disclosure of personal information. (Bocanegra D) AB206 Bicycle transportation devices. (Dickinson D) rrransactions and use taxes: County of Alameda. ~B210 (Wieckowski D) AB431 County Employees Retirement Law of 1937: (Mullin D) ederallaw compliance
AB 730 (Alejo D) AB574 (Lowenthal D)
Monterey-Salinas Transit District.
Signed Into Law Chapter #394
~C Transit- Support
~C Transit -Watch
AC Transit -Watch
California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: DEAD Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: sustainable communities strategies.
AC Transit- Support
AB 1002 (Bloom D)
Vehicles: registration fee: sustainable communities strategies.
DEAD
AC Transit- Watch
AB 1051 (Bocanegra D)
Housing
DEAD
AC Transit- Watch
AB 1222 (Bloom D) AB 1290 (John A. Perez D) SB 13 (Beall D)
Public employees' retirement: collective bargaining: transit workers: transportation.
Signed Into Law Chapter #527
AC Transit: SUPPORT
Vetoed
AC Transit- Watch
Public employees' retirement benefits.
Signed Into Law Chapter #528
AC Transit -Watch
SB 142 (DeSaulnier D) SB 791 (WJIIand R)
Public transit
Signed Into Law Chapter #655
~C Transit- Support
Motor vehicle fuel tax: rate adjustment
DEAD
AC Transit: Oppose
ransportation planning.
5 149
This page intentionally blank
150
SR 14-182 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.
•
SupporUseek 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 11 151
•
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.
J.l
agc
12 152
SR 14-182 Attachment 5
T~/11..57T
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.
Page 11 153
•
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
12 154
•
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
13 155
This page intentionally blank
156
FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE
July 23, 2014 Agenda Items B-1 – B-9
157
This page intentionally blank
158
~I T~T
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-224 July 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(S}: Consider Receiving Monthly Report on Investments for May 2014. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: As of May 31, 2014 the District had the following investments: Repurchase Agreement (REPO)
$25 million (Collateralized 102%)
Money Market Account
$ 86.34 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 May 2014 is forwarded to the Board of Directors for review. The portfolio contained in the report 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.
159
Report No. 14-224 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
ATTACHMENTS: 1:
Monthly Report on Investments for May 2014.
Department Head Approval:
James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer
by: Prepared by:
Sue lee, Treasury Manager
Reviewed
Beverly Abad-Fitzgerald, Treasury Administrator
160
ALAMEDA - CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT MONTHLY REPORT ON INVESTMENTS FOR THE GENERAL FUND MAY 31, 2014
"' ..,..
:Il I
"'...
~
..... :..
161
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
162
INVESTMENT SUMMARY FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS/OTHER FUND MAY 31, 2014
TYPE MONEY MARKET ACCOUNTS REPO'S TREASURY BILLS DISCOUNT NOTES AGENCY BONDS
Average Interest Rate%
0.248% 0.020% 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 (CalCES/Bus Proc.) INVESTMENTS
Carrying Value
Par Value
Fair Value
%of Total
$25,177,068.23 $25' 000' 000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$25,177,068.23 $25,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$25,177,068.23 $25,000,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
50.18% 49.82% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
$50,177,068.23
$50,177,068.23
$50,177,068.23
100.00%
Carrying Value
Par Value
Fair Value
%of Total
$62,909,029.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$62,909,029.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$62,909,029.83 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
$62,909,029.83
$62,909,029.83
$62,909,029.83
100.00%
Page 1
163
ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT INVESTMENT OVERVIEW FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS PROCUREMENT/OTHER FUND MAY 31,2014
2013 DESCRIPTION
YTD
2014
JUl
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
MAY
APR
JUN
AVERAGE
CURRENT MONTH AVERAGE INTEREST RATES Repurchase Agreements (current month) Money Market Accounts (current month)
0.023% 0.070%
0.021% 0.070%
0.012% 0.070%
0.020% 0.070%
0.015% 0.070%
0.032% 0.070%
0.033% 0.070%
0.025% 0.070%
0.008%
0.013%
0.070%
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%
0.024%
0.021%
0.021%
0.042%
0.070%
0.070%
0.070%
0.070%
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%
0.100%
0.080% 0.120% 0.060%
0.065% 0.118% 0.058%
0.130% 0.055% 0.115% 0.057%
0.100% 0.045% 0.110% 0.050%
0.110% 0.045% 0.109% 0.048%
0.120% 0.020% 0.104% 0.045%
0.100% 0.030% 0.103% 0.044%
0.101% 0.042% 0.119% 0.059%
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
DAYS
7
9
7
7
7
8
7
7
7
7
8
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 $88,086,098
$25,000,000 $85,922,620
$25,000,000 $88.076,447
$25,000,000 88,080,798
$25,000,000 88,086,098
$25.000.000 $89,509,788
0.026% 0.070%
0.020% 0.070%
Govt Securities held at month end Treasury Bills (purchased in current month) Discount Notes (purchased in current month) Agency Bonds (purchased in current month)
AVERAGE INTEREST RATE Repurchase Agreements (12-month avg) Money Matket 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
INVESTMENTS AT CARRYING VALUE Repurchase Agreements Money MarXet 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
$113,086,098
$110,922,620 $113,076,447 $113,080,798
$113,086,098
$0
$114,509,788
$118,625,417
$118,631,187 $118.636,924 $118,642,075
$110,907,055 $110,912.951
$113,086,098
$110,922,620 $113,076,447 $113,080,798 $113.086,098
$0
$104,967,306
2 Page 164
ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RETURN ON INVESTMENTS FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS PROCUREMENT/OTHER FUND MAY 31,2014
RETURN ON INVESTMENTS Repurchase Agreements Money Market Treasury Bills
AUG
$389
$410 5,446
$306 5,287
D 0 $5 856
0 0
5,392
0 0
Discount Notes
Bonds Total return on investments
$5 781
Interest received Accrued interest Total return on investments
2013 SEP
JUL
$389
$389 5.467 $5856
5,392 $5 781
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
2014 MAR
FEB
YTD
APR
MAY
5,133
$667
$687
$632
$181
$222
$458
5,464
5,139
5,004
5,052
4,520
5,005
$562 4,967
0 0 $5826
0 0 $5636
0 D $5 233
0 0
$5593
0 0 $6131
0 0 $5463
D 0 $5 529
$292
$632
$632
$757
$194
5,301 $5 593
5,499
5,194
$6131
$5826
4,879 $5 636
5.039 $5 233
$4742
$194 4.548 $4 742
$340
$681
5,123
4,848
$5463
$5 529
JUN
TOTAL
0 0 $0
$4,945 $56,409 $0 $0 $0 $61 354
$431
0 0 $5 564
$333 5.231 $5564
0
$0
$4,833 $56,521 $61 354
PORTFOLIO INVESTED Average daily portfolio available for investment Average daily portfono invested
$51,910,177 $30,645,161
$51,910,177
59.03%
59.03%
% of average daily portfolio invested
$30,645,161
CARRYING VALUE GENERAL FUND PORTFOLIO Jul2013 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan 2014 Feb Mar Apr May
$45,496,647 $46,135,214 $46,136,641 $47,548,538 $47,550,347 $47,552,300 $50.167,447 $50,168,951 $50.171,126 $50,171,978 $50,177,068
Jan 2013 Feb Mar Apr May
J""
J"" CARRYING VALUE BUS/OTHER PORTFOLIO Jul2013
Jan 2014 Feb Mar Apr May
J""
$73,128.770 $72,495,973 $72 ,500,284 $71,093.538 $63,356,709 $63,360,651 $60,749,907 $60,753,670 $62,905,320 $62,908.820 $62,909,030
Jul 2011 A"g Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan 2012 Feb Mar Apr May
$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"g Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan 2013 Feb M" Apr May
J""
Page 3
165
$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
Jul 2010 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan 2011 Feb Mar Apr May
J""
Jul2011 A"g Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan 2012 Feb Mar Apr May
J""
$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 FY 10111
FY 11/12
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
A"g Sep Oct Nov Dec
$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"g Sep Oct Nov Dec
FY 10/11
FY 11/12
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
Feb Mar
$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
$32,551,967
Apr
$5,743,423
$32,553,678 $34,703,831
May
$5,743,468 $5,743.513
$5,743,559 $5,743,605 $5,743.649 $5,743.695 $5,743,739 $5,743.817 $5,375,346 $5,375.389 $34,699,100
Jul2010 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Jan 2011
J""
ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT DETAIL OF PORTFOLIO FOR THE GENERAL FUND & BUS PROCUREMENT/OTHER FUND MAY 31,2014 Purchased
TYPE
Settlement Date
F«om
Maturity Date
Days to Maturity
MONEY MARKET ACCOUNTS Wells Fargo Local Banks
REPO'S
Bank of Amenca
Maturity Rate%
Carrying Value
Par Value
Fair Value
0.070% 0.425% 0.248%
0.070% 0.425% 0.248%
23,421,578.20 1,755,490.03 25,177,068.23
23,421,578.20 1,755,490.03 25,177,068.23
23,421,578.20 1,755,490.03 25,177,068.23
0.020%
0.020%
25,000,000.00
25,000,000.00
25,000,000.00
TOTAL DISCOUNT NOTES
0.00
0.00
000
TOTAL BONOS
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,177,068.23
50,177,068.23
50,177,068.23
TOTAL MONEY MARKET ACCOUNTS
TREASURY BILLS:
Purchased Rate%
TOTAL REPO
05123114
06/06/14
14
TOTAL TREASURY BILLS
AGENCY DISC NOTES:
AGENCY BONOS:
IPORTFOLIO - GENERAL FUND MONEY MARKET: Wells Fargo MONEY MARKET ACCOUNTS
CalCES Bus Procurement
0.070% 0.070%
0.070% 0.070%
0.070%
0.070%
TREASURY BILLS:
2,148,585.79
2,148,585.79
2,148,585.79
60,760,444.04 0.00
60,760,444.04 0.00
60,760,444.04 0.00
62,909,029.83
62,909,029.83
62,909,029.83
113,086,098.06
113,086,098.06
113,086,098.06
AGENCY DISC NOTES:
AGENCY BONDS: f PORTFOLIO
- OTHER (CaiEma/Bus Procurement)
ITOTAL PORTFOLIO COMPOSITION OF PORTFOLIO : Money Market Repurchase Agreements Treasury Bills Discount Notes Bonds
GENERAL FUND
Page4 166
OTHER (CalCES/Bus Procurement)
50.18% 49.82% 0.00%
100.00% 0.00% 0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00% 100.00%
0.00% 100.00%
ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR THE MONTH ENDED MAY 31,2014
SETTLEMENT DATE
MATURITY DATE
DAILY ""REPO"" INVESTMENT$
CURRENT # INTEREST OF DAYS RATE
INTEREST EARNED
INTEREST RECEIVED
CASH RECEIPT
AIR ACTIVITY
NET ACTIVITY
AVERAGE INVESTMEN AMT. INV • #OF DAYS/ DAYS IN MONTH:
31
BANK OF AMERICA
04/29/14
05/06/14
$25,000,000.00
7
0.0200%
05/06/14
05/13/14 05/20/14
7 7
0.0200%
05/13/14 05/20/14
$25,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00
05/23/14 06/06/14
$25,000,000.00 $25,000,000.00
3 14
0.0200% 0.0200% 0.0200%
$100,000,000.00
8
0.0200%
05/23/14 TOTAL
25,000,000.00
-27.78
-25,000,000.00
5,645,161.29
25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
5,645,161.29 5,645,161.29
0.00
25,000,000.00 25,000,000.00
0.00 69.44
0.00 25,000,000.00
2,419,354.84 11 ,290,322.58
$333.33
$125,000,000.00
$41.66
$0.00
$30,645,161.29
69.44 97.22
97.22 97.22
97.22 41.67
97.22 41.67
125.00 $430.55
PageS 167
ALAMEDA- CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT GENERAL FUND GOVERNMENT SECURITIES SUMMARY FOR THE MONTH ENDED
MAY 31,2014 MATURITY
DATE
Treasu
Bills Held at Month End:
TOTAL TREASURY BILLS
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
Discount Notes Matured:
Discount Notes Held at Month End:
TOTAL OJSCOUNT NOTES A
ene Bond Matured
A
ene Bond Held at Month End:
TOTAL BOND$ TOTAL GOVERNMENT SECURJTIES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Government Securities 90 days and less
0.00
0.00
000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Government Securilles over 90 days
0.00
0.00
0.00
000
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
000
0.00
I
Page 6
168
Report No: Meeting Date:
TI'?-?.NS/T
14-183 July 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:
Bi-monthly Budget Update
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider receipt of the Bi-monthly Budget Update for April and May 2014.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On a Year-To-Date (YTD) basis, the · District's operating expenses are under budget by approximately $12.5 million or 4.1 percent as of May 31, 2014. Salaries and Wages were $4.2 million under budget, with Operations wages, the largest component of the District's salaries and wages expense category, continuing the very favorable trend seen throughout the year. The positive YTD variance of $5.9 million in the Adjusted Labor Costs category shows the favorable impact of capitalization of labor and indirect costs incurred in the execution of capital projects. The Materials and Supplies account continued the positive trend with a $2.0 million favorable YTD variance. The Fuel and Lubricants account was also trending under budget with a $1.1 million favorable YTD variance. The Services account expenditures have increased with an acceleration of the end of year invoicing activity, but the account is still showing a $1.2 million favorable YTD variance.
BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The May YTD budget variance report continues to show positive trends for the general fund operating expense budget. The positive YTD variance of $12.5 million represents 4.1 percent of the entire operating expense budget. Labor cost s are trending below the projected budget levels on an YTD basis, with lower than anticipated labor costs in Operations for both Regular Time and Overtime wages. The positive variance in the labor category is primarily due to a workforce composition that includes an increase in lower seniority workers, plus the more efficient use of the workforce 169
Report No. 14-183 Page 2 of 3 that has resulted in a lower pay-to-platform or pay-to-base multiplier for operators and maintenance employees. The net result is a slight increase in pay hours compared to previous years with the cost per hour of labor being slightly lower than the projected budget. The Fringe Benefits account is the only major account with an unfavorable YTD variance of $2.6 million. The unfavorable variance in the Fringe Benefit account is primarily due to accounting accruals for future expenses, which are primarily related to expenses associated with Other Post Employment Benefit (OPEB) funding requirements. The positive variance for the Pension Fund account is primarily due to the actual pensionable payroll expenses being lower than the projected budget, which is primarily due to the lower actual Operations wages, as described above. The Adjusted Labor Costs account includes the positive impact from the Finance Department's efforts to capitalize labor and indirect costs related to Capital Projects. Overall, the lower labor costs and higher than anticipated capitalization of labor costs for capital projects has resulted in an overall favorable YTD variance of about $5.9 million for the labor accounts in this bimonthly budget report. Non-labor expenses continued to trend under budget with YTD favorable variance of approximately $6.6 million, which was the largest overall contributor to the positive variance for the general fund. The Services account is showing expenditures slightly below the projected budget resulting in a $1.2 million or 5.8 percent YTD favorable variance. Staff anticipates expenditures in this area to increase as invoices are received during the last month of the fiscal year. Fuel and lubricants expenditures are trending under the projected budget due to lower average diesel fuel prices, which has resulted in YTD favorable variance at $1.1 million. Bus parts and supplies continued the positive trend resulting in a favorable YTD variance of $2.0 million. The savings in these account categories are associated with the improved maintenance of the fleet and operation of a newer fleet of buses and are expected to continue through the remainder of the fiscal year. The Utilities and Taxes expenditures remained constant at levels slightly above the projected budget resulting in an unfavorable YTD variance of $0.1 million for this account. Casualty and Liability costs are maintaining a positive trend with a favorable YTD variance of $0.5 million. The ADA Consortium and Other Purchased Transportation account expenditures were lower than the projected budget due to lower than anticipated ridership for the ADA Consortium program and stable para transit provider billing rates, which resulted in a favorable YTD variance of $1.7 million. Staff is anticipating that the positive trends in budget expenditures will continue for the remainder of the current fiscal year.
170
Report No. 14-183 Page 3 of 3
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: This report does not recommend a course of action with notable advantages or disadvantages.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: This report does not recommend an action.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy 312- Budget Policy
ATTACHMENTS: 1:
FY 2013-14 Operating Expense Trend Analysis
Department Head Approval:
James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer
Prepared by:
Hernan Vargas, Budget Manager
171
This page intentionally blank
172
FY13/14 Operating Expense Trend Analysis Preliminary May 2014
Operating Expenses (OOO's)
Salary & Wages Fringe Benefits Pension Fund Total Labor Costs Adjusted labor Costs
Budget
26,945 19,812 10,050 56,807 56,557
Services Fuel & Lubricants
5,569 4,787
Other Materials & Supplies Utilities & Taxes Casualty & Liability Interest Expense ADA Consortium and Other Purchased Other
3,941 1,482
Total Operating Expenses
Q1 Actual 25,662 21,564 9,272 56,499 56,499
Var%
Budget
7.7%
26,945 19,812 10,050
0.5%
56,807
0.1%
56,557
15.4%
5,569 4,787
4.8% -8.8%
2,523 309 6,753 257
4,708 4,663 3,490 1,309 2,384 324 5,716 300
860 124 452 173 139 (15) 1,037
5.5% -4.9% 15.4%
(44)
82,177
79,393
2,784
Budget
Actual
-17.0%
2,523 309 6,753 257
3.4%
82,177
81,326
11.5% 11.7%
3,941 1,482
Var%
Total Labor Costs
19,324
703 376 (378) 702
Adjusted labor Costs
19,942
18,677
1,265
6.3%
1,890 1,596
2,219
Other Materials & Supplies
1,314
1,314
Utilities & Taxes
494 841 103 2,251 86
534 794 100
(330) 139 0 (40) 46 3 112 98
·17.5%
Fuel & lubricants
Fringe Benefits Pension Fund
Services
Casualty & Liability Interest Expense ADA Consortium and Other Purchased Other
8,723 6,615 3,986
1,457
2,139
(13)
Var$
624 490 (671) 443 193 260 287 455 (331) 71 (15) (200) 132 851
May (Preliminary) Var$
9,426 6,992 3,608 20,026
Salary & Wages
Actual 26,321 19,322 10,721 56,364 56,364 5,309 4,500 3,487 1,813 2,451 324 6,953 125
2.6%
April Operating Expenses (OOO's)
Q3
Q2
Var$ 1,283 (1,752) 778 308 58
7.5% 5.4% -10.5% 3.5%
Budget
9,426 6,992 3,608 20,026 19,942 1,890 1,596
Actual
9,242
17_795 17,260
2,682
1,648
242 88 460 76 29 3 97 68
3,358
3.2% 5.0%
494 841 103
1,508 854 418 811 100
2,251
2,154
115.0%
86
17
8.7% 0.0% ·8.1% 5.5%
1,314
Budget
-6.7%
28,278 20,975 10,825
0.8%
60,077
0.3%
59,827
4.7%
2.3% 2.5%
Actual
1,377 (3,503) 1,858 (268)
24,478
8,967 60,345 58,074
11.5% -22.3%
1,482
2.8% -3.0% 51.4%
2,523 309 6,753 257
5,513 4,309 3,322 1,425 2,286 307 6,074 374
1.0%
85,547
81,686
-4.9%
Var$
26,901
5,669 4,787 3,941
6.0%
*
Var$
184 1,797 250 2,231
5,195
Var%
1,753
155 477 620 57 236 2 678 (118) 3,861
Var% 4.9%
-16.7% 17.2% -0.4%
2.9% 2.7% 10.0%
15.7% 3.9% 9.4% 0.5% 10.0% -45.8% 4.5%
Total FYTD Var%
Budget
Actual
2.0%
101,020
96,849
25.7%
74,582
77,175
6.9%
38,141
11.1%
213,742
36,303 210,327
13.5%
212,826
12.8%
20,585
5.5% 35.0%
Var$
Var%
4,171 (2,593) 1,837
·3.5%
3,416
1.6%
206,874
5,952
2.8%
19,398 16,438
1,187
5.8%
17,552
1,115
6.3%
14,452
12,465
1,986
13.7%
15.3%
5,435
3.5%
9,249
5,500 8,727
3.2%
1,132
1,154
4.3%
24,761
79.9%
941
23,036 804
(65) 522 (22)
4.1% 4.8%
-1.2% 5.6% -1.9%
1,724
7.0%
137
14.6%
Total Operating Expenses
28,516
27,221
1,295
4.5%
28,516
24,770
3,746
13.1%
306,933
294,397
* Note: May 2014 additional accruals and final adjustments could still be performed by the Accounting Department. Budget review of actual figures could lead to further adjustments. 173
12,536
(/)
::0 4.1%
This page intentionally blank
174
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-187 June 25, 2014
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District
S T A F F RE P 0 R T TO:
Finance and Audit Committee AC Transit Board of Directors
FROM:
David J. Armijo, General Manager
SUBJECT:
Transit Information Displays Agreement with BART
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Authorize the General Manager to execute a funding agreement with the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) for $99,000 in BART general funds to be used to expand the Transit Information Displays (TIDs) program to 18 additional BART stations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The District is in charge of implementing the region's Transit Information Displays (TIDs) program. The TIDs program includes updating and maintaining the displays at 24 transit hubs throughout the region, including BART stations. BART would like to expand that program to 18 additional stations, many of which are key AC Transit service hubs, and it is offering the District $99,000 in general funds to print, install, and maintain the signage. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
This will add an additional $99,000 to the District's Fiscal Year 2014-15 Operating Budget. This program is fully funded from non-District sources.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
In June 2009, the District entered into an agreement with Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC} to be the implementer of the TIDs program. That role includes printing, installing, and maintaining TIDs at 24 regional transit hubs. See Attachment 1 for a list of existing regional transit hubs and an example of TIDs signage. The regional transit hubs were prioritized in MTC's Regional Transit Connectivity Plan. Funding for this work has been provided by MTC on an annual basis through its State Transit Assistance (STA) funding. The current scope of work for Fiscal Year 2014-15 is funded with $254,000 in MTC's STA funds. The MTC agreement will be up for renewal in June 2015. The District was selected as the regional contractor for several reasons. The private contractors MTC had previously used for maintenance of transit information displays were not always responsive to the needs of the transit agencies involved, including AC Transit, and the materials did not have a professional appearance. AC Transit was uniquely qualified to leverage its existing equipment and expertise to produce customized transit information. 175
Report No. 14-187 Page 2 of 3 The benefits of the TIDs to the District are significant. AC Transit was and is the biggest beneficiary of the regional transit display program, since AC Transit serves more of the regional hubs than any other provider except BART (which has its own information cases). By participating directly in the production of the information, AC Transit ensures that the information is maintained consistently, has a professional appearance, and accurately represents AC Transit's service. AC Transit also has been able to leverage the funds provided by MTC to replace the equipment, originally purchased with District funds or with one-time grant funds, used to produce the signs posted at AC Transit stops. BART has asked the District to expand these activities to the 18 additional stations listed below for Fiscal Year 2014-15. BART has asked the District to do this because the District has the inhouse staff, equipment, expertise, and maintenance contract to immediately implement this work. BART will provide the District with $99,000 in BART general funds to support this work. The current draft agreement is only for Fiscal Year 2014-15. Extension of the contract for multiple years will depend on the availability of BART funding. Additional BART Stations for TIDs Program 1. Fruitvale
5. Union City
9. Rockridge
13. Powell
17. Colma
2.San
6. Castro
10. Ashby
14. Glen Park
18. South San
Leandro
Valley
3. Bay Fair
7. 191h Street
4. Hayward
8. MacArthur
Francisco 11. Downtown
15. Balboa
Berkeley
Park
12. North
16. Daly City
Berkeley
Currently the District does the printing in-house and manages the maintenance work through a contract with an outside vendor, Urban Marketing Channels, LLC. The current maintenance contract was initiated in October 2012 and it expires in June 2015; with an option to extend the contract for an additional 18 months. The contract was written to include possible additional stations so no amendment to the contract is required. The current contract has a not to exceed amount of $93,600 per fiscal year with the current number of TIDs hubs. The additional funding included in this action will increase the "not to exceed" amount of the contract to $153,000 for Fiscal Year 2014-15. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The advantage to this proposal is that it increases the District's signage program at no cost to the District. There are no disadvantages that staff can identify.
176
Report No. 14-187 Page 3 of3
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: The alternative is to maintain the status quo. This may cause BART to move forward with its own sign age program in 2015 once MTC's contract with the District expires.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None
ATTACHMENTS: 1: List of Existing Transit Hubs with TIDs Sign age and Example ofTIDs Sign
Department Head Approval: Reviewed
Prepared
by:
by:
Tom Prescott, Chief Performance Officer James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel Kiran Bawa, Manager of Capital Planning and Grants Ben Stupka, Senior Capital Planning Specialist
177
This page intentionally blank
178
SR No. 14-187 Attachment 1
Regional Transit Hubs in the Transit Information Display Program 1. Fremont BART 2. 12th Street BART 3. Coliseum BART 4. El Cerrito Del Norte BART 5. Richmond BART 6. Embarcadero BART/SF Ferry Terminal 7. Montgomery BART/Transbay Transit Center 8. Civic Center BART 9. San Jose Caltrain 10. Palo Alto Caltrain 11. Dublin/Pleasanton BART 12. Pleasant Hill BART 13. San Rafael Transit Center 14. San Francisco Caltrain 15. Millbrae BART 16. Great American Amtrak 17. Mountain View Caltrain 18. Vallejo Ferry Terminal 19. Santa Rosa Transit Mall 20. Napa lntermodal Terminal 21. Fairfield Transit Center 22. San Francisco Airport 23. Oakland Airport 24. San Jose Airport
179
SR No. 14-187 Attachment 1
Example of Transit Information Display Sign
. . . . . -. "'\ :.:;:.:0 ..., ...
..o--.-...
o ....c--. -.c-tt ._
m-·--- af2 o - -n 0 "_......_
tol.lh Aictrlu._
IJl I(
s,
..
...
..•" .....
180
..., .~
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-197 July 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:
Federal Transit Administration Ladders of Opportunity Initiative Grant Application
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Consider authorizing the General Manager or his designee to apply for a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Ladders of Opportunity Initiative grant for a portion of the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement project and the Reopening of the Richmond Division project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The District plans to apply for up to $14.0 million for two projects in FTA Ladders of Opportunity Initiative grant funds: the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement (up to $8.0 million) and the Reopening of the Richmond Division 3 projects (up to $6.0 million). Staff believes both projects would be competitive for the funding program as they both would enhance access to employment centers by providing more efficient transit options. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: These FTA funds would require up to $3.5 million in local matching funds. State Prop 1B bond funds already programmed for the Division 3 project would satisfy matching requirements for that project. Matching funds of up to $2.0 million for the South County Major Corridors project would have to be identified if an award is received. Staff is actively seeking other local funding sources for the match to offset the need to use District funds.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The FTA announced the availability of $100 million of Section 5309 Bus and Bus Facilities funds authorized under the previous federal transportation bill (i.e. Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users) for the Ladders of Opportunity Initiative. The main purpose of the program is to invest in projects that improve the mobility of Americans with transportation disadvantages and allow them a better chance of climbing Ladders of Opportunity towards economic self-determination. Eligible projects include capital projects to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment (including fare equipment and communication devices); and the replacement, construction, expansion or rehabilitation of busrelated facilities (including administrative, maintenance, transfer, and intermodal facilities). The 181
Report No. 14-197 Page 2 of 3 proposals will be evaluated on several factors, including how the project supports Ladders of Opportunity policy priorities like enhanced access to work, more transportation choices, and support for existing communities, economic opportunities, and partnerships. This is a one-time funding opportunity. Applications are due on August 4. Staff proposes to apply for both of the following projects: the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement project (total $10 million) and the Reopening of the Richmond Division 3 project (total $18 million). Staff believes both projects would be competitive for the program because they improve transit speed and reliability, which are key components of improving regional employment access. Also, both projects will improve transit access to and from several different jurisdictions in the District. South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement project In May 2014, the District applied for $8 million in federal Surface Transportation Program/Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (STP/CMAQ) funds through the MTC's FY 201314 TPI-Investment program to implement the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement Project along major portions of Lines 97 and 99. The scope of the project is to work with jurisdictions along the corridors to increase traffic signal connectivity, install transit signal priority systems, and implement a small amount of corridor modifications, such as moving bus stops to the far side of intersections where parking is minimally affected. The MTC will not be announcing the results of this program until September 2014. Staff does not believe it will receive the full project funding through the TPI-Investment program, and will adjust the application for Ladders of Opportunity as more information is available from the MTC. Reopening of the Richmond Division project The Fiscal Year 2014-15 Capital Budget included $13.3 million in FTA and $4.6 million in State 1Bond funding for this project. The FTA funds are anticipated to be programmed through the MTC's Fiscal Year 2015 - 2016 TCP program. This TCP will be the first phase of implementing the Core Capacity Challenge Grant program. Funding from this program in-lieu of the TCP will allow the District more flexibility within the TCP and Core Capacity Challenge Grant program.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: The advantages of pursuing this grant: • •
This grant provides a complimentary option for funding for the South County Major Corridors Travel Time Improvement project. If awarded for the Reopening of the Richmond Division 3, this grant could increase the District's programming flexibility under the MTC's Fiscal Year 2015- 2016 TCP and Core Capacity Challenge Grant program.
The disadvantages of pursuing this grant: •
If the District cannot find other local funds to support the match then District funds will have to be used. District funds could be used for other purposes, including service enhancements. 182
Report No. 14-197 Page 3 of 3
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: Staff reviewed several possible projects as alternatives for this grant opportunity, but all of them were deemed uncompetitive and/or not ready for implementation.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None
ATTACHMENTS: None
Department Head Approval: Reviewed
Prepared
by:
by:
Tom Prescott, Chief Performance Officer James Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel Kiran Bawa, Manager, Capital Planning and Grants Ben Stupka, Senior Capital Planning Specialist
183
This page intentionally blank
184
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-199 July 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:
Apply for Regional Measure 2 Funds Allocation for BRT Project
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 14-037 Authorizing the General Manager, or his designee, to submit an allocation request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for Regional Measure 2 Funds and execute any documents necessary for the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit Project. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project is preparing to enter the construction phase, with work on utility relocations, parking lot, and traffic improvements in advance of the main construction contract. In addition funds are needed for Business Impact Mitigation Plan (BIMP), AC Transit staff support, and Caltrans support costs. A board resolution is required with the allocation request for $9,300,000 in Regional Measure 2 (RM2) funds that will partially fund these elements. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
Per Board direction, no District funds are being used for capital costs on the BRT project. These RM2 funds, along with other grants, will fulfill FTA matching funds requirements.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
As part of the funding plan for the BRT project, the MTC has committed $57.7 million in RM2 funds to complete the project. The District must submit allocation requests to the MTC for funding to cover specific phases and project scope. Up to this point, the District has submitted three allocation requests for the BRT project totaling $5 million. Funds remaining on an allocation after the completion of the specified scope are rescinded and can be placed on a later allocation. The District is approaching the completion of final design and has started preparing for solicitation of construction packages 1 (advance utility relocation) and 2 (parking lot and traffic mitigations). Another allocation of RM2 funds is now required to partially fund the following items:
185
Report No. 14-199 Page 2 of 3
Total 8,000,000
Construction Package 1
FTA
RM2
-
8,000,000
Package 1 Construction Management
800,000
640,000
160,000
Business Impact Mitigation Plan
250,000
200,000
50,000
4,500,000
3,600,000
900,000
450,000
360,000
90,000
Caltrans Support
50,000
40,000
10,000
AC Transit Staff
450,000
360,000
90,000
14,500,000
5,200,000
9,300,000
Construction Package 2 Package 2 Construction Management
Construction Package 1 will relocate various utilities (electric, water, sewer, gas, communications) along the BRT route that might be impacted by the construction of the stations, streetscape enhancements, or other elements of the project. To eliminate impacts this work is typically done in advance of the main construction. AC Transit has executed agreements with the related utility companies and plans to issue the construction solicitation this fall. Utility relocation construction is explicitly authorized by the FTA to begin before the Small Starts Funding Agreement (SSGA) is issued, which is anticipated to be in September 2014. This construction work is funded by non-FTA funds at the request of the FTA. Construction Package 2 will construct the parking lots on the two parcels that the District has previously acquired and reconfigure an off-alignment intersection as specified in the Final Environmental impact Statement (FEIS} and the Conditions of Approval from the City of Oakland. The parking lots are located in the Fruitvale and Elmhurst neighborhoods and are being constructed to mitigate displaced parking along the BRT route in specific areas of those neighborhoods. The intersection of Fruitvale Avenue, San Leandro Street, East 12th Street, and East 10th Street will be improved to alleviate congestion during construction and BRT operations. A small portion of a parcel is also being acquired at the intersection for the improvements. The construction in package 2 cannot begin until the FTA has issued the SSGA to AC Transit. The other items included in the request are continued implementation of the BIMP during the end of final design and beginning of construction, District staff support costs, and Caltrans support costs.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: There are no disadvantages to applying for these funds.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: There are no recommended alternative actions at this point. The RM2 funds requested have already been committed to the project.
186
Report No. 14-199 Page 3 of 3
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: None
ATTACHMENTS: 1: Resolution 14-037
Department Head Approval:
Tom Prescott, Chief Performance Officer
Reviewed by:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel James Pachan, Chief Operating Officer/Interim Chief Financial Officer David Wilkins, BRT Project Director Kiran Bawa, Manager, Capital Planning & Grants Chris Andrichak, Senior Analyst, Capital Planning and Grants
Prepared by:
187
This page intentionally blank
188
SR 14-199 Attachment 1
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 14-037 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL MANAGER, OR HIS DESIGNEE, TO SUBMIT ALLOCATION REQUESTS TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR REGIONAL MEASURE 2 FUNDS AND EXECUTE ANY DOCUMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE EAST BAY BUS RAPID TRANSIT PROJECT WHEREAS, SB 916 (Chapter 715, Statutes 2004), commonly referred as Regional Measure 2, identified projects eligible to receive funding under the Regional Traffic Relief Plan; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) is responsible for funding projects eligible for Regional Measure 2 funds, pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 30914(c) and (d); and WHEREAS, MTC has established a process whereby eligible transportation project sponsors may submit allocation requests for Regional Measure 2 funding; and WHEREAS, allocations to MTC must be submitted consistent with procedures and conditions as outlined in Regional Measure 2 Policy and Procedures; and WHEREAS, the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) is an eligible sponsor of transportation project(s) in Regional Measure 2, Regional Traffic Relief Plan funds; and WHEREAS, the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit project is eligible for consideration in the Regional Traffic Relief Plan of Regional Measure 2, as identified in California Streets and Highways Code Section 30914(c) or (d); and WHEREAS, the Regional Measure 2 allocation request lists the project, purpose, schedule, budget, expenditure and cash flow plan for which AC Transit is requesting that MTC allocate Regional Measure 2 funds; NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does resolve as follows:
Section 1. AC Transit and its agents shall comply with the provisions of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Measure 2 Policy Guidance (MTC Resolution No. 3636). Section 2.
AC Transit certifies that the project is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP).
Section 3.
The year of funding for any design, right-of-way and/or construction phases has taken into consideration the time necessary to obtain environmental clearance and permitting approval for the project.
Resolution No. 14·037
Page 1 o/4 189
SR 14-199 Attachment 1
Section 4. The Regional Measure 2 phase or segment is fully funded, and results in an operable and useable segment. Section 5. for the project.
AC Transit approves the updated Initial Project Report and cash flow plan
Section 6. AC Transit has reviewed the project needs and has adequate staffing resources to deliver and complete the project within the schedule set forth in the updated Initial Project Report. Section 7. AC Transit is an eligible sponsor of projects in the Regional Measure 2 Regional Traffic Relief Plan, Capital Program, in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code 30914(c). Section 8. AC Transit is authorized to submit an application for Regional Measure 2 funds for the East Bay Bus Rapid Transit project in accordance with California Streets and Highways Code 30914(c). Section 9. AC Transit certifies that the projects and purposes for which RM2 funds are being requested are in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), and with the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines {14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) and, if relevant, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 USC Section 4-1 et. seq. and the applicable regulations thereunder. Section 10. There is no legal impediment to AC Transit making allocation requests for Regional Measure 2 funds. Section 11. There is no pending or threatened litigation which might in any way adversely affect the proposed project, or the ability of AC Transit to deliver the project. Section 12. AC Transit agrees to comply with the requirements of MTC's Transit Coordination Implementation Plan as set forth in MTC Resolution 3866. Section 13. AC Transit agrees to indemnify and hold harmless MTC, 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 AC Transit, its officers, employees or agents, or subcontractors or any of them in connection with its performance of services under this allocation of RM2 funds. In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, so much of the funding due under this allocation of RM2 funds as shall reasonably be considered necessary by MTC may be retained until disposition has been made of any claim for damages.
Resolution No. 14-037
Pagelo/4 190
SR 14-199 Attachment 1
Section 14. AC Transit shall use any revenues or profits from any nongovernmental use of property (or project) exclusively for the public transportation services for which the project was initially approved, either for capital improvements or maintenance and operational costs, otherwise the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is entitled to a proportionate share equal to MTC's percentage participation in the project. Section 15. Assets purchased with RM2 funds including facilities and equipment shall be used for the public transportation uses intended, and should said facilities and equipment cease to be operated or maintained for their intended public transportation purposes for its useful life, that the MTC shall be entitled to a present day value refund or credit (at MTC's option) based on MTC's share of the Fair Market Value of the said facilities and equipment at the time the public transportation uses ceased, which shall be paid back to MTC in the same proportion that Regional Measure 2 funds were originally used. Section 16. AC Transit shall post on both ends of the construction site(s) at least two signs visible to the public stating that the Project is funded with Regional Measure 2 Toll Revenues. Section 17. AC Transit authorizes its General Manager, or his designee, to execute and submit an allocation request for the design and right-of-way phases with MTC for Regional Measure 2 funds in the amount of $9,300,000, for the project, purposes and amounts included in the project application. Section 18. The General Manager, or his designee, is hereby delegated the authority to make non-substantive changes or minor amendments to the Initial Project Report (IPR) as he deems appropriate. Section 19. A copy of this resolution shall be transmitted to MTC in conjunction with the filing of the AC Transit application referenced herein. Section 20. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes by the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23th day of July 2014
Greg Harper, President Attest:
Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary
Resolution No. 14-037
Poge3of4 191
SR 14-199 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 July, 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. 14-037
Page4of4 192
I
Report No:
T.I?-9/115/T
Meeting Date:
14-062 July 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:
Report on the Government Finance Officers Association Business Review
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Receive a report on the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Business Review of the District's Budgeting and Financial Reporting practices, and discussion of staff's proposed roadmap for the design and implementation of Planning, Budgeting, Performance Monitoring and Business Intelligence processes and applications. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) conducted an audit of the AC Transit budget processes, procedures, and practices and provided an assessment of these activities and associated supporting tools and inputs. The budget process was analyzed in three critical categories: Supporting Inputs & Tools; Process & Activities; and Outcomes & Results, to identify opportunities to improve not only the efficiency of the process in terms of infrastructure, but also the effectiveness of the process in terms of facilitating desired results and outcomes. The GFOA provided recommendations based upon the three critical categories and provided short-term and long-term recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the budgeting process. Staff has conducted extensive reviews of the GFOA audit and is in the process of implementing the recommendations from the report. A matrix has been developed that lists the key recommendations from the audit to provide a "roadmap" for these report recommendations and provides for the assignment and proposed completion date for each area of improvement. Since staff has been aware of some recommended best practices identified in the report, staff has been working to implement improvements to the budget process over the past couple of years. Staff will continue to meet on a monthly basis to monitor the progress toward implementing the recommendations outlined in the audit. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this briefing report.
193
Report No. 14-062 Page 2 of 5 BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) conducted an audit of the AC Transit budget processes, procedures, and practices, including a review of budget development, budget administration, and budget reporting, and an assessment of the supporting tools and inputs, activities, and results and outcomes. GFOA identified areas for potential improvement within the processes that were reviewed. The following common areas were identified as the most significant contributing factors to existing weaknesses: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)
Lack of Organizational IT Investment Governance Lack of Process or System Understanding Processes Not Aligned with Budgeting Best Practices Extensive System Limitations Poor Communications
The GFOA analyzed the budget process in three critical categories: Supporting Inputs & Tools; Process & Activities; and Outcomes & Results, to identify opportunities to improve not only the efficiency of the process in terms of infrastructure, but also the effectiveness of the process in terms of facilitating desired results and outcomes. Inputs & Tools- Budget Administration: The GFOA recommended that financial planning, revenue, and expenditure policies be adopted by the Board and used to frame major policy initiatives, consistent with the budget and communicated in the budget. The GFOA commended AC Transit for revising the budget policy to include the organization's goals, objectives, and performance metric targets; however, the GFOA noted that current processes do not include this information in a way that allows users to base decisions toward achieving the District's goals, objectives, and performance metrics. The GFOA identified an inconsistency between the budget and transfer policies and noted that the capital project value of $1,000 is not aligned with GFOA's best practice of a capitalization threshold of no less than $5,000 for any individual item. The GFOA also recommended a reserve set aside equal to two months operations (approximately 17%). On the area oftechnology, the GFOA noted that PeopleSoft has been able to realize the system potential in some areas to effectively manage operations; however, in other areas, challenges during the implementation have led to an impairment that creates significant inefficiencies. In addition, staff exhibited inconsistent levels of training and knowledge in the system- resulting in very different user experiences which has resulted in shadow systems to augment "missing" PeopleSoft functionality to more easily process and report information outside of PeopleSoft creating many ripple effects across the organization. The GFOA also noted that AC Transit does not have an integrated budget tool that is relied on throughout the organization to help prepare budget for revenues and expenses. The GFOA also found that staff did not have access to accurate and complete documentation for business processes.
194
Report No. 14-062 Page 3 of 5 Process & Activities- Budget Processes: The GFOA reported that while staff understood the overall mission and focus of AC Transit- to operate a bus fleet and to serve customers, there appeared to be less focus on internal business processes resulting in the presence of strong departmental silos causing duplicative work, rework, and informational bottlenecks. GFOA also recommended that AC Transit "operationalize" strategic goals and priorities that are backed by information, data, and proven techniques. The GFOA recommends moving away from maintaining the status quo and move toward planning and forecasting expenditures based on completion of strategic goals. The GFOA report noted the importance of tracking outcomes and results from the planned budget expenditures with a process that clearly identifies and communicates expenditures in relation to the plan and what has been accomplished in relation to the plan. The report outlined a number of challenges in overall budget execution and administration with the current process. In addition, a significant amount of time is currently being spent on manually entering, compiling, aggregating, and cleaning up data for analysis that would not be necessary with the proper use of PeopleSoft. Outcomes & Results- Budget Analysis & Review: The GFOA noted that the current budget document is difficult for stakeholders to understand the organization's budget plans. The budget document does not have programmatic information that links planned activities to planned expenditures. The current structure is not well suited for a policy-level or public perspective that is trying to identify what is planned for or what the expectation of service can be for that level of expenditure. The GFOA noted that AC Transit should consider a formal process for following up on planned budget outcomes to provide for "real" accountability for the budget. The report recommended specific meetings for periodically reporting budget performance to an executive team that is able to plan for and take corrective action, if necessary. NEXT STEPS The GFOA provided recommendations for the three critical categories: Supporting Inputs & Tools; Process & Activities; and Outcomes & Results, to improve the effectiveness of the budgeting process and achieve the desired results and outcomes, as follows: Short Range •
Engage in business process documentation and interdepartmental connections on business processes.
•
Develop cross departmental process improvement sessions where current process stakeholders are allowed the opportunity to identify current challenges. Prepare a system inventory to identify all systems used throughout the organization to support key business processes, in order to identify sources of redundancy and wasted effort. Invest in training for select staff on PeopleSoft standard reports.
•
•
195
mapping to
better
understand
Report No. 14-062 Page 4 of 5 • • • • •
Identify and incorporate as many shadow systems as possible into the current PeopleSoft configuration. Assign a team of cross departmental users to begin reviewing data quality and identifying potential system improvements. Explicitly link budget expenditures to organizational goals identifying the purpose of expenditures and the planned output/outcome from that budget expenses. Identify performance measures to track progress towards planned outputs/outcomes for each strategy that is communicated regularly to appropriate stakeholders. Create a grants management policy that defines expectations on grants management and reporting.
Long Range
•
• • • •
•
Revisit the PeopleSoft implementation and make a second attempt at implementing core PeopleSoft functionality, including the PeopleSoft Financials, Expense Management, Capital Asset Management, Purchasing, Human Resources, Payroll, and Time and Labor suites. Invest in and mandate regular PeopleSoft training for key users. Evaluate options and implement a budget development system that can fully utilize PeopleSoft data in making projections, forecasting revenues and expenses. Transition the budget from an incremental based "line item budget" to a programmatic budget that identifies outcomes and planned services for each expense. Implement a new budgeting system and/or make changes to the PeopleSoft system that provides the features to analyze programs, track costs (by program as well as departmental line item) and report performance. Adopting an ongoing quality management or continuous improvement structure in the budgeting process that will focus on process quality and process improvement.
Staff has conducted extensive reviews of the GFOA audit and is in the process of implementing the recommendations from the report. A matrix has been developed that lists the key recommendations from the audit to provide a "roadmap" for these report recommendations and provides for the assignment and proposed completion date for each area of improvement. Since staff has been aware of some recommended best practices identified in the report, staff has been working to implement improvements to the budget process over the past couple of years. Staff will continue to meet on a monthly basis to monitor the progress on the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the audit. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The advantage of implementing the recommendations from the GFOA audit is in improved accuracy, consistency, and the quality of management reporting. There are no apparent disadvantages of implementing the recommendations from the audit. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
Staff found no practical alternatives to the course of action recommended in this report that would better serve the District.
196
Report No. 14-062 Page 5 of 5
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: There are no prior relevant board actions/policies.
ATTACHMENTS: 1:
GFOA Business Review Report
Department Head Approval: Reviewed
Prepared
by:
by:
James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer Tom O'Neill, Chief Technology Officer Ralph Martini, Controller Hernan Vargas, Budget Manager James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer
197
This page intentionally blank
198
SR 14-062 Att-1
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (GFOA) RESEARCH AND CONSULTING CENTER
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit (AC Transit) Oakland, CA August2013 Business Review Report Budgeting & Financial Reporting
Note: This is a privileged and confidential document betwee n the client listed above GFOA.
199
Gb
Government Finance O ffice rs Association
Table of Contents Section 1: Executive Summary .....................................................................................3 Section 2: Approach & Methodology ...........................................................................5 1. 2
.
3.
Onsite Assessment . Report Preparation & Recommendations Review & Action Planning . 00
00 • • 00 00
00
00
.
0 0 . 0 0 . 00 • • 00
00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
00 0 0 . 00
00 • • • 00
.
00 •
ooOOoOoOo000
00 . . . . .
00.00 . .
.
•
oO
00.
OO
00 . . . .
00
OO
00
00
00 • • •
00
•
• • •• •
00
00
•
•
00
.
00.
00
00
00 . . . 00 . . 00
00 • • • • • • • • •
oOOOOOo00000o0oOOOOOoOoOoOOOOOOOoOoOoOOOOOOOOOOOoooo
00 . . .
00 • • • •
0000 .
. . . 00 00
00 0 0 . 0 0 00 . . . . 00 . . . .
.
00
00 .
.
...
........
5 6 7
Section 3: Detailed Analysis & Recommendations ....................................................8 1.
Introduction Inputs & Tools .... Analysis of Current State Recommendations . 3. Processes & Activities ..... Analysis of Current State Recommendations .. 4. Outcomes & Results. Analysis of Current State Recommendations .. ..... 2
.
oo . . . . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
. . . . . o o . o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o • • oo
. . . oo . . . o o . o o
•••
oo . . . . . . . . .
oo
···oo ·
• • • • 00
. . . . . 00 • • 00
00 . .
oooo •• oo.ooo•ooo . . . oo. oooooooooooooooo
00 00.
00
00
•
•
00 • • 00 • •
00 00
00 . . .
00
• • • • 00
00
00
• • 00
00
00
.
00
00
.
00
.
00
.
00
00 . . . . . . . .
00 . . . 00 . . . .
00 . . 00
00 . .
00 00
00
. . . . 00
00
00
00 . . . . 00
00 00
00
00
00
0 0 . 0 0 . 00
00 • • 00
00
00 . .
00
00 • • • 0 0 . 0 0 • • 00
00 . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 . 0 0 00
00
00
00
00
00 00
........
00
00
00 0 0 . 0 0
. . 00
00 . . . .
00 . . 00
00 0 0 . 00 • • 0 0 . 00
00 00
00
•
•
00
00
00
00
00 . . . . . .
00 . .
00
00
. . . 00 00
0
00
00 • • 00.
00 00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00 0 0 . 00
00
00
00 • • • 00
00
0000 • • •
00
00 0 0 . 0 0 00 00
00
00
• • 0 0 . 0 0 . 00
00
00
.
00
00
00
0000
00 . . . . 00
00
00 0 0 . 0 0
00
00
.
•
00 0 0 . 0 0
00
•
00
00 • • •
00
00
•
00
••
00
.
00
00
00 00
00
.
00.00
00 00 • • 00 . . . .
00 00 • • • • 00
00 . . . . .
00
. . 00
00
00 0 0 . 00 . . . .
00
00 00 00
00
00
00
00 0000
00.00.
00 00
00
00 0 0 . 0 0
00
..
•
•
••••• ••••
00 . . . . . . 00
00
8 8 8 11 13 13 17 18 18 19
.
00 . .
00 . . . 00
00 . . . . 00
00.
00 . . . . . . .
••••••
•• 00. 00.
00 . . . 00 00 • • • 00 00 . . . . . . . . . .
0
OOOOo000
• • • 00 . . 00
00
00
oooooooo ooo0
· · . . . . . . . oooooo·· ·
• • 00 00 . . . . . . . . 00
00
00
.
00 00
00 00 00
·
00
0000
00
00
00 0000 0000
00 0 0 . 00 0 0 . 00
0 0 . 0 0 00
00 . . . . . 00 0 0 . 0 0
00
oooooooO·oo•oo
00
00
•••••
00 • • • • • •
00
00
00
..
00 00
00
00
•••••
00
00 00
00 • • • 00
00 •
•
00 00
00
000
•
00.
00.
00
00.
00
•••
•
Section 4: Action Plan ................................................................................................. 21 Section 5: Appendix .................................................................................................... 22 1.
Relevant GFOA Best Practices
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oo ooooo0
Page 2 of 22 200
o0
oOOOOOOOoOOOOOOOOOOOOOo0
0000
00 2 2
Ge
Government Finance Officers Association
Section 1: Executive Summary GFOA reviewed AC Transit processes and practices against our process review methodologyJ. looking at supporting tools and inputs, activities, and results and outcomes. For AC Transit, GFOA focused primarily on the budget process, including budget development, budget administration, and budget reporting. The focus of this report is on process improvement, and it therefore provides much greater emphasis on process improvement opportunities than current strengths. This report should not be viewed as an overall assessment to determine if the process or function is working as it should; any attempt to infer that information based on quantity of comments or language used within this report would be misleading. The report should be viewed in the context that overall , processes are completed and AC Transit staff on many occasions "make things work" despite some of the issues identified. GFOA did find numerous areas of potential improvement within the reviewed processes. The current weaknesses are identified in this report. In general, GFOA found there to be common themes or challenges that contributed to those weaknesses . The following represent the most significant contributing factors to existing weaknesses. 1) Lack of Organizational IT Governance: AC Transit lacks an effective IT governance structure that can manage IT investments and ensure that they support organizational processes. In addition, effective IT governance manages technology from the organizational perspective, rather than the departmental or user perspective, to do what's best for the entire organization. As a result, AC Transit has been limited by an ERP system (PeopleSoft) that doesn't properly support the business process, resulting in a proliferation of shadow systems that fragment information and further divide departments into silos. 2) Lack of Process or System Understanding: In general, AC Transit staff members who work as part of the process suffer from a lack of process and system understanding. There is very little to no documentation that accurately communicates standard operating procedures, process steps, or organizational business process policies. Existing staff members have managed to acquire this information over time, but the introduction of new staff (or new roles for existing staff) often results in process compliance issues due to the lack of documentation. In addition, staff members receive little formal training to help them understand new processes or systems, leaving most to "learn as they go." As a result, many system features are not leveraged. 3) Processes Not Aligned with Budgeting Best Practices: Current budget development processes focus exclusively on adjusting past budgeted amounts to maintain the status quo. This provides very little focus on linking financial requests to operational plans or organizational goals. Best practices in budgeting prioritize strategies and programs (services), and then allocate funding to specific programs that will best accomplish the organization's goals. This practice allows for transparency in budget decision making and more effective communication about budget plans and what budgeted resources are required, and it facilitates overall accountability for budget performance.
Page 3 of 22 201
Gb
Government Finance Officers Association
4) Extensive System Limitations: AC Transit's recent PeopleSoft implementation failed to provide a system that properly supports the organization's business processes. AC Transit faces ongoing challenges with modules that don't appear to work correctly, modules that were never implemented, and numerous training and change management issues (e.g., staff is either not aware of system features or elects to hold onto the use of older, "more comfortable" systems). 5) Poor Communications: GFOA also noted that overall communications between departments is lacking. This lack of effective internal communication has resulted in significant challenges and has perpetuated the creation and maintenance of independent silos of information. Organizations that maintain multiple silos of information spend an inordinate amount of time reconciling and correcting data instead of focusing on what the data represent.
The remainder of this report provides an overview of GFOA's methodology and approach to this project, analysis of AC Transit business processes, and recommendations for improving those processes. Where appropriate, the report cites GFOA best practice documentation and provides a reference to the best practice document in an Appendix.
Page 4 of 22 202
~e
Government finance Officers Association
I Section 2: Approach & Methodology 1. Onsite Assessment GFOA's team worked with management and administrative staff from various departments at AC Transit to review both the processes and tools used in the annual budget process and the associated reporting required by internal and external stakeholders. GFOA used focus groups, interviews, and document review to obtain the information needed to assess AC Transit's budget processes against GFOA expertise and industry best practices. GFOA also reviewed various financial reporting processes in relationship to the budget process. The team used the framework shown below to determine whether the current infrastructure of processes and technologies will support management and decision-making needs within the organization.
Outcomes & Results
Process & Activities
Supporting Inputs & Tools • • • •
Polid es Docum entation Technology Staffing
• • • • • •
• • • • •
Meet Stakeholder Expectations Desired Outcomes Best Practices Transparency Accountability
Leadership Dedsion Support Business Process ValueAddedActivittes Reporting/ Communications Control
Outcomes & Results: In GFOA's approach, the ultimate purpose of a high-performing finance/budget function is to enable a jurisdiction to achieve high-quality results, demonstrating that the government is an effective steward of financial resources , that it is meeting the expectations and needs of users (both internal departments and the public), and that it supports the achievement of organization-wide goals. Processes & Activities: An organization that is able to successfully execute key financial management activities can produce results. These activities include provision of analytical and informational services to decision makers, efficient and accurate transaction processing, effective internal control and risk mitigation, and timely and accurate financial reporting. Inputs & Tools: Finally, the finance/budget function's technology, staffing, policies and procedures, and business processes determine the quality of its financial management activities.
. Page 5 of 22 203
Gb
Government Finance Officers Association
GFOA reviews activities to identify what is working well and what might be improved, then analyzes supporting practices and tools to provide specific suggestions on improvement opportunities. GFOA approached this engagement from two interdependent perspectives. The first perspective is organizational efficiency - that is, what activities are being performed well? Questions we explored from this perspective included:
• •
Are functions performed as efficiently as possible? Are staff resources sufficient, and are staff adequately trained? Are processes, policies, and technologies up-to-date and adequate to meet the needs of internal and external customers?
The second perspective is strategic- are activities being conducted in line with the results desired by the community and by AC Transit's leadership? Questions we explored from this perspective included: • •
Are business processes focused on achieving the intended results? Do activities produce information and services that are consistent with user expectations? For example, do officials receive the information they need, in a timely manner, to support their decision making and fiscal monitoring roles?
Information for this assessment was collected from documents provided by AC Transit, interviews with staff, and discussions with executive leadership. While formal assessments typically focus on opportunities for improvement, GFOA also strives to identify areas of strength within the organization. By identifying areas of strong performance, the leadership team gains the ability to make use of those strengths in other areas of the organization. Opportunities for improvement should also be viewed in the context of overall organizational performance and strategic vision for the organization going forward. AC Transit should note that this report is not intended to be an overall assessment of the organization to determine if a specific standard is being met; our focus was to find areas for improvement. As a result, the findings in this report will focus much more on shortcomings and areas for improvement.
2. Report Preparation & Recommendations Following onsite work at AC Transit, the team reviewed materials and information gathered during interviews to identify and prioritize opportunities for improvement. Using GFOA expertise and industry best practices, the team performed gap analyses between AC Transit's current state and the ideal state of operation for the highest-priority items. The team has structured its recommendations for AC Transit into two categories, described below: Short Range: Recommendations categorized as short range tend to be objectives that , by the team 's assessment, can be adopted or implemented without significant adaptations to current systems or processes, and will help the organization move toward more efficient and effective execution of key business activities.
Page 6 of 22 204
Ge
Government Finance Officers Association
Long Range: The recommendations categorized as longer-range objectives require more indepth planning and implementation effort. Longer-range recommendations can be high-value adaptations of current processes and systems, but to be successful, they require champions at multiple levels of the organization. The impact of longer-range objectives may also depend heavily on successful execution of the associated shorter-term recommendations.
3. Review & Action Planning After AC Transit has had an opportunity to review the issues identified in this report and GFOA's recommendations for improvement (both short range and long range), GFOA will be onsite to facilitate a discussion of the recommendations and preparation of an Action Plan that AC Transit can use to track progress toward improvements. GFOA will use a template similar to the example below to identify improvement opportunities, identify stakeholders responsible for executing the improvements, and designate a measure or indicator assigned to each outcome to demonstrate that improvement has actually taken place. Improvement
Timeframe
I
Responsible
I
Measure/ Outcome
1
2
3 4 5 6
7 8 9
Note: All improvements identified in the action plan will be based on AC Transit's decisions and approved by AC Transit leadership. The action plan is intended to be a document that AC Transit has ownership over and not simply a consultant recommendation.
Page 7 of 22 205
Ge
Governm ent Finance Officers Association
Section 3: Detailed Analysis & Recommendations 1. Introduction Using the framework described in Section 2: Approach & Methodology, GFOA deconstructed and analyzed the budgeting process in three critical categories: Supporting Inputs & Tools; Process & Activities ; and Outcomes & Results. By reviewing the budgeting process in this way , the team has identified opportunities to improve not only the efficiency of the process in terms of infrastructure, but also the effectiveness of the process in terms of facilitating desired results and outcomes. We have segmented our recommendations into short- and long-term objectives to help AC Transit plan and prioritize action planning and ultimately extract the maximum potential value from the annual budgeting process. The analysis is structured as follows : Inputs & Tools- Budget Administration: This section discusses the infrastructure of the budget process in terms of policies, documentation, technology, and staffing. The team's analysis focuses on AC Transit's effective and complete use of the PeopleS oft platforms and other budget systems in terms of both human and technological capability. This section also discusses the degree to which AC Transit has the proper policies and documentation in place to ensure cross-training and continuity in the event of turnover or absences. Process & Activities - Budget Processes: This section discusses the budget development process and other related processes at AC Transit in terms of process design, organizational support, and effective use of the inputs to the process. GFOA's analysis focuses on communication and coordination between organizational units and the relation those elements have to the efficiency and control of business processes. Outcomes & Results- Budget Analysis & Review: This section discusses the degree to which the budget process adequately supports understanding of the organization's strategic success. The analysis focuses on whether desired outcomes and stakeholder expectations are, or can be , addressed from a review of the budget process and actual performance. GFOA also explores whether appropriate transparency and accountability are facilitated by the budget process.
2. Inputs & Tools Analysis of Current State Policies GFOA recommends that , at a minimum, financial policies in the following areas be adopted by an organization's board:
• • •
Financial planning policies Revenue policies Expenditure policies
The adopted financial policies should then be used to frame major policy initiatives, consistent with the budget and communicated in the budget (contributing to the budget's ability to
Page 8 of 22 206
G~
Government Finance Officers Associatio n
communicate the organization's policy direction and provide context for more targeted budget plans). (See GFOA Best Practice: Adoption of Financial Policies) GFOA provided a review of AC Transit's budget policy, capital project policy, and reserve policy.
•
Budget Policy The budget policy appears to have been revised- or emphasis added- in sections related to the organization's goals, objectives, and performance metric targets . GFOA commends AC Transit for including this in the budget policy and creating the expectation that this information will become part of the process. However, the current process does not seem to include this information (or does not include this information in a way that allows users to base decisions on it). The budget policy also sets the expectation that staff will prepare quarterly projections of revenue and expenses as well as a report on the progress toward achieving the District's goals, objectives, and performance metrics. Similar to the comment above, GFOA did not find processes that would support this policy. If AC Transit is working to add this process in the future, GFOA would recommend that overall budget to actual reporting (and reporting on performance metrics) be managed in the same system- preferably the financial system- to avoid creating an additional shadow system.
•
Budget, Operating Transfers GFOA found what appeared to be an inconsistency between AC Transit's policy on the budget and the policy on budget transfers. The policy on budget transfers focuses on transferring budgeted amounts between accounts. The policy on budget indicates that the budget will be controlled at the department level - eliminating the need for transferring between accounts during the year. For example, within a department, one account could be over budget so long as other accounts are under budget by equal amounts.
•
Capital Project Policy AC Transit's capital project policy defines a capital project as any expenditure that has a value of more than $1 ,000 and a life expectancy of one year or more (with the exception of FTA and preventative maintenance projects). This is not aligned with GFOA's best practice, which states, "In no case should a government establish a capitalization threshold of less than $5,000 for any individual item." (See GFOA Best Practice on Establishing Appropriate Capitalization Thresholds for Capital Asset) In addition, the policy provides criteria for evaluating capital projects in preparing the capital budget. GFOA acknowledges that this is most likely implied with the criteria stated, but would expect that the policy require projects to be aligned with the organization's goals. That is currently not stated in the policy.
•
Reserve Policy GFOA reviewed AC Transit's reserve policy for alignment with GFOA best practices. The AC Transit reserve policy requires that AC Transit maintain a reserve that is more than 10% of the operating budget (up to a maximum of 20%). This is consistent with the GFOA best practice that states that organizations should set aside an amount equal to 2 months of operations (approximately 17%). Depending on the volatility of AC Transit's revenue sources, this amount may be increased. AC Transit's policy includes a method
Page 9 of 22 207
Gb
Government Finance Officers Associa tion
of replenishment that is also consistent with GFOA best practice statements. (See GFOA Best Practice on Appropriate Level of Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund, Appropriate Levels of Working Capital in Enterprise Funds, and Replenishing Fund Balance in the General Fund) Technology Ineffective use of PeopleS oft and other technologies does not support informed business decisions during the budgeting process.
•
Lack of an Integrated Budget Preparation Tool AC Transit does not have an integrated budget tool that the entire organization uses to prepare project revenues and expenses. The tool that exists is not well understood, is not integrated with PeopleSoft, and serves primarily as a data entry tool, which does not support many of the features found in commercially available budget packages in use at comparable organizations across the United States.
•
Limited Use of PeopleS oft AC Transit has purchased and implemented the PeopleSoft system. PeopleSoft is a market-leading enterprise resource planning (ERP) application that is used by many high-performing organizations. In some areas, AC Transit has been able to realize the potential of the system and use it effectively to manage operations. However, it appears that in others, challenges during the implementation have led to an impaired system that creates significant inefficiencies. In addition, even in areas where PeopleSoft appears to have features available to support AC Transit's processes, staff has exhibited inconsistent levels of training and knowledge of the system - resulting in very different user experiences. In other areas, it appears as though large portions of the system (such as grants management, project costing , and payroll/general ledger integration) were never set up or fully deployed. This causes inefficiency and the need for additional systems (shadow systems) to augment "missing" PeopleSoft functionality.
•
Proliferation of Other (Shadow) Systems As a result (direct or indirect) of some of the limitations of PeopleSoft, staff has created or purchased a number of shadow systems to more easily process and report information outside of PeopleSoft. While in many cases this is viewed as an improvement on an individual or departmental level, it creates significant issues as far as organizational reporting and overall system (PeopleSoft) trust issues. These shadow systems cause data to become fragmented, and there is continued deterioration of integrated PeopleSoft functionality and the system's ability to serve the full organization. For example, GFOA identified at least three systems (PeopleSoft, SharePoint, and Excel) that are used for budget development, each with different information. Multiple staff members reported confusion as to what systems were actually in use.
•
Overall Lack of Trusted/Quality Data With few exceptions, AC Transit owns or has access to the technology and systems that would be necessary to support successful business activities and outcomes. However those systems are under-deployed and underutilized. In cases where the system has been configured, staff seemed to indicate that the organization did not have full trust in the system data and preferred to rely on shadow (or parallel) systems to provide, for example, budget reporting and position control, rather than using PeopleSoft as it was designed. This creates many ripple effects across the organization- most notably,
Page 10 of 22 208
Gb
Government Finance Officers Association
inefficiencies from having to maintain a separate system, reconciliation challenges, and failure to use system data for managerial reporting (since key data exist in other systems). Documentation
GFOA found that staff did not have access to accurate and complete documentation for business process and system use. Numerous AC Transit staff members mentioned that efforts at documenting business processes have been made, but those efforts were either completed by outside stakeholders and did not involve key stakeholders (for example, process documentation efforts by the Auditor's Office), or did not consider organizational processes (documentation was only intradepartmental). •
Incomplete Process Documentation Lack of full documentation of interdepartmental processes makes complete understanding of AC Transit's business processes difficult. It is clear that in some areas of the organization , attempts have been made to document business processes, and this effort appears to have helped communicate process expectations. However, these efforts tend to be within a department and thus do not address some of AC Transit's primary business process issues related to interdepartmental communication (more comments later in the report) .
•
System Documentation Does Not Exist Also, lack of system documentation and standard operating procedures for PeopleSoft and other systems has resulted in inconsistent use (some departments use reports and functions that others don't know exist). Additionally, this has resulted in proliferation of shadow systems, as users are more familiar with the shadow systems than they are with the standard enterprise systems.
Staffing Throughout many of the meetings and interviews GFOA conducted, staff seemed to be experienced, knowledgeable, and professional. Many had an in-depth understanding of business requirements and were able to produce results despite some of the deficiencies noted in this section. It was also clear that doing so is not sustainable and that if key personnel were removed from the organization, there would be little capacity to shift work and/or train new employees.
In addition, AC Transit does not appear to have sufficient staff support for its systems. Many comparable organizations establish an IT governance structure to maintain, support, and ultimately enhance their enterprise systems. Individuals assigned to this support structure either exist as part of a dedicated support department or are disbursed throughout the organization, but clear responsibilities (and time commitments) are identified for ongoing training , performing incremental adjustments to the system, making sure system documentation is current, and supporting end users.
Recommendations GFOA has developed the following recommendations to help resolve the issues identified above. All recommendations will be discussed during a follow-up presentation and action plan discussion.
Page 11 of 22 209
~e
Government finance Officers Association
Short Range • Engage in business process mapping to better understand the interdepartmental connections of its business processes.
•
Prepare a system inventory to identify all systems used throughout the organization to support key business processes. The system inventory should include all commercially available systems, custom systems, any databases or spreadsheets, and any files or data storage, analytics, and workflow reminder systems used to support the process. GFOA believes this is an important part of business process analysis that can help identify sources of redundancy and wasted effort.
•
Invest in training for select staff on PeopleSoft standard reports. GFOA believes that with an enhanced ability to get information from PeopleSoft, users would have a much more pleasant experience with the system. NOTE: This recommendation is not intended to solve the limitations in the PeopleSoft configuration .
•
Assess the People Soft system and related shadow systems. The goal of the assessment should be finding an approach for incorporating as many shadow systems as possible into the current PeopleSoft configuration.
•
Assign a team of cross-departmental users to begin reviewing data quality and identifying potential system improvements.
•
Identify and prioritize PeopleSoft training needs. This includes listing all AC Transit staff members who should have in-depth knowledge of PeopleSoft and identifying a limited number of individuals for detailed training . Those individuals would then educate other key users.
Medium I Long Range • Revisit the PeopleSoft implementation and make a second attempt at implementing core PeopleSoft functionality. The final scope of the implementation would be determined by the assessment identified above, but GFOA would expect it to include the following PeopleSoft modules:
o o o o o o o o
PeopleSoft Financials Suite PeopleSoft Expense Management Suite PeopleSoft Project Management Suite PeopleSoft Capital Asset Management Suite PeopleSoft Purchasing PeopleSoft Human Resources PeopleSoft Payroll PeopleSoft Time and Labor
Without a solid enterprise system to handle key administrative functions such as accounting, project accounting, procurement, and payroll, AC Transit will face significant process limitations. The system will act as a permanent constraint against improvement. •
Invest in and mandate PeopleSoft training for key users during the implementation. During GFOA's assessment, many staff members commented on their desire to attend training . AC Transit should facilitate and mandate PeopleSoft training and develop system manuals.
Page 12 of 22 210
Gb
Government Finance Officers Association
•
Evaluate options and implement a budget development system that can make full use of PeopleSoft data for projections and forecasting revenues and expenses. Also, give AC Transit staff the ability to budget and consider all necessary information to make effective budget decisions. Examples of products on the market include: o o o o o o
Hyperion Questica NeuBrain A3 Solutions SAP Public Budget Formulation AMS Advantage Performance Budgeting
NOTE: GFOA is not providing an endorsement of the products listed above. This list is intended to provide examples of products that are available in the market. GFOA acknowledges the list is not comprehensive, and products listed were not chosen with criteria specific to what would be a good fit for AC Transit.
When the organization is ready to procure a budget system, GFOA strongly recommends that AC Transit define a set of functional requirements and focus the procurement around fulfilling the functional requirements. Many organizations purchase budget software that is never fully implemented, based on the "bells and whistles" shown in a demonstration and as a result of overbuy. Budget systems do not need to be complex, but they should provide basic analytics and budget development capabilities (including tracking both financial and non-financial data).
(See GFOA Best Practice: Using of Technology in Capital Planning and Management)
3. Processes & Activit ies Analys is of Current State Leadership Throughout multiple interviews with AC Transit staff, it was clear that all staff understood the overall mission and focus of AC Transit -to operate a bus fleet and to serve customers. There also appeared to be much less of a leadership focus on internal business processes and the organization's support activities. GFOA believes that the most significant result from this is the presence of strong departmental silos. Communication across departments is lacking and there is a general lack of understanding of how other departments interact and contribute to a process. This results in duplicative work, rework, and informational bottlenecks. For example, GFOA has identified the following interdepartmental relationships that could be improved: • • • •
Grant accounting and grant administration Budget department an organizational units PeopleSoft support function and user departments Purchasing department and capital projects department
Without better communication , trust, and understanding of all the departments' roles, AC Transit will continue to suffer process inefficiencies.
Decision Support Due primarily to the technology limitation identified in the section above, AC Transit lacks tools that provide accurate, timely, and relevant information for decision support. Generally, any management-level decision support must be created manually from many different systems and combined in Microsoft Excel or a similar tool. However, existence of a tool by itself would not
Page 13 of 22 211
G~
Government Finance Officers Association
instantly lead to quality information for decision support. The organization also doesn't appear to be tracking budget information at a level that would be effective or understood by managers. For example, GFOA noted the following issues: •
• • •
Budget requests do not seek or capture in-depth justification or analysis of the requested amount. It is therefore difficult to understand how the funding would be used to accomplish AC Transit goals or with defined programs. Budget requests are not directly tied to strategic goals or key performance indicators. Labor data are not tracked at a level of detail necessary to support project and grant accounting. Users do not understand decision support data. For example, managers indicated that they did not understand budget reports (or that budget reports were inaccurate).
Business Processes GFOA reviewed several business processes related to the budget process for AC Transit. Findings are separated by high-level process.
•
Budget Development Process As mentioned above, a typical public-sector budget process that is following industry standard best practices will contain the following major components : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Set organizational goals and priorities. Action plans and strategic focus (both organizationally and at department level). Specific programs identified to fulfill the action plan. Resources allocated to programs/business units. Communication of budget decisions and an established system for budget accountability.
Obviously, AC Transit passes a budget each year and is thus able to complete step 4 , successfully allocating resources each year. GFOA also commends AC Transit on clearly identifying organizational goals and priorities. While it is clear that these goals and priorities have been well communicated and are more or less universally understood throughout the organization, there is a disconnect with the budget process. The AC Transit budget process seems to skip (or at least does not formally contain) steps 2 and 3. These are critical in allowing the organization to "operationalize" the strategic goals and priorities, and develop strategies and plans backed by information, data, and proven techniques that support the link between AC Transit's approved budget allocations and the goals the organization is hoping to achieve. Without this link, it is not clear how the organization intends to achieve its goals through the budget. In addition, in practice, it appears that when the AC Transit budget is prepared, the focus is on maintaining the status quo - rather than planning and forecasting expenditures based on completion of strategic goals. Managers prepare the budget by adjusting up or down in comparison to the previous year at a very detailed line item level. This does not permit discussions or debate (or decision making) on a larger programmatic or strategic level.
•
Budget Administration I Monitoring Process Budget administration relates to how an organization spends its budget throughout the year and how that spending is tracked . Budget administration also relates to how the
Page 14 of 22 212
G~
Government Finance Officers Association
organization is tracking outcomes and results from the planned budget expenditures. An effective budget administration function will clearly identify and communicate what has been spent in relation to the plan and what has been accomplished in relation to the plan. AC Transit reported a number of challenges in overall budget execution and administration. For example: o o
o
o o
o
•
The inability to record time (salary and benefits) directly to projects compromises timely project and grant reporting and adds significant manual work. Errors or lack of proper set up for projects and grants result in issues with reporting accuracy and create additional work to reconcile issues and maintain proper control for processing required reports and reimbursement requests. The lack of understanding of the purchasing process (and potentially process limitations within the purchasing process, although this was not a focus of GFOA's analysis) among departments creates the perception that it is extremely difficult to purchase/spend against the approved budget. Key performance indicators are not tracked along with the budget; therefore, no reporting is done on outcomes. Staff commented that there is little accountability for executing the budget. The organization's budget administration function does not follow through to ensure that the budget was spent as planned. Overall, there is a reliance on third-party systems to track spending against the budget. The organization's PeopleSoft system has this capability and it is not being used to its full extent, causing fragmented data and the need for significant redundant manual effort.
Financial Reporting Processes GFOA understands the complexity involved with end-of-period and end-of-year financial reporting processes, and it is clear that several system limitations contribute to further increased levels of complexity. However, all staff interviewed seemed to have a thorough understanding of the process and their role in the process. End-of-year processes were identified and documented, and with the exception of workarounds based on system limitations (for ex~mple, information stored in external systems that needs to be reconciled), the process works as designed. In general, AC Transit creates the need for significant reconciliation when preparing reports because data were not captured correctly at the point of data entry. This leads to a significant manual work effort for grant reporting, asset tracking, and project costing .
Value-Added Activities As reported above, GFOA found, and AC Transit staff reported, that a significant amount of time was spent manually entering, compiling, aggregating, and cleaning up data for analysis. This is very common in organizations that lack a modern ERP system. However, with the investment that AC Transit has made in PeopleSoft, this should not be the case for this organization. Staff expressed a strong desire to spend more time making valuable improvements to the way data are captured and shared, but does not feel that current processes or systems allow such opportunities.
Page 15 of 22 213
~~
Government Finance Officers Association
Reporting The organization has fairly substantial reporting requirements. In addition to "standard" managerial reports, AC Transit has to comply with public-sector financial reporting requirements as well as the numerous reporting requirements of the grantor agencies from which AC Transit receives funding. Not all reporting is automated in organizations that fully utilize their financial systems, as many grantor organizations require a specialized format for reporting . However, in these cases, all of the pertinent data comes from the financial system. Reporting (of all kinds) from AC Transit is a very manual process, which means that: •
Little reporting comes directly from the PeopleSoft system without first being manually aggregated, modified, or scrubbed.
•
End users must rely on manual reporting from other departments. There is a missed opportunity to use the system as designed and allow users to retrieve and analyze meaningful data on their own.
•
PeopleSoft reporting is not used (even when it is available). This creates an unnecessary shadow system that must be reconciled and maintained. Interviews with individuals who have greater levels of familiarity with PeopleSoft indicated that in certain cases (for example, budget to actual reporting), reports existed that would serve the needs of AC Transit, but these reports were not used. Not using available PeopleSoft features creates additional (unnecessary) work and continues to fragment data, creating additional doubt in the system .
(See GFOA Best Practice: Improving the Timeliness of Financial Reports) Control Any findings of process controls require differentiation between intra-departmental processes and inter-departmental processes. •
Intra-Departmental Process Among the departments interviewed in relation to this report, all appeared to have well understood roles and responsibilities and worked well together to complete necessary tasks. Department leadership was well informed and supportive of activities going on in the department, and department staff felt that department leadership provided the necessary support within the department. Within the department, staff does the best they can to work with any situation they are given from another department. GFOA also found that within the department, processes were controlled and consistent. As noted earlier, AC Transit's business process focus on the department creates issues not within a department, but when processes cross over to different departments.
•
Inter-Departmental Process Partly as a result of the lack of documentation and overall understanding of organizationwide business processes (e.g., budget process, fixed asset reporting process, procurement process, and grant or project accounting process), processes were found to not be "in control." GFOA heard of many instances of process variation resulting from misunderstanding of process rules or lack of enforcement of process rules.
Page 16 of 22 214
~~
Government Finance Officers Association
Recommendations GFOA has developed the following recommendations to help resolve the issues identified above. All recommendations will be discussed during a follow-up presentation and action plan discussion. Short Range •
Create an explicit link between budget expenditures and organizational goals through a strategy or program that AC Transit is using to accomplish the goal. GFOA believes that department managers should be able to provide information on departmental expenditures to specify the purpose of the expenditure and the planned output/outcome of that budget expense. (See GFOA Best Practice: Budgeting for Outcomes)
•
Identify performance measures to track progress toward planned outputs/outcomes for each strategy or program identified. These performance measures should then be tracked throughout the year and communicated regularly to appropriate stakeholders. (See GFOA Best Practice: Performance Management: using Performance Measurement for Decision Making)
•
Create a grants management policy that defines expectations for the entire organization for how grants will be managed and what is required for grant reporting . This would enable the organization to properly set up appropriate systems to capture grant information at the beginning of the process rather than at the end. (See GFOA Best Practice: Establishing and Effective Grants Policy)
•
Schedule cross-departmental process improvement sessions in which full business processes are discussed and current process stakeholders are given the opportunity to identify current challenges. GFOA recommends that AC Transit map existing business processes with participants from the full process. This should provide a greater level of understanding within the prqcess and help identify improvement opportunities, with various departments better able to provide the necessary information at subsequent steps in the process - leading to less redundant data entry and process re-work.
•
Create and maintain an issues list that will be managed by the executive team for any cross-departmental process issues.
Long Term •
Work to transition the budget from an incremental "line item budget" to a programmatic budget that identifies outcomes and planned services for each expense. The budget would then be communicated by program so audiences could easily link planned outcome with planned expense, thus making budget accountability much easier and the overall process much more transparent. (See GFOA Best Practice: Budgeting for Results and Outcomes)
•
Implement a new budgeting system with features to analyze programs, track costs (by program as well as departmental line item), and report performance.
•
Consider adopting an ongoing quality management or continuous improvement structure that will focus on process quality and process improvement. Many examples of such programs exist. GFOA has been involved in researching best practices for public-sector application of Lean techniques. Lean is a potentially powerful way to increase the speed
Page 17 of 22 215
~e
Government Finance Officers Association
with which work is completed, increase the quality, focus on the "customer" perspective, and ultimately decrease the cost. GFOA believes that a continual focus on such process improvement will provide the sustained effort that most organizations (including AC Transit) require to become more efficient and effective, through a series of incremental improvement projects.
4. Outcomes & Results Analysis of Current State Stakeholder Expectations While it is clear AC Transit has been taking strides to become a performance-based organization, strategic budgeting is not yet a fully developed and implemented concept. While strategic goals and associated key performance indicators are being developed, there is no clear link between these goals and the related budget allocations or decisions. In addition, it appears that there are unmet or unclear expectations of stakeholder groups at numerous levels of the organization. In interviews with staff, there was little focus on meeting customer expectations. All business processes have a "customer" (external citizen customer or internal customer that serves as the next step in the process). Without understanding the expectations of that customer, it is difficult to review whether the process meets those expectations. For the budget process, GFOA understands that AC Transit has completed initiatives to determine public preferences; however, it is not clear how this information is related to the AC Transit goals. Therefore, it is not clear how planned budget expenses relate to (or are not) successful in meeting those expectations. Desired Outcomes AC Transit has not been collecting performance data on budget performance, so an evaluation of budget process results was not possible. This section provides analysis on desired outcomes from a process management perspective rather than identifying results from budget decisions. Budget Development & Administration AC Transit's budget process does not provide the same level of desired outcomes identified in GFOA's best practice statements. The AC Transit budget development process is almost entirely focused on preparing a financial plan for the organization and forecasting revenues and expenses to maintain a "status quo." It does not appear that the process includes preparation of an operations plan. Obviously, this is being done, but the lack of a link to the budget process contributes to limitations with reporting on execution of the budget and accountability for the operations plan. Financial Reporting While the processes were inefficient and the tools used in the process were not providing as much support as would be expected, GFOA did not find that AC Transit was failing to meet financial reporting outcomes related to required external reporting . The process makes it much more difficult to accomplish the outcomes, but the desired outcomes are still being accomplished. AC Transit continues to receive GFOA's Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting and appears to have met all grantor reporting requirements. However, desired outcomes for internal reporting seem to be unmet. Managers indicated they did not receive sufficient budgeUactual reporting that was timely (or accurate) to properly evaluate and provide decision support during the year. In addition, outside of the organization's
Page 18 of 22 216
~~
Government Finance Officers Association
official financial statements, it does not appear that much is being done to report financial information for a larger stakeholder audience. GFOA was unable to find key financial documents on the organization's website. (See GFOA Best Practice on Preparing Popular Reports and Website Presentation of Official Financial Documents) Transparency
AC Transit's budget document presents information at a level that makes it difficult for stakeholders to understand the organization's budget plans. While the budget document has high-quality information on the organization and meets GFOA's standards for the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award , it does not have programmatic information that links planned activities to planned expenditures. All budget expenditures are presented either by position or by chart of account segment. This structure is well suited for an "accounting audience" with the goal of tracking spending within those categories, but is not well suited for a policy-level or public perspective that is trying to identify what is planned for or what the expectation of service can be for that level of expenditure. Reporting that X dollars will be spent on position Y does not provide any information on what position Y will be doing to accomplish the organization's goals. For example, GFOA identified Sound Transit's budget document as providing this level of information. The budget document is available on the Sound Transit website (http://www.soundtransit.org/). GFOA did find evidence of this type of analysis in the AC Transit short-range transit plan developed in 2010, but it was not integrated with the budget document. In addition, based on interviews with AC Transit staff, it appears that the budget process identified in the budget document is slightly different that the process that occurs. Accountability After the budget is adopted, it does not appear that AC Transit has a formal process for following up on planned budget outcomes or any "real" accountability for the budget. For example, little justification is required during the budget preparation process, which makes it difficult for any performance reviews relative to the budget. Similarly, performance metrics are not tied directly to the budget or collected and presented against the budget.
Many organizations plan specific meetings or have a specific agenda for periodically reporting budget performance (not only budget spending) to an executive team that is able to plan for and take corrective action, if necessary. GFOA did not evaluate whether informal "accountability" was taking place and if AC Transit leadership were incorporating these meetings as part of regular ongoing management activities, but there was no documentation that communicated this level of accountability outside the organization. For example, GFOA was provided a set of "critical business outcomes" that appear to have been developed as performance indicators for each department or function . GFOA was unable to find any performance information on these indicators or determine how planned budget expenditures are linked to achieving these critical business outcomes.
Recommendations The GFOA recommendations provided in earlier sections of this report are made with the intent that each will lead to improved outcomes. Recommendations listed here are in addition to those already stated.
Page 19 of 22 217
Ge
Government Finance O fficers Association
•
Focus on and implement a plan for improved budget communications. GFOA understands that AC Transit has a public relations/communications department. AC Transit's budget function could benefit from an improved communication strategy to improve transparency with external stakeholders. This would also allow for greater accountability.
•
Consider expanding the role/scope of public participation in the budget process. As part of the budget process, AC Transit could facilitate focus group meetings and surveys with stakeholders, or have select external stakeholders participate in the budget process to ensure that the planned expenditures are consistent with stakeholder expectations. (See GFOA Best Practice: Public Participation in Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management)
Page 20 of 22 218
G~
Government Fin an ce Officers Association
ISection 4: Action Plan To be completed in next phase of the project.
Page 21 of 22 219
Ge
Government Finance Officers Association
I
Section 5: Appendix
This Appendix includes the GFOA best practices referenced in this report and related to budget and fiscal policy that may support AC Transit in adopting and implementing more effective budget processes.
1. Relevant GFOA Best Practices •
Adoption of Financial Policies
•
Appropriate Level of Unrestricted Fund Balance in the General Fund
•
Appropriate Levels of Working Capital in Enterprise Funds
•
Budgeting for Results and Outcomes
•
Establishing Appropriate Capitalization Thresholds for Tangible Capital Assets
•
Establishing an Effective Grants Policy
•
Improving the Timeliness of Financial Reports
•
Performance Management: Using Performance Measurement for Decision Making
•
Preparing Popular Reports
•
Public Participation in Planning, Budgeting, and Performance Management
•
Replenishing Fund Balance in the General Fund
•
Use of Technology in Capital Planning and Management
•
Web Site Presentation of Official Financial Documents
Page 22 of 22 220
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-137 July 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:
Board Policy 332- Fixed Asset Procedures
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Adopt Resolution No. 14-027 approving proposed amendments to Board Policy 332 -Fixed Asset Procedures and repealing Resolution No. 12-028. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The purpose of Board Policy 332 is to establish procedural requirements associated with fixed asset acquisition, recording, and monitoring, in accordance with Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Circular 5010.1D, under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines and Department of Transportation (DOT) policy and regulations which defines the threshold for Fixed Assets. This report recommends an update of AC Transit's capitalization limit from the current $1,000 to $5,000 which brings the policy in compliance with Circular 5010.1D recommendations. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT: There is no budgetary/fiscal impact associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Recommendations from the District's external auditors and Government Finance Officers 1
Association consultants prompted the Finance Department to review the District's Fixed Asset Policy. The proposed changes to Policy 352- Fixed Asset Procedures- will bring the policy into conformance with the recommendations from the District's external auditors and GFOA consultants. The consultant's recommendations take into consideration the impacts on the reporting of financial information and the need to maintain control over fixed assets at a reasonable cost.
1
REF: GFOA Best Practice Statement, " Establishing Appropriate Capitalization Threshold s for Capital Assets (1997, 2001, and 2006). (See Attachment 2) 221
Report No. 14-137 Page 2 of 2
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: Conformance with the proposed changes to the policy will bring the District current with GFOA Best Practices, external auditor recommendations, and FTA circular 5010.1D
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: While the District can opt to retain the outdated capitalization threshold, the District would be out of conformance with current recommended best practice and FTA recommendations.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy No. 332- Fixed Asset Procedures- was adopted in October 1989. It was amended in November 2007 and May 2012.
ATTACHMENTS: 1:
Resolution 14-027 with Exhibit A (Board Policy 332)
2:
GFOA Best Practice Statement, "Establishing Appropriate Capitalization Thresholds for Capital Assets {1997, 2001, and 2006) Excerpt from FTA Circular 5010.1D
3:
Department Head Approval:
James D. Pachan., Interim Chief Financial Officer
Reviewed by:
Denise C. Standridge, General Counsel Tom Prescott, Chief Performance Officer Ralph Martini, Controller Amy Solar-Doherty, Administrative Coordinator
Prepared by:
222
SR 14-137 Att.l
ALAMEDA-CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. 14-027 A RESOLUTION AMENDING BOARD POLICY NO. 332- FIXED ASSET PROCEDURES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 12-028 WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration FTA Circular 5010.1D and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-133 required that the District establish procedures for control and management of fixed assets; WHEREAS, the Board of Directors requires staff to periodically review the fiscal policies in order to keep them current and in compliance with federal requirements; and NOW THEREFORE, the Board of Directors of the Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District does resolve as follows:
Section 1. resolution. Section 2.
Approves amendments to Board Policy 332 as set forth in Exhibit A of this
Resolution No. 12-028 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Section 3. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage by four affirmative votes of the Board of Directors. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23'd day of July, 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 23'd day of July, 2014 by the following roll call vote:
Resolution No. 14·027
Page 1 of2 223
AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:
Linda A. Nemeroff, District Secretary
Approved as to Form and Content:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel
Resolution No. 14-027
Poge2 of2 224
EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 14- 027
AC Transit
Policy No. 332
BOARD POLICY Category: Financial Matters FIXED ASSET PROCEDURES
I. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish procedural requirements associated with the acquisition, disposal, fixed asset recording and monitoring processes.
II. BACKGROUND As a recipient of grant funding, the District must comply with various federal, state and local requirements with regard to fixed asset controls and reporting. The District will comply with these regulations in addition to sound fiscal management procedures within budgetary guidelines. To ensure full compliance with the requirements of federal and state grants, the District has established procedures consistent with the general grant management procedures as provided under Federal Transit Administration Circular 5010.1D, under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines and Department of Transportation (DOT) policy and regulations.
Ill. PROCEDURES Fixed Asset Definition:
Equipment means all tangible, nonexpendable, personal property that has a useful life of more than one year and an acquisition cost that exceeds $1.000 $5,000 per unit. This includes rolling stock and all other SH6R property used in the provision of public transit service. VVhile FTA allows a $5,000 threshold for Fixed Assets, a grantee may use its m•m definition of equipment provided that such definition would at least include all equipment. Therefore, in order to better control the District's resources and maximize the items eligible as grant'funded capital assets, the District has elected to use a $1,000 threshold.
Adopted:
Page 1 of 4
Amended:
225
10/89 11/07; 05/12
PLANNING PROCESS FOR FIXED ASSET ACQUISITION
Management will review the fixed asset needs of the District through three principle subfunctions: 1) The equipment needs of the District should be identified through the Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) which identifies the basic equipment replacement needs of the District as well as defining future equipment needed to implement the service plan defined in the SRTP. 2) A more detailed approach to District and Grant funded short-term equipment needs is defined in the Capital Improvement Plan phase of the annual/biannual budget development process. 3) Unanticipated equipment needs that arise during the fiscal year are addressed on a case by case basis by the Chief Financial Officer and the General Manager. The last method is primarily for use in District purchased assets or in response to emergency requirements (to be determined by the General Manager and/or Chief Financial Officer.) APPROVAL PROCESS:
1) Requesting Department initiates a Special Requisition which is reviewed by the Budget Staff to ensure that it is included in the approved budget. 2) Items that are to be funded with grant funding are reviewed by the Project Manager. If a Project Manager has not been assigned, the Grant Department will perform this review. This review is to ensure that the requested purchase is consistent with the project as defined in the grant document. 3) The Special Requisition is then submitted to the Accounting Department Grant Principal Financial Analyst who assigns the proper Grant Tracking Number and Accounting Code. PURCHASING PROCESS:
Once the Special Requisition has been fully approved, the Purchasing Department procures the item using the procedures established in the District's Purchasing Manual which is based on the Federal Transit Administration's Best Practices Procurement Manual. 1) The asset is received, physically tagged, and entered into the Peoplesoft system by Receiving personnel.
Page 2 of4
Adopted: Amended:
226
10/89 11/07: 05/12
2) Accounts Payable verifies that the documentation for the purchase is complete, including sign-off by the Project Manager if applicable, and then processes the document for payment. MONITORING FIXED ASSETS: 1) A physical inventory of the District's Fixed Assets will be conducted every two years in compliance with FTA regulations. 2) A Subsidiary Fixed Assets Ledger is maintained by the Accounting Department which records the following required information: • Title (i.e. who holds title to the asset) • Description • Tag Number • Identification Number • Date in service • Acquisition Date • Cost of Asset • Funding Source(s)- including percentage of Federal participation in the cost • Depreciation • Location • Use • Condition Status • Disposal date -when applicable • Useful Life
See Board Policy No. 356 for EquipmenUAsset Disposal Procedures. The capitalization and subsequent addition to inventory is made on the payment date. Depreciation is done on a Straight Line basis. Asset life is based on GAAP guidelines.
Accounts Payable Responsibility
Accounts Payable processes payment for these purchases once received. costs are recorded when vouchers are created in Peoplesoft.
Fixed asset
Year-End Accounting Procedures
At year-end, the Accounting Division reconciles expenditures per activity listings of capital accounts to the Fixed Asset maintenance file, adjusting any differences Page 3 of 4
Adopted: Amended:
227
10/89 11/07: 05/12
identified. Capital purchases using multiple account numbers that should have been recorded as a capital purchase should be verified via the Purchase Order module, printed and adjusted to balance the Fixed Asset records.
Disposition Forms/Transfers
All interdepartmental transfers of inventory with a value of $1 ,000 $5,000 or greater must be reported on a property disposition form . The transfer form identifies Fixed Assets transferred to their new assigned locations. The information on the disposition form is recorded and verified in the Fixed Asset records. The completed inventory transfer form must be signed by the transferring department director and Fixed Assets Coordinator before an asset can be physically moved from one location to the next.
Adopted:
Page 4 of 4
Amended:
228
10/89 11 /07; 05/12
SR 14-137 Att.2
• BEST PRACTICE Establishing Appropriate Capitalization Thresholds for Capital Assets (1997, 2001. and 2006) (CAAFR>
Background. The term capital assets is used to describe assets that are used in operations and that have initial lives extending beyond a single reporting period. Capital assets may be either intangible (e.g., easements, water (rights) or tangible (e.g., land, buildings, building improvements, vehicles, machinery, equipment and infrastructure). It is incumbent upon public-sector managers to maintain adequate control over all of a government's resources, including capital assets, to minimize the risk ofloss or misuse. As a practical application of the materiality principle, not all tangible capital-type items with useful lives extending beyond a single reporting period are required to be reported in a government's statement of position. Items with extremely short useful lives (e.g., Jess than 2 years) or of small monetary value are properly reported as an "expense" or "expenditure" in the period in which they are acquired. When outlays for capital-type items are, in fact, reported on the statement of position, they are said to be capitalized. The monetary criterion used to determine whether a given capital asset should be reported on the balance sheet is known as the capitalization threshold. A government may establish a single capitalization threshold for all of its capital assets, or it may establish different capitalization thresholds for different classes of · capital assets. Capitalization is, of its nature, primarily a financial reporting issue. That is, a government's principal concern in establishing specific capitalization thresholds ought to be the anticipated information needs of the users of the government's external financial reports. While it is essential to maintain control over all potentially capitalizable items, there exist much more efficient means than capitalization for accomplishing this objective in the case of a government's smaller tangible capital-type items.' Furthermore, practice has demonstrated that capital asset management systems that attempt to incorporate data on numerous smaller items are often costly and difficult to maintain and operate. Becommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that state and local governments consider the following guidelines in establishing capitalization thresholds: •
r •
Potentially capitalizable items should only be capitalized only if they have an estimated useful life of at least two years following the date'of acquisition; Capitalization thresholds are best applied to individual items rather than to groups of similar items (e. desks an , · · · · rtion of total c tal ets (e.g., books of a library district); In no case should a government establish a capitalization threshold of less than $5,000 for any i•..,.l:»'_. item;
1
See GFOA 's best practice on "Ensuring Control over Noncapitalized Items" (2006).
229
"
In establishing capitalization thresholds, governments that are recipients of federal awards should be aware of federal requirements that prevent the use of capitalization thresholds in excess of certain specified maximum amounts (i.e., currently $5,000) for purposes of federal reimbursement; and
•
Governments should exercise control over potentially capitalizable items that fall under the operative capitalization threshold.2
Approved by the GFOA 's Executive Board, February 24, 2006.
2
See G FOA 's best practice on "Ensuring Control over Noncapitalized Items" (2006 ).
230
SR 14-137 Att. 3
Page IV-25
FTA C 5010.10 11/01/2008
Rolling Stock Status Report), in which future needs (expansion and replacement) are discussed. must be available upon request by FTA. · (2)' Disposition Before the End ofUsefuiLife'. Any disposition of project property before the end of its useful life requires prior FTA approval. FTA is entitled to its share of the remaining Federal interest. The Federal interest is determined by calculating the fair market value of the project property immediately before the occurrence prompting the withdrawal of the project property from appropriate use. If project property is being removed from service before the end of its useful life, the Federal interest and the return to FTA is the greater of FTA 's share of the unamortized value of the remaining service life per unit, based on straight line depreciation of the original purchase price, or the Federal share of the sales price (even though the unamortized value is $5,000 or less). The following example is provided to determine the straight-line depreciation of a vehicle: for a 12-year, 500,000 mile minimum service life, the vehicle's value decreases each year by one-twelflh of its original purchase price. Alternatively, the value decreases for each mile driven 1/500,000 of its original purchase price. The unamortized value of the remaining service life per unit is the greater value obtained by calculating the straight line depreciation based on either miles or years, whichever is more advantageous to the grantee. (3) Retain and Use Elsewhere. After the minimum useful life of project property is reached and is no longer needed for the original project or program, it may be used by the grantee for other transit projects or programs. FTA prior approval of this alternative is not required. FTA retains its interest if the fair market value of the project property is over $5,000. (4) Fair Market Value of Over $5.000. After the service life of project property is reached, rolling stock and equipment with a current market value exceeding $5,000 per unit, or unused supplies with a total aggregate fair market value of more than $5,000, may be retained or sold. Reimbursement to FTA shall be an amount calculated by multiplying the total aggregate fair market value at the time of disposition, or the net sale proceeds, by the percentage of FTA 's participation in the original grant. The grantee's transmittal letter should state whether the equipment will be retained or sold. Use of sales proceeds are discussed elsewhere in Chapter IV of this circular. (5) Fair Market Value of Less than $5.000 Value. After the service life of project property is reached, rolling stock and equipment with a unit market value of $5,000 or less, or supplies with a total aggregate market value of $5,000 or less. may be retained. sold, or otherwise disposed of with no obligation to reimburse FTA. Records of this action must be retained. (6) Like-Kind Exchange Policv. With prior FTA approval, a vehicle may be traded in or sold before the end of its minimum normal service life, if a grantee so chooses.
231
Page JV-26
FTA C 5010.1 D 11101/2008 In lieu of returning the Federal share to FTA, a grantee may elect to use the tradein value or the sales proceeds from the vehicle to acquire a replacement vehicle of like kind. "Like-Kind" is defined as a bus for a bus with a similar service life and a rail vehicle for a rail vehicle. Under the Like-Kind Exchange Policy, proceeds from the vehicle sales are not returned to FTA; instead, all proceeds are reinvested in acquisition of the like-kind replacement vehicle. If sales proceeds are less than the amount of the Federal interest in the vehicle at the time it is being replaced, the grantee is responsible for providing the difference, along with the grantee's local share of the cost of the replacement vehicle. If sales proceeds are greater than the amount of the Federal interest of the vehicle traded in or sold, the investment of all proceeds in acquisition of the like-kind replacement vehicle results in reduction of the gross project cost. An example of like-kind exchange is: (a) A recipient purchased a new bus in 2002 for $220,000; 80 percent of the total price, or $176,000, was Federal funding while 20 percent, or $44,000, was local. Thus, there was an initial $176,000 "Federal interest" in the new vehicle. (b) Instead of keeping the bus in service for 12 years, the useful life under FTA guidelines, the recipient chose to sell the bus after six years and replace it with a new vehicle. (c) Since the bus had a minimum useful life of 12 years and its depreciation was determined on a "straight-line" basis, the depreciated value of the vehicle after six years was half the original price, or $1 I0,000. The remaining Federal interest was 80 percent of that figure, $88,000. (d) Assume, for eKample, the recipient realized $80,000 from the sale of the sixyear-old bus, or $30,000 less than the straight-line depreciated value of the original vehicle. The recipient then purchased a new bus in 2008 for $240,000. The transaction looked like this: Net project cost calculation: Gross project cost of new bus Less straight-line depreciated value of replaced bus. Net project cost Federal share 80% Local share 20% Sources of funds for new bus: Net sales proceeds from replaced bus New local cash Straight-line depreciated value shortfall Local share of net project cost
232
$240,000 - 110,000 $130,000 104,000 26,000 $ 80,000 - 30,000 26,000
Page IV-27
FTA C 5010.10
11/01/2008 104.000 $240,000
Federal share TOTAL
The Federal interest in the new bus is $192,000 ($88,000 transferred from the old vehicle and $104,000 in the new). (7) Transfer of Rolling Stock-Grantee-to-Grantee. For property where the useful life has been met and with prior FTA approval, a grantee may transfer rolling stock to another grantee. In such event that transfer of rolling stock is desired prior to the end of useful life, the Federal interest of the vehicles will be transferred, and therefore, there is no obligation to reimburse FTA. However, no additional FTA funds may be used to acquire the vehicles. Both grantees should coordinate with their FTA Regional Office and the following information should be submitted: (a) A written request for approval to transfer/receive vehicles. The request should include the transferor/transferee grantee name, list of vehicles (year, make, model), date placed in revenue service, date removed from revenue service, grant number which originally funded the vehicle, mileage, remaining useful life, Federal share of remaining useful life, reasons for transfer. (b) A Board Resolution (or other appropriate legal action) from each grantee. The transferring grantee's board resolution (or other appropriate legal action) should identify the receiving grantee, a statement that the vehicles are no longer required, a list of the vehicles to be transferred including VINs, and the remaining Federal interest that is transferred to the receiving grantee. The receiving grantee's board resolution (or other appropriate legal action) should identity the transferring grantee, a statement that the vehicles are needed for revenue service, a list of the vehicles to be acquired including VINs, the remaining Federal interest for each vehicles, agreement that the vehicles will be maintained in accordance and in compliance with FTA requirements, and that the transferred vehicles will be included in its equipment inventory records. (c) A Rolling Stock Status Report. Each grantee should provide a Rolling Stock Status Report that includes all information as identified in Chapter IV, Subsection 3.1.(1). The Rolling Stock Status report should reflect the impact that the transfer/addition of the vehicles will have on the grantee's total fleet and spare ratio. If approved, the receiving grantee will be directed to include the transferred vehicles in its next grant application. (8) Transfer of assets no longer needed !49 U.S.C. 5334Chl(IH3ll. For property that has not met its useful life and with prior FTA approval, the grantee may follow
233
., Page IV-28
FTACSOIO.ID 11/01/2008 procedures for publication in the Federal Register to transfer project property (including land or equipment) to a public agency for non-public transportation use and can be approved ifFTA confirms: (a) the asset will remain in public use for at least five years after the date the asset is transferred; (b) there is no purpose eligible for assistance for which the asset should be used; (c) the overall benefit of allowing the transfer is greater than the FTA interest in liquidation and return of the PTA remaining Federal interest in the asset, after considering fair market value and other factors; and (d) through an appropriate screening or survey process (usually by following procedures for publication in the Federal Register), that there is no interest in acquiring the asset for the Federal Government use if the asset is a facility or land. Additional information regarding this type of disposition is available from the PTA regional or metropolitan office.
(9) Sell and Use Proceeds for Other Capital Projects 149 U.S.C. 5334(h)(4)}. After the useful life is mel and with prior FTA approval, tl}e grantee may sell project property for which there is no longer any public transportation purposes and use the proceeds to reduce the gross project cost of other PTA eligible capital transit grants. The grantee is expected to record the receipt of the proceeds in the grantee's accounting system, showing that the funds are restricted for us~ in a subsequent capital grant, and reduce the liability as the proceeds are applied to one or more PTA approved capital grants. The subsequent capital grant application should contain information showing PTA that the gross project cost has been reduced with proceeds from the earlier transaction. (I 0) Unused Supplies. Por the disposition of supplies for which there is no transit use with a total aggregate fair market value that exceeds $5,000, the grantee shall compensate FTA for its share, or transfer the sales proceeds to reduce the gross project cost of other capital project(s). (49 U.S.C. 5334(h)(4)). (II) Casualty. Fire. Natural Disaster. and Misused Propertv. When project property is lost or damaged by fire, casualty, or natural disaster, the fair market value shall be calculated on the basis of the condition of the equipment or supplies immediately before the fire, casualty, or natural disaster, irrespective of the extent of insurance coverage. If any damage to project property results from abuse or misuse occurring with the grantee's knowledge and consent, the grantee agrees to restore the project property to its original condition or refund the value of the Federal interest in that property. The grantee may fulfill its obligations to remit the Pederal interest by either:
234
;
Page IV-29
FTAC5010.1D 11/01/2008
(a) With prior FTA approval, investing an amount equal to the remaining Federal interest in like-kind property eligible for assistance, if the like-kind property is within the scope of the project that provided Federal assistance for the property prematurely withdrawn from use; or (b) Returning to FTA an amount equal to the remaining Federal interest in the withdrawn project property. (12) Insurance Proceeds.lfthe grantee receives insurance proceeds when project
property has been lost or damaged by fire, casualty, or natural disaster, the grantee agrees to: (a) Apply those proceeds to the cost of replacing the damaged or destroyed project property taken out of service (Listed below are two examples of the application of insurance proceeds.), or (b) Return to FTA an amount equal to the remaining Federal interest in the lost, damaged, or destroyed project property. The Federal interest is not dependent on the extent of insurance coverage or on the insurance adjustment received.
Application of Insurance Proceeds:
235
,
Page IV-30
PTA C 5010.1 D 11/01/2008 Example 1:
Insurance Proceeds Greater than the Remaining Federal Interest in the Damaged or Destroyed Property. The remaining Federal interest in the damaged or destroyed property is $1 ,800. The grantee receives insurance proceeds in the amount of $2,500. The grantee is required to apply $1 ,800 of the $2,500 insurance proceeds towards the Federal share of replacing the destroyed property. Cost of replacement property:
$6,000
Less Federal Share of Insurance Proceeds: < 1,800> The remaining funds needed :
$4,200
lfthe funding ratio for this property were 80 percent Federal and 20 percent local, the replacement property could be purchased for $4,800 Federal/$1,200 Local funds. The insurance proceeds of $1 ,800 needed to cover the remaining Federal interest in the damaged and destroyed property must be applied to the Federal share of the replacement property. The grantee could use an additional $3000 in Federal funds. The grantee must provide $1,200 in local match to replace the property.
236
•
l
Report No: Meeting Date:
TI'?-9#5/T
14-139 July 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:
BOARD POLICY 356 - Disposition Of Surplus Equipment, Supplies, And Other Tangible Personal Property Of The District
ACTION ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider approving amendments to Board Policy 356-Disposition Of Surplus Equipment, Supplies, And Other Tangible Personal Property Of The District EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The intent of Board Policy 356 is to establish uniform guidelines for the disposal or transfer of surplus, or obsolete District equipment and supplies. As a recipient of grant funding, the District must comply with the requirements and general grant management procedures provided under Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Circular 5010.1D, under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines and Department of Transportation (DOT) policy and regulations which defines the threshold for Fixed Assets . In order to better control the District's resources and maximize the items eligible as grant funded capital assets, staff recommends that the District elect to use the maximum $5,000 threshold.
BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no budgetary or fiscal impact associated with this report.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
Recommendations from the District's external auditors and GFOA consultants 1 prompted the Finance Department to review and recommend amendments to Board Policy 356 - Disposition of Surplus Equipment, Supplies, and Other Tangible Personal Property of The District. The amendments will bring the policy into conformance with the recommendations from the District's external auditors and GFOA consultants.
1
REF: GFOA Best Practice Statement, " Establishing Appropriate Capitalization Thresholds for Capital Assets (1997, 2001, and 2006). (See Attachment 2) 237
Report No. 14-139 Page 2 of 2 The consultant's recommendations take into consideration the impacts on the reporting of financial information and the need to maintain control over fixed assets at a reasonable cost.
ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES: Conformance with the proposed changes to the policy will bring the District current with GFOA Best Practices, external auditor recommendations, and FTA circular 5010.1D
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: While the District could opt to retain the outdated capitalization threshold, it would be out of conformance with current recommended best practice and FTA recommendations.
PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES: Board Policy No. 356- Disposition of Surplus Equipment, Supplies, And Other Tangible Personal Property of The District- was approved by the Board of Directors in March 1991, and amended in April1992, December 1993, and May 2007.
ATTACHMENTS: 1:
Revised Board Policy 356
2:
GFOA Best Practice Statement, "Establishing Appropriate Capitalization Thresholds for Capital Assets (1997, 2001, and 2006) Excerpt from FTA Circular 5010.1D
3:
Department Head Approval:
James D. Pachan, Interim Chief Financial Officer
by: Prepared by:
Denise C. Standridge, Interim General Counsel
Reviewed
Ralph Martini, Controller
238
SA 14- 139 ATT.1
AC Transit
Policy No. 356
BOARD POLICY Category: Financial Matters DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES, AND OTHER TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF THE DISTRICT
I.
Purpose The intent of this policy is to establish uniform guidelines for the disposal or transfer of surplus, or obsolete District equipment and supplies. This policy shall apply to all tangible personal property, including rolling stock and technology equipment. This policy excludes the transfer, sale or other disposal of real property.
II.
Definitions "Equipment" shall mean all tangible personal property that has a useful life of more than one (1) year and an acquisition cost of $1,000 $5,000 or more per unit. This definition includes rolling stock and other tangible (movable) property used in the provision of public transit service. "Supplies" shall mean all tangible personal property of the District other than Equipment having a useful life of less than one (1) year and an acquisition cost under $1 ,000 $5,000. "Surplus or obsolete equipment" means tangible personal property which the District determines is no longer required for its needs or for the fulfillment its responsibilities. "Market Value" means the most probable price which equipment or supplies should bring in a competitive and open market. "Net proceeds from the sale of surplus or excess property" means the amount realized from the sale of property no longer needed for transit purposes less the expenses of any actual and reasonable selling and fixing-up expenses. "Service Life or Useful Life" of rolling stock begins on the date the vehicle is
Page 1 of 3
Adopted: Amended:
239
3/91 4/92.12/93, 5/07
placed in revenue service and continues until it is removed from service. "Straight Line Depreciation" means the method by which the value of District equipment is depreciated (reduced) over its service or useful life as a percentage of its cost.
Ill.
Disposition Authorization The General Manager may authorize the disposal of any surplus or obsolete equipment or supplies having an original acquisition cost not exceeding $100,000, providing the useful life of said equipment or supplies have been met. The General Manager is authorized to sell or dispose of surplus or obsolete equipment or supplies, when it is judged to be in the best interest of the organization that the property concerned is an estimated market value of up to $25,000 per unit. The Board of Directors may authorize the disposal of any surplus or obsolete equipment or supplies having an original acquisition cost exceeding $100,000. The GM Memorandum to the Board recommending disposition shall include acquisition cost, source of funding, funding agency and reimbursement to the funding agency, if required.
IV.
Disposition of FTA Funded Tangible Personal Property Rolling Stock: With respect to rolling stock originally funded by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds, any disposition before the end of its service life requires prior FTA approval. In addition, if rolling stock is removed from service and disposed of before the end of its useful life, the return to FTA is the greater of the FTA share of the unamortized value of the remaining service life per unit, based on straight line depreciation of the original acquisition cost, or the Federal share of the sales price (even though the unamortized value is $5,000 or less). In order to maintain proper inventory valuation and management practices, when the last bus in a fleet is sold, or when otherwise warranted, an analysis of related bus parts in inventory needs to be completed by the Stores department. Bus parts that are specific to the disposed fleet, which cannot be used by another fleet, must be disposed. This will keep the parts inventory accurate, and immune to "obsolete inventory" audit findings.
Equipment and Supplies over $5,000 value: After the service life of equipment is reached, equipment with a current market value exceeding $5,000 per unit, or unused supplies with a total aggregate fair market value of more than $5,000, may be retained or sold, with reimbursement to FTA of an amount calculated by multiplying the total aggregate fair market value at the time of disposition, or the net sale proceeds, by the percentage of FTA's participation in the original acquisition. Equipment and Supplies less than $5,000 value: Equipment with a unit Page 2 of 3
Adopted: Amended:
240
3/91 4/92,12/93,5/07
market value of $5,000 or less, or supplies with a total aggregate market value of $5,000 or less, may be retained, sold or otherwise disposed of with no obligation to reimburse FTA, providing the useful service life requirements have been met. Records of this action must be retained.
V.
Methods of Disposition of Tangible Personal Property Approved methods for the disposition of surplus or obsolete tangible personal property shall include: (1) trade-in as part of a new procurement; (2) transfer or sale to other public agencies; (3) transfer to non-profit agencies or organizations consistent with established legal parameters; (4) sale by auction open to the public; (5) solicitation of sealed bids or negotiated sale; whichever maximizes the disposal value to the District; or (6) disposal through scrapping.
VI.
Prohibited Sales Except in the case where surplus or obsolete District property is sold at public auction conducted by an independent third party auctioneer, members of the Board of Directors and/or employees of the District, or persons acting as agents of the foregoing, shall not be permitted to purchase at the sale.
VII.
Reports to the Board of Directors On a quarterly basis, the General Manager shall provide, as an information item to the Board, a report of the activities relating to the disposal of surplus or obsolete property describing the identification of property, type of items disposed of, original purchase price information and dates, the gross sales price, and the net proceeds to the District.
-----
- - - - - -
Page 3 of3
Adopted: Amended:
241
3/91 4/92,12/93, 5/07
This page intentionally blank
242
SR 14-139 Att.2
BEST PRACTICE Establishing Aporopriate Capitalization Thresholds for Capital Assets (1997, 2001. and 2006\ CCAAFR\ Background. The tenn capital assets is used to describe assets that are used in operations and that have initial lives extending beyond a single reporting period. Capital assets may be either intangible (e.g., easements, water (rights) or tangible (e.g., land, buildings, building improvements, vehicles, machinery, equipment and infrastructure). It is incumbent upon public-sector managers to maintain adequate control over all of a government's resources, including capital assets, to minimize the risk ofloss or misuse. As a practical application of the materiality principle, not all tangible capital-type items with useful lives extending beyond a single reporting period are required to be reported in a government's statement of position. Items with extremely short useful lives (e.g., less than 2 years) or of small monetary value are properly reported as an "expense" or "expenditure" in the period in which they are acquired. When outlays for capital-type items are, in fact, reported on the statement of position, they are said to be capitalized. The monetary criterion used to detennine whether a given capital asset should be reported on the balance sheet is known as the capitalization threshold. A government may establish a single capitalization threshold for all of its capital assets, or it may establish different capitalization thresholds for different classes of· capital assets. Capitalization is, of its nature, primarily a financial reporting issue. That is, a government's principal concern in establishing specific capitalization thresholds ought to be the anticipated infonnation needs of the users of the government's external financial reports. While it is essential to maintain control over all potentially capitalizable items, there exist much more efficient means than capitalization for accomplishing this objective in the case of a government's smaller tangible capital-type items.' Furthermore, practice has demonstrated that capital asset management systems that attempt to incorporate data on numerous smaller items are often costly and difficult to maintain and operate.
Recommendation. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that state and local governments consider the following guidelines in establishing capitalization thresholds: •
Potentially capitalizable items should only be capitalized only if they have an estimated useful life of at least two years following the date'Of acquisition;
•
Capitalization thresholds are best applied to individual items rather than to groups of similar items (e. desks an , · · · · rtion of total c tal ets (e.g., books of a library district); In no case should a government establish a capitalization threshold of less than $5,000 for any i'"'-!:.1>1_, item;
1
See GFOA 's best practice on "Ensuring Control over Noncapitalized Items" (2006).
243
•
In establishing capitalization thresholds, governments that are recipients of federal awards should be aware of federal requirements that prevent the use of capitalization thresholds in excess of certain specified maximum amounts (i.e., currently $5,000) for purposes of federal reimbursement; and
•
Governments should exercise control over potentially capitalizable items that fall under the operative capitalization threshold.2
Approved by the GFOA 's Executive Board, February 24, 2006.
2
See GFOA 's best practice on "Ensuring Control over Noncapitalized Items" (2006).
244
S R 1 4-139 Att.3
Page IV-25
FTA C SOIO.ID 11 /0112008
Rolling Stock Status Report), in which future needs (expansion and replacement) are discussed, must be available upon request by r:TA . (2) [])isposltion Before the 6nd of Useful Life. Any disposition of project property before the end of its useful life requires prior FTA approval. FTA is entitled to its share of the remaining Federal interest. The Federal interest is determined by calculating the lair market value of the project property immediately before the occurrence prompting the withdrawal of the project property li·om appropriate use. If project property is being removed from service belore the end of its useful life, the Federal interest and the return to FTA is the greater of FTA ' s share of the unamortized value of the remaining service life per unit, based on straight line depreciation of the original purchase price, or the r:cderal share of the sales price (even though the unnmortized value is $5.000 or less). The foll owing example is provided to determ ine the straight-line depreciation of a vehicle: for a 12-yenr, 500,000 mile minimum service life, the vehicle"s value decreases each year by one-twelllh of its original purchase price. Alternatively, the value decreases lor each mile driven 1/500,000 of its original purchase price. The unamortized value of the remaining service lile per unit is the greater value obtained by calculating the straight line depreciation based on either miles or ye~1rs, whichever is more advantageous to the grantee. (3) Retain and Use Elsewhere. A ncr the minimum useful li fc of project property is reached and is no longer needed for the original project or program, it may be used by the grantee fo r other transit projects or programs. FT1\ prior approval of thi s alternative is not required. FTA retains its interest if the litir market value of the project property is over $5,000. (4) Fair Market Value of Over $5.000. Alter the service life of project property is reached, rolling stock and equipment with a current market value exceeding $5,000 per unit, or unused supplies with a total aggregate tair market value of more than $5,000, may be retained or so ld. Reimbursement to FT A shall be an amount calculated by multiplying the total aggregate tair market value at the time of disposition, or the net sale proceeds. by the percentage of FTA ' s participation in the original grant. The grantee's transmittal letter should state whether the equipment will be retained or sold. Use of sales proceeds are discussed elsewhere in Chapter IV of this circular. (5) Fair Market Value of Less than $5,000 Value. After the service life of project property is reached, rolling stock and equipment with a unit market value of $5,000 or less, or supplies with a total aggregate market value of $5.000 or less, may be retained, sold, or otherwise di sposed of with no obligation to reimburse FTA. Records of this action must be retained. (6) Like-Kind Exchange Policy. With prior FTA approval, a vehicle may be traded in
or sold be lore the end of its minimum normal service Iife. if a grantee so chooses.
245
Page IV-26
FTA C 5010.1D 11/01/2008 In lieu of returning the Federal share to FTA, a grantee may elect to use the tradein value or the sales proceeds from the vehicle to acquire a replacement vehicle of like kind. "Like-Kind" is defined as a bus for a bus with a similar service life and a rail vehicle for a rail vehicle. Under the Like-Kind Exchange Policy, proceeds from the vehicle sales are not returned to FTA; instead, all proceeds are reinvested in acquisition ofthe like-kind replacement vehicle. If sales proceeds are less than the amount of the Federal interest in the vehicle at the time it is being replaced, the grantee is responsible for providing the difference, along with the grantee's local share of the cost of the replacement vehicle. If sales proceeds are greater than the amount of the Federal interest of the vehicle traded in or sold, the investment of all proceeds in acquisition ofthe like-kind replacement vehicle results in reduction of the gross project cost. An example of like-kind exchange is: (a) A recipient purchased a new bus in 2002 for $220,000; 80 percent of the total price, or $176,000, was Federal funding while 20 percent, or $44,000, was local. Thus, there was an initial $176,000 "Federal interest" in the new vehicle. (b) Instead of keeping the bus in service for 12 years, the useful life under FTA guidelines, the recipient chose to sell the bus after six years and replace it with a new vehicle. (c) Since the bus had a minimum useful life of 12 years and its depreciation was determined on a "straight-line" basis, the depreciated value of the vehicle after six years was half the original price, or $110,000. The remaining Federal interest was 80 percent of that figure, $88,000. (d) Assume, for example, the recipient realized $80,000 from the sale of the sixyear-old bus, or $30,000 less than the straight-line depreciated value of the original vehicle. The recipient then purchased a new bus in 2008 for $240,000. The transaction looked like this: Net project cost calculation: Gross project cost of new bus Less straight-line depreciated value of replaced bus. Net project cost Federal share 80% Local share 20% Sources of funds for new bus:
$240,000 - 110,000 $130,000 104,000 26,000
$ 80,000 Net sales proceeds from replaced bus New local cash Straight-line depreciated value - 30,000 shortfall 26,000 Local share of net project cost
246
Page IV-27
FTA C 5010.10 11/01/2008 104,000 $240,000
Federal share TOTAL
The Federal interest in the new bus is $192,000 ($88,000 transferred from the old vehicle and $1 04,000 in the new). (7) Transfer of Rolling Stock-Grantee-to-Grantee. For property where the useful life has been met and with prior FTA approval, a grantee may transfer rolling stock to another grantee. In such event that transfer of rolling stock is desired prior to the end of useful life, the Federal interest of the vehicles will be transferred, and therefore, there is no obligation to reimburse FTA. However, no additional FTA funds may be used to acquire the vehicles. Both grantees should coordinate with their FTA Regional Office and the following information should be submitted: (a) A written reguest for approval to transfer/receive vehicles. The request should include the transferor/transferee grantee name, list of vehicles (year, make, model), date placed in revenue service, date removed from revenue service, grant number which originally funded the vehicle, mileage, remaining useful life, Federal share of remaining useful life, reasons for transfer. (b) A Board Resolution (or other appropriate legal action) from each grantee. The transferring grantee's board resolution (or other appropriate legal action) should identify the receiving grantee, a statement that the vehicles are no longer required, a list of the vehicles to be transferred including VINs, and the remaining Federal interest that is transferred to the receiving grantee. The receiving grantee's board resolution (or other appropriate legal action) should identify the transferring grantee, a statement that the vehicles are needed for revenue service, a list of the vehicles to be acquired including VlNs, the remaining Federal interest for each vehicles, agreement that the vehicles will be maintained in accordance and in compliance with FTA requirements, and that the transferred vehicles will be included in its equipment inventory records. (c) A Rolling Stock Status Report. Each grantee should provide a Rolling Stock Status Report that includes all information as identified in Chapter IV, Subsection 3.1.( I). The Rolling Stock Status report should reflect the impact that the transfer/addition of the vehicles will have on the grantee's total fleet and spare ratio. If approved, the receiving grantee will be directed to include the transferred vehicles in its next grant application. (8) Transfer of assets no longer needed [49 U.S.C. 5334(h)(] H3)l. For property that has not met its useful life and with prior FTA approval, the grantee may follow
247
., Page IV-28
FTA C 5010.10 11/01/2008 procedures for publication in the Federal Register to transfer project property (including land or equipment) to a public agency for non-public transportation use and can be approved if FTA confirms: (a) the asset will remain in public use for at least five years after the date the asset is transferred; (b) there is no purpose eligible for assistance for which the asset should be used; (c) the overall benefit of allowing the transfer is greater than the FTA interest in liquidation and return of the FTA remaining Federal interest in the asset, after considering fair market value and other factors; and (d) through an appropriate screening or survey process (usually by following procedures for publication in the Federal Register), that there is no interest in acquiring the asset for the Federal Government use if the asset is a facility or land. Additional information regarding this type of disposition is available from the FTA regional or metropolitan office.
(9) Sell and Use Proceeds for Other Capital Projects [49 U.S.C. 5334(h)(4)}. After the useful life is met and with prior FTA approval, t~e grantee may sell project property for which there is no longer any public transportation purposes and use the proceeds to reduce the gross project cost of other FTA eligible capital transit grants. The grantee is expected to record the receipt of the proceeds in the grantee's accounting system, showing that the funds are restricted for use in a subsequent capital grant, and reduce the liability as the proceeds are applied to one or more FTA approved capital grants. The subsequent capital grant application should contain information showing FTA that the gross project cost has been reduced with proceeds from the earlier transaction. (I 0) Unused Supplies. For the disposition of supplies for which there is no transit use with a total aggregate fair market value that exceeds $5,000, the grantee shall compensate FTA for its share, or transfer the sales proceeds to reduce the gross project cost of other capital project(s). (49 U.S.C. 5334(h)(4)). (II) Casualty. Fire. Natural Disaster. and Misused Property. When project property is lost or damaged by fire, casualty, or natural disaster, the fair market value shall be calculated on the basis of the condition of the equipment or supplies immediately before the fire, casualty, or natural disaster, irrespective of the extent of insurance coverage. If any damage to project property results from abuse or misuse occurring with the grantee's knowledge and consent, the grantee agrees to restore the project property to its original condition or refund the value of the Federal interest in that property. The grantee may fulfill its obligations to remit the Federal interest by either:
248
Page IV-29
FTA C 5010.10 11/01/2008
(a) With prior FTA approval, investing an amount equal to the remaining Federal interest in like-kind property eligible for assistance, if the like-kind property is within the scope of the project that provided Federal assistance for the property prematurely withdrawn from use; or (b) Returning to FTA an amount equal to the remaining Federal interest in the withdrawn project property. (12) Insurance Proceeds. If the grantee receives insurance proceeds when project
property has been lost or damaged by fire, casualty, or natural disaster, the grantee agrees to: (a) Apply those proceeds to the cost of replacing the damaged or destroyed project property taken out of service (Listed below are two examples ofthe application of insurance proceeds.), or (b) Return to FTA an amount equal to the remaining Federal interest in the lost, damaged, or destroyed project property. The Federal interest is not dependent on the extent of insurance coverage or on the insurance adjustment received.
Application of Insurance Proceeds:
249
.,
Page IV-30
FTA C 5010.10 11/01/2008 Example 1:
Insurance Proceeds Greater tban the Remaining Federa11nterest in the Damaged or Destroyed Property. The remaining Federal interest in the damaged or destroyed property is $1,800. The grantee receives insurance proceeds in the amount of$2,500. The grantee is required to apply $1,800 of the $2,500 insurance proceeds towards the Federal share of replacing the destroyed pr~perty. Cost of replacement property:
$6,000
Less Federal Share of Insurance Proceeds: < 1,800> The remaining funds needed :
$4,200
If the funding ratio for this property were 80 percent Federal and 20 percent local, the replacement property could be purchased for $4,800 Federal/$1 ,200 Local funds. The insurance proceeds of $1,800 needed to cover the remaining Federal interest in the damaged and destroyed property must be applied to the Federal share of the replacement property. The grantee could use an additional $3000 in Federal funds. The grantee must provide $1 ,200 in local match to replace the property.
250
•
l
Report No: Meeting Date:
14-112 July 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:
Update to Transit Sustainability Project Strategic Plan
BRIEFING ITEM RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Consider receiving an update on the 2013 Transit Sustainability Project (TSP) Strategic Plan as required by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In the first of the five year effort, the District has thus far reduced the Cost per Passenger below the Strategic Plan target of $5.54 to $5.47. The District is on track to achieve the required 5% reduction by FY16/17 as required by MTC. The primary factors in meeting the performance goal are: the gain in ridership due to the improved Bay Area economy, the reduction in labor and support costs, and the District's initiatives to improve service. The District is projected to maintain this level of performance with future initiatives aimed at reducing costs, improving service, and increasing ridership through projects such as the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project and the Comprehensive Operations Analysis (COA). As required by MTC, Staff has updated the 2013 TSP Strategic Plan to better reflect changing operating and financial conditions over the past year and actual performance data for FY12/13. Staff will submit the updated plan to MTC for use as part of the State's requirement for the Productivity Improvement Program (PIP). BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT:
Full implementation of the strategic plan is projected to result in a net savings of nearly $15 million in FY16/17 from the District's operating budget.
BACKGROUND/RATIONALE:
Following MTC's adoption of the TSP final recommendations in 2012, AC Transit's Board of Directors approved the strategic plan for meeting the performance objectives outlined in the TSP on March 27, 2013 for submittal. Details of the planning process and the strategic plan are outlined in Staff Report 13-014a.
251
Report No. 14-112 Page 2 of 5 In the Spring of this year, MTC reached out to the large transit operators in the Bay Area to propose a complete integration of the TSP metrics memorialized under Resolution No. 4060 with the state required PIP projects. This will streamline reporting to MTC. With this integration, AC Transit is required to update the TSP Strategic Plan identifying progress and any new strategies implemented to meet the TSP targets . Along with other standard reporting, AC Transit is required to submit the update to MTC by July 31, 2014.
Ridership Projection
Projected Annual Ridership 64,000,000 62,000,000
.9- 60,000,000 .c Ill
60,721,939
...
59,545,815
Ql
~
58,000,000
58,830,690
n;
g
c
-
56,000,000 54,000,000
Passengers
54,929,401 55,456,263
52,000,000 50,000,000 FY12/1 3
FY13/14
FY14/15
FY15/16
FY16/17
FY17/18
Fiscal Year
As di splayed in the chart above, Staff projects ridership to increase between today and the target year of the Strategic Plan (FY16/17). This is consistent with the original plan approved by the Board in 2013. Ridership is expected to grow at different rates annually depending upon the implementation of different initiatives in the Strategic Plan. The rationale for projected growth in each year is: •
•
• •
FY13/14- Continued modest growth due to an improved economy and implementation of the South County Restructuring Plan, which resulted in a more legible network and improved frequency along Line 99. FY14/15 - Increased growth due to the outlook of the local economy, improved service reliability and routing/frequency improvements on key trunk lines, additional Transbay trips to meet increasing demand, implementation of the Line 51 project, implementation of the new fare structure with Day Passes, continued growth from previou s initiatives, and the introduction of marketing initiatives. FY15/16 - Continued growth from previous initiatives, introduction of more service reliability improvements, introduction of routing improvements for West County. FY16/17 - Continued growth from previou s initiatives, routing improvements on Line 18, and speed and reliability improvements on two addition al trunk corridors. 252
Report No. 14-112 Page 4 of 5 Strategic Plan Projection
Strategic Plan Projection $5.75 $5.70 $5.65 $5.60
"'.... ..!!! 0 0
$5.56
$5.55
------~--------------
$5.50
$5.53
-
$5.45
cost/Pax
- - - Target
$5.40
I
$5.35 $5.30 $5.25
FY12/13
FY13/14
FY14/15
FY15/16
FY16/17
FY17/18
Fiscal Year
The chart above summarizes the projections under the updated strategic plan as measured by Cost Per Passenger using the data detailed previously in this report. With the exception of
FY13/14, AC Tran sit is projected to meet or exceed its reduction ta rget of $5.54 each year in FY 16/17 dollars. The increase in Cost Per Passenge r is FY13/14 is due to a modest projection in ridership growth compared to a larger growth in the budget due to increasing labor costs, particularly pension and hea lth care costs. The overall success is t he direct resu lt of recent ridership growth due to: •
Positive macro-economic trends in the Bay Area that have stimulated job growth and transit use.
•
Improvements as a result of operationa l initiatives that are monitored under the District's Key Performance Indicators (KPis) including:
•
o
Increasing the amount of se rvice operated (making pull-out on a daily basis)
o
Reducing th e accident rate
o
Decreasing road calis
Increased marketing, branding and visibility from the "A Better Ride" and South County campa igns, and outreach efforts for the fare cha nge and Title VI update.
•
Minor service improvements such as the South County Restruct uring Plan and additional Transbay trips.
Going forward, Staff has begun and wi ll contin ue to implement add itional aspects of the Strategic Plan as noted earlier to further reduce costs and increase ridership. These initiatives wi ll contribute to MTC's goal to improve operational efficiency. Initiatives include: 253
Report No. 14-112 Page 5 of 5 •
A reduction in absenteeism that results in less overtime payments and ultimately, a reduction in the extra board rate.
•
An investment in the health and well ness of staff to reduce healthcare costs.
•
Implementation of the new fare structure with Day Passes to increase ridership and improve on-time performance.
•
Investments in improving service reliability as measured by on-time performance through improved bus operating schedules.
•
Implementation of additional corridor improvement projects to improve transit speed and reliability, and minimize delay.
•
An update to the COA, which will create a more cohesive transit network, with focus on the urban core and trunk lines.
•
1
Implementation ofthe lnternationai/E.14 h BRT project.
Staff will continue to monitor and update the :;trategic plan on an annual basis under the State's PIP, as required by MTC. ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES:
The advantage of the strategic plan and this monitoring report is that it provides staff with metrics to improve operational efficiency for the District. The disadvantage is that projections are usually different than actual performance data given the introduction of unforeseen circumstances throughout the year that could affect the District's budget and ridership (i.e., the BART labor disruption) thus creating a "moving target" for the final outcome of the plan. Fortunately, the District has still been able to meet the goal of the strategic plan. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS:
Given this is a Briefing Report and the strategic plan is a mandatory requirement from MTC, there are no alternatives associated with this report. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS/POLICIES:
Staff Report No. 13-014a- Adoption of the Transit Sustainability Project Strategic Plan ATTACHMENTS:
1:
Updated Strategic Plan Budget Summary
Department Head Approval:
Dennis W. Butler, Chief Planning & Development Officer
Reviewed by:
James Pachan, Chief Operating Officer I Interim Chief Financial Officer
Prepared by:
Robert del Rosario, Director of Service Development Hernan Vargas, Budget Manager
254
Summary of Metrics, FY12113- FY16/17 Costs per Fiscal Year Salary, W ages, Benefits Materials and Supplies Additional Expenses Savings Total
FY12/13 Act $221 ,737,000 $ 78,796,000 $ $ $ 300,533,000
FY12113 TSP 2013 FY13/14 TSP Rev 220,648,060 $ 233,768,154 $ $ 78,291 ,332 $ 74,668,704 $ $ $ $ $ 298,939,392 $ 308,436,858
FY14/15 TSP Rev $ 239,475,000 $ 14,455,000 $ 2,102,000 $ (2,000,000) $ 314,032,000
FY15/16 TSP Rev $ 246,438,700 $ 73,291 ,347 $ 3,936,000 (3,245,000) $ $ 320,421 ,047
FY16/17 TSP Rev $ 254,092,460 $ 74,660,364 $ 3,981 ,000 $ (5,391 ,350) $ 327,342,474
FY17/18 TSP Rev $ 262,733,681 $ 73,788,147 $ 6,652,350 $ (7,389,091 ) $ 335,785,087
Service by Fiscal Year Unlinked Passenger Trips Passenger Miles Vehicle Revenue Hours
FY12/13 Act 54,929,401 203,277,843 1,685,688
FY12113 TSP 2013 FY13/14 TSP Rev FY14/15 TSP Rev FY15/16 TSP Rev FY16/1 7 TSP Rev FY17/18 TSP Rev 53,790,630 55,456,263 57,281 ,787 59,545,815 60,721 ,939 58,830,690 175,560,703 205,227,608 211 ,983,345 217,715,385 220,361 ,858 224,714,352 1,685,688 1,693,514 1,729,758 1,764,758 1,764,758 1,764,758
Cost pe r Unlink ed Trip, FY08/09- $5.83 Cost per Unlinked Trip % Savings
$
FY12113 Act FY'I2/13 TSP 2013 FY13/14 TSP Rev FY14/15 TSP Rev FY15/16 TSP Rev FY16/17 TSP Rev FY17/18 TSP Rev 5.56 $ 5.47 $ 5.56 $ 5.48 $ 5.45 $ 5.50 $ 5.53 -6.2% -4.7% -4.7% -6.0% -6.6% -5.2% -5.8%
Cost per Passenger Mile, FY09/10- $2.04 Cost per Passenger Mile % Savings
FY12/13 Act FY12/13 TSP 2013 FY13/14 TSP Rev FY1 4/15 TSP Rev FY15/1 6 TSP Rev FY16/1 7 TSP Rev FY17/18 TSP Rev 1.48 $ 1.70 $ 1.50 $ 1.48 $ 1.47 $ 1.49 $ 1.49 $ -27.5% -16.5% -26.3% -27.4% -27.8% -27.2% -26.7%
Cost per Vehicle Reve nue Hour, FY10/11- $196.00 Cost per Vehicle Revenue Hour %Savings
FY12/1 3 Act FY·I2f13 TSP 2013 FY13/14 TSP Re v FY14/1 5 TSP Rev FY15/16 TSP Rev FY16/17 TSP Rev FY17/18 TSP Re v 178.29 $ 177.34 $ 182.13 $ 181.55 $ 181.57 $ 185.49 $ 190.27 $ -7.1 % -7.4% -7.4% -5.4% -2.9% -9.5% -9.0%
* FY13/14 Material and Supply reductio ns are due to t he Fleet
Replacement Plan that is ret iring older buses that have higher maintenance costs with a newer fleet
with lower maintenance cost s.
)> ..... .....
Q)
1
::::;
;o
3
1-'
.....
1-' 1-' N
I'D :::J
1-'
255
(/')
n
f-
The table on page 1 summarizes the updates to the strategic plan.
The first column titled FY12/13 Act
provides actual data from the past fiscal year, while the orange highlighted column titled FY12/13 TSP 2013 lists the original projections for the past fiscal year. The blue highlighted column titled FY16/17 TSP Rev lists performance projections for the target year to meet the goal of the strategic plan. The yellow highlighted row titled Cost per Unlinked Trip projects the Cost Per Passenger past the target year in order to ensure that AC Transit maintains its efficiency measures beyond the MTC requirement. As previously explained in the original strategic plan, Staff has decided to concentrate on reducing the Cost Per Passenger metric by 5% because of the ability to influence both cost reductions and ridership gains. Updated Projections
Based on the updated summary table on page 1, Staff projects that the District wiil be abie to reduce its Cost Per Passenger metric by 5.8% by FY16/17. This is slightly less than the projection in the original strategic plan of 5.9% but still valid nonetheless. Though the updated projection is nearly equal to the original, there are significant differences in both the cost and ridership estimates leading up to FY16/17 that staff has calculated for the summary table.
Cost Adjustments •
Overall, most of the cost savings initiatives presented in the TSP Strategic Plan were not implemented in the magnitude envisioned or postponed altogether. Some of the initiatives did start late in FY12/13, while the District incurred significant costs that were not projected in the strategic plan (mostly wage and salary increases as a consequence of new labor contracts). This is the reason why in both FY13/14 and FY14/15, total budgeted operating costs are $7.7 million higher than the comparable projected strategic plan costs.
•
Of the average $11.2 million in net cost savings expected for FY13/14 and FY14/15, only $1.0 million and $2.1 million in projected savings are directly related to TSP Strategic Plan initiatives in FY13/14 and FY14/15, respectively. The remaining savings projected for both FY13/14 and FY14/15 are mostly the result of other factors and initiatives not presented as part of the original TSP Strategic Plan.
•
The largest variance between the original TSP Strategic Plan and the revised is caused by the mitigated initiatives associated with healthcare and well ness. This has caused a delay in the generation of savings of around $ 7.0 million in FY13/14 and$ 5.0 million in FY14/15.
•
Of the other notable items included in the TSP Strategic Plan, the District has yet to implement the Extra Board reduction initiative. In addition, the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) is not available as a strategy due to legal issues at the state level. Meanwhile, the accident reduction programs have been initiated and will begin to produce the expected financial savings results. Though operating statistics and metrics associated with accidents worsened in FY12/13, significant improvement has been achieved during FY13/14, which Staff expects will start generating projected results. 2
256
•
Staff estimates the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operating costs to be significantly less than anticipated in the original strategic plan. This lessens the additional operating costs in the outer years of the plan.
Ridership Adjustments The updated cost adjustments that lessen the projected cost savings in the Strategic Plan are offset by greater ridership gains than originally anticipated. The adjustments in ridership include: • • • •
More significant gains in ridership due to the positive macro-economic factors in the Bay Area and implementation of initiatives to improve operating performance and reliability. Delayed implementation of BRT to the fall of 2017. Increased ridership growth in South County as a result of the 2013 Restructuring Plan and the subsequent marketing plan of the improved service. An additional corridor improvement p;-oject for implementation in FY16/17.
3
257
This page intentionally blank
258
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
259
This page intentionally blank
260
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE October Long-range strategy to obtain better information as to why people choose not to ride the bus. [Requested by Director Davis- 5/22/13] 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]
FINANCE AND AUDIT COMMITTEE 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 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. • Annual report on the status of the various Successor Agency Oversight Boards and how much money the District has received. [Requested by Director Williams- 6/25/14] Monthly Report on Investments Fiscal Policies (Review one per month) Budget Update Bi-Monthly Budget Update Agenda Planning July 23, 2014
Page 1 of 4 261
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Finance and Audit Committee, Cont. Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug) Board/Officer Travel/Meeting Expense Employee Out-of-State Travel Surplus/Obsolete Materials 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) Externally Funded Welfare to Work (Nov) • Parcel Tax Oversight Committee (Dec to Board) Year-End Audited Financial Statements (Nov) Pending Not Scheduled Update on Certificates of Participation transactions and the purpose/function of the Financing Corporation. [Requested by Director Ortiz/President Harper- 5/28/14] • Report on the advisability of having the Internal Audit Department report directly to the Board. [Requested by Director Peeples- 5/28/14]
OPERATIONS COMMITTEE August • Resolution supporting continuation and expansion of the District's Fuel Cell Program, subject to funding availability. The resolution will be drafted by Director Peeples [Requested by Director Peeples - 6/11/14] • Amendment to Board Policy 201, Section 2.4 (Maintenance of Differentials) to allow for a maximum differential of 5% and that Board approval be required for any differential over 5% and include justification for the increase. [Requested by Director Ortiz- 5/28/14] • Report on the new fareboxes and how they are working. [Requested by Director Young - 3/26/14] Issue to be addressed in next Quarterly Operations Performance Report. Report on how a community with a significant number of low income riders similarly situated to a low income community in the AC Transit service area has dealt with the challenges related to the availability of Clipper vendors (or similar payment system). [Requested by Director Ortiz- 6/11/14]. To be addressed in the next Clipper Quarterly Report Quarterly Reports (Nov, Feb, May, Aug) • Operations Performance Report • 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.] Agenda Planning July 23, 2014
Page 2 of 4 262
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Operations Committee, cont. Semi Annual Reports (Feb/Aug)
•
Customer Service Call Center
Pending Not Scheduled
Request for staff to 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] 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 bankruptcy of ClearEdge and the consequences for AC Transit. [Requested by Director Ortiz- 5/28/14] Investigate and report what other public agencies are doing as part of the ongoing conversation of the merit pay issue. [Requested by Director Ortiz- 7/9/14]
PLANNING COMMITTEE September
• •
Report from staff on the possibility of installing benches at bus stops for lines that have a 30 minute headway or more. Report on car parking protected bike lanes on Telegraph Avenue. [Requested by Director Peeples5/14/14]
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
Agenda Planning July 23, 2014
Page 3 of4 263
AGENDA PLANNING/ STANDING COMMITTEE PENDING LISTS
AC TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Planning Committee, Cont.
Development of a policy to officially require regular ridership surveys every four or five years. [Requested by Director Peeples- 6/24/09] 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] 1 ·:· 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 in 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] Update on the status of the customer satisfaction survey. Matter was retained in committee on July 9, 2008 pending receipt of proposed survey. On 9/30/09 Director Peeples requested the report include staff's analysis of surveys conducted in Europe, specifically surveys conducted in Helsinki Finland, to determine how surveys can be done cheaper, better and more often. [Requested by Director Peeples - 5/28/08] 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] Report on staff's investigation of the possible use of double-decker buses to address trans bay capacity issues. [Requested by Director Peeples- 4/9/14]
Agenda Planning July 23, 2014
Page 4 of 4
264
