meeting of the board of directors - valley metro...to attend this meeting via teleconference,...

MEETING OF THE

Board of Directors

MEETING DATE

January 21, 2010

TIME 12:45 p.m.

LOCATION MAG Saguaro Room 302 N. 1st Avenue Suite 200 Phoenix

January 14, 2010 TO: Members of the Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors FROM: David A. Boggs Executive Director RE: January 21, 2010 Board Packet Notes Attached is the January 21, 2010 Board Meeting agenda and supporting information. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 12:45 p.m. and will be held at MAG in the Saguaro Room at 302 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 200. This meeting can be attended via teleconference. Please contact Rosalia Lopez (602-262-7433) for the call-in information. If you have any questions regarding the information in this packet, please let me know.

To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at 602-262-7433 for the dial-in-information.

The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at: www.ValleyMetro.org. 1

0BJanuary 14, 2010

Board of Directors MAG Saguaro Room

302 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 200 Phoenix

January 21, 2010 12:45 p.m.

UAction

URecommended U

1. UPublic Comment UAn opportunity for general public comment on issues related to Valley Metro RPTA. Up to three (3) minutes will be provided for each speaker.

1. For information

2. UConsent Agenda The Board of Directors will consider Items A through S on consent. The Transit Management Committee approved items B through S at its January 13, 2010 meeting.

2. For action

A. USummary Minutes USummary Minutes from the November 19, 2009 Board meeting are presented for review and approval.

A. For action

B. ULocal Government Investment Pool (LGIP) UStaff requests Board authorization for Valley Metro RPTA to continue participating in the Local Government Investment Pool.

B. For action

C. UCity of Phoenix General Services Intergovernmental U UAgreement (IGA) UStaff requests Board authorization for the Executive Director to execute the Phoenix General Services IGA.

C. For action

D. UTransit Services Agreement (TSA) between RPTA and U UCity of Phoenix UStaff requests Board authorization for the Executive Director to execute the RPTA and City of Phoenix TSA.

D. For action



E. UTransit Services Agreement (TSA) between City of U UPhoenix and RPTA UStaff requests Board authorization for the Executive Director to execute the City of Phoenix and RPTA TSA.

E. For action

F. UContract Award for Automated Fuel System Management UStaff requests Board authorization to issue a contract award to Trinium, LLC for purchase and installation of the fuel management system software for $254,638.

F. For action

G. UContract Award for Completion of Bus Wash System U UExpansion UStaff requests Board authorization to issue a contract award to Ross and White Company for the automated bus wash system for $212,811.

G. For action

H. UContract Award for Scottsdale Road Alternatives Analysis UStaff requests Board authorization to issue a contract award to AECOM for the Scottsdale Road Alternatives Analysis for a cost not to exceed $400,000.

H. For action

I. UContract Award for Fare Vending Machines Purchase and U UInstallation UStaff requests Board authorization to issue a contract award to Schiedt & Bachmann USA to furnish and install 26 fare vending machines for Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive Bus Rapid Transit capital project improvements. The total cost for this contract is $2,230,380.

I. For action

J. UTransfer Titles of 34 Vehicles and 63 Mobile Data U UComputers (MDC) from Maricopa County to Valley Metro U URPTA UStaff requests Board authorization to transfer 34 vehicles from Maricopa County and 63 Mentor MDCs to Valley Metro RPTA.

J. For action

K. UFederal Fiscal Year 2011 Congressional Appropriations U URequest UStaff requests Board approval of the FFY 2011 Congressional Appropriations Requests for Transit Projects in the region.

K. For action



L. UMAG/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5303 U UPlanning Agreement UStaff requests Board authorization for the Executive Director to execute the MAG/FTA Section 5303 Planning Agreement.

L. For action

M. UIntergovernmental Agreement (IGA) for East Valley U U(Tempe) Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility Staff requests Board authorization for the Executive Director to execute the East Valley Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility IGA.

M. For action

N. UIntergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Maricopa U UCounty Air Quality Department for Regional Trip U UReduction Program Support Activities UStaff requests Board authorization for the Executive Director to execute the IGA with the Maricopa County Air Quality Department for Regional Trip Reduction Program Support Activities for an amount not-to-exceed $56,797.

N. For action

O. UIntergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Maricopa U UCounty Air Quality Department for Regional Trip U UReduction Program Support Activities Staff requests Board authorization for the Executive Director to execute the IGA with the Maricopa County Air Quality Department for Regional Trip Reduction program Support Activities for $343,202 for the period January 1, 2010 through September 30, 2010.

O. For action

P. UIntergovernmental Agreement with MAG for Regional U URideshare and Telework Program Support Activities UStaff requests Board authorization for the Executive Director to execute the IGA with MAG, for regional rideshare and telework activities for $594,000 from October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010.

P. For action

Q. UIntergovernmental Agreement with the City of Phoenix for U UFederal Transit Administration (FTA) Pass-Through Grant U UReimbursements – Grant AZ-57-X003 UStaff requests Board authorization for the Executive Director to execute an IGA with the city of Phoenix for FTA pass-through grant reimbursements (grant AZ-57-X003).

Q. For action



R. UIntergovernmental Agreement with the City of Phoenix for U UFederal Transit Administration (FTA) Pass-Through Grant U UReimbursements – Grant AZ-96-X002 UStaff requests Board authorization for the Executive Director to execute an IGA with the city of Phoenix for FTA pass-through grant reimbursements (grant AZ-96-X002).

R. For action

S. UIntergovernmental Agreement with the City of Phoenix for U UFederal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grant Reimbursements – Grant AZ-90-X096U

Staff requests Board authorization for the Executive Director to execute an IGA with the city of Phoenix for FTA pass-through grant reimbursements (grant AZ-96-X096).

S. For action

3. UElection of Officers UChairman Wayne Ecton will oversee the election of officers for calendar year 2010, which will take effect at the February 2010 Board meeting.

3. For action

4. UOpen Meeting Law Presentation UDavid Boggs, Executive Director, will introduce Bill Sims, Valley Metro Legal Counsel, who will provide the Board with an overview of the Open Meeting Law which was requested from Board members at the November 19, 2009 Board meeting.

4. For information

5. UTransit Performance Report (TPR) UDavid Boggs, Executive Director, will introduce Carol Ketcherside, Deputy Executive Director of Planning, who will request Board approval of the Transit Performance Report. The Transit Management Committee approved this item at its January 13, 2010 meeting.

5. For action

6. URegional Transit Planning Roles and Responsibilities UDavid Boggs, Executive Director, will introduce Bryan Jungwirth, Chief of Staff, who will provide an update on the Regional Transit Planning Roles and Responsibilities.

6. For information and possible action



7. UTransit Life Cycle Program Final Report UDavid Boggs, Executive Director, will introduce Paul Hodgins, Capital Programming Manager, who will provide the Board with an overview of the working group’s final report. The Transit Management Committee approved this at its January 13, 2010 meeting.

7. For information and possible action

8. ULegislative Update UDavid Boggs, Executive Director, will introduce Bryan Jungwirth, Chief of Staff, who will provide an update on current legislative issues.

8. For information

9. UExecutive Director’s Report UDavid Boggs, Executive Director, will brief the Board on current issues.

9. For information

10. UFuture Board Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

Chairman Ecton will request future Board agenda items from Board members and Board members may provide a report on current events.

10. For Information

11. UNext Board Meeting The next meeting of the Board is scheduled for February 18, 2010 at 12:45 p.m. This meeting will be held at MAG in the Saguaro Room.

11. For information

Qualified sign language interpreters are available with 72 hours notice. Materials in alternative formats (large print, audiocassette, or computer diskette) are available upon request. For further information, please call Nichole Myers, Valley Metro at 602-262-7433 or TDD at 602-495-0936.

1

Board of Directors Information Summary

Agenda Item #1

Date January 14, 2010 Subject Public Comment Summary An opportunity for general public comment on issues related to Valley Metro RPTA. Up to three (3) minutes will be provided for each speaker. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Prior Committee Action None Recommendation None Contact Person None Attachments None

1


Agenda Item #2

Date January 14, 2010 Subject Consent Agenda Summary The Board of Directors will consider items A through S on consent. Fiscal Impact Please refer to individual items for this information. Considerations Please refer to individual items for this information. Prior Committee Action Please refer to individual items for this information. Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the items listed on the consent agenda. Contact Person David Boggs Executive Director Attachments Consent Agenda Items

1


Agenda Item #A

Date January 14, 2010 Subject Summary Minutes Summary Minutes from the November 19, 2009 Board meeting are presented for review and approval. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Prior Committee Action None Recommendation It is recommended that the Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors approve the minutes from the November 19, 2009 Board meeting. Contact Person David Boggs Executive Director Attachments November 19, 2009 Board Meeting Summary Minutes

2

Minutes of the Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors

Thursday, November 19, 2009 12:45 p.m.

Meeting Participants Councilmember Wayne Ecton, Chair, City of Scottsdale Councilmember Michael Johnson, Vice Chair, City of Phoenix Vice Mayor Shana Ellis, Treasurer, City of Tempe Councilman Jim McDonald, City of Avondale Mayor Jackie Meck, Town of Buckeye Councilmember Trinity Donovan, City of Chandler Mayor Michele Kern, City of El Mirage (via phone) Councilmember Les Presmyk, Town of Gilbert Mayor Elaine Scruggs, City of Glendale Councilmember Frank Cavalier, City of Goodyear Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, Maricopa County Councilmember Scott Somers, City of Mesa (via phone) Councilmember Ron Aames, City of Peoria Mayor Lyn Truitt, City of Surprise Councilman Juan Rodriguez for Mayor Adolfo Gamez, City of Tolleson Not Present Mayor Art Sanders, Town of Queen Creek Chairman Ecton called the meeting to order at 12:46 p.m. and welcomed Councilman Rodriguez representing the City of Tolleson. 1. Public Comment Robert Danowski said the reason he is here is because he first wants to first find out that when people come here for these meetings why dial-a-ride cannot pull up out front. This front plaza is not handicapped accessible. We have to go around back and sit. And the Valley Metro Board of Supervisors has unanimously voted on putting ads on the light rail and city bus. Why not put ads on the new dial-a-ride buses and reserve-a-ride?

3

Maria Hernandez said she lives in South Phoenix and is asking about the transportation system. It's very poor on the south side, east and west side. She said there are sometimes issues on the light rail and the bus system that a lot of people don't give up their seats for the handicap and this is wrong. Because the driver, as soon as someone gets in the light rail, takes off. He or she doesn't give the passenger enough time to put their wheelchair in the handicap side. What can you do about these drivers? 2. Consent Agenda Mr. Boggs listed the following consent agenda items: A. Summary Minutes from October 22, 2009. He said the minutes have been

changed to incorporate submitted changes from Mayor Scruggs' office for page 17 of the minutes and the words "stated she" have been inserted in front of the word agree.

B. Comprehensive Arterial Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Final Report. The Regional

Transportation Plan identifies five BRT routes to be implemented over the plan period. This study defines operational characteristics, capital infrastructure needs and fleet requirements for BRT corridors.

C. Commercial General Liability Insurance Coverage Renewal. When we sent the

packet out we had not received all the exact numbers for the insurance. This covers losses to RPTA owned property and third-party claims and liability coverage. We now have the actual quotes and requesting that on this item that the Board put an amount not to exceed $189,536 as the maximum amount.

D. Transition of Trapeze Trip Planner from City of Phoenix to Valley Metro RPTA

E. Establishment of a Maintenance Contract and Upgrade the Trip Planner with

Trapeze Software Group Mr. Boggs said items D and item E are linked. He said staff has worked with the city of Phoenix and the Trapeze Trip Planning System as this is the last software application that is owned and supported by the city of Phoenix, but used exclusively by our staff. He said RPTA will pay the depreciated value of $53,000; $3,600 for the City of Phoenix overhead rate for transitioning the software and $51,849 for annual system maintenance. Mr. Boggs said the total project expense for items D and E is $108,449.

F. Authorization to Issue an Invitation for Bids (IFB) to Complete Two Lower Level

Work Areas at the Mesa Operation and Maintenance Facility. Mr. Boggs said when the project was built by Mesa in 2003, we had 50 vehicles at that site and two of the bays have remained closed. We now have 271 vehicles and need to prepare these bays for the additional fleet. Mr. Boggs said stimulus money could be used for this project but if those funds are not available the $300,000 cost will

4

be charged to the cost per mile rate for those cities using this service.

G. 2010 State Legislative Agenda. RPTA and member agency intergovernmental representatives and transit managers have developed a legislative agenda to help define what legislative action the RPTA should pursue in 2010.

H. Performance Audit Preparation. Staff has outlined the steps that have been taken to prepare for the Regional Transportation Plan Performance Audit.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN PRESMYK, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR WILCOX AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE CHANGES TO THE MINUTES SUBMITTED BY MAYOR SCRUGGS. 3. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Unused and

Redistributed Funds Policy Recommendation.

Mr. Boggs said in September the Board asked staff to develop a process in conjunction with MAG and the city of Phoenix prioritizing the use of new or unspent ARRA funds. This recommendation has gone through the VMOCC and the TMC Committees which approved the policy unanimously. Paul Hodgins said the funds were apportioned using the formula for this area in March. We've obligated nearly 80 percent of the funds and we did meet the September 1st deadline. The remaining funds need to be obligated by March 5, 2010. And there is also a period of availability which ends September 30, 2010. Before that time we are allowed to do further grant amendments to add new projects. After that time we are limited to the projects that are in the grant and can only shift funds between line items. It is an important point because we need to ensure that we have line items in the grant that we shift funds to. He said there are three main categories of operating assistance that are eligible. Originally ARRA did not allow for the direct operating assistance, but subsequent to the Board action in March, Congress did change that, and we are allowed up to 10 percent of the formula grant to use for operating assistance. Which is approximately $6.4 million for the Phoenix-Mesa urbanized area. There is an additional 10 percent allocation for ADA operating assistance. And preventive maintenance is also an eligible capital item. As we went through the discussions with the committees, everyone felt that this was a fairly important or high priority category and we shouldn't be funding additional capital facilities while cutting service at the same time. So the idea was to support existing services. Some other considerations that we could look at for current ARRA projects are to use savings for any under funded projects or any projects that are over matched on a local contribution from other funding sources. There was an option at one point that MAG could flex some of their highway funds to transit. What we're hearing now is that's likely

5

not going to happen. But if it were, if we did get some money, then we would still follow these guidelines to use those funds appropriately. As I mentioned we can do grant amendments and are planning one stet March 5th in order to include the park-and-ride projects that are currently allocated with those funds. but we also want to add the operating assistance and the ADA assistance line items to the grant. Which will require a TIP amendment and that's part of our recommendation today. Mr. Hodgins said the process that we're looking at when we identify savings, will apply to an updated project list that includes the current status on environmental work, whether the project is included in the Transportation Improvement Program, a current cost estimate and funding need. Then the projects that are considered ready will be the ones that are considered for use of the savings. Mr. Hodgins said once that list has been sorted by priority, using the guidelines, then we'll bring a recommendation forward with projects to fund based on that list. Other factors could be considered besides the project readiness, whether operating funds are available if it's a capital facility or if it's a Prop. 400 project. Some of the other factors that we used in coming up with the guidelines was the ARRA legislation itself. It recommended funds for infrastructure projects that are ready to go, to get the money out quickly and projects that will create or save jobs. The Board also discussed some priorities for construction projects and a preference for Prop. 400 projects. We also considered a lot of the committee discussion as we went through to make this recommendation. The proposed priorities are broken into five main categories:

1 Provide Services and Improvements Required by Law 2 Provide Equipment and Facilities for Existing Service 3 Passenger Enhancements 4 Provide Equipment and Facilities for Expansion of Services 5 Other Desired Support Services

He said these are the guidelines that we would like to use and that's how the project list will be sorted when it comes time to actually make a recommendation on projects. We believe it provides a framework to analyze the projects and make a solid recommendation on where the funding should go. Mr. Hodgins said one of the questions that came up at several committee meetings was how the operating funding would be allocated to the cities to ensure everyone shares in this. The proposed methodology for the ADA assistance is to allocate it based on the number of ADA trips within the urbanized area. The funding would be drawn down by the agencies that operate service and then distributed out to the cities that fund service based on the number of trips.

6

For the operating assistance we are recommending a split between bus and rail. The split would be based on operating costs. Right now we're looking at a split of about approximately 87 percent for bus and approximately 13 percent for rail. That would be further allocated out on the bus side using revenue miles. Revenue miles has historically been the way we calculate costs and attribute costs, so the operating assistance would be basically a credit on the cost per mile for service that is funded. Light rail would be allocated to the three cities based on their methodology for allocating costs, which is track miles. For the preventive maintenance line item we would recommend using the same methodology as the operating assistance to be consistent. The VMOCC approved this unanimously as did the Transit Management Committee. This was discussed at the Budget and Finance Subcommittee meeting where it was also approved unanimously and we would be looking for approval today from the Board. Mr. Hodgins said we will keep our project lists updated regularly so that we have an up-to-date status on all the projects so that when we do recognize savings we can move quickly to allocate those to projects and get the money out. In summary the recommendation today that we're looking for approval from the Board is to approve the priorities, approve the allocation methods for the operating assistance and preventive maintenance, and also to approve an amendment to the Transportation Improvement Program to include the operating assistance and ADA assistance line items so that we can process those in the grant amendment due by March 5, 2010. Councilman Johnson said he would like to make a note that one of the things that's at the top of the list is the communication system, the 700 MHz radio system that we're going to be looking at that's going to do the regional communication for our region which also would tie in to what we're doing in public safety along with other police departments throughout the region. He said there is a mandate to have this done by 2013. And to his knowledge it can take a couple of years to get that implemented, so I think it's going to take us that same amount of time. I just want to make sure that we keep that as a high priority. And then we make the allocation of the funds to do that because if we don't, then those funds are going to have to come from the individual cities in order to get that done. Councilman Aames asked if staff is working from a closed list now? Can there be new requests? Mr. Hodgins said the list is not closed. In fact, a few projects have been received that will be added to the list. It's a list that will keep evolving and we'll make sure that it's always up to date with the latest projects. Supervisor Wilcox asked how the operating money would be distributed. Mr. Hodgins said funds will be distributed to those agencies that operate fixed route service, Phoenix, Tempe, RPTA, Glendale, and Scottsdale, and to METRO that operates the light rail.

7

Supervisor Wilcox asked if that would proportionate. Mr. Hodgins said it will be a split between bus and rail based on operating costs, and then within the bus category it will be based on the revenue miles that are operated. Mayor Scruggs said she would like to lend her support to the comments made by Councilman Johnson regarding the conversion about the 700 MHz system. For those of us who dealt with this before, we recognize the extraordinary expense and as Councilman Johnson said the time it takes to do it. If you've ever worked in any sort of environment where different entities are operating on different frequencies, you know well the problems that can ensue from the lack of communication can delay seriously needed assistance for safety and other uses or other needs. She said she knows we're not prioritizing today. I just want to say from my point of view, Glendale's point of view, that is a very serious need and it is truly regional. Chairman Ecton said from a Scottsdale point of view, it's also very serious and we're embarking upon moving in that direction recognizing that it takes a few years to get it to a reality basis, but it is a very critical need and we'll reap benefits from it that are hard to understand at the moment. Mr. Hodgins said the city of Phoenix and all the members have been working on this project for several years. There is a conceptual study done and we are actually funding a design concept right now. We're going through the design process, so it is in progress. I don't want to give the impression that we haven't started yet. We are actively working on the project. IT WAS MOVED BY SUPERVISOR WILCOX, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN SOMERS AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE TRANSIT CAPITAL PROJECT PROPOSED PRIORITIZATION GUIDELINES, UNSPENT ARRA FUNDS; AN AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO INCLUDE REGIONAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE AND REGIONAL ADA ASSISTANCE; AND THE ALLOCATION OF OPERATING ASSISTANCE BE SPLIT BETWEEN BUS AND RAIL BASED ON OPERATING COST, FURTHER ALLOCATED TO BUS BASED ON BUS REVENUE MILES AND RAIL BASED ON METRO’S OPERATING COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY AND THE ADA ASSISTANCE BE BASED ON ADA TRIPS. 4. Short Range Transit Program Mr. Boggs said the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) calls for the annual development of a Short Range Transit Program which identifies those transit services and capital improvements most needed during the next five years to meet implementation dates of the TLCP. He said this used to be a federal requirement by the Federal Transit Administration and that is no longer the case. But they do, in fact, encourage us to continue to do this

8

program and we believe it will be very beneficial when the auditor general comes in to begin the performance audit that we have this in place. So we're recommending we continue doing this every year. We are going to be changing the cycle of it so that the Short Range Transit Program will go through the process and hopefully adopted by you in either December or January each year. The SRTP is then linked into the Annual Transit Performance Report as well as the Transit Life Cycle Program, so the three documents will fit much better together than they do right now because it's slightly out of sequence. The document has been changed to include the 19th Avenue Camelback Road and 44th Street Cactus transit centers. We've been asked and we agree with it to place notes in the documents at a minimum that these projects would need to be amended and reallocated to two other City of Phoenix projects. Plan facilities are shown in our tables and they're current facilities at these locations so that money will need to be used elsewhere, but we would include that subject to your approval, and, again, we made edits in the plan to accommodate that. IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMAN PRESMYK, SECONDED BY SUPERVISOR WILCOX AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PROGRAM. 5. Recommended In-Person ADA Paratransit Eligibility Determination Program and

Optional ADA Bus and Rail Pass

Mr. Boggs said in April of 2008 the Board approved the implementation, over time, of a Regional ADA Paratransit Program. And you asked us to move through systematic steps to get to that point. And the first major step is we are recommending an In-Person ADA Paratransit Eligibility Determination Program and Optional ADA Bus and Rail Pass. We have been through our committees. We have a task force made up of member staffs that have worked through this program. There are some changes to the original recommendations and based on hearing feedback and a detail review of peer city programs, we made some minor changes. It's now recommended, through our task force, that interviews be conducted by contracted professionals in addition to mobility assessments rather than by staff. And actually, items 5 and 6 are linked together. Number 6 actually carries out this element which is to go out for request for proposal for a contractor to actually perform these services. Mr. Boggs said the second piece is that a free ADA bus and rail pass has been recommended, but it's offered at the option of each jurisdiction. If they choose not to use that option that's perfectly okay. And another item that was mentioned is we are moving forward with a single site to do all of the in-person assessment. He said this is more complex than he thought. There are some different mobility courses and it's not like you can just go somewhere else and sit in an office and do it.

9

It's actually a little bit more complicated and requires space. So we plan to start with a single site; however, if it appears that we need to expand sites we will then come back to you, but we want to walk before we run. We want to make sure that it's going to work, how it's going to work, and then if we need additional sites we will be recommending that to you. Public Comment David Carey said he is a Tempe resident and also works for the Arizona Bridge to Independent Living. Our goal is to empower people with disabilities. So what I'm asking for you to do today is to acknowledge and support but to also approve this plan. Our current system today doesn't allow a lot of freedom or flexibility for individuals to do things that most of us take for granted on a daily basis. And I think by going to see the system, individuals will be able to do things that they would normally would not have been able to do. For example, entertain the idea of seeking employment in different cities, participate in different activities, as well as going and seeing family friends that may live in different areas of town that now will take probably all day to get to and from. And one thing I want to add before I conclude is that I want to stay that RPTA staff has done a great job not only with the technical aspect of things but also going to the public to get input from individuals within the disability community to see what they thought about what they were doing. So with that I would like to say please support the plan and I look forward to you starting it next year. Supervisor Wilcox said she read the whole section and thinks it is a great plan too. I think it provides the flexibility we need. She asked if it is it more cost effective to go out and get professionals instead of using current staff? Mr. Boggs said yes we believe it is. And that's why we're requesting Item 6 to go out and see what a contractor would cost. We still reserve, through you, the option of if it's not as cost effective, we can certainly come back with a different option. But right now we want to test the water. We believe it will be less expensive with a contractor. We do not know that. So that final decision will rest on what those costs are. Supervisor Wilcox said the second question is regarding the location. Are you proposing one location where everybody would come in to qualify for the pass? Mr. Boggs said that is our initial recommendation because we want get a little more familiar with the process. This is a major change for us. And rather than put in multiple sites at this point, we want to start with one, but we would not preclude future sites if it's really warranted for the customers. Supervisor Wilcox said the only thing she was thinking was if you do a central site obviously east and west is hard to get in, so even if you did a temporary site, or someone lends you a site for one day in the east and west while we're trying this out, I just was thinking about accessibility to get to the place.

10

Mr. Boggs said if we go with the one site, transportation, at no cost to them, would be provided to and from the site. Ms. Ketcherside said these pictures are from some of our peer cities and which gives you an idea for what these places look like.

Los Angeles METRO ACCESS Transit Walk 1 Los Angeles METRO ACCESS Transit Walk 3

Los Angeles METRO ACCESS Transit Walk 4 Los Angeles METRO ACCESS Transit Walk—Street Crossing 5

Los Angeles METRO ACCESS Transit Walk—Street Crossing 5 Utah Transit Authority (Salt Lake) Mobility Course 8

Regional Transit Commission Las Vegas Outdoor Mobility Course 9 Regional Transit Commission Las Vegas Outdoor Mobility Course 10

11

Ms. Ketcherside said we are the only major city in the country that's not already doing this. Supervisor Wilcox said after seeing the pictures she has a better idea of what is involved. So good luck and I'll make a motion to move this forward. Councilman Aames asked if the centers would need all of these obstacle courses or if you add more than one place for people to go to; is that correct? Or you could have some entry kind of offices much smaller in some retail space or something. Ms. Ketcherside said yes. For a fully functional center we would need all of these things at every site. One of the other things that some of the members have brought up, and we're certainly willing to take a look at, is that we may be able to do the interviews only at certain sites, but what we want to avoid is going to a site, a remote site, doing the interview and say, you're going to have to come in and do this assessment. We'd like to have this be a one-stop operation for people. And we think that providing the convenient one-seat no-cost transportation to the central site will probably meet that need, but we will definitely continue to evaluate this going forward and see what we need to do to best serve our customers. Mayor Scruggs said thinking back to when we first started talking about this when Councilwoman Bilstein was still here, I'm thinking that we project that the number of people needing to go through an assessment is going to decline. Ms. Ketcherside said that is correct. And the reason for that is because part of the recommendation is that we go from what we have now, a standard three-year certification, but that standard certification would become five years, so that automatically once we get everybody through the program once, you have fewer people coming back each year for recertification. Also as part of the program is that for some customers, depending on their ability and their situations, would be granted lifetime certification. So those people would not be coming back through the certification process. Mayor Scruggs said those were some of the most attractive parts of this. I know Councilwoman Bilstein felt very, very strongly on this issue through her personal experience. So one of the other things we have to be careful about is going out -- and I think it is a great idea to have a contractor do this to not put the staff in what can be very unpleasant situations. But the more locations you have, probably the more people you have and then I would imagine the cost would go up, so I think it sounds inconvenient at first. I think from listening to the months that we talked about it, it really won't be especially difficult by adding in the transportation services for the individual especially those who get lifetime certification. What a relief and blessing for them. So I think it's probably going to work out. I don't know where in the world you can find a building that you can put all that in, but I'm sure you'll work that out too. Councilman Johnson said it is important that we try to do everything we can to get someone from within our own region. In this tough economy that we have I mean, it just

12

helps our economy when we're doing business within our economy, so I would hope that in doing the RFP process, we try to find someone from within our region to or build that into the requirements of the RFP. Supervisor Wilcox said she agreed and also requested that the RFP include the need for bilingual services. IT WAS MOVED BY SUPERVISOR WILCOX, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN JOHNSON AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE ITEM 5, THE RECOMMENDED IN-PERSON ADA PARATRANSIT ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION PROGRAM AND OPTIONAL ADA BUS AND RAIL PASS AND ITEM 6 –AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) FOR A CONTRACTOR TO IMPLEMENT AN IN-PERSON ADA PARATRANSIT ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION PROCESS. 7. Transit Life Cycle Program Technical Working Group Update Mr. Boggs said in June the Board charged him with the responsibility of putting a working group together with staff members from the member agencies. He said he can assure the Board they have been working very hard and trying to come up with a solution. He said our goal is to have a preferred alternative in December that would then be brought to you through the committee process in January and if necessary February for information and possible action. Mr. Boggs introduced Debra Drecksel to provide an update to the Board. Ms. Drecksel said she showed the Board the evaluation criteria at the October meeting and the Board provided input and based on that it has been revised. As you can see under performance, the users are satisfied which was always a goal of ours, but based on your comments last time the criteria voter/taxpayer satisfaction that generates economic development has been changed based on your input and the working group's discussions to serve present and future business, job development, and to provide access to job centers. So what have we accomplished recently? We listened to an update from ADOT on their revenue forecast and incorporated that information into our budget information. We've also been discussing the remaining items regarding assumptions. We developed a list of projects and some real-time tools to evaluate how that list of projects measures up to what we're trying to achieve. The member agencies then prioritized their projects individually based on what each agency prioritizes the highest and then compiled a list. We have had two smaller meetings, one with the East Valley and Phoenix and one with the West Valley and Phoenix, where they've prioritized further and refined what we're calling our model run. From that we have developed our revised list of projects and begun to use the real-time tools and our evaluation criteria to assess those to start negotiating. Next we are going to continue to use our tools, criteria, and our process to assess and negotiate refinements and ultimately achieve consensus on a preferred alternative. It looks like we're getting closer to an acceptable resolution given the size of

13

the budget deficit but we won't know until we're there. She said the working group has defined consensus that all members are willing to live with and support it. So it's not that everyone loves it because with this size of the deficit that wouldn't be a very realistic goal. The goal is be able to recommend a preferred alternative with some commentary. She asked the Board if there are any needed policy changes and if so to please send them to the executive director by December 31. Mayor Scruggs stated that she would like to make a statement on behalf of the City of Glendale. She said she met with the staff that has been participating and they have talked about the process and where it's going, where it's leading, and the premise upon which it's based. Since we're not going to be talking about this again for two months, I need to make a statement at this time. At the last board meeting we were presented with information that the starting point would be Alternative A, which included existing service and committed capital projects. This starting point focused on service and seemed to meet several of the criteria that were presented. It was stated that the group would start with this base and use interest-based negotiations to change the plan until it was balanced. There was board discussion about service, meaning moving people, and from that discussion we decided that service was an important component of this program. The Board provided this input to be then taken back to the working group. Now we're being told that the starting point will be jurisdictional equity which focuses more on the amount of money going to each city rather than service. It appears we are being told how much money will be spent, but it has not been clearly indicated how much service is affected from what was originally included in the program and where those impacts will be. Since we will not meet again to discuss this issue until January 21, it is important that I speak up today so that our concerns and our inability to contribute to consensus are heard. Our concerns specifically include focusing on jurisdictional equity, which is done at the expense of providing a comprehensive program of transit service. Each city is looking at what routes they can fit into their allotment of funds, not necessarily what are the best routes regionally. We cannot support jurisdictional equity as it is not calculated fairly and impacts how the plan is implemented. The evaluating criteria are important in conjunction with each other. We now have a base scenario that is entirely based on one of the evaluation criteria and the other criteria which are performance, budget and voter/taxpayer satisfaction have become secondary to jurisdictional equity. Mayor Scruggs thanked the Board for the opportunity to present Glendale's position. Chairman Ecton thanked Mayor Scruggs and said he is sure that position has been stated in all the meetings as they progressed, is that true?

14

Ms. Drecksel said not to that extent. We are having ongoing discussions about the best way to take all four of our evaluation criteria and make sure they get worked in to the ultimate alternative. Mayor Scruggs asked Ms Drecksel to address the importance of jurisdictional equity as a starting point. Ms. Drecksel stated that there are four evaluation criteria’s and one is equity. The group decided to define jurisdictional equity, performance, budget, and voter and taxpayer satisfaction. She said her perception is that the group values focus on all four of those. That is what she heard in her initial individual meetings with them as well as the other meetings. As far as the starting point that we have adopted currently, we are making refinements on it already. The group, with a great interactive dialogue decided that we had to start somewhere and as Mayor Scruggs mentioned we had originally agreed to start with what we were calling Alternative A. However, in a later meeting many of the members were not happy with beginning there. As another starting point we were going to get an initial list of projects, routes, and capital projects, however, that suggestion was thrown out by looking at each member agency's jurisdictional equity. A great deal of discussion was had and ultimately we moved forward in that direction. The group agreed to move forward, but not everyone was completely happy with it, but most were. My hope and I think the group's hope as we continue, is to refine our model run so that we will come closer to meeting all of the member agency's needs and to meet all four of our key core interests that we've stated. Mayor Scruggs said I deleted some comments that were prepared for me because I didn't want it to come across too harsh, but based on what you have said, I'm going to need to go back to them. I did review the minutes from our previous meeting and service, connectivity, and reaching into underserved areas was stressed over and over again. It's not a matter of everybody getting a pot of money to do whatever, but it's about building a regional transit system. This was stated by many members of this Board and that was the direction that we were giving to the group through you. You happen to be the one standing up here so then that goes back to you. I'm sure each of us in our individual jurisdictions may run into this from time to time, but generally our staff member should carry out the policy set by the elected officials by the Board. In this case, we gave direction and the working group changed it and as the facilitator you determined that the only way to get the thing going was to allow them to change it. I have difficulty with this and I'm surprised if the other board members don’t have difficulty if policy direction is given to you and you go to a meeting and don't like it that way. We're going to do it this other way and jurisdictional equity pleases more people so we're going to do that. The question is: When we provide input, how is that assimilated into the working group process and what assurances do we have that anything we say here really goes into the process? These people that you are working with work for the same jurisdictions that we represent, so when the Board gives policy direction, this is

15

what we want carried out. I know in my city, the City of Glendale, the city manager directs his staff based on what the council has directed. It is our job now to fulfill the directions given. The RPTA Board sits here and goes off into the administrative side and something else comes out. I realize you've been brought in to facilitate an extremely difficult process and I realize that we have disparate points of view and so forth, but we did reach policy direction at the last meeting and while you say most are pleased, it's not the way the direction we went. I don't know if all the people that made comments at the last meeting realize how much this has changed. The reason why I'm saying this, and I know Chairman Ecton, you pointed out that they've probably heard Glendale's point before, but she said that she's going to work toward consensus. We cannot reach consensus when we're starting on a point that is not what was given out as the key criteria. It has been elevated above the other criteria and its elevation of just making sure everybody gets a certain amount of money harms the effectiveness of the other criteria, particularly in the performance area. Thank you for letting me follow up. Mr. Boggs said this is an extremely difficult process. The Board has dealt with various options from time to time and it was our staff recommendation that started with Alternative A. It became very clear that the process would have stopped right there had the group not come up with a different process or a different starting point. We are continuing the extra meetings with the various cities and with the group to try to get as close to the criteria as possible. I believe the process would’ve stopped and we would have not reached an agreement as you have instructed us to do. Councilman Aames said that he concurs with Mayor Scruggs. I think we did make the point of regional service as a starting point. I have a problem with certain capital improvements, but to me it doesn't make sense for one part of the Valley to have a Cadillac service center and then deny bus service to the people in another part of the region. To not allow people from one region to make their way to another region is a significant shift. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some jurisdictional equity, but, this sounds like we're talking about 100 percent jurisdictional equity and this really sets the whole tone for everything else that is done. It looks like it's going to end up being let's divide the pie, as equity is defined, maybe even in terms of past criteria. Councilman Johnson said that he thought that the group was working on coming to a consensus on how they were going to come up with an alternative that they could get consensus. A consensus meaning that everyone may not agree, but it would be something that everyone could work with. We haven't allowed the group to continue and finish their meetings to come up with a consensus before us doing it. My understanding was we had alternative one and that we're looking at it as a starting point. If you started with alternative one, which was the direction that we gave the group to start, nothing says that they didn't start at that point and nothing was concluded that they couldn't work on how they could come to some type of consensus to get to an alternative that could come back. That was just a guiding point that was giving them direction to start with alternative one and obviously, they started with alternative one

16

and could not come up with a consensus so they moved to another point. We cannot limit the group that we ask to go out and do the work. We cannot limit them to just that point. If we asked them to work on it and to come back with a consensus that that group could present to this Board an alternative that we're not happy with, that we can't agree on, then we should be able to discuss that. Certainly we should not only charge them with the ability to come up with a consensus, but give them the leeway and the working options to be able to do what's necessary for them as a group to come up with an alternative that would come back to this committee. Certainly listening to the report, alternative one was the starting point that they got to and when they couldn't come to a consensus instead of coming to a standstill, they moved on to try to figure out another way that they can come to a consensus to continue to move. My understanding is that the group is still meeting and continuing to make progress to come up with a consensus for an alternative. I don't know what that's going to be until we allow that group to complete and continue its work. Mayor Scruggs said that Councilman Johnson made some good points. It is not lightly that we came to the decision to offer the statement. I think if today's agenda item would have been one where Ms. Drecksel and Mr. Boggs said, you sent this forth and you told us to work on this using this starting point and we've worked on it for a month and we're not getting anywhere, we would like you as the Board to rethink this and participate in developing a new starting point would be better. Instead what happened is we met in October, we gave direction, and now the working group decided that that wasn't working, so they're going off in another way on a very dangerous path. Jurisdictional equity, which is basically saying everybody, gets a certain number of dollars regardless of whether they can mesh together and build a regional system. We're going to hear about it when the plan is developed in January. I think that if there had been something brought back to the Board saying, you had a swell idea, but it just isn't working. Let's talk this through and set out again, it would have made us more comfortable. After reviewing how it's going and the facts, I think deadlines are just too darn important. People pick out dates and, boy, we've got to get it done by this date regardless of whether it is our best product or not, that becomes a problem. With no conversation between now and then the plan will be presented. This is not a me decision. It's not a two-person decision. There are many people who've been involved in the process all along and how it's going. We just felt we needed to put our position on the table. Supervisor Wilcox asked if it was all based on jurisdictional equity. Ms. Drecksel stated the starting point was to take dollars under a certain jurisdictional equity formula. Those allocation issues changed what the formula might be, but the starting point was to take those dollar amounts and have each agency prioritize their projects for that dollar amount, then a list of projects was compiled. They met in two groups, the East Valley Phoenix group and the West Valley Phoenix group and refined them more. The discussions that we were having in the smaller groups talked about how the routes were performing, how important are these capital projects, and how

17

much connectivity are we creating as we move around projects. That was how the first list of projects got developed. The intention and my perception of the process is that as we continue to go through, we’ll be looking at the other interests and refining it based on the goal that reflects all four of those core interests, even though the initial list of projects on the page started with jurisdictional equity. Supervisor Wilcox said in order to get everybody started let's divide this money and then let's look at what projects we could do, but now you're going to take in everything. Now you're going to say we need to connect people and these products won't do it. This will do it better. You're going to try to refine it that way? Supervisor Wilcox said she sees Mayor Scruggs’s point and I see the mayor's point when you start out saying everybody gets a piece of the pie. You give the wrong impression, but if you're evolving it so that in the end everybody doesn’t get a piece, what's going to come is the best routes, then I can see it but I hope you can take something away you already gave somebody. Michael is right in that you still have meetings and that you're going to discuss this, but I would hope you take away from this meeting. Don't come back to us with a fractured plan that just has everybody getting a piece of the funds because that's what they wanted. We want a good program. Ms. Drecksel said she needed to clarify one thing that maybe she didn't make clear before. I believe that as each member went back initially to prioritize their projects. What were they basing those priorities on? They were basing it on how well does this route performs, how much we need for this capital project, what does it connect with, and what will happen to other jurisdictions if we take this route out. My belief is that that the initial development of the list that all four interests were being looked at. Thank you so much for all of your comments and we really want to bring you something good. Councilman Aames stated that jurisdictional equity is a starting point and that means that we’ll go with the existing formula and then move from there to try to build a regional system. This is a unique time in terms of this great recession and that's why we're doing this. Jurisdictional equity is based on the length of the Life Cycle Program and certain jurisdictions are just dropped because they have been pushed even further back. The number one goal should be to build a regional system and then maybe have some caveats that meet 80 percent of jurisdictional equity. That brings interests together. This position meets jurisdictional equity and it's not interest-based discussion. It's taking a position about where we're going. I don't see this as an interest based statement for moving forward. Councilman Cavalier said when we first started this process there was a concern with the alternative that was selected and keeping the groups doing nothing for capital. I'm looking at the practical side of this in performance where they have stated these points, the existing service, future service, capital projects, and federal mandates have to be satisfied and then we added the user into this. All of these things in a broader sense really mean jurisdictional. I'm interpreting it as a jurisdictional equity, not that we're going to divide the pie up evenly for everyone, but it's going to be divided so that it meets the needs of the entire region and how we do that may mean that some areas

18

are going to have more funds than other areas. I don't see the jurisdictional; it's the interpretation of the term "jurisdictional equity." When you brought this presentation to us earlier today that's how I read this and saw the bullet points under that I felt that this was how we were interpreting this so that within each of the jurisdictions these bullet points would be met to a point that would serve the region. I'm confused because I left it as going very well and I think we'll achieve something. It won't be satisfactory for everyone, but it will be something that everyone can buy off on, I would hope. Chairman Ecton said this is a very complex subject and there is some lack of understanding about the original details of the program. There are cities that have put their own money into bus systems and transit service and they were promised at some point in time that money would be returned to them or begin funding those services. The thought of jurisdictional equity plays into that as well. There are expectations from many of the areas that there are things that were committed in the beginning that will remain in there and that's why jurisdictional equity becomes a feature of it. I think that we all understand that this is an evolving plan that you're working on and that there will be portions that end up related to jurisdictional equity that relate to the service and relate to capital needs where it's important and necessary in order to provide some service. This group is trying to work together to come out with a formula that is acceptable and don't forget, all of us are going to be here to approve that or not approve it and have the ability to make some adjustments to whatever is brought forward. I think every board member here has heard what's been said today. We have representatives in this group that's working on it and you need to stay closer attached to what's going on. I think that there's no way this group can make any decisions and you've heard the objections. I think you've heard the pros and cons of both sides. The people on this committee probably know it better than we do and better than I do, because there all special circumstances in many of the cities. Whereas some cities are funding transportation themselves, some cities are not. Some cities have elected to take money for roads instead of transit. I don't think we're going to change our thought process. I don't think the committee is going to change their thought process and how they put all this together, so somehow it's all got to mesh together. I think we need to let the process work. We will have other opportunities to redirect to help. I don't think we expected to get definite specifics about what's happening from the committees that's been formed. Because it is evolving, what you tell us today won't be true next week or after the next meeting, so it's very difficult to express totally and completely as to what's going on. Councilman Johnson said we gave the ultimate decision to this committee and we need make sure that the representations from all cities come back with an alternative that they came to a consensus and present that to us. I think we need to allow them whatever starting point where they are now and allow them to continue that process. The ultimate goal that we gave them was to come back to us with an alternative that they could get a consensus on. We should allow them to continue to meet, to continue to do their job, and then bring back that alternative to us and at that time. May be it will be something that we may come to consensus on. It may be something that we disagree on. It may be something that we may not like, but we can't do that until we

19

allow that committee, which are members of all of our staffs, to come back with that information for us. Mayor Scruggs said Councilman Cavalier's and Councilman Johnson’s comments that followed put the finger on what this discussion is about and it's defining what jurisdictional equity means. Councilman Cavalier’s idea of just saying you get X percent but we agreed that in 2003 that this is not the best way to build a regional system. You followed your comments by asking how important regional jurisdiction is and that jurisdictional equity is counting on getting the money back. She said we defined your four criteria as being voter assurances, taxpayers and keeping the promise to the taxpayers. I think we're all saying the same thing only what you call jurisdictional equity and what we call it is keeping to the plan, voter/taxpayer satisfaction. Supervisor Wilcox asked a question. Is there a little bit of squishiness there that you've gone in and upped the percentages that were arrived or saying this is how much each of you get and go use what you want to build what you want with it? I would say the majority of this probably would not support that. Is this how the TLCP group is using jurisdictional equity? What you're saying, Councilman Ecton, we agree. That's fulfilling the promises that were made on the plan that the voters voted on. We are really saying the same thing, but it's that terminology. Our understanding is jurisdictional equity is everybody gets a certain amount and that beginning point rises above performance, budget, and voter/taxpayer satisfaction. Councilman Johnson that is why I'm making the statement I'm making today because equity is not in an equitable position right now. So I hope that clarifies. We're not trying to be difficult but just the division of the pie into certain amounts and saying go do whatever regardless of whether it works together as the starting point is a real problem. Councilman Johnson asked if jurisdictional equity was the starting point when this plan was started in 2003? It was the starting point back then and now we're back trying to revise it. It was the starting point in 2003 and if they use it as a starting point they can come back with a consensus that's agreeable to all of us. I think regardless to where the starting point is that jurisdictional equity is something that we cannot take out because it was the starting point for this project in 2003. Mayor Scruggs said no, it was the starting point to this degree. The City of Phoenix’ Mayor Rimsza agreed to take 40 percent of the money and Phoenix's position was that Phoenix was entitled to more than 40 percent of the collection due to how much is contributed through sales tax in the City of Phoenix. That percentage was computed by whoever to come up somewhere around 46 to 47 percent to build a regional system and now I'm talking about the whole system, the freeways, the roads, the streets, the transit, everything. That would leave what? 53 percent for the whole rest of the Valley, so Phoenix stepped back and said we will limit ourselves to 40 percent even though we have this huge space to take care of and all the money. The money is generated here to allow more money to go to the East Valley and the West Valley. Then the East Valley and West Valley computations were determined. West Valley was something like 26 or

20

27 percent and the other was East Valley. Then those monies were sent out to the three components to determine a plan using that percentage. It wasn't that Glendale was told you get 7.93 percent and Goodyear gets 4.1. That's not how we built the plan. We took our 27 percent and the East Valley took their 43 percent and then worked within their communities to determine how to spend it. Some put more into freeways, some put more into streets, and some put more into transit. Where this jurisdictional equity number comes from now is from the whole balancing of rates that produced inaccurate numbers to begin with and that was done by the RPTA staff. From that we based it on this blended rate and what Phoenix has gotten was this percentage of the pie, and Tempe got this and Glendale got that. We didn't build a plan saying that each individual city has a certain percentage of the transit dollars. That's not how it was put together, but that's how it's being parsed out now to try to fix the deficit. It's really not going to get us to the best regional plan. Chairman Ecton thanked Mayor Scruggs for her comments and said I think you've heard us loud and clear today and you'll take this message back. I think you're headed in the right direction and you know what you've got to come up with, something that's acceptable to everybody to present to us and we may or may not accept it. So thank you very much for your time. 8. Executive Director’s Report Mr. Boggs said the members of the Board Officer Nominating Committee are Mayor Scruggs serving as the chair and Councilman Somers. Letters of interest for board officers for 2009 are due to Mayor Scruggs by 5:00 p.m. today. We do have a number of them already. A slate of officers will be submitted to the Board for consideration at the January 21, 2010 board meeting. Also, Rick Simonetta, our chief executive officer from METRO, is retiring and his event is scheduled for December 16th. Mr. Simonetta will be leaving at the end of the year and METRO is in the process of selecting a new executive director. Thank you very much for all your support. 9. Future Board Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events Chairman Ecton asked Board members if there are any items that they would like added to the agenda for upcoming Board meetings. Councilman Presmyk requested that in January or February we ask legal counsel to give the Board a presentation on how the dynamics of the open meeting law pertain to this Board and our staff members. Supervisor Wilcox supported that request. Chairman Ecton directed staff to add this item to the January Board meeting agenda. With no further discussion the meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.


Agenda Item #B

Date January 14, 2010 Subject Local Government Investment Pool Summary The State Treasurer requires that the Board annually update its authorization for Valley Metro RPTA participation in the Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP). Those Valley Metro RPTA personnel authorized to deposit, transfer and withdraw funds would be the Board Treasurer, Executive Director and the Deputy Executive Director of Finance. Fiscal Impact None Considerations Adopting the resolution updating the Valley Metro RPTA authorization to participate in the LGIP will allow our continued participation in the LGIP. Prior Committee Action TMC – January 13, 2010, approved Board – January 21, 2010 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize Valley Metro RPTA to continue participating in the Local Government Investment Pool. Contact Person Michael Taylor Acting Deputy Executive Director 602-262-7433 Attachments Resolution 2010-01

RESOLUTION 2010-01 AUTHORIZING OFFICERS/AGENTS TO DEPOSIT, TRANSFER

AND WITHDRAW MONIES IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL

WHEREAS, the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority has resolved to participate in the Local Government Investment Pool; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following officers/agents be authorized to order the deposit, transfer and withdrawal of monies in the Local Government Investment Pool. Treasurer Name Title Signature David A. Boggs Executive Director Name Title Signature Acting Deputy Executive Michael Taylor Director, Finance Name Title Signature Passed and accepted by the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority’s Board of Directors of Maricopa County, State of Arizona, on___________________.

Chair of the Board

1


Agenda Item #C

Date January 14, 2010 Subject City of Phoenix General Services Agreement Summary The General Services Agreement between the City of Phoenix and the RPTA defines that the City and RPTA will provide each other financial and operational data, route change information, marketing information with respect to all transit services funded under any service Agreement by either party. Fiscal Impact None. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, RPTA may not receive information required to provide adequate reporting to the Board and an audit compliance finding could be received in respect to Prop. 400 funding controls. Prior Committee Action VMOCC – August 18, 2009, approved TMC – September 2, 2009, tabled for further review TMC – January 13, 2010, approved Board – January 21, 2010 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the Executive Director to execute this agreement. Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager 602-262-7433 Attachments City of Phoenix General Services Agreement – A copy of this document is available upon request.

1


Agenda Item #D

Date January 14, 2010 Subject Transit Services Agreement (TSA) between RPTA and City of Phoenix Summary The Transit Service Agreement between the City of Phoenix and the RPTA details RPTA’s funding for local and express bus route services during FY 2010 and Phoenix’s service delivery roles. The RPTA-funded service includes Routes: GAL, 70, 50, 59, 67, 106, 400, 450, 460, 480, 560, 570, 581, 582, and 590 amounting to 1.47 million annual miles at a cost of $10.15 million. Fiscal Impact The value of the contract for the RPTA funded service is $10.15 million. The funding is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015, Activities 7000, 7020, 7030, 7040, 7200, and 7210 on page 53. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, the City of Phoenix cannot continue to provide fixed route services. Without the RPTA funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. If this item is not approved, passengers using the service could be forced to find alternative transportation. Prior Committee Action VMOCC – August 18, 2009, approved TMC – September 2, 2009, tabled for further review TMC – January 13, 2010, approved Board – January 21, 2010 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the Executive Director to execute this agreement.

2

Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager 602-262-7433 Attachments City of Phoenix Transit Service Agreement #88397 – A copy of this document is available upon request.

1


Agenda Item #E

Date January 14, 2010 Subject Transit Services Agreement (TSA) between City of Phoenix and RPTA Summary The Transit Service Agreement between the City of Phoenix and the RPTA details Phoenix’s funding for local and express bus route services during FY 2010 and RPTA’s service delivery roles. The Phoenix-funded service includes Routes: 30, 45, 56, 61, and 77 amounting to 1.05 million annual miles at a cost of $4.59 million. Fiscal Impact The value of the contract for the City of Phoenix funded service is $4.59 million. The funding is included in the Board-adopted FY 2010 budget in Project #2015 and 2026 on pages 53 and 55. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreement is not approved, RPTA cannot continue to provide fixed route services. Without the City of Phoenix funding, another funding source would be required or service would need to be reduced. If this item is not approved, passengers using the service could be forced to find alternative transportation. Prior Committee Action VMOCC – August 18, 2009, approved TMC – September 2, 2009, tabled for further review TMC – January 13, 2010, approved Board – January 21, 2010 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the Executive Director to execute this agreement.

2

Contact Person Jon Medwin Procurement & Contracts Manager 602-262-7433 Attachments City of Phoenix Transit Service Agreement #83974 – A copy of this document is available upon request.

1


Agenda Item #F

Date January 14, 2010 Subject Contract Award for Automated Fuel Management Software (FMS) Summary Valley Metro’s Mesa Operations Facility, built by the City of Mesa, opened in 2003. At that time, the City of Mesa installed the Ward fuel system, which has become obsolete. There is no local support for the Ward fuel system and repairs are cost prohibitive. Presently, contractor staff monitors the fuel manually, which is subject to errors. The Request for Proposals (RFP) detailed installation of a web based, secure, accurate, and real-time automated FMS for the Valley Metro Mesa Operations Facility. The RFP required that the vendor’s product be compatible with Valley Metro current equipment and technology. Fiscal Impact The recommended proposer’s cost to install the automated FMS is $245,638. The funding for this project is:

• 80 percent ($196,510.40) Federal Transit Administration (FTA); grant number AZ-90-X080.

• 20 percent ($49,127.60) Public Transportation Funds (PTF), local funding. Considerations A RFP was issued and two firms responded. An evaluation panel consisting of representatives from Valley Metro, City of Tempe and City of Phoenix staffs reviewed the proposals. The evaluation criteria included:

• Background/Experience • Organization and Staffing • Vendor Team Organization Experience Level • References • Work Plans • Pricing

2

The evaluation results are detailed in Table I.

Table I Cost Total Points Trinium $245,638 951.25 Asset Works $327,510 893

Committee Action Process VMOCC – December 15, 2009, approved TMC – January 13, 2010, approved Board – January 21, 2010 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the Executive Director to issue a contract award to Trinium, LLC for purchase and installation of the Fuel Management Software for an amount of $245,638. Contact Person David Hyink Program Supervisor 480-924-6653 Attachments None

1


Agenda Item #G

Date January 14, 2010 Subject Contract Award for Completion of the Bus Wash Expansion Summary The Valley Metro’s Mesa Operations Facility opened in 2003. At that time, the wash building serviced a 50-vehicle fleet and one of the two wash bays was fully equipped and operational. Currently, there are 256 revenue (fixed route and paratransit) and support vehicles maintained at the Valley Metro Mesa Operations Facility. The bus wash building has one operating wash bay and one that needs to be equipped with a new bus wash system. Valley Metro requires the contractor to wash every bus three (3) times every seven (7) days, which calculates to 768 washes per week. This duty cycle is prematurely aging the current system. Fiscal Impact The recommended proposer’s cost to install the bus wash system is $212,811. The funding for this project is:

• 80 percent ($170,248.80) Federal Transit Administration (FTA); grant number AZ-90-X074.

• 20 percent ($42,562.20) Public Transportation Funds (PTF), local funding. Considerations An RFP was issued and three firms responded. An evaluation panel consisting of representatives from Valley Metro, City of Tempe and City of Phoenix staff reviewed the proposals. The evaluation criteria included:

• Experience implementing bus wash systems • Number of installations of this model in last three years • Customer Satisfaction references • References from other bus wash customers • Cost to operate per vehicle washed • Ease of maintenance

2

• Life cycle of consumable parts • Any lawsuits for contracts? If so, what is the basis for the lawsuit • Time to wash per vehicle • Operator training • Warranty • How long has your longest running wash been is service • What is your longest running wash for this make and model • Time to make operational • Price

The results of the ranking process are detailed in Table I.

Table I Costs Total Points Ross and White Company $212,811 1542.5 Agate Services $251,835 845 SWABS-AZ $272,633 995

Committee Action Process VMOCC – December 15, 2009, approved TMC – January 13, 2010, approved Board – January 21, 2010 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the Executive Director to issue a contract award to Ross and White Company for the automated bus wash system for an amount of $212,811. Contact Person David Hyink Program Supervisor 480-924-6653 Attachments None

1


Agenda Item #H

Date January 14, 2010 Subject Scottsdale/Rural Roads Alternatives Analysis Contract Award Summary Using its competitively procured on-call list of firms, RPTA requested proposals for a consultant to undertake an Alternatives Analysis (AA) for the Scottsdale/Rural Roads corridor. The corridor is identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) as a future Bus Rapid Transit Corridor. The final product of the AA Study will be a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) that identifies the specific technology and alignment for the corridor. Development of an AA is a Federal requirement under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) for a project to be eligible for future Federal Transit Administration (FTA) capital grant funding. RPTA received proposals from HDR, AECOM, and PB Americas Inc. A proposal review panel met on December 2 and December 7, 2009 and reviewed the submitted proposals. The Scottsdale/Rural Alternatives Analysis submissions were reviewed by the proposal review panel utilizing the following criteria:

• Firm Capability - Does the firm’s personnel have adequate education and relevant experience?

• Similar Project Experience - Does the firm have a proven track record in this/these area(s) of study?

• Project Team - Will the key personnel be available throughout the project and are adequate resources available to complete this project?

• Quality Control/Resource Availability - Does this firm have the ability to complete the project within the specified time period, meet all deadlines for submitting work products and ensure quality control?

2

• Project Understanding - Is there recognition of work priorities and flexibility to deal with change and contingencies?

Based on their review, the panel’s consensus is to award the contract to AECOM to develop the Scottsdale/Rural Road Alternatives Analysis Study. Fiscal Impact The Scottsdale Road study is identified in Project 3353 (Operations Planning) of the FY 2009/2010 Adopted Operating and Capital Budget of the Regional Public Transportation Authority. Said budget was adopted by the RPTA Board at its June 18, 2009 meeting. The study will be funded with $400,000 from the Regional Area Road Fund (RARF). Considerations Completion of an AA is a NEPA requirement for projects seeking FTA capital funding. Completion of the AA and the identification of a LPA for the Scottsdale/Rural Roads Corridor will create an expectation that the project will be constructed in the near term. The City of Scottsdale has made this project, including funds to operate it, a high priority for Scottsdale in the TLCP process. Committee Action Process VMOCC – December 15, 2009, approved TMC – January 13, 2010, approved Board – January 21, 2010 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Directors award a contract not to exceed $400,000 to AECOM for the Scottsdale/Rural Roads Alternatives Analysis. Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Deputy Executive Director of Planning 602-262-7433 Attachments Powerpoint presentation

Scottsdale/Rural Road Alt ti A l i

B d f Di t

Alternatives Analysis

Board of DirectorsJanuary 21, 2010

Project Background• The study corridor extends from Loop 101 (Pima Freeway) south to• The study corridor extends from Loop 101 (Pima Freeway) south to

the Tempe Transit Center at College Avenue

A future Bus Rapid Transit Corridor running from Shea Boulevard to• A future Bus Rapid Transit Corridor running from Shea Boulevard to Chandler Boulevard is identified Transit Lifecycle Program (TLCP)

S tt d l t ff t d th t th t d t d t L 101• Scottsdale staff requested that the study area extend to Loop 101, a logical terminus for the route due to the presence of a major employment center and a planned regional park & ride

• $400,000 is included in RPTA’s adopted FY10 Budget to conduct the study

2

Scottsdale/Rural BRT Corridor

as identified in the TLCP

3

Considerations• An Alternatives Analysis (AA) is required by the National• An Alternatives Analysis (AA) is required by the National

Environmental Protection Act for projects seeking Federal Transit Administration Funding

• The AA will identify a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the corridor (alignment, and mode/technology)

• Funding to construct BRT right-of-way improvements on Scottsdale and Rural Roads is identified in the TLCP

4

Considerations (continued)

• Funding to operate a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) line on Scottsdale and Rural Roads is identified in the Transit Lifecycle Program

• If the LPA is significantly different from the TLCP funded corridor, additional operating and capital funding may be required

5

Recommendation

• Forward to the Board of Directors a recommendation to award a contract not to exceed $400,000 to AECOM to assist RPTA in conducting the Scottsdale/Rural Road Alternatives Analysisconducting the Scottsdale/Rural Road Alternatives Analysis

6

1


Agenda Item #I

Date January 14, 2010 Subject Contract Award for Fare Vending Machines Purchase and Installation Summary The Arizona Avenue/Country Club Drive Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) corridor is one of several transit projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), and originally adopted by the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Regional Council in 2003. This project was prioritized for Federal stimulus funding by the RPTA Board under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The Arizona Avenue/Country Club arterial BRT corridor is scheduled in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) to begin service in Mesa, Gilbert and Chandler, in July of 2010. This new BRT corridor will provide a direct connection between the Chandler Park and Ride (on Germann Road near Tumbleweed Park) in Chandler, and the Sycamore Transit Station in Mesa (current end of line for METRO Rail). Included in the Request for Proposals were eight fare vending machines for the Mesa Main Street BRT project and 26 machines for the Arizona Avenue BRT project. The installation of Mesa Main Street machines were also programmed in the original design concept for the Mesa Main Street BRT project and were included in the project budget to be funded from the Public Transportation Fund. The Arizona Avenue BRT route is approximately 12 miles long and includes curb side stations for north- and south-bound BRT buses, with a total of 20 custom designed stations. There is presently no direct transit link between the two major passenger facilities previously stated, nor to activity centers located along the BRT corridor. This BRT route will connect three communities (City of Chandler, Town of Gilbert and City of Mesa). BRT project elements were identified as part of the design effort. The project includes fare vending machines that will speed boarding at stops by allowing for off-vehicle revenue collection. This will be a sole source procurement since the fare vending machines will need to be compatible with the machines already in use. A separate jusitification for the selection of Scheidt & Bachmann USA, Inc. as a Sole Source has been prepared.

2

Fiscal Impact The total award for this contract is to Scheidt & Bachmann USA is for $2,240,380. The Arizona Ave BRT project identified in the RTP will be funded for construction through a $15 million ARRA Federal Stimulus grant from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The $15 million of ARRA funding will be used for construction, construction management, the procurement of fare vending machines, and for dynamic message signs that will provide real-time bus information. The construction contract was significantly under budget at $3.9 million and thus there are adequate ARRA funds remaining for fare vending machines. $1,713,232 will be funded from the ARRA grant. The remainder of the contract $527,148 will be from the Public Transportation Fund (PTF) for the Mesa Main Street BRT project. Operations funding will be provided through PTF monies as part of the TLCP. Considerations In addition to fare vending machines for the Arizona Avenue/Country Club BRT, the contract will include options for additional fare vending machines for other projects and needs in the region. Separate funding sources will be identified for each contract award for additional machines. It was pointed out in the VMOCC meeting that the current fare vending machines in use by METRO are not Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliant. PCI compliance refers to use of Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards, which is a standard for credit card use in the USA. This standard is new since the METRO original purchase of fare vending machines. Metro has indicated this has been brought to Scheidt and Bachman’s attention and they have indicated those machines will be brought into compliance. The Transit Management Committee in their consideration of this item indicated they wanted specific language in the contract to address this issue. The following is proposed to be included in the contract: “The fare vending machines provided under this contract will be fully compliant with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards in effect as of July 1, 2010. Valley Metro RPTA will not issue unit price payments in excess of 75% for any ticket vending machine (T

meeting of the board of directors - valley metro...to attend this meeting via teleconference,...

Documents