table of contents agenda 3 - valley regional transit · 2017-10-10 · table of contents agenda 3...

Table of Contents

Agenda 3Approve Minutes of 07/10/17 VRT Board Meeting

Minutes of 07/10/17 VRT Board Meeting 6Accept Minutes of 08/07/17 Executive Board Meeting

Minutes of 08/07/17 Executive Board Meeting 11Accept Minutes of 08/28/17 Executive Board Special Meeting

Minutes of 08/28/17 Executive Board Special Meeting 14Acknowledge FY2017 Third Quarter Budget Variance Report

Memo- FY2017 Third Quarter Budget Report 16FY2017 3rd Quarter Budget Report 17FY 2017 3rd Quarter Budget Comments 18

Acknowledge FY2017 Cash Balance ReportMemo - FY2017 Cash Balance Report 27Operating Cash Balance Report ? FY2017 Qtr. 3 28

Approve FY2018 Recurring Procurements Memo-FY2018 Recurring Procurements 29

Approve FY2019 Preliminary Budget CalendarMemo-FY2019 Preliminary Budget Calendar 31FY2019 Preliminary Budget Calendar 32

PROCUREMENT - Fire Suppression System & ExtinguisherService

AFE-Fire Suppression System & Extinguisher Service 33Resolution VBD17-016-Fire Suppression System &Extinguisher Service 34

PROCUREMENT - Ford OEM PartsAFE-Ford OEM Parts 36Resolution VBD17-017-Ford OEM Parts 37

PROCUREMENT-Radio Dispatch Network Support &Equipment Maintenance

AFE-Radio Dispatch Network Support & EquipmentMaintenance 39Resolution VBD-17-020 40

Ratify Title VI Plan UpdateMemo - Title VI Plan Update 42Reso-VBD17-023-Title VI Plan Update 44

Approve VRT Facility & Equipment Maintenance PolicyMemo-VRT Facility & Equipment Maintenance Plan 46RESO VBD17-024-VRT Facility & EquipmentMaintenance Policy 47VRT Facility & Equipment Maintenance Policy 49

PROCUREMENT-Ada and Canyon Counties ProfessionalTransit Management Contract

Memo Transit Management Contracted Services 53PROCUREMENT-Phone System Replacement

1

AFE-Phone System 55Resolution VBD17-021-Phone System 56

VRT Procurement Policy Threshold ChangesMemo-VRT Procurement Policy Threshold Changes 58RESO-VBD17-022-Procurement Policy ThresholdChanges-09-25-17 60

Shared Vehicle Fee ChangeMemo-Shared Vehicle Fee Change 62

Canyon County Service ChangeMemo-Canyon County Service Change 65Canyon County Service Changes 67

ValleyConnect 2.0Memo-ValleyConnect 2.0 82ValleyConnect 2.0 Packet 84

Harvest Transit UpdateMemo-Harvest Transit Update 9-11 2017- Info Item fullBoard 105

Volunteer Driver Fare ChangesMemo-Volunteer Driver Fare Change 106

Department Staff ReportsReport Executive Director 108Report-Finance & Administration 109Report-Development Department 111Report-Operations Department 114Report-Community Relations 117Report-Bike Share Program 119

2

700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 • Meridian, ID 83642 • p: 208.846.8547 • f: 208.846.8564 • 1.855.345.7433

Valley Regional Transit Board of Directors Meeting Agenda

Monday, September 25, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. VRT Board Room – 700 NE 2nd Street – Meridian, Idaho

I. CALLING OF THE ROLL Chair Garret Nancolas

II. AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES

III. PUBLIC COMMENT

IV. RCC Quarterly Report Duane Wakan Duane Wakan, who represents Local Governments on the Regional Coordination Council (RCC), will provide the RCC Quarterly Report.

V. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless a VRT Board Member requests the item be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Action Items.

A. Approve Minutes of 07/10/17 VRT Board Meeting Ө Pages 6-10 B. Accept Minutes of 08/07/17 Executive Board Meeting Ө Pages 11-13 C. Accept Minutes of 08/28/17 Executive Board Special Meeting Ө Pages 14-15 D. Acknowledge FY2017 Third Quarter Budget Variance Report Ө Pages 16-26 E. Acknowledge FY2017 Cash Balance Report Ө Pages 27-28 F. Approve FY2018 Recurring Procurements Ө Pages 29-30 G. Approve FY2019 Preliminary Budget Calendar Ө Pages 31-32 H. Procurements

1. Fire Suppression System & Extinguisher Service Ө Pages 33-35 The VRT Board will review for approval Resolution VBD17-016 to award a contract for fire suppression and facility fire equipment support to Fire Services of Idaho. 2. Ford OEM Parts Ө Pages 36-38 The members will review for approval Resolution VBD17-017 to contract with Lithia Ford Lincoln of Boise for Ford OEM parts, Motorcraft parts, and Ford remanufactured parts. 3. Radio Dispatch Network Support & Equipment Maintenance Ө Pages 39-41 The members will review for approval Resolution VBD17-020 to provide radio communications network support and equipment maintenance.

3

I. Ratify Title VI Plan Update Ө Pages 42-45 The VRT Board will review and ratify the Title VI Plan Update - Resolution VBD17-023. The full Title VI Plan Update can be viewed at the following weblink: http://www.valleyregionaltransit.com/portals/0/Board/TitleVIProgram2015_2017Final.pdf J. Approve VRT Facility & Equipment Maintenance Policy Ө Pages 46-52 The members will review for approval Resolution VBD17-024 to provide guidance and procedures for staff to follow in maintaining a state of good repair for invested infrastructure. This policy was created at the direction of the Triennial Review group.

VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Procurements

1. Ada and Canyon Counties Professional Transit Management Contract Ө Pages 53-54 Billy Wingfield Attached is a memo providing an update on the RFP process for professional transit management services for Ada and Canyon counties services. Staff is requesting the VRT Board of Directors delegate approving and executing the final contract to the Executive Board.

2. Phone System Replacement Ө Pages 55-57 Billy Wingfield The VRT Board will review for approval Resolution VBD17-021 to replace and maintain an enterprise phone system.

B. VRT Procurement Policy Threshold Changes Ө Pages 58-61 Jim McMahon VRT Finance Staff is requesting Procurement Policy threshold increases in approval levels for purchases – Resolution VBD17-022. Informational item included that the State of Idaho bidding requirements threshold level changes are effective as of July 1, 2017. C. Shared Vehicle Fee Change Ө Pages 62-64 David Pederson Staff recommends the VRT Board of Directors approve the proposed Shared Vehicle fee structure. D. Canyon County Service Change Ө Pages 65-81 Stephen Hunt VRT Board will review for approval the proposed service changes to Canyon County services. E. ValleyConnect 2.0 Ө Pages 82-104 Stephen Hunt The members will review and consider approval of the goals, performance measurements, prioritization themes, network design principles and the size and scope of the ValleyConnect 2.0 scenarios.

4

http://www.valleyregionaltransit.com/portals/0/Board/TitleVIProgram2015_2017Final.pdf

VII. INFORMATION ITEMS A. Boise GreenBike Presentation Dave Fotsch Dave Fotsch, Boise Bike Share Program Director, will provide an update on the Boise GreenBike. B. Policy Committee Update re: Commuteride Review Chair Garret Nancolas Members will receive an update from the Executive Board regarding the Commuteride Review and next steps in the process. C. Harvest Transit Update Ө Page 105 David Pederson Staff will provide an update to the VRT Board of Directors on the Harvest Transit’s pilot year. D. Volunteer Driver Fare Changes Ө Pages 106-107 Ken Schick Staff is presenting the proposed fare change for the volunteer driver program which will be presented as an action item at the January 2018 Board meeting. E. Department Staff Reports Ө Pages 108-120 VRT Staff The most current Department/Staff Reports are included in the meeting packet.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

Ө = Attachment Agenda order is subject to change. NEXT MEETING: Monday, January 8, 2018 12:00 p.m. VRT Board Room 700 NE 2nd Street Meridian, Idaho The public is invited to provide written comment on an agenda item or provide comment at the VRT Board meetings. Please refer to the VRT Board Agenda Preparation and Approval Policy (approved 07/15/09) at the following weblink: http://www.valleyregionaltransit.com/Portals/0/Policies/BoardAgenda%20Preparation&ApprovalPolicy.pdf Arrangements for auxiliary aids and services necessary for effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities or language assistance requests need to be made as soon as possible, but no later than three working days before the scheduled meeting. Please contact Mark Carnopis, Community Relations Manager at 258-2702 if an auxiliary aid is needed.

5

http://www.valleyregionaltransit.com/Portals/0/Policies/BoardAgenda%20Preparation&ApprovalPolicy.pdf


Valley Regional Transit Board of Directors Meeting Minutes

Monday, July 10, 2017 at 12:00 p.m. VRT Board Room – 700 NE 2nd Street – Meridian, Idaho

MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT

Dave Bieter, Boise (phone) Pat Shalz, CCDC Kelli Fairless, VRT Elaine Clegg, Boise Luke Cavener, Meridian Linda Ihli, VRT Corey Cook, BSU Steve Jett, Greenleaf Rhonda Jalbert, VRT Tom Dale, Canyon County Nathan Leigh, Parma Billy Wingfield, VRT John Evans, Garden City David Lincoln, ACCHD Mark Carnopis, VRT Jeff Flynn, CWI (phone) Richard Lockett, Star Tod Morris, VRT Jim Hansen, ACHD Martin Luttrell, Melba Jake Hassard, VRT Bob Henry, Nampa Amy Revis, ITD (ex-officio) Stephen Hunt, VRT Rob Hopper, Caldwell (phone) Mo Shamseldin, Notus Duane Wakan, COMPASS Sandi Levi, Nampa Rick Visser, Ada County Alicia Mora Almazan, Wilder Larry Maneely for Jim Tibbs, Ada County

Pam White, Canyon County Ken Pidjeon, Citizen

Brent Orton for Garret Nancolas, Caldwell (phone)

Sam Patterson, Boise State

Ty Palmer, Meridian Ryan Head, ACHD Rick Ritter, MDC Maureen Gresham, ACHD CR Joe Stear, Kuna Sara Baker, ACHD Darin Taylor, Middleton Annette Harper, ACHD CR Stan Ridgeway, Eagle Bob Allen, First Transit Jim Coffman, First Transit Leslie Pedrosa, MV Transportation

Vice-chair Jim Hansen began the meeting at 12:07 p.m. with a quorum present and by telephone. There were no additions or changes to the agenda and no public comments. RCC Quarterly Report Jeremy Maxand, Chair of the Regional Coordination Council (RCC), provided the RCC Quarterly Report and noted the RCC had been working on three documents which include the RCC Public Comment Plan, RCC Communication Plan, and the Public Communication Plan, as well as evaluating RCC documents for ADA compliance. Staff will be meeting with the RCC Chair and Vice-chair this summer to look at the way the RCC is staffed and structured in order to utilize the RCC in the most effective way possible and to be sure the main refugee populations in both counties are represented. CONSENT AGENDA Bob Henry moved to approve the Consent Agenda; seconded by Darin Taylor. The motion was approved unanimously. The Consent Agenda consisted of the

6

ITEM V-A

04/03/17 VRT Board Meeting Minutes, 05/01/17 Joint Meeting Executive Board/RC (corrected), Minutes of 06/05/17 Executive Board Meeting, FY2017 Budget 2nd Quarter Variance, and Operating Cash Balance Report.

ACTION ITEMS Small Urban Section 5307 Programming Change Request Rhonda Jalbert requested the Board of Directors approve a programming change in the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 Small Urban program to address an operational short fall in the funded Canyon County Safe Routes to School project. It was noted that the Executive Board had reviewed and recommended approval in their earlier meeting. Following discussion, Bob Henry moved to approve the $75,000 as requested; seconded by Darin Taylor. The motion was approved unanimously. FY2018 Budget Presentation VRT Staff presented the final budget information for the FY2018 Budget prior to the Public Hearing. Elaine Clegg noted that at the Boise City budget workshop, the Boise City Council voted to approve many of the requests provided from VRT. PUBLIC HEARING - FY2018 Budget Chair-elect Jim Hansen opened the FY2018 Budget Public Hearing at 12:39 p.m. Public testimony was provided by:

• Ken Pidjeon, Citizen, made comments regarding fares and fareboxes. • Sara Baker, ACHD Commissioner, commented on Division 19 and Commuteride.

At 1:05 p.m. Bob Henry moved to close the Public Hearing; seconded by Elaine Clegg. The motion was approved unanimously. Approval of Final FY2018 Budget Following discussion, Elaine Clegg moved to approve Resolution VBD17-010 to approve the Fiscal Year 2018 Budget; seconded by Joe Stear. The motion was approved with one nay vote by Ty Palmer. Board Officer Election - Vice-chair Position Kelli Badesheim explained that the Vice-chair position on the Executive Board/VRT Board officers had been vacant since January and would need to be filled by a Board member from Canyon County.

7

ITEM V-A

Darin Taylor nominated Commissioner Tom Dale to be the Vice-chair for VRT; seconded by Bob Henry. The motion was approved by unanimous consent. With Tom Dale moving to the Vice-chair position, the Canyon County At-large position needed to be filled. Bob Henry nominated Darin Taylor to fill the Canyon County At-large position; seconded by Elaine Clegg. The nomination was approved by unanimous consent.

Transit Asset Management – Targets Rhonda Jalbert requested the members approve the Transit Asset Management State of Good Repair targets to submit to COMPASS. Bob Henry moved to approve the Transit Asset Management targets and submit to COMPASS; seconded by Elaine Clegg. The motion was approved unanimously.

PROCUREMENTS Tires and Tire Related Services-Ada County System Billy Wingfield requested approval of Resolution VBD17-012 for the procurement of Tires and Tire Related Services in the Ada County system from Commercial Tire. Tom Dale moved to approve Resolution VBD17-012 to buy tires and award this contract; seconded by Bob Henry. Following discussion the motion was approved unanimously. Middleton Park and Ride Construction Contract Jake Hassard explained the Middleton Park and Ride bid came in over budget so staff would like to go out for rebid and requested the Board members approved Resolution VBD17-013 to approve delegating the approval of the Middleton Park and Ride Construction Contract award to the Executive Board. Following discussion, Bob Henry moved for the VRT Board to delegate authority to the Executive Board to approve a contract for the Middleton Park and Ride construction to the lowest responsible responsive bidder; seconded by Stan Ridgeway. The motion was approved unanimously. On-Call Security Services

8

ITEM V-A

Jake Hassard requested approval of Resolution VBD17-014 for the procurement to Global Surveillance as the On-Call Security Services provider. Tom Dale moved to authorize the Board to approve Resolution VBD17-014 for the procurement to Global Surveillance for the On-Call Security Services; seconded by Darin Taylor. The motion was approved unanimously. Fare Boxes for Canyon County Billy Wingfield requested the members approve Resolution VBD17-015 to delegate the authority to the Executive Board to approve the contract to purchase and install the farebox equipment. Billy noted that Genfare, as the GFI existing vendor, will be providing a bid on the farebox equipment. Joe Stear moved to approve Resolution VBD17-015 to delegate the authority to the Executive Board to approve the contract to purchase and install the farebox equipment; seconded by Bob Henry. The motion was approved unanimously. ACHD Cooperative Agreements Amendments The VRT Board approved the original Commuteride Authorization Agreement and Transit Structures agreements in 2007. Kelli Badesheim explained that in 2014 ACHD had put a condition on VRT that in order to complete the Main Street Station conveyance agreement, ACHD requested the extension of the ACHD Commuteride Authorization Agreement and the Transit Structures Agreement out to 2024. The Conveyance Agreement was put on a Board meeting agenda in 2014 and approved, but the two amendments did not get put on the agenda so were never approved. Staff recommended the VRT Board approve the amendments. Kelli noted the current ACHD Commuteride analysis has assumed the agreements in place to 2024. Following discussion, Bob Henry moved to approve the First Amendments to the Commuteride and Transit Structures Agreements; seconded by Joe Stear. The motion was approved with one nay vote by Elaine Clegg. INFORMATION ITEMS Service Changes Stephen Hunt reported that open houses would be conducted the end of July to collect feedback on service changes in Canyon County to restructure existing resources with the least amount of impact on riders. The proposed service changes have been reviewed with the jurisdictions which will be most affected by the changes. Public Hearings will be held after the public input has been received and taken into consideration.

9

ITEM V-A

Department/Staff Reports The most current Department/Staff Reports were included in the packet.

ADJOURNMENT At 1:51 p.m. Darin Taylor moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Bob Henry. The motion was approved unanimously. NEXT MEETING: Monday, September 25, 2017 12:00 p.m. VRT Board Room 700 NE 2nd Street Meridian, Idaho

10

ITEM V-A


Executive Board Meeting Meetings

Monday, August 7, 2017 11:00 a.m.

VRT Board Room – 700 NE 2nd Street – Meridian, Idaho

MEMBERS ATTENDING MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Luke Cavener, Meridian Dave Bieter, Boise Kelli Badesheim, VRT Tom Dale, Canyon County Elaine Clegg, Boise Linda Ihli, VRT Jim Hansen, ACHD David Lincoln, ACCHD Rhonda Jalbert, VRT Bob Henry, Nampa Jim McMahon, VRT Garret Nancolas, Caldwell Billy Wingfield, VRT Darin Taylor, Middleton Jacob Hassard, VRT Jim Tibbs, Ada County Nick Moran, VRT Sam Patterson for Corey Cook, Boise State University (phone)

Susan Powell, VRT

Tod Morris, VRT Kelly Higgs, VRT Paul Woods, ACHD Kent Goldthorpe, ACHD Maureen Gresham, ACHD Justin Lucas, ACHD Annette Harper, ACHD Kathleen Godfrey, ACHD Nicole Stern, ACHD Brady Aston, Westerberg &

Assoc/Enterprise Kelly Jenkins, Enterprise Matt Stoll, COMPASS Ken Pidjeon, Citizen

Chair Garret Nancolas began the meeting at 11:00 a.m. with a quorum present and by telephone. There were no additions or changes to the agenda.

CONSENT AGENDA Minutes of 07/10/17 VRT Executive Board Chair Garret Nancolas noted a correction on the 07/10/17 Executive Board meeting minutes in that Billy Wingfield presented the Canyon County tires procurement, not Jake Hassard. Bob Henry moved to approve the minutes of the 07/10/17 VRT Executive Board with the noted change; seconded by Luke Cavener. The motion was approved unanimously.

11

ITEM V-B

ACTION ITEMS - none

INFORMATION ITEMS Executive Board Policy Committee Report - ACHD Commuteride Review Kelli Badesheim provided a staff report on materials generated for the Executive Board Policy Committee which is conducting the ACHD Commuteride review. The Executive Board members asked questions pertaining to the staff report, as well as the draft responses to questions that were received from ACHD Commissioner Kent Goldthorpe who was one of the members from the Policy Committee representing ACHD. In addition to the approaches outlined in the packet materials, other alternatives were discussed which included VRT operating the vanpool directly or defining a scope of work and putting the vanpool out under a management contract - areas that would need to be explored once a decision is made on whether Commuteride’s services and programs would come under Valley Regional Transit. PUBLIC COMMENTS Maureen Gresham, ACHD Commuteride, gave four reasons as to why she thought Commuteride should stay with ACHD which included financially sustainable, already effective, customers are happy, and statewide rideshare platform. Maureen provided two emails with comments from vanpoolers that had been sent directly to her and requested those emails be added to the public comments that were included in the meeting packet. The Executive Board members followed-up on Maureen’s comments with questions. Paul Woods, President of ACHD Commissioner explained that to-date the ACHD Board of Commissioners hadn’t acted on any of the policy questions being discussed pertaining to the review. He proposed scheduling a joint conversation at the Commission level to discuss policy areas if there were specific questions VRT would want answered. He also noted that the communication that went out to vanpool members was not authorized by the ACHD Commission. Commissioner Woods stated he will get a legal opinion as to whether or not dollars from ACHD revenue can be spent outside ACHD boundaries. Kelly Jenkins with Enterprise Ride Share noted Enterprise has partnered with other transportation authorities across the country for many years. A handout explaining Enterprise Ride Share was distributed to the members. Tom Dale summarized that the discussion had included the three alternatives of status quo, consolidation, and collaboration. He suggested a collaboration model which would

12

ITEM V-B

still have Enterprise and ACHD but with VRT as the coordination entity. Paul Woods said he would take that to the ACHD Commission, and Kelly Jenkins said he would do some research on it. ADJOURNMENT At 12:58 p.m. Darrin Taylor moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Tom Dale. The motion was approved unanimously. NEXT MEETING: Executive Board Special Meeting Monday, August 28, 2017 3:30 p.m. VRT Board Room 700 NE 2nd Street Meridian, Idaho

13

ITEM V-B


Executive Board Special Meeting Minutes

Monday, August 28, 2017 3:30 p.m.

VRT Board Room – 700 NE 2nd Street – Meridian, Idaho

MEMBERS ATTENDING MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT

Luke Cavener, Meridian Dave Bieter, Boise Kelli Badesheim, VRT Elaine Clegg, Boise Tom Dale, Canyon County Linda Ihli, VRT David Lincoln, ACCHD Jim Hansen, ACHD Jacob Hassard, VRT Garret Nancolas, Caldwell Bob Henry, Nampa Mark Carnopis, VRT Darin Taylor, Middleton Stephen Hunt, VRT Jim Tibbs, Ada County Doug Buckendorf, ATU 398 Corey Cook, Boise State University Rocky Perkins, ATU 398

Chair Garret Nancolas began the meeting at 3:30 p.m. with a quorum present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES Kelli Badesheim requested Item 4-A under Consent Agenda (Proposed Agenda Items for 09/25/17 VRT Board of Directors Meeting) be moved to Action Item V-B as several items had been added to the proposed agenda for the 09/25/17 VRT Board of Directors meeting since the Executive Board meeting packet went out. Elaine Clegg moved to amend the agenda to move Item IV-A under Consent Agenda (Proposed Agenda Items for 09/25/17 VRT Board of Directors Meeting) to Action Item V-B; seconded by Jim Tibbs. The motion was approved unanimously. Jim Tibbs moved to approve the agenda as amended; seconded by Luke Cavener. The motion was approved unanimously.

PUBLIC COMMENTS - none

CONSENT AGENDA - none ACTION ITEMS ITEM V-A PROCUREMENT- Middleton Park and Ride Construction Contract Jake Hassard noted that on 07/10/17 the VRT Board of Directors authorized the Executive Board to approve the Middleton Park and Ride Construction Contract

14

ITEM V-C

procurement - see Resolution VBD17-013. Darin Taylor noted Middleton is 100% committed in moving forward with the project. Elaine Clegg moved for approval of Resolution VEB17-007 (for the approval of Knife River Northwest to construct Middleton Park and Ride Construction Contract); seconded by Luke Cavener. The motion was approved unanimously. ITEM V-B Proposed Agenda Items for 09/25/17 VRT Board of Directors Meeting An updated proposed agenda for the 09/25/17 VRT Board of Directors was distributed to the members for review as several items had been added to the agenda since the Executive Board packet went out. Two routine procurements items were moved from Action Items to the Consent Agenda in order to allow plenty of time for the Action Items on the agenda. A list of upcoming VRT meeting dates in September were distributed to the members to be used in context for the September 25th VRT Board of Directors meeting. Following discussion, Darin Taylor moved to approve the proposed agenda as presented and to authorize the Executive Director to use discretion in adding items to the agenda; seconded by Elaine Clegg. The motion was approved unanimously. INFORMATION ITEMS - none ADJOURNMENT At 3:45 p.m. Darin Taylor moved to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Elaine Clegg. The motion was approved unanimously. NEXT MEETINGS: Joint Meeting of VRT Executive Board & ACHD Board of Commissioners Monday, September 18, 2017 2:30 p.m. VRT Board Room - 700 NE 2nd Street - Meridian, Idaho VRT Executive Board Monday, September 25, 2017 11:00 a.m. Followed by VRT Board of Directors at noon VRT Board Room - 700 NE 2nd Street - Meridian, Idaho

15

ITEM V-C


TOPIC: FY 2017 Third Quarter Budget Variance Report DATE: August 28, 2017 Summary: The third quarter of FY2017 was completed on June 30, 2017. Attached is the Budget Variance Report for that period. Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff recommends acceptance of the report. Implication (policy and/or financial): The overall budget is within budget parameters. Attachment FY2017 3rd Quarter Budget Report FY 2017 3rd Quarter Budget Comments More Information: Jim McMahon, Finance Director, 258-2709, [email protected]

16

ITEM V-D

mailto:[email protected]

VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSITFY2017 THIRD QUARTER BUDGET REPORT

OCTOBER 2016 ‐ JUNE 2017

Category Budget Actual % Variance Budget Actual % Variance Budget Actual % Variance Budget Actual % VarianceDirectly Generated Revenues 596,243$ 616,563$ 103% 150,021$ 129,690$ 86% ‐$ 102,918$ 1,125$ 37,290$ 3315%Auxiliary Revenues 46,253 67,450 146% 8,847 10,768 122%Non‐Transportation Revenues 135,050 170,159 126% ‐ 44,822 Federal Operating Assistance 1,615,327 1,578,894 98% 685,415 614,664 90% 1,727,853 1,443,334 84%Federal Capital Assistance 7,196,229 3,400,997 47%Local Operating Assistance 4,180,758 3,921,006 94% 447,910 452,149 101% 1,536,258 1,258,264 82% 267,148 165,169 62%Local Capital Assistance 1,235,555 459,309 37%TOTAL REVENUES 6,573,631$ 6,354,071$ 1,292,194$ 1,207,271$ 11,695,895$ 6,709,643$ 268,273$ 202,459$

Wages and Salaries 2,299,983$ 2,669,679$ 116% 542,080$ 532,837$ 98% 928,322$ 864,191$ 93% 71,678$ 77,887$ 109%Fringe Benefits 2,675,059 2,333,795 87% 105,499 100,693 95% 580,675 502,155 86% 33,440 27,822 83%Professional Services 325,559 362,290 111% 180,120 140,745 78% 807,586 568,684 70% 107,243 52,326 49%Materials and Supplies 656,537 596,823 91% 269,626 288,865 107% 98,312 64,696 66% 15,000 10,303 69%Utilities 138,857 110,656 80% 48,959 43,206 88% 47,794 47,365 99% 5,925 2,062 35%Casualty and Liability Insurance 339,478 206,176 61% 119,984 84,545 70% 70,596 62,733 89% 3,750 3,750 100%Purchased Transportation ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 511,005 603,931 118% ‐ ‐ Miscellaneous 71,805 55,889 78% 18,816 15,454 82% 529,195 328,049 62% 13,238 6,483 49%Interest ‐ ‐ 4,150 ‐ 0% 300 ‐ ‐ ‐ Leases and Rentals 66,353 65,484 99% 2,961 926 31% 6,825 10,953 160% 18,000 21,825 121%Capital ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 8,115,284 3,610,339 44% ‐ ‐ TOTAL EXPENSES 6,573,632$ 6,400,792$ 1,292,194$ 1,207,271$ 11,695,895$ 6,663,097$ 268,273$ 202,459$

VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSITCAPITAL SPENDING

OCTOBER 2016 ‐ JUNE 2017

Capital Budget Budget ActualRevenue Vehicles ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,129,100$ 994,623$ Revenue Vehicles Sub‐Recipients ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 354,000 344,969 Non‐Revenue Vehicle ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 551,250 142,209 Shop & Other Equipment ‐ ‐ ‐ 37,500 ‐ Capital Facility Safety/Security ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 276,203 ‐ Fareboxes ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 150,000 ‐ Facility ‐ ‐ 1,020,580 821,116 IT Hardware ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 335,628 20,096 IT Software ‐ ‐ 81,000 88,838 Main Street Station ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 827,199 1,009,463 CWI & Other Park and Rides ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 37,315 Bus Stop Enhancements ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Bike /Pedestrian Improvements 67,950 71,496 Capital Projects ‐ Subrecipients ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,284,875 80,216 TOTAL CAPITAL EXPENSES 8,115,284$ 3,610,339$

Ada County System Canyon County System Regional Boise GreenBike

17

ITEM V-D

VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT FY 2017 BUDGET REPORT COMMENTS

October 2016 - June 2017

At the end of June, Fiscal Year 2017 was seventy-five percent (75%) complete. The following is a review of the budgetary status of the Ada, Canyon, Regional, and Boise GreenBike Systems as of June 30, 2017. A ten percent (+/- 10%) tolerance threshold is utilized for analysis purposes in this report. Ada County System Revenues Directly Generated Funds (103% of Budget) - This line item is within budget parameters through the end of QR-3. Auxiliary Revenues (146% of budget) - This revenue category favorably exceeded budget estimates due to greater amounts of advertising being sold for fixed line operations. Actual revenues earned for Bus Advertising were $67,450 through the end of QR-3; whereas the established budget was $46,253. Non-Transportation Revenues (126% of Budget) – The Alternative Fuels Rebate of $169,734 has been received for the fiscal year. This discretionary rebate was received in the second quarter of the fiscal year, although the budget is spread out evenly throughout the year. VRT will be posting an adjusting journal entry to reclass the Canyon County System portion ($46,546) during September 2017. Federal Operating Assistance (98% of Budget) - This line item is within budget parameters. Local Operating Assistance (94% of Budget) - This line item is within budget parameters. Expenses Total Ada County System operating expenses were 97% of budget through QR-3 on an unadjusted basis. Wages and Salaries (116% of Budget) - This line item exceeds budget parameters by $369,696. After factoring out the third pay date at the end of June (6/29), the adjusted unfavorable variance is $239,765 or 110% of Budget. Fixed Line and Demand Response Operator Overtime is principally driving the unfavorable budget condition. Favorable variances in the Fringe Benefit expense category fully offset this unfavorable variance condition through QR-3.

18

ITEM V-D

Fringe Benefits (87% of budget) – Actual Fringe Benefit expenses were lower than budgeted amounts through June by $341,264. Lower spending occurred through QR-3 in Misc. Earnnings for the Operations, Maintenance, and Administration departments. Operations continues to experience lower healthcare costs through June in comparison to the established budgetary amounts whereas Maintenance and Administration demonstraite slightly higher (unfavorable) healthcare costs through the end of QR-3. Professional Services (111% of Budget) - This line item exceeds budget parameters. Actual professional services expenses exceed budgetary amounts on a net basis by $36,731 through QR-3. To a large extent, the unfavorable variances have occurred in the Administration Department (160) with higher Legal Services expenses of $27,775 and higher Equipment Service Contract Repair & Maintenance expenses of $14,327. Materials and Supplies (91% of Budget) - This line item is favorably within budget parameters. However, the variance is on the low end of the +/- 10% tolerance threshold. This line item is favorably lower than budget parameters on a net basis by $59,714. The favorable variance condition is the result of the following line item variances: CNG – Favorable ($53,513); Fuel – Favorable ($9,060); Tires & Tubes – Favorable ($5,398); Office – Departmental Supplies Unfavorable (-$4,534); Oil, Lubes & Antifreeze Unfavorable (-$2,509). Utilities (80% of Budget) - This line item is favorably lower than budget parameters through QR-3. The variance appears to be principally attributable to the following conditions: 1) Additional amounts being budgeted in the Telecommunications/Admin within this expense category while a significant amount of ITS expenses are being recorded within Regional under Division 20 in order to take advantage of the favorable Federal/Local (80%/20%) match ratio for funding such expenses. 2) Higher Gas expenses for the Bus Wash than what was budgeted. 3) Lower Electric expenses. Casualty Insurance (61% of Budget) – This line item is significantly below budget parameters. An adjusting journal entry will be processed during QR-4 that reclassifies prepaid insurance held on the balance sheet to insurance expense in order to appropriately recognize the correct amount of expense for the fiscal year. Purchased Transportation - This line item has not been historically budgeted in the Ada County System. No expenses were incurred in this category through QR-3. Miscellaneous (78% of Budget) – This line item is lower than budget parameters by $15,916. Through June, lower amounts have been spent in Other Expenses ($5,276), Personal Training ($4,041), Travel ($3,591), and Freight-Postage ($3,007) line items. Leases and Rentals (99% of Budget) - This line item is within budget parameters.

19

ITEM V-D

Canyon County System Revenues Directly Generated Revenues (86% of Budget) - This line item is lower than budget parameters and outside the + / - 10% tolerance threshold. Directly Generated Revenues earned through QR-3 were $129,690 vs. the established budget of $150,021. The Treasure Valley experienced a very unusual January and February weather event that contributed heavily to lower ridership during that period of time. Presently, ridership trends and routes are being analyzed in the Canyon County System.

Auxiliary Revenues (Advertising) (122% of Budget) - This line item favorably exceeds budget parameters by $1,921 through QR-3. VRT Operations has been working with the vendor (Larmar Advertising) to increase Canyon County advertising revenue. Non-Transportation Revenues The Alternative Fuels Rebate is the principal revenue source in this category. VRT received $46,546 in Rebate during FY2017. This discretionary revenue source is utilized for capital match purposes. As such, these revenues were not budgeted as an operating revenue source since their use was already dedicated to capital asset acquisition. Very little other Miscellaneous Revenues are earned in the Canyon County System. Federal Operating Assistance (90% of Budget) - This line item is just within the +/- 10% tolerance threshold being at 90%. Four (4) revenue sources are contained within this category - Operations, Preventative Maintenance, Buildings & Grounds, and Administration. Through June, more Federal monies have been available in executed grants to fund Canyon County System Operations and Administration expenses. This has resulted in lower utilization of Local Operating Assistance revenue in order to balance total expenses within the Canyon County System through the end of QR-3. Local Operating Assistance (101% of Budget) – This line item is within budgetary parameters. Expenses Total Canyon County System operating expenses were 93% of budget through QR-3 on an unadjusted basis. Wages and Salaries (98% of Budget) - This line item is within budget parameters. After factoring out the third pay date at the end of June (6/29), the adjusted favorable variance is approximately $30,243 or 94% of Budget through the end of QR-3. Fixed Line and Demand Response Operator Wages and Administrative Wage savings are principally driving the favorable budget condition. Fringe Benefits (95% of Budget) - This line item is within budgetary parameters. Total Budget to Actual net favorable variance was $4,805. Unemployment – Favorable ($4,719); Misc. Earnings – Favorable ($3,135); FICA – Favorable ($922) line items were offset by higher Heathcare – Unfavorable (-$3,995).

20

ITEM V-D

Professional Services (78% of Budget) - This line item is favorably lower than budget parameters by $39,375. Through the third quarter, the Canyon County System experienced lower Repair & Maint. ($8,170), Professional & Technical services ($6,110), Uniforms ($3,516), Contract Labor ($2,824), Drug Screen/Physicals ($1,395) and Other expense categories ($1,861) in comparison to the established budget. We expect this favorable variance condition to decrease, reverting closer to the budgetary established amounts across line item expense categories as we progress through the final quarter of the fiscal year. Material and Supplies (107% of Budget) - This line item is within budget parameters but trending on the higher end of the +/- 10% tolerance threshold. Through the third quarter, the Canyon County System experienced lower CNG expense ($18,496), Office Supplies ($1,832), Minor Equipment ($975) and Fuels, Oils & Lubricants ($487). Those favorable variances were more than offset by the following unfavorable expense variances in the following line items: Parts (-$32,711), Tires & Tubes (-$5,797), Printing (-$1,669), and Departmental Supplies (-$757). Utilities (88% of Budget) - This line item is favorably below budget parameters. Total actual expenses through June were $43,206 whereas the established budget was $48,959. The favorable variance appears to be principally attributable to the following: Lower Electric ($6,521) and Tele/Communications ($3,959) expenses than the established budget amounts. Those favorable variances partially offset by higher Mobile Data Plan expenses (-$4,709). Casualty Insurance (70% of Budget) – This line item is significantly below budget parameters. An adjusting journal entry will be processed during QR-4 that reclassifies prepaid insurance held on the balance sheet to insurance expense in order to appropriately recognize the correct amount of expense for the fiscal year. Purchased Transportation - This line item has not been historically utilized and budgeted in the Canyon County System. No expenses were incurred in this category through the end of QR-3. Miscellaneous (82% of Budget) - This line item is significantly below budget parameters. Travel & Meetings is $3,542 under budget, resulting in the favorable condition. Interest (0% of Budget) - No interest expenses have been incurred through FY2017. Leases and Rentals (31% of Budget) – This line item is favorably outside budget parameters through June. The largest expense in this category is for the Radio Repeater Site Rental that constitutes the principal expense in this category. The billing from Gem State Communications occurs two times per fiscal year. An expense accrual entry will be recorded in September in order to accurately reflect the actual amount of expense that should be recognized in FY2017.

21

ITEM V-D

Regional Operations Revenues Directly Generated Revenues (No Budget) - This revenue category comprises fares from Division 41 - Community Transportation Operations. The fares generated by the Community Transportation programs are generating revenues of $102,918 through the first three quarters of the fiscal year. Federal Operating Assistance (84% of Budget) – This line item is unfavorably outside of budget parameters. Amounts recognized as revenue in this category are integrally tied to the availability of executed grants and the level of expenses incurred during each quarter. The FY2017 Grants are starting to be executed in QR-4. Through QR-3, VRT utilized more Local Operating Revenues in order to balance expenses in Regional. Federal Capital Assistance (47% of budget) - This line item reflects lower levels of capital spending when compared to the QR-3 budgeted amounts through June. Local Operating Assistance (82% of Budget) – This line is lower than budget parameters due to lower levels of expense recognized in Regional through June. Local Capital Assistance (37% of Budget) - This line item also reflects the current lower level of capital spending experienced through June. Amounts are requested from the City of Boise after the capital expense occurs. Expenses Regional operating expenses are 88% of budget through QR-3. Expenses associated with payments to subrecipients (subrecipient pass-through transactions) are not considered when comparing actual expenses to budgeted amounts. To do otherwise would unjustifiably produce favorable variances that would skew analysis. Wages and Salaries (93% of Budget) - This line item is within budget parameters. This expense category is $64,132 under budget through QR-3. The following are the variances by division in Regional: Regional Overhead (Division 10) – expenses exceeded budget through June by $14,514; Customer Service (Division 20) – expenses were less than budget by $39,479; Planning (Division 23) – expenses were less than budget by $33,034; Community Transportation (Division 41) – expenses were less than budget by $6,132. Fringe Benefits (86% of budget) - This expense category is $78,520 under budget through QR-3. Through June, VRT Regional has recognized lower expenses in Unemployment ($30,485), Miscellaneous Earnings – Admin ($19,844), Retirement ($15,078), and Health-Admin. ($9,511), FICA ($4,437) and Workers’ Comp. - Admin. ($1,418). Disability/Life-Admin expenses were higher than the established budgeted (-$2,252) through June, partially offsetting the favorable variances listed above.

22

ITEM V-D

Professional Services (70% of Budget) - Regional expenses in this expense category were $568,684; whereas, the budget through June was $807,586, resulting in a net favorable variance of $238,902 through the end of QR-3. The net favorable variance is attributed to lower spending in the following categories: Contract Labor ($161,581), Repair & Maintenance of GoRide vehicles ($46,074) and Community Relations ($7,973). These lower expenses were partially offset by higher expenses in Professional & Technical Services (-$33,647). Material and Supplies (66% of Budget) - Regional expenses in this category were $64,696; whereas, the budget through June was $98,312, resulting in a net favorable variance of $33,616 through the end of QR-3. The net favorable variance is attributed to lower spending in the following categories: Printing & Binding ($25,577), Fuel for Go Ride vehicles ($14,842), and Minor Equipment ($10,381). Those line items were partially offset by higher expenses for Go Ride Vehicles in Parts, Tires, and Oils & Lubes (-$14,124). Utilities (99% of Budget) – This line item is within budget parameters through the end of QR-3. Casualty Insurance (89% of Budget) – This line is lower than budget parameters due to insurance premiums for the GoRide Program coming in lower than what was originally developed for the FY2017 Budget. Purchased Transportation (118% of Budget) - This line item exceeds budget parameters through the end of QR-3. During the budgeting process prior to the start of each fiscal year, AOS Providers determine their transportation operations cost for the coming year. These transportation costs are divided by the number of rides the Provider estimates they will complete during the period. This establishes the Providers per boarding reimbursement rate. Reimbursements are made by VRT to each Provider based on monthly boardings. Actual Division 41 Purchased Transportation - Community Partners Ops expenses are trending higher than initial budget estimates due to increases in ridership for several providers. As the reimbursement is capped based on each Provider's transportation operations cost at the beginning of the fiscal year, there may be one or two Providers that receive 12 months of transportation reimbursement in nine (9) or ten (10) months. This trend will not continue through the end of FY2017 as Provider reimbursements are limited to the projected Provider transportation costs at the beginning of each year and covered under an AOS Agreement with VRT. Miscellaneous (62% of Budget / 70% Adjusted of Budget) – Subrecipient pass-through expenses that are budget neutral are accounting for in this category. After excluding these expenses from the analysis, actual expenses were $135,158; whereas, the budget was $195,532, resulting in a net favorable variance of $58,374 through the end of QR-3.

23

ITEM V-D

The net favorable variance is attributed to lower spending in the following line items: Other Expenses – Admin. ($99,476), Travel & Meetings ($6,075), Personal Training – Admin. ($4,287), and Postage ($1,349). These lower expenses were partially offset by higher expenses in the following line items: License, Hosting, Web Fees (-$47,454), Dues & Subscriptions (-$3,843), and Bank Charges (-$1,516). Interest Expenses (0% of Budget) – No interest expense was incurred for Regional through QR-3. Leases and Rentals (160% of Budget) - Customer Service (Division 20) and VRT Overhead (Division 10) copier leases account for the unfavorable variance. In relation to Regional Budget, this overage is relatively immaterial. Finance staff monitored this expense category in Regional during the first through third quarters of FY2017. The FY2018 Budget was increased to cover this unfavorable variance condition. Furthermore, VRT Finance and Development are analyzing whether an outright purchase of new copiers makes more economic sense than leasing the copiers on an annual basis due to the ability to classify this type of purchase as a capital expense and, therefore, be eligible for an 80% Federal match percentage if such equipment were programmed. Capital (44% of Budget) - Through QR-3, lower levels of capital spending occurred in relation to capital carry-forwards and new capital projects scheduled in FY2017.

• Revenue Vehicles & Subrecipient & Non-Revenue vehicles – A total of $994,623 of Capital – Revenue Vehicles were purchased and $344,969 in Capital – Revenue Vehicles Subrecipient funding was passed through VRT. Purchases of Non-revenue ($142,209) vehicles through June were much lower than the established budget of $551,250.

• Shop/Other Equipment & Safety/Security & Fareboxes - No expenses were incurred through QR-3 for these capital expense categories.

• Facility - Expenses in this line item were for parking lot enhancements and site

improvements at the Happy Day Transit Center and for the Orchard Facility HVAC & CNG System Designs.

• Main Street Station (MSS) - This line item accumulates expenses for the Main

Street Station center located on the corner of Main and Capital in Boise. Actual expenses exceeded budget due to how the budget is allocated by month. Substantially all of the final expenses for MSS were incurred through the first two quarters of the fiscal year.

• IT Hardware & Software - A total of $108,934 of capital expense was incurred in this category through QR-3. Through June, Software actual expenses exceeded budget by $7,838. This is most likely due to how the budget is allocated by month.

24

ITEM V-D

• Regional Park & Ride Projects - A total of $37,315 of capital expense was incurred in this project through QR-3. Since unspent capital amounts from FY2014 & FY2015 were not carried forward, VRT will be reducing other capital projects in order to not exceed the FY2017 capital projects totals approved by the Board.

• Bike/Pedestrian Improvements - A total of $71,496 of capital expense was incurred in this category through QR-3. Through June, actual expenses exceeded budget by $3,546. The total capital budget for this project is $90,600.

• Capital Projects - Subrecipients – Through QR-3 $80,216 was incurred in Subrecipient pass-thru capital projects.

Boise GreenBike Revenues Directly Generated / Local Assistance (3315% of Budget) VRT Finance incorrectly allocated the FY2017 budgeted revenue amounts between Directly Generated and Local Operating Assistance categories in comparison to how the revenues are being recognized in certain accounts. The FY2018 developed budget was corrected to reflect the correct amounts between Directly Generated and Local Operating Assistance. Local Operating Assistance – (62% of Budget) Lower amounts of revenues were recognized in this category due to lower expenses incurred through the end of QR-3. Expenses Boise GreenBike (BGB) System operating expenses are 75% of budget through QR-3. Wages and Salaries (109% of Budget) - This line item is within budget parameters but trending on the higher end of the +/- 10% tolerance threshold. After factoring out the third wage payment ($4,065) at the end of June (6/29) the adjusted QR-3 variance is 103%. Fringe Benefits (83% of Budget) - This line item was favorable through the end of QR-3. Lower expenses in Miscellaneous Earnings – Admin. ($5,452) accounts for the favorable variance condition. Within this category are vacation and sick time utilized. Professional Services (49% of Budget) – This line item is significantly below budgetary parameters. Various line item expenses are classified in this category including: Advertising, Professional & Technical, Contract Labor, and Other Services. Through June, Boise GreenBike has had most of their year-to-date advertising expenses paid for out of Division 20 due to an arrangement with that Division of covering up to $40,000 of advertising expenses annually that meet the definition of falling into the category of Coordinated Marketing. These expenses are eligible for an 80%/20% Federal/Local match ratio. Through June, BGB has spent $600 of its own money in Advertising; whereas, the budget was $30,000 for the first nine (9) months of FY2017.

25

ITEM V-D

BGB has also spent less on Contract Labor and Professional & Technical Services ($10,258) through June. Legal and Other Services expenses are also favorably below budget levels by $7,425 through QR-3 end. Material and Supplies (69% of Budget) - Lower spending on Printing ($1,541), Parts ($1,390), Minor Equipment ($1,152), and Fuel ($972) offset an unfavorable variance condition in Office Supplies (-$358) through QR-3 end. Utilities (35% of Budget) – This favorable variance is principally the result of electricity costs being incorporated into the monthly lease payment. The FY2018 Budget was modified to more accurately estimate Utilities expense, taking this fact into consideration. Casualty Insurance (100% of Budget) – This line item is within budget parameters. Miscellaneous (49% of Budget) – Lower expenses in Other Expenses, Travel & Meetings, Personal Training, and Bank Service Charges account for the favorable variance condition through QR-3. Interest (0% of Budget) - No interest expenses have been incurred through QR-3. Leases and Rentals (121% of Budget) – This line item exceeds budget parameters. Boise GreenBike actual lease costs exceed the originally established budget. This unfavorable variance is being covered by other favorable variances listed above. BGB Staff increased the FY2018 Budget to rectify this unfavorable variance condition.

26

ITEM V-D


TOPIC: Operating Cash Balance Report - FY2017 Qtr. 3 DATE: August 28, 2017 Summary: Attached to this memo is the Operating Cash Balance Report as of June 30, 2017. The following items need to be pointed out:

• The actual General Leger Cash Balances in each VRT System exceed their respective Cash Balance Benchmarks at the end of QR-3 except for the Regional System. It is common for VRT to expend funds and await reimbursement from FTA. These funds are referred to as “overmatch” or Funds in Float. The total balance of Funds in Float through QR-3 was only $26,381. The balances of Funds in Float have decreased significantly from prior year reports due to VRT getting caught up on legacy grant execution during FY2016-17.

• The Operating Cash Balances in Regional and Ada County were $302,521 and $1,390,274, respectively. As previously mentioned, the Regional Operating Cash Balance is lower than that system’s Cash Balance Benchmark by $347,602 due to receipt of significant cash amounts in October and November that skewed the average twelve month target balance. Ada County Operating Cash Balances contain no Funds in Float and are significantly higher than their Cash Balance Benchmark by $553,055. This is largely due to lower amounts spent in fringe benefits, parts, and materials and supplies expense at the end of QR-3.

• The Canyon County System Operating Cash Balance of $488,997. This balance also incorporates no balances of Funds in Float at the end of QR-3. The cash balance only differs from the twelve month average cash balance by eleven percent (11%).

• Boise GreenBike Operating Cash Balance was $123,685. This balance is higher than the Cash Balance Benchmark by $44,529 for that program due to lower fringe benefits, materials and supplies, and professional services expenses through QR-3.

Staff Recommendation/Request: FY2017 Operating Cash Balance Report is submitted as an informational item for the Executive Board to review. Attachments Operating Cash Balance Report – FY2017 Qtr. 3 For detailed information contact: Jim McMahon, Finance Director, 258-2709, [email protected].

27

ITEM V-E


VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSITOPERATING CASH BALANCE ANALYSIS

June 30, 2017

Regional Operations

GL Cash Balance at 6/30/2017 276,140$ Funds in Float 26,381 Operating Cash Balance 302,521$

Cash Balance Benchmark (Note 1) 650,123$

Ada County System

GL Cash Balance at 6/30/2017 1,390,274$ Funds in Float ‐ Operating Cash Balance 1,390,274$


Canyon County System

GL Cash Balance at 6/30/2017 488,997$ Funds in Float ‐ Operating Cash Balance 488,997$


Boise GreenBike

GL Cash Balance at 6/30/2017 123,685$ Funds in Float ‐ Operating Cash Balance 123,685$


Note 1: Average of the most recent 12 month cash balance in the General Ledger.

28

ITEM V-E

700 N. East 2nd Street, Suite 100 • Meridian, ID 83642 • p: 208.846.8547 • f: 208.846.8564 • 1.855.345.7433

TOPIC: VRT FY2018 Recurring Procurements DATE: September 7, 2017 Summary: Procurements for Valley Regional Transit (VRT) are guided by the policies adopted by the VRT Board of Directors. These policies and the associated procedures are designed to comply with State of Idaho and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) procurement requirements. Current policy requires spending authority approval dependent upon specific dollar thresholds. Procurements equal to or over $75,000 requires approval from the VRT Board of Directors. Procurements equal to or over $50,000 but under $75,000 require approval from the Executive Board. Procurements under $50,000 require approval by the Executive Director. Last year, VRT staff completed a detailed review of procurement processes to assess areas of risk and update procurement procedures. That review determined that authorizations for some annually reoccurring and routine operational activities have lacked the appropriate authorization from the VRT Board of Directors. These items include utilities, insurance, and partner supported purchased transportation services. Reoccurring procurements are required be placed on the VRT Board’s agenda prior to the start of each year’s annual budget. Staff Recommendation/Request The attached table contains the vendors and amounts that VRT expects to spend on recurring purchases throughout Fiscal Year 2018 for items that are not specifically put out for Request for Proposal or Request for Bids. Staff is requesting the VRT Board approve these items to provide the proper authority for staff to pay for these routine expenses. Implications (policy and/or financial): Internal reviews of practices provide an opportunity for VRT staff to improve financial controls that protect the organization and minimize financial risks. These activities and services wouldn’t be able to be provided by other vendors or partners. The approval of these routine and reoccurring items allows for VRT to continue operating services to the community without disruptions. For More Information: Contact Jim McMahon, Finance Director, (208) 258-2709, or e-mail: [email protected]

29

ITEM V-F


Vendor Amount Comment

National Interstate Insurance Company

647,883

Vehicle Insurance for Ada and Canyon County Systems. Competitively procured through a third-party broker.

Boise Municipal Health Care Trust

340,000

Annual contribution for Regional employee health insurance costs per agreement with Boise Municipal Health Care Trust approved by VRT Board in August 2013.

Intermountain Gas

300,000 Annual costs for CNG fuel and natural gas utilities at VRT facilities.

Idaho Power

95,966 Annual costs for electricity at VRT facilities.

Boise Air Terminal

99,041

Facility ground lease for Orchard maintenance garage per VRT approved agreement with Boise Airport approved September 2015.

ICRMP

72,711

Insurance for VRT Regional, building & GoRide Vehicle Sharing Program procured through a third-party broker.

Community Transportation Programs

Metro Community Services 270,336 Purchase of Service transportation for Seniors/Individuals with Disabilities. Local match funded through provider.

Supportive Housing & Innovative Partners 166,472 Purchase of Service transportation for Seniors/ Individuals with Disabilities. Local match funded through Division of Veterans Services and local provider.

Eagle Senior Center 119,910

Purchase of Service transportation for Seniors/Individuals with Disabilities. $12,000 Local match funded through VRT. Remainder of local match is funded through the provider.

Harvest Transit 130,000 Purchase of Service transportation for Seniors/ Individuals with Disabilities. VRT funds 100% of operations

30

ITEM V-F


TOPIC: FY2019 Preliminary Budget Calendar DATE: September 1, 2017 Summary: Annually, the VRT Board participates in the development and eventual approval of the annual upcoming fiscal year budget. Statutorily, the budget must be completed and finalized not later than the Tuesday following the first Monday in September for the ensuing fiscal year. The timeline for the FY2019 Preliminary Budget Calendar is attached to this memorandum. Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff is providing the timeline for the FY2019 Budget Development Timeline for information. Implication (policy and/or financial): Approval of the budget will provide operating and capital budget authority for FY2019. Attachment: FY2019 Preliminary Budget Calendar For detailed information contact: Jim McMahon, Finance Director, 258-2709 or email: [email protected].

31

ITEM V-G


FY2019 Preliminary Budget Calendar

# Dates Budget Development Task / Item

1

December 4, 2017

VRT Revenue Analysis Presentation to the VRT

Executive Board

2 January 8, 2018 Executive Board finishes reviewing the FY2019 revenues by category for all VRT Divisions.

3 February 5, 2018 / March 5, 2018

Executive Board review of the FY2019 VRT expenditure projections for all VRT Divisions.

4 May 7, 2018 Executive Board preliminary budget review.

5 June 4, 2018 Executive Board final budget review and establishment of the public hearing date.

6 July 9, 2018 FY2019 Budget presentation to the VRT Board of Directors with request for approval.

32

ITEM V-G


AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE VRT BOARD APPROVAL

PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION: Fire Suppression System & Extinguisher Service

TOTAL COST: $80,000 over a four year period

PURPOSE/ACTION: Preventive maintenance of bus fire suppression systems and facilities fire extinguishing equipment by Amerex certified personnel. SCOPE OF WORK: Annual on-board inspection and maintenance by certified personnel of Amerex fire suppression systems in Valley Regional Transit buses and facility fire extinguisher inspection and maintenance at the Canyon County, Ada County, and Main Street Station facilities. The contract term includes one (1) base year including three (3) option years. DISCUSSION: The preventative maintenance services are necessary to maximize fleet and facility safety ALTERNATIVES: The alternative would be to not implement the preventative maintenance support; therefore, causing vehicle and facility safety concerns which would not be acceptable. FISCAL IMPACT: The funding available for maintenance support is in-part accounted for in the Ada County and Canyon County operating budgets established for FY18. Additional funds for expenses related to the Main Street Station are budgeted for FY18 in the Regional Budget – Division 10.

FY15 21,722.40 FY18 18,951 FY16 18,255.00 FY19 19,322 FY17 26,679.80 FY20 19,709

RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATION: Valley Regional Transit has evaluated the one (1) bid and would like to contract with the lowest and most responsive bidder. RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATION: Staff recommends the VRT Board approve Resolution VEB17-016 and award the contract for fire suppression and facility fire equipment support to Fire Services of Idaho in the amount of $80,000 over a four (4) year period.

ROUTING # ORDER OF REVIEW DATE APPROVED RESOLUTION #

1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

2 EXECUTIVE BOARD Approves procurements over $50,000 but under $75,000.

3 VRT BOARD Approves all procurements over $75,000.

On agenda 09/25/17 VBD17-016

33

ITEM V-H-1

VBD17-016

VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD RESOLUTION

FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM & FACILITY(S) EXTINGUISHER SERVICE RESOLUTION VBD17-016

BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR FLEET FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM & FACILITY EXTINGUISHER SERVICES

WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code, Chapter 21, Title 40, and as a result of the approval of the voters of Ada and Canyon Counties on November 3, 1998, a regional public transportation authority (now known as “Valley Regional Transit”) was created to serve Ada and Canyon counties; and

WHEREAS, Idaho Code § 40-2109(1) confers to Valley Regional Transit, as a

regional public transportation entity, exclusive jurisdiction over all publicly funded or publicly subsidized transportation services and programs except those transportation services and programs under the jurisdiction of public school districts and law enforcement agencies within Ada and Canyon Counties; and

WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit has an existing Facility Maintenance Plan that

was adopted in 2012; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit expects to have revenue fleet vehicles fire

suppression system & facilities fire extinguisher maintenance and support needs; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit desires to effectively manage VRT by securing

a qualified firm to perform maintenance and support for revenue fleet vehicles fire suppression systems & facilities extinguisher service; and

WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit included the budget for this expenditure in the

fiscal year 2018 budget; and WHEREAS, the Valley Regional Transit staff conducted a competitive procurement

process as required in the VRT Procurement Policies adopted by the Valley Regional Transit Board of Directors by Resolution VBD17-003 on 01/09/17, and in compliance with all local and FTA requirements; and

WHEREAS, Idaho Code § 40-2109 (5) provides that the Board of Valley Regional

Transit may adopt resolutions consistent with law, as necessary, for carrying out the purposes of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties conferred to Valley Regional Transit pursuant to Chapter 21, Title 40.

34

ITEM V-H-1

VBD17-016

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT:

Section 1. That the Board of Valley Regional Transit approves a contract with Fire Services of Idaho for securing a qualified firm to perform maintenance and support for revenue fleet vehicles fire suppression systems & facilities extinguishers.

Section 2. That the Board of Valley Regional Transit delegates authority to the

Executive Director to finalize and execute the contract. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon

its adoption by the Board of Valley Regional Transit and its approval by the Board Chair. ADOPTED by the Board of Valley Regional Transit, this 25th day of September,

2017. APPROVED by the Board Chair this _____ day of __________, 2017.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

________________________ ____________________________ EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT CHAIR

35

ITEM V-H-1



PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION: Ford OEM Parts, Motorcraft Parts, and Ford remanufactured parts

TOTAL COST: $350,000 over a four year contract period

PURPOSE/ACTION: Valley Regional Transit is in need of pre-determined negotiated discounted pricing for all Ford OEM parts. This procurement will provide set discounts on as-needed parts. SCOPE OF WORK: Valley Regional Transit intends to establish a contract with a vendor who will provide timely delivery of OEM Ford® parts, Motorcraft ® parts, and Ford remanufactured parts necessary to maintain a portion of Valley Regional Transit’s fleet which includes some Ford branded buses and service vehicles. The contract term is for five years. DISCUSSION: Valley Regional Transit intends to establish a contract with Lithia Ford Lincoln of Boise and Factory Motor Parts who will provide timely deliver as required for all OEM Ford® parts, Motorcraft® parts, and Ford remanufactured parts necessary to maintain a portion of Valley Regional Transit’s fleet, which includes some Ford branded buses and service vehicles. ALTERNATIVES: Not having the required services available on as needed basis would require Valley Regional Transit to search for a provider without a guaranteed discount. VRT would not be able to insist on secured stock on-hand and could experience down time due to parts availability. VRT could expect the alternative search for a provider on an as needed basis to be inconvenient, time consuming, and might not provide VRT with the quality of parts and services needed. FISCAL IMPACT: The funding for the first year of the contract is found in the FY2018 budget in Operations. RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATION: Proposals were received from Lithia Ford Lincoln of Boise who is qualified per the evaluation criteria described by Valley Regional Transit’s procurement policy.

POST RFP/FINAL SELECTION OF PROJECT: Staff recommends the VRT Board approve Resolution VBD17-017 to contract with Lithia Ford Lincoln of Boise and Factory Motor Parts not to exceed $350,000.00 over the four year contract period.





On agenda 09/25/17 VBD17-017

36

ITEM V-H-2

VBD17-017


DISCOUNT PRICING FOR FORD ORIGINAL ENGINEER MANUFACTER (OEM) PARTS

RESOLUTION VBD17-017

BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT APPROVING THE CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF DISCOUNTED FORD (OEM) PARTS




WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit desires to effectively manage VRT by securing

a contract for price discounts to purchase Ford OEM parts under contract; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit expects to have Ford OEM on-going parts

purchasing needs; and WHEREAS, VRT intends to establish a contract with a vendor who will provide

timely delivery of OEM Ford parts, Motorcraft parts, and Ford remanufactured parts necessary to maintain a portion of VRT’s fleet which includes some Ford branded buses and service vehicles; and






37

ITEM V-H-2

VBD17-017


Section 1. That the Board of Valley Regional Transit approves a contract with Lithia Ford Lincoln of Boise for Ford OEM parts purchasing; and





ATTEST: APPROVED:


38

ITEM V-H-2



PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION: Radio Dispatch Network Support & Equipment Maintenance

TOTAL COST: $150,000 over a five (5) year period

PURPOSE/ACTION: Contract for radio communications network support and equipment maintenance. SCOPE OF WORK: Vendor is to provide radio communication network support and equipment maintenance for the Meridian, Main Street Station, Canyon County and Ada County operations. The contract term includes three (3) base years and two (2) one year options for extending the contract. DISCUSSION: The radio communications network and infrastructure is considered a mission critical component of operating a regional public transportation system per FTA’s SOGR definitions. By establishing an agreement with a certified vendor for maintaining the network and associated equipment, Valley Regional Transit significantly reduces the risk of communication interruptions resulting from hardware/software malfunctions or failures. ALTERNATIVES: By opting to not renew the radio system’s support and maintenance contract, the risk of system failure and downtime would increase as some hardware components are currently being operated beyond its useful life span. The FTA’s State of Good Repair regulations include mandate for transit operations to establish regularly scheduled maintenance of mission critical systems. VRT’s Maintenance, Facility and Equipment plan exceeds this threshold by requiring all vendors performing maintenance activities on VRT’s behalf to be manufacture certified. Federal regulatory and local policy considerations would also be points of consideration in this scenario. FISCAL IMPACT: Costs are included in the approved FY18 budget. Historical Costs – FY14 $47,727, FY15 $25,709, FY16 $32,053 RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATION: Staff recommends the VRT Board approve Resolution VBD17-020 to contract with Gem State Communication to provide radio communications network support and equipment maintenance in the amount of $150,000 over a five (5) year period.





On agenda 09/25/17 Resolution VBD17-020

39

ITEM V-H-3

VBD17-020


Radio Dispatch Network Support & Equipment Maintenance RESOLUTION VBD17-020

BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR RADIO DISPATCH NETWORK SUPPORT & EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE




WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit has an existing Facility Maintenance Plan that

was adopted in 2012; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit expects to have Radio Dispatch Network

Support & Equipment Maintenance needs; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit desires to effectively manage VRT by securing

a qualified firm to perform maintenance and provide support for the radio dispatch network & associated equipment; and





Transit may adopt resolutions consistent with law, as necessary, for carrying out the purposes of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties conferred to Valley Regional Transit pursuant to Chapter 21, Title 40. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT:

Section 1. That the Board of Valley Regional Transit approves a contract with Gem

40

ITEM V-H-3

VBD17-020

State Communication to perform maintenance and provide support for the radio dispatch network & associated equipment; and





ATTEST: APPROVED:


41

ITEM V-H-3


TOPIC: Title VI Program Update

DATE: September 14, 2017 Summary: Valley Regional Transit (VRT) is required to submit a Title VI Program report every three (3) years. The last report was submitted in September 2014; therefore, a new report will be created and submitted to the Federal Transit Administration before October 1, 2017.

The contents of the Title VI report will include the following;

• Demonstration of our compliance to FTA policies about non-discrimination and procedures

• Public participation plans • Analysis of boards and decision making bodies • Language assistance plan • Service standards and policies • Review of grants and certifications

VRT staff has worked with FTA staff to ensure the development of the Title VI Plan is in accordance with federal guidance and will result in equitable services. The Title VI report documents the efforts of VRT, the regional public transportation authority of Ada and Canyon counties, to provide a level of transit service that is fairly distributed to all of the authority populations to the extent possible. The content and organization of the report is based on the guidelines of FTA Circular FTA C 4702.1B (October 1, 2012), ―Title VI Requirements and Guidelines for Federal Transit Administration Recipients. The Title VI document can be viewed at the following weblink: http://www.valleyregionaltransit.com/portals/0/Board/TitleVIProgram2015_2017Final.pdf

Staff Recommendation/Request: Action Item - Staff requests the ratification of the Title VI Program as approved by the Executive Board on July 10, 2017. Implication (policy and/or financial): No financial implications at this time.

42

ITEM V-I

VBD17-023

http://www.valleyregionaltransit.com/portals/0/Board/TitleVIProgram2015_2017Final.pdf

Highlights: Completed:

• October 2014 – Title VI Program Update

• May 6, 2016 – Final Response and Plan to FTA on Corrective Actions

• April 18, 2016 - Presentation of current Title VI program documents to Regional Coordination Council (RCC) for information.

• May 1, 2016 - Presentation on proposed update to the Title VI Program documents to RCC and Executive Board for information and review.

• June 20, 2017 - Presentation of draft Title VI Program documents to Regional Coordination Council (RCC) for recommendation of approval to Executive Board.

• July 10, 2017 - Approved by the Executive Board for pending completion of the

Language Assistance Plan, and an analysis of boards and decision making bodies

Upcoming

• September – Transmit Title VI program to FTA More Information: Stephen Hunt, Regional Planner, 208.258.2701, [email protected]

43

ITEM V-I

VBD17-023



Title VI Program 2017-2020 RESOLUTION VBD17-023

BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT RATIFIYING THE TITLE VI PROGRAM 2017-2020




WHEREAS, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the

basis of race, color, or national origin; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit is the direct recipient of Federal Transit

Administration funds per Resolution VBD02-003 dated June 19, 2002, and referenced in Resolution VBD11-011 – Powers of Executive Board dated August 17, 2011; and

WHEREAS, the Title VI Program and Update are federal requirements which every

three years Valley Regional Transit (VRT) assures and certifies that it will comply with these requirements; and

WHEREAS, VRT assures that transit benefits and services, transit level of quality,

opportunities to participate in transit planning and decision making, the location of transit services and facilities are equitably distributed without regard to race, color, national origin, age, gender, disability, economic status or limited English proficiency, and that there are corrective and remedial action if there are complaints of discrimination; and



WHEREAS, the Board of Valley Regional Transit has created an Executive Board

with specific authority upon it to discharge its powers, pursuant to Resolution VBD11-011; and

44

ITEM V-I

VBD17-023

WHEREAS, on July 20, 2005, the Valley Regional Transit Board authorized the Management Committee now known as the Executive Board to approve the Title VI Program and Update (Resolution VBD05-016); and

WHEREAS, on July 10, 2017 the Executive Board recommended to move forward

with the Title VI Program 2017-2020 and accept any recommended changes from FTA; and

WHEREAS, staff has completed the Language Assistance Plan and an analysis of

boards and decision making bodies.


Section 1. That the Board of Valley Regional Transit ratify the Title VI Program 2017-2020 will be submitted to the FTA in September 2017.

Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon


2017. APPROVED by the Board Chair this ___day of __________, 2007.

ATTEST: APPROVED:


45

ITEM V-I

VBD17-023


TOPIC: VRT Facility & Equipment Maintenance Policy DATE: September 14, 2017 Summary: VRT’s Development Department received a comment during the recent Triennial Review to the effect that VRT needed a Facility Maintenance Policy approved by the VRT Board versus the existing Facility Maintenance Plan. As part of a larger effort to involve the contracted managers of the various VRT sites, the Development Department has created a Facility Maintenance Policy. The policy creates guidelines for the site contractors to follow and clear expectations for reviews and oversight processes for staff to use in auditing processes at the sites in question. This will allow the site contractors more autonomy in managing the elements they live in every day, and give more oversight guidance to the Development Department based on FTA guidance. It will also make these practices an official policy, approved by the VRT Board of Directors. Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff recommends approval of the attached VRT Facility and Equipment Maintenance Policy. Staff will update and enforce the approved policy as noted. Implication (policy and/or financial): Facility and Equipment Maintenance Policy creation was completed at the direction of the Triennial Review group. This policy is needed to give guidance to staff on the practices to maintain facilities and equipment using wise stewardship of Federal and local interest and in a state of good repair. Attachment Resolution VBD17-024 – VRT Facilities and Equipment Maintenance Policy Exhibit A - VRT Facility and Equipment Maintenance Policy More Information: Jacob Hassard, CI Projects Manager, 208-258-2705 [email protected]

46

ITEM V-J


VBD17-024


VRT FACILITY & EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE POLICY RESOLUTION VBD17-024

BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT TO APPROVE the

VRT FACILITY & EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE POLICY




WHEREAS, the most recent Triennial Review noted the need for a Facility &

Equipment Maintenance Policy; and WHEREAS, the VRT Development Department has created said policy; and WHEREAS, the created VRT Facility & Equipment Maintenance Policy includes

both the guiding policies and the administrative procedures that are needed to implement policies approved by the VRT Board of Directors, maintain wise stewardship of investment from local and federal sponsors, and maintain a state of good repair; and WHEREAS, the created policy has its foundation in both State and Federal regulatory code and guidance; and

WHEREAS, Idaho Code § 40-2109 (5) provides that the Board of Valley Regional Transit may adopt resolutions consistent with law, as necessary, for carrying out the purposes of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties conferred to Valley Regional Transit pursuant to Chapter 21, Title 40. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT:

Section 1. That the Board of Valley Regional Transit approves the VRT Facility & Equipment Maintenance Policy (Exhibit A) to assist staff in implementing wise stewardship of infrastructure and gives operational procedures to implement said policy under the authority of the Executive Director.

47

ITEM V-J

VBD17-024

Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon its adoption by the Board of Valley Regional Transit and its approval by the VRT Board Chair.

ADOPTED by the Board of Valley Regional Transit, this 25th day of September,

2017. APPROVED by the Board Chair this ___day of September, 2017.

ATTEST: APPROVED:

________________________ ____________________________ SECRETARY CHAIR

48

ITEM V-J

This policy supersedes all prior policy statements written, verbal, or otherwise Section Policy No. 6.01.00 Policy Title: Facility & Equipment Maintenance Policy Page 1 of 3 Policy Date: 09/25/17 Policy Adopted: Approved By:

Replaces: Facility Maintenance Plan

______________________, Chair Kelli Fairless, Executive Director

Valley Regional Transit

Facility & Equipment Maintenance Policy

Purpose The purpose of the Facility & Equipment Maintenance Policy is to provide safe, efficient and well cared for facilities and equipment to all transit users, stakeholders, staff and supporting agencies, along with maintaining a satisfactory state of good repair at all levels of federal, state and locally invested infrastructure. The objectives of the Policy are:

• Ensure Federal State and Local requirements and regulations as well as industry standards are met and followed;

• Ensure State of Good Repair standards are observed and followed for all equipment, infrastructure and facilities including bus stops;

• Provide guidance for Facility & Equipment Maintenance while recognizing the responsibility of each contractor or controlling entity to determine its own plan, and to set tracking procedures subject to Valley Regional Transit (VRT) review;

• Set a common basis for inspection standards which consider equipment life, value and programmed service; and other factors, and;

• Recognize that there is a budgetary allowance for facility maintenance typically allocated to contractors and facility control entities that VRT staff will oversee for compliance and best practice based on programmed life and the Capital Improvements Plan.

49

ITEM V-J - Exhibit A

Scope The Facility & Equipment Policy applies to VRT staff, contract providers of public transportation services in Ada and Canyon Counties, and Sub-recipient Agencies. It includes physical facilities, federally invested infrastructure, bus stops and transfer locations, signage and miscellaneous infrastructure. It is understood that this plan does not cover vehicle upkeep and maintenance, movable equipment (non-fixed), equipment not owned by VRT or any elements of staff or contracted labor (HR). Policy Review and Implementation Schedule The policy will be reviewed by staff and changes approved by the board at least every three (3) years or as needed, after the initial policy and updates are completed. The policy may be reviewed based on Executive Director Review or request, but a change in the policy:

• will be required to be re-submitted to the VRT Board for review;

• will be required to undergo an internal staff review;

• will require an updated or new review of submitted contractor Facility

Maintenance Plans.

The policy training will be renewed with any contract labor provider change. Contract labor providers will supply VRT staff with their respective facility and equipment maintenance plans. These plans will be reviewed for compliance and state of good repair applicability. Upon completion of the VRT review and any needed changes the contract provider will implement the approved facility & maintenance plans. VRT staff will then audit the implementation of the plan and subsequent reporting a minimum of every six (6) months, or as needed. Additional audits may be required pending compliance. Should a contract provider fail to meet the standards required in the approved plans or should failures or lack of compliance be noted in the audit, a delay of payment to the contractor in question may be implemented until compliance is obtained. Mission Critical Items Certain items included in the possible list of infrastructure are considered mission critical. These items require priority guaranteed inspection for repair or maintenance prior to other improvements. They are as follows:

• Buildings

50


• Elevators • Passenger Stations/Shelters • Parking Lots • Electric Distribution and Control Equipment • Plumbing Systems • Overhead Doors • Vehicle Maintenance Lifts • Vehicle Washers and Wash Recycling Systems • Heating and/or Air Conditioning Units • Security Systems & Equipment • Safety Related Detection or Control Equipment • Fueling Infrastructure and Equipment • Fall Protection Systems • SPCC/NEPA Compliance

Expected Review Items The submitted maintenance plans should include coverage of three main areas of emphasis.

• Long Term Planned improvements (should occur every three to five years) o These types of items are generally scheduled to occur every few

years and may require special budgeting efforts to cover and plan for. These items include parking lot sealing and striping, re-keying buildings, transit shelter improvements or repairs or facility painting, etc. The provided plan should address how these items will be covered over several years of budget coordination.

• Yearly Contracted or Provided service (should occur one to four times per year)

o These types of maintenance items include contracted labor for security infrastructure, HVAC maintenance, Pest Control, lift or other equipment service, fall protection system certification, etc.

• Light Duty or Minimal Contract service o These are items that are covered by staff or small contract labor or

services and include facility janitorial service, landscaping and weeding, etc.

In this context the definition of Maintenance should be described as but not limited to any task or service that can reasonably be expected to be repeated on a regular basis in the service area in question. Capital expenditures are defined as but not limited to one-time expenditures or items that regularly need replaced but are valued at over $250,000.00. For example, parking lot sealing is a facility maintenance item and should be done under facility maintenance at least every four (4) years. Fueling compressor replacement is large enough to be considered a capital replacement item even though it has a useful life between rebuilds of roughly five to six (5-6) years, but is cost prohibitive for regular maintenance budgets.

51


Area contractors should be expected to provide the following services as part of maintaining the facilities under their control by either contracting these tasks with outside labor, staffing these efforts or noting how these items do not apply to the facility in question.

• Janitorial o General facility cleaning o Window washing/detailed cleaning o Floor waxing/deep cleaning o Toiletry supply provisions for staff and public areas o Carpet shampooing/walk off service

• Mowing/Weeding including shrub and tree maintenance • HVAC and plumbing maintenance

o Belts and filter servicing o Boiler servicing o Glycol system balancing and inspection o Drain cleaning and plumbing service

• Building maintenance o Cathodic protection o Bus wash maintenance o Vehicle lift maintenance o Specialized service equipment maintenance (hotsy washers, etc) o Fall protection system certification o CNG detection system inspections

• Bus stop/network maintenance o Signage maintenance & upkeep to include service change needs o Shelter cleaning and trash removal o Glass repair o Bus stop repair/replacement (concrete)

• Compliance o Spill prevention plan implementation o OSHA compliance walk throughs o EPA Notice of Intent or general permit enforcement

• Pest control o Major (pigeon & rodent) o Minor items (bug and mouse) mitigation

• Security maintenance o Access equipment provision (cards and vehicle tags and licenses

and print supplies) o Camera cleaning / adjustment and door adjustment

• Asphalt maintenance o Provisions for regular re-surfacing o Parking lot sweeping o Snow removal o Pedestrian area snow removal

• Condo association payments • Elevator inspections

52



TOPIC: Public Transportation Management Contractor Procurement DATE: September 15, 2017 Summary: Valley Regional Transit utilizes the services of professional transit management contractors to staff and provide the technical support for the Ada and Canyon counties fixed-route and ADA Paratransit services. This approach was adopted through Board action in 2009. There are two separate contractors that have been providing these services since 2010. The contracts are due to expire at the end of this month. VRT staff initiated a Request for Proposal (RFP) process earlier in the summer to procure management services. We received proposals from three responsive and responsible proposers. The staff evaluated the proposals earlier in September. Since this is an RFP process, VRT is responsible to select the company that can provide the most advantageous/”best value” approach for the organization. After completing the first round of the process, there wasn’t a clear leader in terms of the point scores. VRT staff has been negotiating with all three of the proposers and will need additional time to complete the process and make a final determination on “best value” for the organization. Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff is requesting the VRT Board of Directors delegate the final decision and execution of the transit management services contract(s) to the Executive Board. This will allow staff the appropriate time to complete the negotiation and select the contractor that will provide the most advantageous/”best value” approach to the organization. Implication (policy and/or financial): The Executive Board has representatives for most of the jurisdictions that provide funding to support the fixed-route and paratransit systems in Ada and Canyon counties. Taking the time to complete the negotiations will lead to the best result for the organization. The funding for the management contracts is already built into the VRT FY2018 budget. We are likely to be able to achieve some savings over the existing costs through the negotiation. The existing providers will be on a month-to-month basis through the remainder of the selection process and until a transition to the new contract is achieved. This will allow for a smooth transition period. Highlights:

• VRT has used professional services from qualified transit management companies since 2005.

53

ITEM VI-A-1

• There have been two different companies performing these services in Ada and Canyon counties since 2010.

• RFP process was initiated in June 2017 • The Scope of Work was changed for the upcoming contract to allow VRT to

better take advantage of the technical support from the contractors. More Information: For detailed information contact: Billy Wingfield, Operations Director, 208-258-2726, [email protected]

54

ITEM VI-A-1




PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION: Phone System Replacement

TOTAL COST: $80,000

PURPOSE/ACTION: VRT is need of replacing the current obsolete phone system with a modern unified system. SCOPE OF WORK: VRT will be replacing the current phone system at all locations with a modern unified system. Project objectives include:

• A reliable dial tone. • Establish a customer call center, real time reporting, & enhanced functionality. • Provide better coordination and support for VRT transportation partners (mobility). • Complete the vision of establishing the “one-call one click” call center per VRT’s strategic

plan. • Establish a support agreement to maintain the system in good working. • Establish FTA compliance and performance reporting capabilities.

DISCUSSION: The replacement solution includes capacity for organization growth and development over the next five years including, expansion of the customer call center staff, new facilities, evolving transportation needs, technology updates, maintenance and support. The ideal solution to this replacement opportunity is in securing a partner, not simply a product. ALTERNATIVES: The alternative to not purchasing a replacement phone system would be to incrementally upgrade the obsolete hardware and software parts overtime in order to maintain a reliable dial tone and minimum level of compliance with the State of Good Repair. FISCAL IMPACT: The Capitol budget for FY17 included the phone system replacement which was fully funded at 80k. The base operating budget impacts for on-going maintenance and upkeep will not take effect until FY19.

Cisco FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 Grand Total

$ 72,528 $ 5,804 $ 1,931 $ 700 $ 744 $ 200 $ 81,907 Data Tel

FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22 Grand Total $ 78,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 122,000

RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the VRT Board approve Resolution VBD17-021 for Valley Regional Transit (VRT) to enter into a contract with Data Tele Communications to replace and maintain an enterprise phone system in the amount of $80,000.





On agenda 9/25/17 VBD17-021

55

ITEM VI-A-2

VBD17-021


REPLACEMENT PHONE SYSTEM RESOLUTION VBD17-021

BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT APPROVING THE PURCHASE

OF A REPLACEMENT PHONE SYSTEM




WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit currently has an obsolete CISCO phone system

that is fully depreciated and currently operating beyond its useful life; and WHEREAS, The purchase of a replacement phone system will provide greater

reliability, call center support, compliance reporting with fail over protection in the event of malfunction or equipment failure; and

WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit included the budget for this expenditure amount

in the fiscal year 2018 budget, and WHEREAS, the Valley Regional Transit staff conducted a competitive procurement



Transit may adopt resolutions consistent with law, as necessary, for carrying out the purposes of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties conferred to Valley Regional Transit pursuant to Chapter 21, Title 40. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT:

Section 1. That the Board of Valley Regional Transit approves a contract with Data Tele Communications for the purchase of a replacement enterprise phone system; and

56

ITEM VI-A-2

VBD17-021

Section 2. That the Board of Valley Regional Transit delegates authority to the Executive Director to finalize and execute the contract.




ATTEST: APPROVED:


57

ITEM VI-A-2


TOPIC: VRT Procurement Policy Threshold Changes DATE: September 12, 2017 Summary: VRT Finance is requesting changes to the Procurement Policies that were approved by the VRT Board of Directors on January 9, 2017 through Resolution VBD17-003. Staff is requesting that the VRT Board consider approving the following changes to the Procurement Policies:

1) As an informational item: Procurement Policy Section 2.1 states VRT will comply with Idaho Code Sections 67-2801 through 67-2808 (Purchasing By Political Subdivisions). Valley Regional Transit Procurement Policy Section 2.1 requires VRT to adopt any changes that occur in Idaho Code Sections 67-2801 through 67-2808. Threshold level changes were effective July 1, 2017 for procurement of personal property, services, and construction. The following is a summarized listing of the State Statute changes:

A. Political subdivision personal property and services procurement dollar

threshold changes:

i. Informal Bid Process – raised up to the $100,000 level.

ii. Formal Bid Process – now required above the $100,000 + level.

B. Public works (construction) section:

i. Exemption and Bonding - $50,000 level.

ii. Informal Bid Process - raised from $50,000 to the $200,000 level.

iii. Formal Bid Process - now required above the $200,000 + level.

2) Staff is requesting the VRT Board approve the following VRT procurement authorization and approval dollar threshold levels:

A. VRT Executive Director authority to approve purchases of up to $99,999.99.

Prior Approval Level Requested Approval Level

$49,999.99 $99,999.99

B. VRT Executive Board authority to approve purchases of up to $299,999.99.

Prior Approval Level Requested Approval Level $74,999.99 $299,999.99

58

ITEM VI-B

C. VRT Board to authority approve purchases at or above $300,000.00.

Prior Approval Level Requested Approval Level $75,000.00 + $300,000.00 +

Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff believes that higher approval thresholds will benefit VRT in the following areas:

1) At times, VRT Board meetings can be inundated with relatively smaller procurements. Granting the Executive Board higher approval authority (up to $299,999.99) will allow the VRT Board of Directors to spend significantly more time analyzing the merits of the higher dollar - more strategically important procurements.

2) Increases in threshold levels will decrease the likelihood of having to request a special Executive Board or VRT Board of Directors Meeting. This will also decrease instances where the VRT Board must authorize the Executive Board to approve procurements due to timing of the quarterly VRT Board of Directors Meetings.

3) Increasing the Executive Board threshold level allows for a greater amount of procurements to be presented to the Executive Board that meets more frequently.

VRT Staff recommends approval of the suggested VRT Procurement Policy threshold levels. Implication (policy and/or financial): Procurement policies have their foundation in both state and federal regulatory code. These policies and dollar threshold levels give guidance to staff on the operational practices that are used to conduct open and competitive procurements. Approval dollar threshold levels are not established by State Statute or FTA Regulation. Approval threshold levels are set at the discretion of the VRT Board through Policy taking into consideration efficiency, effectiveness, existing administrative controls, and risk. Attachment Resolution VBD17-022 – VRT Procurement Policy Changes More Information: Jim McMahon, Finance Director, 258-2709 [email protected]

59

ITEM VI-B


VBD17-022


VRT PROCUREMENT POLICY THRESHOLD CHANGES RESOLUTION VBD17-022

BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT TO APPROVE THRESHOLD

CHANGES TO VRT PROCUREMENT POLICIES




WHEREAS, the current edition of the VRT Procurement Policies was approved

by the VRT Board on January 9, 2017; and WHEREAS, VRT Finance Staff have completed a detailed review of the VRT

Procurement Policies and operational processes to manage procurement activities; and

WHEREAS, the current VRT Procurement Policies include the specific policies approved by the VRT Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, the State of Idaho recently amended the Idaho State Code pertaining to procurements; and WHEREAS, procurement policies have their foundation in both state and Federal regulatory code; and

WHEREAS, these policies and approval dollar thresholds are needed to give guidance to staff on the operational practices that are used to conduct open and competitive procurements; and

WHEREAS, upon approval of the VRT Procurement Policies by the VRT Board

of Directors, VRT staff will update the VRT Procurement Policies based on the Board approved dollar threshold levels; and


Transit may adopt resolutions consistent with law, as necessary, for carrying out the purposes of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties

60

ITEM VI-B

VBD17-022

conferred to Valley Regional Transit pursuant to Chapter 21, Title 40. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT:

Section 1. That the Board of Valley Regional Transit approves the increases in dollar threshold levels for the Executive Director at $99,999, the Executive Board from $100,000 to 299,999, and the VRT Board of Directors above $300,000.


its adoption by the Board of Valley Regional Transit and its approval by the VRT Board Chair.

ADOPTED by the Board of Valley Regional Transit, this 25th day of September,

2017. APPROVED by the Board Chair this ___day of September, 2017.

ATTEST: APPROVED:


61

ITEM VI-B


TOPIC: Shared Vehicle Fee Change DATE: September 8, 2017 Summary: Valley Regional Transit’s GoRide program manages a regional Shared Vehicle Program. The intention of this program is to coordinate a pool of passenger vehicles for human service agencies and non-profits to use as needed. Organizations may join the Vehicle Share Pool by becoming a member and agreeing to program’s fee structure. The current fee structure was approved by the VRT Board in January 2015. This fee structure was reviewed with actual program expenses in the summer of 2017. This review resulted in a recommended 5% increase in program fees since the 2015 approval. Attachment A provides a detailed overview of the cost difference and the proposed fee increases for members of the Share Vehicle Pool. Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff recommends the VRT Board of Directors approve the proposed fee structure. Implication (policy and/or financial): The new fare policy will increase revenue for the Shared Vehicle program in better alignment with program expenses. Highlights:

• Second fee change in the Shared Vehicle program since the program’s launch. • Pricing still significantly less than comparable vehicles at commercial sites. • Due to the rapid growth in l GoRide, VRT recommends conducting yearly reviews

on the program’s fee structure to ensure sustainability in program’s expansion.

For detailed information contact: David Pederson, Mobility Coordinator, 208-258-2725, [email protected]

Attachment: Current Vs Proposed Cost Structure

62

ITEM VI-C


Attachment A

Average Cost Per Vehicle

Current Proposed Line Item Annual Cost Line Item Annual Cost Oil changes/inspections $ 312 Oil changes/inspections $ 348 Tires $ 260 Tires $ 292 Cleaning/car wash $ 312 Cleaning/car wash $ 312 Repairs $ 2,000 Unscheduled Maintenance

-Repairs and Glass/Minor Damage $ 2,725 Glass/minor damage $ 200

Insurance $ 2,500 Insurance $ 2,311 Emissions $ 9 Emissions $ 9 Brakes $ 156 Brakes $ 242 Vehicle Goods Vehicle Goods $ 73 Administration $ 1,208 Administration $ 1,219 Depreciation $ 4,571 Depreciation $ 4,571

Total $ 11,528 Total $ 12,102 Net Difference: 5% Increase

Member Fees

Weekly Cost Per Member

Days/Week Current Fee Proposed Fee 1 $ 4,212 $ 4,423

2 $ 5,252 $ 5,515

3 $ 6,292 $ 6,607

4 $ 7,332 $ 7,699

5 $ 8,372 $8,791

6 $ 9,412 $ 9,883

7 $ 10,452 $ 10,975

63

ITEM VI-C

Cost Per Usage

Current Fee Structure Days Miles

0-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-500 1 $ 33 $ 45 $ 57 $ 69 $ 81 2 $ 77 $ 89 $ 101 3 $ 97 $ 109 $ 121 4 $ 129 $ 141 5 $ 149 $ 161 6 $ 181 7 $ 201

Proposed Fee Structure Days Miles

0-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201-500

1 $ 35 $ 47 $ 60 $ 72 $ 85 2 $ 80 $ 93 $ 106 3 $ 102 $ 114 $ 127 4 $ 135 $ 148 5 $ 156 $ 169 6 $ 190 7 $ 211

64

ITEM VI-C


TOPIC: Canyon County Service Change

DATE: September 14, 2017 Summary:

Valley Regional Transit (VRT) is proposing changes to the Nampa/Caldwell fixed-route service system and to the intercounty service between Ada and Canyon counties. These changes are designed to provide connectivity to high demand locations that are not currently served by ValleyRide bus service and have been informed by public comment received. Several minor timing changes are also proposed. The changes would consolidate local service from four routes to two and provide local connections to the Treasure Valley Marketplace, Department of Health and Welfare, Idaho Department of Labor, and Liberty Dialysis center in Caldwell. The changes will also provide 30 minute, two-way service between South Nampa and the College of Southern Idaho (CWI) on Holly St/16th Ave. South and Garrity. This service connects low income and minority neighborhoods in South Nampa with Northwest Nazarene University, downtown Nampa, health clinics and hospitals, the Nampa Gateway shopping Center, and CWI along inter county services that connect to Meridian and Boise. The changes would also improve the intercounty services by extending Route 42 to from the CWI to Happy Day Transit Center. This would provide an all-day connection between Cleveland Boulevard and Meridian and the Boise Towne Square Mall. The changes would also adjust the trip times for Route 42 so the 5:45PM trip from the Boise Towne Square Mall does not leave at the same time as the Route 41. This will result in a 6:45PM trip between the Mall and Canyon County, which will give riders more options for traveling between Boise and Canyon County. The changes would also add a stop in Caldwell to Route 43 to facilitate transfers between the local service and intercounty service. With the exception of the removal of the second Route 43 trip, the public comment has been largely supportive of the changes with a majority of those who use the local services indicating they would ride the bus more if the proposed changes were made. Respondents particularly supportive of the new or improved connections to the Treasure Valley Marketplace, WinCo foods and the Nampa Gateway Center, the Idaho Department of Labor, the Health and Welfare Department, and the VA Clinic in Caldwell. Based on this feedback we modified the original proposal to not remove the second Route 43 trip. This change also means we were not able to add the early afternoon Route 42 trip. We are proposing to extend the Route 42 between Happy Day Transit Center and CWI. This extension will improve the access between the

65

ITEM VI-D

Nampa/Caldwell Boulevard and CWI and mitigate the loss of Route 53 which travels between Happy Day Transit Center and CWI. After discussions with the CWI, we also removed the proposal to extend Route 55 to the Treasure Valley Marketplace at this time. The timing of this service change proposal did not allow for sufficient student input on this route. VRT staff will continue to review the performance of Route 55 and work with CWI staff and students to look for ways to improve connections between CWI and the surrounding community.

Staff Recommendation/Request: Action Item. Staff recommends that the VRT Board approve the proposed service changes to routes 41, 42, 43, 51, 52, 53, 54. If approved these changes will take place in mid-January 2018.

Implication (policy and/or financial):

These changes will be made within the existing operating budget. Bus stop and signage changes will come out of the 2018 budget.

Highlights:

Completed:

• July 2017 – Held open houses to collect public comment on draft network concepts.

• August 2017 – Completed online and on-board rider surveys and revised service networks per public comments.

Upcoming:

• September 2017 – Held open houses and public hearing for final network concepts, present final plan, and seek VRT Board approval.

More Information: Stephen Hunt, Principal Planner, 208.258.2701 [email protected]

66

ITEM VI-D


TOPIC: Canyon County Service Change DATE: September 14, 2017 Proposed Service Improvements Description and Pros and Cons: Route 41 Changes:

o Retime stop at Franklin and Eagle – bus currently arrives early at this stop o Remove stop @ BSU Admin Building o Add stop @ BSU Transit Center

Pros: • Timing changes will improve running time of the entire route • Moving the stop at BSU will reduce conflicts between Route 41 and other buses

laying over at the admin stop Cons:

• Passengers will have to learn new time at Franklin and Eagle and of the new stop at the BSU Transit Center

Route 42 Changes: o Change 8:45 route to start at 9:45 (removes overlap with 41) o Change 16:45 route to start at 17:45 (removes overlap with 41)

Pros: • Timing improvements on route 42 will reduce redundancy and increase the hours

of service between the Towne Square Mall and CWI by one hour to 6:45 PM. Currently there are 8 trips between 8:45 and 5:45 PM with two overlapping trips at 8:45 AM and 5:45 PM. The timing improvements off-set these trips and result in new trips leaving Towne Square Mall at 10:45 AM and 6:45 PM. This gives riders more options for when they choose to travel.

Cons: • Passengers will have to learn new times.

Route 43 Changes:

o Adding a stop at Chicago and 12th Ave Pros: • Adding this stop will provide another opportunity for Caldwell residents to use

Route 43 and provide a common stop between the local services and the intercounty.

Cons: • Route 43 will stop one more time in Caldwell.

67

ITEM VI-D

Proposed Service Improvements Description and Pros and Cons (Continued): Route 51 & 53 Changes:

o Combine routes 51 and 53 to create a N/S route running from Greenhurst in South Nampa to CWI in North Nampa via Holly St/16th Ave S and Garrity

o Service on Nampa Caldwell Blvd and 12th Ave S is replaced by revised route 52

Pros: • Connects South Nampa to North Nampa without having to travel to Caldwell first. • Directly connects areas of highest density with local services, jobs and educational

facilities including the following; o Directly connecting NNU and CWI o Connecting S. Nampa residents to more health care facilities such as

Terry Reilly Clinics, St. Al’s on Garrity o Improved connections to shopping and employment at Nampa Gateway o Increasing transit access of Nampa residents to intercounty services at

CWI • Increasing peak period frequencies on this higher density, higher demand

corridor • Provides two way service on 16th Ave and Holly St, making it easier for transit

users to make round trips Cons: • Eliminates one way service on 11th Ave between 16th and 2nd • Reduces the Access service area

Route 52 & 53 Changes:

o Combine Routes 52 and 54 to create a single route in Caldwell extending from the Department of Labor on Franklin.

o Remove service on North Caldwell Loop o Extend route to serve the Treasure Valley Marketplace on Midland Blvd o Extend Routes 52 and 54 to South Nampa via 12th Ave S.

Pros: • Connects residents to new destinations including the Treasure Valley

Marketplace, Department of Health and Welfare, Department of Labor, Veterans Affairs Clinic, and the Thomas Jefferson Charter School.

• Simplifies service between Nampa and Caldwell by reducing redundancy along Nampa/Caldwell Blvd

• Provides two-way service on 12th Ave S. in Nampa, better connecting the jobs, services, and residents of South Nampa with downtown Nampa and the Blvd.

• Provides two-way service in Caldwell, better connecting North and South Caldwell residents, in particular the residents along Kimball.

Cons: • Loss of service in North Caldwell neighborhoods • Requires North Nampa residents to transfer in downtown Nampa to get to jobs,

services or friends on the Nampa/Caldwell Blvd or in Caldwell • Reduces the Access service area

68

ITEM VI-D

Route Maps

69

ITEM VI-D

Route Maps

70

ITEM VI-D

Route Maps

71

ITEM VI-D

Route Maps

72

ITEM VI-D

Public comment summary report on proposed route changes to ValleyRide bus services

Background Valley Regional Transit (VRT) is proposing changes to the Nampa/Caldwell fixed-route service system and to the intercounty service between Ada and Canyon counties. These changes are designed to provide connectivity to high demand locations that are not currently served by ValleyRide bus service, and eliminate non-productive bus route segments and runs. Several minor timing changes are also proposed. The alternative service concepts and scenarios were developed through the efforts of the VRT planning staff and operations staff from ValleyRide Nampa Operations. The proposed service alternatives are high‐level concepts and did not include specific schedules/time points and the locations of bus stops. More specific operational information will be developed after the VRT Board’s decision on the proposal. Any approved changes to ValleyRide bus service will be implemented on Monday, January 15, 2018. Collecting Public Comment VRT staff held open houses on Wednesday, July 26th in Nampa, and Thursday, July 27th in Caldwell. The effort to promote the open houses and solicit public comment was publicized through a variety of methods, including, but not limited to: a half-page display ad published in the Idaho Press Tribune; print and television coverage generated by two press releases sent to all local media outlets; A series of posters on ValleyRide buses; information posted on the home pages of www.valleyride.org; distributed to hundreds of key stakeholders and interested parties via e‐mail; social media postings on Facebook and Twitter (with retweets). There were numerous ways for the public could comment on the proposed service reduction: 1). Completing an on‐line survey 2). Sending a facsimile to the VRT Community Relations Manager 3). Attending one of the two open houses held in Nampa and Caldwell and filling out comments sheets available at any of the three events. 4). Providing comments via the phone to the VRT Community Relations Manager or Rideline customer service. 5). Sending an email to the VRT Community Relations Manager.

73

ITEM VI-D

In addition, the VRT Planner and Community Relations Manager each spent an afternoon riding on Nampa/Caldwell and inter county buses to gather rider input. The last day to provide public comment was Monday, August 7, 2017 Public participation A total of 49 people provided public comment (an appendix containing all comments follows this summary) from all outreach efforts. Here is a breakdown of where and how the comments were made:

• Thirteen people attended the open house/public hearing in Nampa. Six people filled out comment forms.

• Seven people attended the open house/public hearing in Nampa. One person filled out people filled out comment forms.

• Seventeen people filled out the online survey • Nineteen riders were interviewed on the bus by VRT staff. • Three people provided comment via email.

Public comment summary

• There was no support for eliminating one of two runs of the Route 43 Caldwell Express. Comments centered on the inability of the respondents to make it to work on time and that only having one run would make that bus even more crowded.

• There was strong support for adding additional afternoon runs on the Route 42 CWI/Towne Square Mall, and retiming the route so that some runs do not

• Almost all respondents were supportive of the proposed service changes to fixed-route service in Nampa/Caldwell. There was strong support for new access to The Treasure Valley Marketplace in Nampa, the WinCo Foods store near the Nampa Gateway Center, and several services along Franklin Boulevard in Caldwell, including the Idaho Department of Labor, the Health and Welfare Department and the VA Clinic.

• Several respondents expressed concern that the proposed changes did not include specific details, including time points and the location of transfer points and bus stops. Such information would be beneficial when determining how the proposed service changes would impact them.

• Several respondents also expressed concern that the proposed changes would not include service to the Southwest District Health office south of Caldwell and to a growing population base in southeast Caldwell.

• A majority of those who use local services said they would ride the bus more if the proposed changes to the fixed routes in Nampa/Caldwell were made.

74

ITEM VI-D

Survey results

1). Canyon County service comments 2). Intercounty service comments 3). If the proposed service improvements do not help you, how would you recommend changing them? 4). Additional comments

1). Canyon County service comments

I have used these routes to get to and from work when my vehicle has been out of commission. I would love to ride it as my main means of transportation but have found it to be unreliable, especially during inclement weather. As I have no acquaintances to pick me up when the bus does not, I have no means of returning to my home in Caldwell since I normally catch the final bus back due to my work schedule. Having to walk clear down to the courthouse in Caldwell removes access to all the residents in the Canyon Hill area. With the route 51 extension to the Valley Marketplace there are additional shops that I would use. Would like to get to Health and Welfare office. It is too dangerous to walk there now. I would use your service more. New service to Treasure Valley Marketplace and the Idaho Department of Labor facility would greatly improve service in Canyon County. Moving the bus stop closer to WinCo would make it easier to get to the shops at the Gateway Center – WinCo, J.C. Penney and the jewelry shop. I won’t have to ride to Caldwell to get across town. I may use the bus a bit more to get to Health and Welfare and the Labor office. Not interested in going out to most places besides the Marketplace. Would go to the Marketplace a lot. I support the changes because they would get me to more places I want to get to. I would not go to the (new) destinations. Would use the service to the Marketplace if the bus went there. Need Midday service. I currently use the Juniper Street stops – these would go away. I would use the service more because I would be able to go across town easier. It would be a longer walk to transit (currently takes Routes 52 and 54).

2). Inter county service comments

75

ITEM VI-D

ROUTE 43: I probably wouldn't ride at all. Our days are long enough now and with the proposed change, we will be away from home even longer. Summer time is not a good time of year for a survey such as this. Many people/students are on break, taking vacations and such, so of course, ridership is down. Why can't things just be left well enough alone? It seems every 6 months or so, VRT is trying to change services in one way or another and all they're really doing is infuriating the riders. This is NOT the way to promote ridership. Myself, along with many others are in the talking phase of carpooling, and not taking advantage of the bus at all, if it means the length of our days may stay reasonable.

The proposed time change in the morning would not allow me to catch the 7:20 Vista Bus (3) in order to get to my work on time at 7:30. Therefore I would have to stop using the ValleyRide Service from Caldwell to Boise. As long as the 43 arrives at the last stop (University and Brady) by or before 7:55a.m. each day, we will continue to ride; however, it MUST arrive in order for me to arrive at my office at BSU by or before 7:55a.m. each weekday. My husband and I both ride the 6:30a.m. 43 bus currently. While I understand that it is sometimes necessary to save money I am NOT in favor of the proposed change to 43 bus as this is the ONLY bus that takes me to the Caldwell Park and Ride. 2 buses allows for the connecting bus I take (the 29) to be late and give me the ability to catch the late 43 bus at BUS and Joyce at 5:14. Logistics to make it back to the Caldwell Park and Ride are Limited to the 44 and the 43. The last 44 bus leaves before the last 43 bus which would leave me stranded. In the perfect world where all buses are on time every day I would be okay, but my experience says it is a 50/50 shot. How would you provide a provision for this? Due to my work schedule, I don't know that I would be able to keep using the bus because I wouldn't be able to get out of work early enough to catch the bus home. So I would probably have to start driving to work and back. I would use it more if it has better times getting to Boise , most of the time I go to my doctor appts in the morning by 9:30 or 10 am only time it works for is catching the at 9am bus to Boise because I have to wait for my daughter catch her bus , even it starts at happy valley at 8 am or 9am , because I always have to get back before she gets out back to Caldwell 3pm , I always like the 9:15am bus before you guys changed it , now it's getting harder , I can't drive due medical reasons, but I like the idea you guys are planning go to treasure valley market place area now , it makes it easier for shopping needs and more medical places are going there , also wished there is one late night run from Boise downtown to happy valley transit , for the ones like to have dinner there if they can after work or etc. , like 8 pm or 9pm for bus 41/42 route . Combining both 43 routes AM and PM will cause the buses to be over crowded-most drivers use the brakes on a regular basis and when standing this can cause a lot of accidents. I feel if there were wait times like this week when we were on the bus for 45 minutes to an hour could also cause a lot of uncomfortable rides for a lot of riders. most people ride the bus for the times, which will change. As it is now I get to work 30 minutes early riding the early bus so I don't have to chance being late on the 2nd bus. I would not be able to use your services anymore because my employer will not allow me to get off work any earlier than 5 PM. The proposed time of 5 PM for the route to leave downtown

76

ITEM VI-D

BOISE is not acceptable. I am a City of Boise employee and it bothers me that there is a proposal to reduce services to Caldwell when City of Boise pays so many dollars into Valley Ride and Valley Regional Transit. I am not for the change to consolidate routes at all. I currently ride the early route 43 Caldwell to Boise, 6:30 - 4:30. Should this route be eliminated, I would no longer be using Valley Regional Transit.

While I can understand it might be hard to justify having two buses to and from Caldwell when sometimes it seems only 2-3 people ride the late bus home, I think it is important to keep two.

The reasons are:

1) Some people, like me, can’t alter their schedule and so would not be able to make it to a bus stop any earlier than, say, 5:15 pm. Having only one bus would deprive us of using public transit due to a matter of minutes. Very frustrating.

2) Very often the early bus is crowded to the point where people have to stand the entire way back to Caldwell. I have known fellow riders who adjusted their work schedules simply so they could take the late bus and sit comfortably instead of standing for 40 minutes.

3) Sometimes people are held up at work. If there is only one bus and they miss it, they are out of luck. They will have to call a friend or family member, or pay exorbitant fees for a cab- which is very irksome if they pay $80 for a bus pass. Two buses means they can hop on the late bus if they are running late instead of burdening someone else with their ride home.

Instead of condensing two trips into one, I propose you just change the timing. Right now the timing seems to be good for the early bus and late bus when they are leaving Caldwell, however, many of the riders are students and many don’t need to hang out until 4:40 to catch a bus home.

I think it would work better to have the early bus leave BSU around 4:15 and the last stop in Boise around 4:30 and then to have the late bus leave BSU around 5:00 and the last stop in Boise around 5:15. If people don’t have to wait nearly 30 minutes (as the buses often run late) to catch the late bus after their shift ends, I think you would find many more riders on the late bus, thereby justifying keeping it.

After all, as the population of this area grows (and it has been steadily), the last thing a transportation company should be doing is reducing the amount of transportation they provide.

PS- I’d also like to point out that many people I know rush to get on the early bus because there is almost a guarantee of air conditioning during the summer. If the late bus didn’t always seem to be a shaky, spine-crunchingly bouncy, non-air-conditioned jalopy, more people would probably wait to ride it…

I would like to provide my comments to the Route 43 proposal.

Consolidating the two bus times to one time is a sign the public transportation system from Caldwell to Boise is a failed system.

77

ITEM VI-D

By eliminating one more bus off the route would give less options for employees who need alternative options to get into work.

I have already relayed the proposed changes to my Supervisor and I would not have permission to end my shift any earlier than 5 PM, which is the proposed time the only bus of the night would leave downtown Boise so I would miss it.

My proposal is to consider changing the route times of the two buses that run now. You know why employees do not take the second bus option at night? I will provide some reasons below:

1. The 5:25 PM it leaves downtown Boise now is too late from when an employee’s actual shift end at 5 PM. Consider changing to 5:10 or 5:15 PM. Suggested closer to when most employee’s shifts end.

2. Make sure the 2nd bus route has air conditioning. I hear riders all the time say the reason they will not take the 2nd bus is that they need air conditioning. Riders miss the ride on purpose to have a more comfortable ride.

3. If riders miss the first bus in or out they at least have the option to catch the second bus. If they miss the first bus then they are out of luck and either have to look at alternate intercountry route options to get home and possibly even connect to a fixed local route to get to where their vehicle is parked making their commute time more than triple.

Please consider my first comment as what I would propose on time change for the 2 routes to see if you get more riders on that 2nd bus route of the day.

Route 42:

Currently there are limited trips to Boise during the day. Adding three more runs on the 42 would allow me to ride to Boise during the day for work.

Need more midday service

3). If the proposed service improvements do not help you, how would you recommend to change them? Leave Caldwell #43 alone, as we have asked so many times in the past. Leave the bus times along. As long as the 43 arrives at the last stop (University and Brady) by or before 7:55a.m. each day, we will continue to ride; however, it MUST arrive in order for me to arrive at my office at BSU by or before 7:55a.m. each weekday. My husband and I both ride the 6:30a.m. 43 bus currently. Local routes that stop at a transit center, with regular runs between transit centers. More in my

78

ITEM VI-D

comment about transfers below, because this box is small. Make it more dependable with routes that would help those of us that cannot afford or choose not to have the upkeep of a car. I would recommend that you leave the 43 route as it is with 2 buses. Would prefer a drop off at 3rd & Main versus the stop at 1st & Main. Several of the current rider work for the Department of Labor and for the Ada County courthouse. There is already a stop at 3rd & Main but the 43 bus does not stop there but rather drops off at 5th & Main and 1st & Main. On vary rare occasions other than Department of Labor employers does anyone get off at 1st & Main. Don't change leave as it is

Keep it as it is. Most people I know have stopped riding due to the tardiness of the drivers. If they could make it to the stops when they're supposed to (on time), maybe more people would ride. How about keep the two routes but change the times? Most people will not take the 5:25 PM bus out of downtown in the evening because it is too far away from when their actual shift ends. I propose the two routes change where one bus leaves downtown Boise at 4:45 PM and the second route leaves at 5:15 PM. This gives customers a 15 minute increment to get to their stop from when their shift ends respectively at 4:30 PM and 5:00 PM Consolidate the routes to one in summer months when schools are out then go back to two when schools start up. Retain Routes 51, 53, and 55 as they are now. Combine Routes 52 and 54 as one route that includes north and south Caldwell. Create a new Route 54 to serve destinations such as Department of Labor, SW District Health, Treasure Valley Marketplace, and Caldwell High School/YMCA We have medical needs and a more available door-to-door service. Currently we are just outside of your boundaries. So any expansion or options to get us closer is helpful. Need midday service to Caldwell – I like to go to lunch at Keystone Pizza.

4). Additional Comments

79

ITEM VI-D

Please do not change the times as these work 95% of the time to get me to work on time. Please do not change service for 43 that would make arrival time to BSU (University and Brady) 8:00a.m. or after. Need to arrive there by or before 7:55 a.m.--preferably 7:50 a.m. This could be such a wonderful service to the canyon county residents if it could run for the average worker who wants to commute to and from work and avoid the freeway. Driving is stressful for some folks such as myself. I miss the Boise Bus system which I used all through high school and for my daily work commute until I moved out of state. Why can Canyon Co. not have the same quality/dependability? How would you provide transportation to someone working in Boise trying to get back to Caldwell Park and Ride if the connecting bus (29) runs late and I miss the 43 and 44? The single bus 43 route proposed makes this possibility greater. I have to drive 4 miles to a bus stop when I live less than a have mile from the Caldwell Transit Center. I have to drive 2000 miles annually to catch the bus when I should be able to walk to the Transit Center. The 43 starts and ends there every day. I should be able to catch it at the center. I have not been given a reasonable explanation on why I can't. I enjoy the service and am overall very pleased with your staff and service. In the winter it would be nice if the cities did not plow road snow onto sidewalks but that is nothing you have control over. I think you need to keep two buses in case someone missed the early bus home or in case the early bus is over-loaded with people and some want to wait so they don't have to stand the whole ride home (it used to happen OFTEN). Please don't change and consolidate route 43 many times I have to work late past 5pm due customers coming in at last minute when this happens I would stay late to assist them after closing, if this change happens I have no choice but to drive myself in. I think you need to do social media what people like to see for transits, need to hear people voices I sure hope you leave it as it is. I work with several people that will have to stop riding if the 2nd bus is taken away. Not to mention the ones I don't work with. Thank you Yes, please do not make the proposed change to consolidate routes, instead change the two existing routes to different times as suggested and see if you would notice and improvement in passengers on the 2nd bus. I go between Boise and Nampa mostly via Route 40, but I use other intercounty routes too. I transfer to Routes 51-54 at Happy Day Transit Center. Transfers are almost useless with the current route offerings. There should be exactly one intercounty line. It should run back and forth between the Boise and Nampa transit centers. It should run all day long, with more frequent runs during peak hours. The current intercounty routes that meander through town should be replaced with local lines that stop at the transit centers. At least then if someone misses their usual intercounty run, they have the option of

80

ITEM VI-D

taking a later one - ideally less than fifteen minutes later during peak. It may cause a longer overall trip, but more reliable service overall. My children and I are in need of additional transportation options, but we live just outside the current borders. Hoping there is additional service options. Bus bench at Corporate and Progress to wait for Harvest Transit when transferring from the 42 to Harvest Transit. Thank you for considering adding more access to services – this may make all the difference for families like mine who deal with health and driving limitations. Have buses on Saturday and more benches and shelters. To avoid confusion, route changes not transferring to another bus might keep the same route color on the map. I like your service. Later hours and Saturday service would be nice. I take the 5 to the Mall to catch the 42. You need to hold the buses a bit longer. With the city of Nampa expanding, it is good to expand services. Want to see a route inside the marketplace. We need service to Southwest District Health. We need a stop directly in front of the Gateway Center. Need more service to the area southeast of Caldwell. Need service to Parma and Ten Mile and Ustick. System as is works well. Need service to Marsing or somewhere closer like Sunnyslope. Need larger bicycle racks. Need to know more about the scheduling It is ridiculous that you have to stop and wait at HDTC to transfer to another route. Need a stop at Rochester and West Ave near Sacajawea Elementary School off Illinois and Lansing. It is a long walk.

81

ITEM VI-D


TOPIC: ValleyConnect 2.0 Update

DATE: September 25, 2017 Summary: Valley Regional Transit (VRT) is in the process of updating the ValleyConnect, VRT’s six year capital and service plan. This update is being coordinated with the Compass Communities In Motion update and will reflect the regions goals and objectives for public transit. ValleyConnect 2.0 will guide future VRT activities and be used to help coordinate VRT activities with our stakeholders. ValleyConnect 2.0 will include plans for significant growth in fixed route and other VRT programs. This growth is based on Communities in Motion and a review of our peers. The plan will explore the transit activities that VRT would take in the following three scenarios: Scenario Est. Additional

Operating Dollars* Est. Annual Fixed Route Service Hours

Current Funding <10% <110,000 Intermediate Funding $10,000,000 200,000 Growth Target $30,000,000 400,000 *Would need additional capital resources ValleyConnect 2.0 will include the following ten major elements;

1. Introduction 2. 2018 Budget 3. Service Plans 2025 4. Capital Plans 2025 5. Programmatic Supports 6. Program of Potential Projects 7. Workforce Development 8. Network Design Principles 9. Performance Measurement 10. Prioritization Process

Valley Regional Transit staff will continue to work with the Technical Resource Group and other stakeholders over the summer to finalize the plan and will present the draft plan for RCC consideration early in 2018.

Staff Recommendation/Request: Action Item. Staff recommends that the VRT Board review and approve the direction of ValleyConnect 2.0 including approval of the goals (pg1 of packet), the size and scope of the three scenarios outlined in the draft ValleyConnect 2.0 (pg 2 of packet), network design principles (pg 15 of packet), performance measurements (pg 19 of packet), and prioritization themes (pg 21 of

82

ITEM VI-E

packet). A final draft of ValleyConnect 2.0 plan will be submitted to the Board of Directors for action in January of 2018.

Implication (policy and/or financial): Although this action does not have direct financial impacts, approval of the goals, performance measures, prioritization themes, network design principles and size and scope of the scenarios will define;

• How VRT will use performance measurement to inform its progress toward its goals • Identify the themes VRT will consider when prioritizing projects • Establish the principles VRT will consider when designing new fixed route services or

restructuring existing services • Establish the scope of VRT growth plans which will inform and guide funding discussions,

identification of transit needs, grant strategies, etc. Highlights:

Completed:

• March 2017 – Drafted plan goals and objectives and Finalized SWOT analysis • April 2017 – Completed public and stakeholder input on transportation needs, Drafted Initial

ValleyConnects2.0 conceptual networks • May 2017 – Finalized ValleyConnect 2.0 outline, discussed network design principles, and the

role of community transportation and technology • June 20, 2017 – ValleyConnect 2.0 status update to Regional Coordination Council (RCC) for

their information. • June 2017 – Identified initial capital needs and programmatic supports and presented them to

the Technical Resource Group (TRG) for their comment • July 2017 – Identified draft performance metrics and presented them to the Technical

Resource Group (TRG) for their comment • August – Identified draft prioritization themes and presented them to the Technical Resource

Group (TRG) for their comment • September – ValleyConnect 2.0 status update to Regional Coordination Council (RCC) for

their and information.

Upcoming: • September – ValleyConnect 2.0 update to Valley Regional Transit Board of Directors for their

comment and concurrence. • November – Present draft of ValleyConnect 2.0 at joint VRT Executive Board and RCC for

comment and recommendation • January – Present final draft of ValleyConnect 2.0 for VRT Board approval • 2018 – Establish performance metric targets and prioritization process

More Information: Stephen Hunt, Principal Planner, 208.258.2701 [email protected]

83

ITEM VI-E


1

Background

ValleyConnect 2.0 is Valley Regional Transit’s six year capital and service plan, however ValleyConnect 2.0 will differ from a typical 6 year Transit Development Plan in the following significant ways;

• Plan for significant growth beyond our expected revenues • Establish network design principles • Establish the performance metrics that will be used to inform both near and long term

decisions • Establish the themes for prioritizing projects

Over time, VRT will continue to review ValleyConnect and update it as necessary. ValleyConnect 2.0 is built on the following Vision, Mission and Goals.

• Vision We envision a region with comprehensive public transportation choices designed to meet the needs of citizens and businesses and to support livable, healthy, and sustainable communities. And we envision adequate and secure funding to support those choices.

• Mission

Ensure comprehensive public and private transportation choices improve the regions quality of life through enhancing access to health service providers, economic opportunities, and encouraging more active transportation.

• Goals

1. Provide safe and reliable multi-modal transportation choices considering the entire trip from origination to destination.

2. Prioritize investments in efficient fixed-route service that expands public mobility while leveraging, maximizing and enhancing the utilization of the existing transportation assets and resources.

3. Ensure comprehensive transportation choices and access that support economic growth and enhanced quality of life for the region.

84

ITEM VI-E

2

Introduction In 2016 Valley Regional Transit provided 1,368,000 boardings on 98,000 hours of fixed route service on 31 routes (including express and other variants) with 55 buses. Those services were supported by 26,000 hours of Paratransit service providing an additional 57,000 boardings, 81 vanpools providing 193,000 trips to work or home, a network of 12 GoRide mobility services providing an additional 47,000 boardings for healthcare access, low-income job access and access for seniors and persons with disabilities, 11 university and parking shuttles providing 41,000 boardings, and Boise Green Bike providing 20,000 trips on approximately 100 bikes around the downtown Boise area Yet, when compared to our peers, the Treasure Valley lags behind substantially in the amount of public transportation we provide. Local surveys also reveal that public transportation is one of the few measures where Treasure Valley communities rank below their peers. In addition, these surveys also showed a majority of people would support their cities making transit a funding priority. Taken together these two points of information, peer communities similar to the Treasure Valley in size and density and that the public is supportive of increasing funding for transit put the future of public transportation in the Treasure Valley at a critical crossroads. ValleyConnect 2.0 includes the following three scenarios;

Scenario Est. Additional Operating Dollars*

Est. Annual Fixed Route Service Hours

Current Funding <10% <110,000 Intermediate Funding $10,000,000 200,000 Growth Target $30,000,000 400,000 *Would need additional capital resources

The Intermediate and Growth scenarios are aggressive plans for growth that will dramatically improve transit service by connecting more people to more places more often. These improvements will help lower the household transportation costs, increase the capacity of existing roadway infrastructure and help mitigate the traffic impacts of the explosive development occurring across the Treasure Valley. The operating investments described in these scenarios will be supported with significant capital investments that will help transit services run quickly and reliably, enhance the rider experience, help build community and integrate with planned development for the region.

85

ITEM VI-E

3

Peer Comparisons For a moment, imagine you owned a car that would only start on the hour, or maybe every half hour. You would use that car a lot less than the one you owned that started whenever you turned the key. Just like a car that only starts intermittently, transit that comes infrequently is far less useful to you than transit that comes very often. A transit agency’s operating budget is a key driver in how frequently a bus will be able to come and therefore how useful that transit service is. This insight makes a comparison of our peers annual operating cost per capita revealing. Compared to our peers, VRT spends between only 13% and 28% per capita on transit operating. This means we would expect the transit service VRT does provide to be less useful to Treasure Valley residents then the transit service provided by our peers. That intuition is borne out when we look at productivity. The boardings per hour of our peers is between 66% and 150% higher than ours. With total annual boardings ranging between 5 ½ and over 13 times VRT’s annual boardings. Clearly, transit could do more in the Treasure Valley than it currently does. Valley Connect 2.0 sets to show what could be done if the Treasure Valley meet the vision described in Communities in Motion and funded transit service at a level more similar to our peer agencies. With a system that is approximately 400,000 annual hours of service, VRT would be able to provide a network of frequent services across the Treasure Valley and serve almost 10 times the number of people we serve today. Valley Connect 2.0 also explores an intermediate step, showing what kind of system could be in place with a system of roughly 200,000 hours – approximately double the amount of service provided today. Peer Comparison #1: Operating Expense per Capita

Transit Agency Service Area Population

Total Operating Expenses

Annual Operating Cost/Capita

Valley Regional Transit 349,684 $ 9,624,981 $ 27.52

Spokane Transit Authority (WA) 409,271 $ 59,413,530 $ 145.17

Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (Reno, NV)

327,768 $ 31,429,617 $ 95.89

City of Tucson (AZ) 544,000 $ 74,107,836 $ 136.23

Metro Transit System (Madison WI) 253,075 $ 54,088,838 $ 213.73

Average of Peers 383,529 $ 54,759,955 $ 142.78

86

ITEM VI-E

4

Peer Comparison #2: Service Provision and Productivity

Transit Agency Annual Hours* Unlinked Passenger

Trips Boardings/

Hour

Valley Regional Transit 121,563 1,466,139 12

Spokane Transit Authority (WA) 589,241 12,045,936 20

Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County (Reno, NV) 365,298 8,568,937 23

City of Tucson (AZ) 941,815 20,272,980 22

Metro Transit System (Madison WI) 515,453 15,492,317 30

Average of Peers 602,952 14,095,043 23

Comparable Hours for VRT 499,000 12,000,000 24

*Includes Paratransit Service

87

ITEM VI-E

5

ValleyConnect 2.0 Plan for Growth

Informed by our peer comparison and the regions plan for growth, VRT has been working with stakeholders, city staff and others to draft a transit network that is consistent with our goals. ValleyConnect 2.0 has developed a conceptual service network for each of the three service scenarios, current funding, intermediate and growth. Each of these networks are developed in consultation with stakeholders and guided by VRT goals for a comprehensive network that supports livable, healthy communities with access to health service providers and economic activity.

To assess the extent these networks meet those objectives VRT reviewed the network from the following perspectives;

1. Coverage – the extent or footprint of the entire system. To be measured by the percent of the population that is within ½ mile of frequent or ¼ mile of any fixed route service.

2. Span – when is the service available. One of the most common service requests is to have service later into the evening and night. This can be easily assessed by reviewing the number, or percent, of routes that operate past 9PM and at Midnight.

3. Frequency – how often is the service available. One of the most common service requests is to have the buses run more often. Frequency is one of the single most important attributes of transit service. This will be measured by several factors including;

a. Percent of relatively dense development that is within ½ mile of frequent service b. Number of jobs and households accessible on transit in 60 minutes for the average

resident 4. Service Days – which days of the week is service available. In addition to service span and

frequency weekend service is a common service request. This can be easily assessed by reviewing the number, or percent, of routes that operate on the weekend.

88

ITEM VI-E

6

Below are a few examples of how the ValleyConnect 2.0 networks were designed to improve each service in each of these perspectives;

Coverage: ValleyConnect 2.0 networks provide many new connections including the following illustrations;

a. Meridian to i. Nampa (Franklin/Cherry Ln & Chinden)

ii. Boise (Fairview, Overland, Ustick, Pine/Emerald) iii. Eagle (Cloverdale/Eagle & Linder) iv. Kuna (Meridian Rd) v. Airport (I-84)

vi. Micron (I-84)

b. Kuna to

i. Meridian (Meridian Rd) ii. Eagle (Cloverdale/Eagle Rd) with connections at the Village in Meridian and

Chinden c. Caldwell to

i. Caldwell High school and YMCA ( ii. Nampa Marketplace and St Luke’s (Caldwell Blvd)

iii. Parma, Wilder, Greenleaf ( iv. Micron (I-84) v. Airport (I-84)

d. Eagle to i. Meridian (Linder)

ii. Hidden Springs (Dry Creek) e. Boise cross town connections

i. North/South, Hyde Park to the Airport (Vista), Collister to the Airport (Orchard), Park Center to Hill Rd/Catalapa via BSU, downtown Boise (Parkcenter, Whitewater Park Blvd, 36th St)

ii. East West, Idaho Botanical Gardens to the Fairgrounds (Warmsprings, Main, Adams St), Broadway to the Village (Broadway, Main, Chinden, Ustick)

Span: ValleyConnect 2.0 makes significant improvements to the span of service. The Intermediate scenario Increases the number of routes with service past 9PM from 2 to 8. In the Growth scenario 14 routes or 48% of all routes have service past 9PM with y routes running until midnight. Increasing the service span enhances the accessibility jobs and services outside the traditional 8AM to 5PM work window. Service Level Tables 1, 2, and 3 on pages 10, 12 and 14 provide more detail about planned service span

89

ITEM VI-E

7

Frequency: Today there are no services that operate every 15 minutes or better. With the growth scenario VRT is planning for 10 routes to have frequent, all-day operations. Frequency is a critical factor in transit attractiveness. High frequency routes reduce the amount of time spent waiting for a bus, and frees transit riders from living their lives behind a bus schedule. It is the single most important factor in improving transit accessibility. A grid of high frequency services increase the number of places an individual can reach on transit within a given amount of time. This point is illustrated by the transit accessibility maps below.

It also has the greatest potential for reducing congestion, increasing economic activity, alleviating the challenges of transferring between routes, increases transit demand, and increases transit efficiency. Many of the frequency improvements will be accompanied by capital investments to keep transit moving and support transit oriented development. ValleyConnect 2.0 has been coordinated to support local jurisdiction plans including the City of Boise’s “Best in Class” vision for frequent, high quality transit on State St, Vista and Fairview. Service Level Tables 1, 2, and 3 on pages 10, 12 and 14 provide more detail about planned service frequency.

Service Days: In addition to improving coverage, span and frequency, ValleyConnect 2.0 is planning to extend the days of service transit is available. Weekend service is an important part of a comprehensive transit network. Imagine how much less useful your car would be if it were not available on the weekend. The Intermediate scenario Increases the number of routes with Saturday service from 4 to 6. In the Growth scenario, 11 routes or 38% of all routes have Saturday service with 8 routes running on Sunday. Increasing weekend service enhances the accessibility jobs and services outside the traditional Monday through Friday work week. Service Level Tables 1, 2, and 3 on pages 10, 12 and 14 provide more detail about planned days of service

Current Network Conceptual Growth Network

Transit Accessibility at 7AM

90

ITEM VI-E

8

2016 Transit Service Network

91

ITEM VI-E

9

Current Funding Restructured Network

92

ITEM VI-E

10

Service Level Table 1: Current Funding Restructured Network

Area Description Current Route/ Services 15 PK 15 MD 9 PM Sat Sun

Airport Boise Airport to Hyde Park via Downtown Boise 3, 14 N N N Y N Airport Boise Airport to Downtown Boise via Roosevelt 4 N N N N N Chinden Kuna to Chinden via the Village none N N N N N Chinden Nampa to Boise via Hwy 20/26 8X N N N N N Emerald Boise TSM to Downtown Boise via Emerald 5 N N N Y N Hill Rd Boise Airport to Glenwood via Orchard 6, 10 N N N Y N Hill Rd 36th St to Federal Way via BSU 1, 10 N N N Y N Hill Rd Glenwood to Victory via Boise Towne Square 12, 28 N N N N N I84 Intercounty Happy Day TC to BSU via Meridian 41, 42, 55 N N N N N I84 Intercounty CWI to Boise via I-84 40 N N N N N I84 Intercounty CWI to BSU via I-84 43, 45 N N N N N Nampa/Caldwell S Nampa to CWI via 16th Ave 51, 53 N N N N N Nampa/Caldwell Caldwell to S Nampa via Marketplace 52, 54 N N N N N Overland Boise Towne Square to Veterans Memorial via Overland/BSU 29, 16 N N N N N State/ Hwy 44 Glenwood to Downtown Boise via State St 9 N N Y Y N State/ Hwy 44 Eagle to Downtown Boise via State St 9X N N N N N State/ Hwy 44 Caldwell to Boise via Hwy 44 44 N N N N N Ustick Boise Towne Square to BSU via Fairview 7a, 7b N N Y Y N Ustick Ustick to Boise Airport via Downtown Boise 8, 7a, 2 N N N Y N West Boise Idaho Botanical Gardens to Garden City via Warm springs 11, 17 N N N N N West Boise Harris Ranch to Downtown Boise via Parkcenter Blvd 18 N N N N N

GREEN CELLS Represent coverage, frequency, span or service day improvements over today.

93

ITEM VI-E

11

Intermediate Scenario ValleyConnect 2.0 Conceptual Network

94

ITEM VI-E

12

Service Level Table 2: Intermediate Scenario Network


Airport Boise Airport to Hyde Park via Downtown Boise 3, 14 Y Y Y Y Y Airport Boise Airport to Downtown Boise via Roosevelt 4 Y N Y N N Chinden Kuna to Chinden via the Village none N N N N N Chinden Nampa to Boise via Hwy 20/26 8X N N N N N Emerald Boise TSM to Downtown Boise via Emerald 5 Y Y Y Y Y Hill Rd Boise Airport to Glenwood via Orchard 6, 10 N N Y N N Hill Rd 36th St to Federal Way via BSU 1, 10 N N N N N Hill Rd Hill Rd to Victory via Boise Towne Square 12, 28 N N N N N I84 Intercounty CWI to Boise via I-84 40, 41, 42 N N N N N I84 Intercounty Caldwell to BSU via CWI/I-84 43, 45, 55 N N N N N Nampa/Caldwell S Nampa to CWI via 16th Ave 51, 53 Y Y Y Y N Nampa/Caldwell Caldwell to S Nampa via Marketplace 52, 54 N N N Y N Nampa/Caldwell Caldwell to Nampa via Ustick/Midland Blvd none N N N N N Overland Meridian Village to Veterans Memorial via Overland/BSU 29, 16 Y N Y Y Y State/ Hwy 44 Eagle to Downtown Boise via State St 9 Y Y Y Y Y State/ Hwy 44 Star to Downtown Boise via State St 9X N N N N N State/ Hwy 44 Caldwell to Boise via Hwy 44 44 N N N N N Ustick Meridian Village to BSU via Boise Towne Square 7a, 7b Y N N Y Y Ustick Ustick to Boise Airport via Downtown Boise 8, 7a, 2 N N Y Y Y West Boise Idaho Botanical Gardens to Garden City via Warm springs 11, 17 N N N N N West Boise Harris Ranch to Downtown Boise via Parkcenter Blvd 18 N N N N N


95

ITEM VI-E

13

Growth Scenario ValleyConnect 2.0 Conceptual Network

96

ITEM VI-E

14

Service Level Table 3: Growth Scenario Network


Airport Boise Airport to Hyde Park via Downtown Boise 3, 14 Y Y Y Y Y Airport Boise Airport to 36th St via Roosevelt 4 Y Y Y Y Y Chinden Kuna to Chinden Via the Village none N N N N N Chinden Nampa to Boise via Hwy 20/26 8X N N N N N Emerald Boise TSM to Downtown Boise via Emerald 5 Y Y Y Y Y Emerald Boise TSM to downtown Boise via Franklin none Y N Y N N Hill Rd Boise Airport to Glenwood via Orchard 6, 10 Y Y Y Y Y Hill Rd 36th St to Federal Way via BSU 1, 10 Y N Y Y N Hill Rd Glenwood to Victory via Boise Towne Square 12, 28 N N Y N N I84 Intercounty CWI to BSU via I-84 40, 41, 42 Y N N N N I84 Intercounty Caldwell to Downtown Boise via CWI/I-84 43, 45, 55 Y N N N N I84 Intercounty CWI to Micron via Boise Airport none N N N N N Meridian Roaring Springs to Chinden YMCA via Meridian Rd none N N N N N Meridian Hillsdale to Eagle via the Village none N N N N N Meridian Eagle Island to Towne Square Mall via Linder none N N N N N Meridian CWI to Meridian Village via Cherry Lane none N N Y N N Nampa/Caldwell S Nampa to CWI via 16th Ave 51, 53 Y Y Y Y N Nampa/Caldwell Caldwell to S Nampa via Marketplace 52, 54 Y Y Y Y N Nampa/Caldwell Caldwell to Nampa via Ustick/Midland Blvd none N N N N N Overland Meridian Village to Veterans Memorial via Overland/BSU 29, 16 Y Y Y Y Y Parma Parma to Caldwell via Wilder/Greenleaf none N N N N N State/ Hwy 44 Eagle to Downtown Boise via State St 9 Y Y Y Y Y State/ Hwy 44 Star to Downtown Boise via State St 9X N N N N N State/ Hwy 44 Eagle to Boise Via Hidden Springs none N N N N N State/ Hwy 44 Caldwell to Boise via Hwy 44 44 N N N N N Ustick Meridian Village to BSU via Towne Square Mall 7a, 7b Y Y Y Y Y Ustick Ustick to Boise Airport via Downtown Boise 8, 7a, 2 Y Y Y Y Y West Boise Idaho Botanical Gardens to Downtown Boise via Warm springs 11, 17 N N N N N West Boise Harris Ranch to Downtown Boise via Parkcenter Blvd 18 N N N N N


97

ITEM VI-E

15

Network Design Principles A transit network is much like a road network. In a road network how fast you can travel from where you are to where you are trying to go is in large part determined by how many lights there are, how long the light cycles are, how and where the roads intersect, what the speed limit is, and of course how much traffic is there. Similarly, in a transit network, there are several fundamental factors that in large part determine who quickly a transit network will connect people from where they are to where they are trying to go. These fundamental factors are addressed in what are called Network Design Principles. In order to progress toward the VRT goals and objectives, ValleyConnect 2.0 networks were developed using the following network design principles;

1. Network Integration The transit network should be versatile in enabling freedom of movement for a diverse range of people and modes. No route is an island and all routes will be designed within the context of the entire transportation system. Good network design considers the full transportation picture and acknowledges interdependencies. This includes local and intercounty bus routes, and other modes. While connections (or transfers) between routes make the network stronger, the strongest networks will occur when each route is useful for trips even without transfers. Routes that are useful only when connecting to other routes or services, even when connecting at Park and Rides or transit centers are typically suboptimal. When designing a network of services, VRT will consider locations where transfer opportunities could be provided for the convenience of customers and to improve the efficiency of the transit network. Where many transfers are expected to occur between services of different frequencies, timed transfers should be maintained to reduce customer wait times.

2. Forward Thinking Prioritize actions that will increase overall public mobility, equity and ridership rather than preserving existing ridership. Reallocation or restructuring of service to that increases public mobility – defined as the number of places accessible by transit – will typically result in ridership increases. Despite this opportunity, there will always be pressure to maintain current service in order to preserve current riders’ travel habits. Because of this ridership growth is unfortunately often pitted against ridership preservation. VRT acknowledges this trade off and will always explore ways to mitigate negative impacts of route and network changes, however, in order for the transit

98

ITEM VI-E

16

network to remain relevant, increased public mobility, equity and ridership must be a higher priority than ridership preservation.

3. Maximize Ridership The transit network should be efficient and productive. For VRT maximizing ridership is not just about collecting fares. Most importantly, it is about ensuring that we are helping the greatest number of people get to where they need to go. By doing this we hope to help the people of the Treasure Valley reduce their costs of transportation and access as many of the opportunities that are available in Ada and Canyon County as possible. In doing this we hope to;

• Connect as many people to as many places as often as possible • Contribute to the economic prosperity and physical health of the region

4. Encourage Long-term Ridership Growth/Partnership and Collaboration

Work with partners and stakeholders in the process of network planning and service delivery to ensure the coordination of land use and transportation planning. The Treasure Valley is forecast to continue growing. VRT believes investments in public transit are long-term investments in helping support planned higher density and mitigate the negative traffic related impacts of growth. Working together with local jurisdictions, the ValleyConnect networks will help coordinate development and transportation infrastructure decisions.

5. Provide Access to Transit Service across the Region The transit network will provide connections across the VRT service area. VRT is a regional transit provider and is committed to providing the appropriate level of service to communities across the region. This is true for both fixed route levels of service and specialized services. VRT will augment the fixed route system with specialized transportation options where appropriate.

In addition to the network design principles, individual routes within the ValleyConnect 2.0 scenarios were developed using these route design guidelines;

1. Is as direct, simple, consistent and easy to understand Strong transit lines tend to be as straight as possible given the demand and terrain. The straighter the route, the more likely it is that passengers can understand and use the line, and also expect consistent, reliable service. Under most circumstances, routes should be designed to avoid loops and circles. Circular paths or looping routes do not have competitive travel times compared to walking or other modes.

99

ITEM VI-E

17

2. Serves areas of strong demand Where possible, routes should connect several areas with high transportation demand. In addition, routs should travel along corridors which have ridership generators on either side in such a way that the route bisects destinations rather than skirting the periphery or along physical barriers such as rivers, ledges or lakes.

3. Has strong anchors at both ends Routes should be designed to start and end in locations with high transit demand. This helps provide efficient service that does not have low ridership at both ends.

4. Route spacing and duplication Routes should be designed to avoid competing for the same riders. Studies indicate that people are willing to walk 1/4 mile on average to access transit, so in general routes should be no closer together than 1/2 mile. Services may overlap where urban and physical geography makes it necessary, where services in a common segment serve different destinations, or where routes converge to serve regional growth centers. Where services do overlap, they should be scheduled together, if possible, to provide effective service along the common routing.

5. Matches service levels to demand An effective transit line provides the appropriate level of service to meet demand and encourage people to use it. Level of service is defined by frequency, span, and stopping pattern. These route characteristics will be informed by route level demand and network function.

6. Speed vs Access/Bus Stop Spacing Routes should be designed to the specific speed and access needs of the areas and populations served. Bus stops should be spaced to balance the benefit of increased access to a route against the delay that an additional stop would create for all other riders. While close stop-spacing reduces walk time, it may increase total travel time and reduce reliability, since buses must slow down and stop more frequently.

7. Multiple purposes and destinations Routes are more efficient when designed to serve multiple purposes and destinations rather than specialized travel demands. Routes that serve many rider groups rather than a single group appeal to more potential riders and are more likely to be successful. Specialized service should be considered when there is sizable and demonstrated demand that cannot be adequately met by more generalized service.

8. Route length and neighborhood segments/Interlining of routes A bus route should be long enough to provide useful connections for riders and to be more attractive than other travel modes. A route that is too short will not attract many riders, since the travel time combined with the wait for the bus is not competitive compared to the time it would take to walk. Longer routes offer the opportunity to make more trips without a transfer,

100

ITEM VI-E

18

resulting in increased ridership and efficiency. Ideally, no route should be less than two miles in length.

The images below illustrates the geometry of successful transit by comparing the shapes of low performing routes to high performing routes in Vancouver, British Columbia. This phenomenon can also be seen locally when you compare high performing VRT routes 5, 7, and 9 to lower performing routes 4 and 16.

101

ITEM VI-E

19

Performance Measurement

I. Provide safe and reliable multi-modal transportation choices considering the entire trip from origination to destination.

a. On Time Performance b. Load Factor/Occupancy c. Incidents/million miles d. Average fleet age of fixed route and paratransit services e. Rider Satisfaction Survey Responses (or rider complaints per million miles) f. Utilization rates of specialized transportation shared mobility options, and

program supports, e.g. vanpool: occupancy, shuttles: boardings per hour, bikeshare: trips/capita, specialized services: cost/boarding

II. Prioritize investments in efficient fixed route service that expands public mobility while leveraging, maximizing and enhancing the utilization of the existing transportation assets and resources.

a. Operating Cost/Capita b. Annual Boardings – By different service types – fixed route, specialized, etc c. Boardings/Hour – adjusted appropriately for different service types d. Operating Cost/Boarding e. Average fare f. Farebox Recovery g. Boardings/Hour (by route)

III. Ensure comprehensive transportation choices and access that support

economic growth and enhanced quality of life for the region. a. Transit Operation Expenses /Private Operating Expense (see example below)

Illustrative Average Annual Household Operating Expenses in Valley Regional Transit Service Area Private Vehicle Transit Total % Transit Transit Mode Share

$6,400* $40 $6,440 0.7 0.5% *this is gas, insurance, taxes, tires etc. NOT the depreciation of their vehicle – that would be analogous to a transit capital cost

b. % Population within ½ mi of frequent or ¼ mile of any fixed route service c. % High density areas with access to frequent service, measured at the census

block group level (We will review this threshold to ensure that it is appropriate) d. This would be calculated for the three separate populations;

i. general population ii. people with low income

iii. people with minority status e. # of jobs and households accessible on transit in 60 minutes for the average

resident f. Transit Travel Time between various centers compared to Auto g. Greenhouse gas emission reduction

102

ITEM VI-E

20

Performance Measurement Matrix Measures by goal Potential Action I.a On time performance Route retiming, adding time to schedules, capital investments to

speed up or make times more consistent I.b Load Factor/Occupancy Add trips to a route to accommodate larger loads I.c Incidents/million miles Improve driver training, identify unsafe movements, Capital

investments to improve safety I.d Average fleet age Replace older fleet vehicles I.e Rider Satisfaction Survey Invest in priorities identified by riders as impacting their service

satisfaction I.f Utilization rates Increase investments in highly utilized service types, reallocate

resources from underutilized service types. II.a Operating Cost/Capita Determine appropriateness of overall transit operating expenses II. b Annual boardings Guide overall investments in various service types II. c Boardings per Hour Increase service investments in highly performing service types,

potentially reallocate services from underperforming services types

II. d Operating Cost/Boarding Guide cost effective investments by service types II. e Average Fare Determine appropriateness of fare structure, Guide fare

increases or number of different fare passes/discounts II. f Farebox Recovery Inform fare levels and identify services that are not meeting cost

effectiveness thresholds II. g Boardings/hour by route Increase service investments in highly performing routes,

potentially reallocate services from underperforming routes III. a Transit Operation Expenses /Private Operating Expense

Determine appropriateness of overall transit operating expenses

III. b % Population within ½ mi of frequent or ¼ mile of any fixed route service

Inform where service gaps are

III. c % Activity Units @ xx units/Acre with access to frequent service, measured at the census block group level

Identify gaps in frequent service network

III. d # of jobs and households accessible on transit in 60 minutes for the average resident

Inform where service gaps are

III. f Transit Travel Time Guide corridor investments to ensure transit travel time remains or becomes competitive

III. g Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

Guide investments in fleet technology identify routes/services that are not supporting environmental goals

103

ITEM VI-E

21

Project Prioritization Themes for Federal Funds by VC 2.0 Goals

I. Provide safe and reliable multi-modal transportation choices considering the entire trip from origination to destination.

a. Safety/Compliance i. Equipment

ii. Capital Infrastructure 1. Sidewalks, ADA, lighting, shelters, passenger amenities, park and rides,

security etc. 2. Shop equipment

iii. Rolling Stock b. Maintenance

i. Service Quality 1. On Time Performance 2. System Capacity

ii. Asset Management 1. Equipment 2. Capital Infrastructure 3. Rolling Stock

II. Prioritize investments in efficient fixed route service that expands public mobility while leveraging, maximizing and enhancing the utilization of the existing transportation assets and resources.

a. Complete and Enhance the Fixed Route Network i. Expanding frequent network including Bus Rapid Transit and “Best in Class”

ii. Expanding Express services iii. Expanding Secondary services

b. Supporting capital and program concurrent with service investments i. Fleet, bases etc.

ii. Transit Centers iii. Park and Rides iv. Technology and information supports v. Vanpool

vi. Specialized services vii. Shared Ride

III. Ensure comprehensive transportation choices and access that support economic growth and enhanced quality of life for the region.

a. Projects support plans i. ValleyConnect 2.0

ii. Communities in Motion iii. Local Plans

b. Partner readiness i. Financial

ii. Logistical

104

ITEM VI-E


TOPIC: Harvest Transit Update DATE: September 11, 2017 Summary: This memo provides an update on Harvest Transit, a transportation service for seniors and persons with disabilities in the Meridian community. Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff is providing an update to Harvest Transit’s pilot year to the VRT Board of Directors. Highlights:

• Partnerships VRT teamed up with Church of the Harvest to provide lifestyle transportation services for seniors and persons with disabilities in the Meridian community. The City of Meridian has supported the local funding to provide curb-to-curb transportation service 9:00 AM to 3:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.

• Operations With support provided by the City of Meridian, VRT also purchased two (2) new accessible vans to be used in the delivery of services. Each van is ADA compliant and equipped with a rear-entry wheelchair lift and a hydrolic bus style front passenger doors. In FY2018 Harvest Transit staff will be trained on RouteMatch scheduling software and dispatching technology. Integrating this technology with Harvest Transit staff will help improve service and administrative efficiencies.

• Ridership Ridership has grown at a steady pace over the program’s pilot year with 248 rides provided in January to 456 rides in August. VRT’s goal for this program is to provide 550 rides per month. VRT staff will continue to expand the program in FY2018 to pursue this goal.

For detailed information contact: David Pederson, Mobility Coordinator, 208-258-2725, [email protected]

105

ITEM VII-C



TOPIC: Volunteer Driver Fare Changes DATE: September 12, 2017 Summary: The Volunteer Driver program provides transportation services to individuals with mobility needs that fall outside the current fixed route system. In summer 2017, VRT staff conducted a review of the program and identified the need for several program changes. These changes include updates to the current fare structure and apping the mileage reimbursement for program volunteers. The changes are expected to better align program expenses with the comprehensive cost of delivering this service.

• Overview: The Volunteer Driver program has remained largely unchanged since its creation five years ago. In FY17, VRT assigned a Mobility Coordinator to oversee program operations and recruit volunteers. These recruitment strategies have grown the program from five (5) drivers to nine (9) over the last year. Volunteer Driver hours provide in-kind match to secure Federal Transit Funds for operation supports.

• Current fare/reimbursement structure: Fares for the current program consists of a $3 rider fare for each eight (8) mile segment. Volunteers are reimbursed $.54/mile for all travel associated with providing a ride.

• Proposed fare/reimbursement structure: VRT staff is proposing a shift in the fare policy to $5 for the first 12 miles, and an additional $0.50 per every mile over 12 miles. Furthermore, VRT will look to cap volunteer reimbursements at 12 miles for travel to and from a revenue generating trip.

• Comparison with other transportation options: The proposed fare increase will continue to provide an affordable transportation alternative. A similar 12 mile trip would cost approximately $37 in a taxi or $17 in an Uber or LYFT.

Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff is presenting the proposed fare change for the volunteer driver program. Staff will present this as action item at the January 2018 Board meeting. Highlights:

• Next Steps: VRT will bring the proposed fare changes to the public throughout the Fall. Public Outreach activities will include:

o Outreach with current drivers at quarterly driver safety meetings. o Outreach to current riders via a phone survey and written questionnaire.

106

ITEM VII-D

o Proposed changes and feedback forms will be posted on the VRT website and social media outlets.

o VRT issued press release. More Information: Ken Schick, Mobility Coordinator, 208-559-1888, [email protected]

107

ITEM VII-D



TOPIC: Executive Director Report DATE: September 18, 2017 Highlights: Organizational Development The VRT Board adopted the FY2018 budget at the July Board meeting. VRT staff members are finalizing the budget book that will be made available to the public. VRT is making progress on ValleyConnect 2.0. I visited many local jurisdictions this summer to give reports and discuss any questions they have about our funding requests. We will be doing a broader round of outreach to the jurisdictions in the fall when the plan is completed. VRT will be working with local governments to get their acceptance of the ValleyConnect 2.0 plan so they can use it as a tool to help them with their planning and development efforts. I provided a written and verbal report to the Executive Board on the Commuteride Review. The Policy Committee will meet on September 19 to discuss the information and consider making a final recommendation. The Executive Board will be discussing the Review at the September 25 Executive Board meeting and determining if they would like to schedule a Special Meeting of the VRT Board of Directors to consider a recommendation from the Executive Board. Professional Development I was invited this last month to join the United Way of Treasure Valley Board of Directors. I’m very excited about this opportunity. I also attended a three day public transportation summit put on by the Idaho Transportation Department. It was really great to spend a few days with my peers and colleagues from around the state. Community Involvement I attended the following community meetings:

• City of Star City Council meeting • City of Meridian City Council meeting • City of Middleton City Council meeting • Ada County Board of Commissioners meeting • ITD Site Review meeting • ITD Public Transportation Summit • VRT Technology Summit • Central District Health Regional Collaborative Meeting

More information contact: Kelli Badesheim, Executive Director, 208-258-2712, [email protected]

108

ITEM VII-E


700 N. East 2nd Street, Suite 100 • Meridian, ID 83642 • p: 208.846.8547 • f: 208.846.8564 • 1.855.345.7433

TOPIC: Finance and Administration Activity Report DATE: September 8, 2017 Summary This memo provides an update on the accomplishments of the Finance and Administration Department. VRT Strategic Plan Goal 1 – Demonstrate responsible stewardship of public resources. Highlights: Budget/Finance

• July 2017 (Period 9) is now closed. VRT Finance prepared the QR-3 Budget to Actual Variance and Cash Position Reports that will be submitted at the September 25th Executive Board Meeting.

• TrAMS Quarterly Federal Financial Reports (FFR) and Milestone Progress Reports (MPR) have been completed and submitted for all existing grants. The following Grants were submitted for Closeout:

o ID-90-X124 - 11/12 NUZA Ops,PM,ADA,Capital o ID-90-X134 – 13/14 5307 SU NUZA Planning o ID-90-x136 – 13 5307 City of Nampa Bike/Ped Improvements o ID-2016-002-00 13-16 5339 Vehicle Purchase/Rehab, Equip. ITS

• Final review and acceptance of the ten (10) vehicles purchased for Canyon and Ada

Counties is almost complete. These assets were entered into the Fixed Asset Inventory for the July reporting period.

Grant Management

• Triennial Report Corrective Actions are being worked on to make FTA deadlines. • The following applications are at DOL, pending file execution:

o 5307 LU - SU – Preventive Maintenance, Technology, Rolling Stock and HDTC Roof Repair and Replacement. Federal amount - $2,050,000

Procurement • The Procurement Calendar that documents procurements through the remainder of

FY2017 has been updated.

• Recurring Procurements Memorandum has been completed.

• Transit Management Services for both Ada and Canyon County. VRT is now in active negotiations with three prospective Contractors – MV, First Transit and TransDev.

109

ITEM VII-E

• RFP 2017-08-17 Phone System has been evaluated, scored, and ranked. Notice of Intent was sent to DataTel and VRT will be starting negotiations on Tuesday with them.

• Finance, Operations and Development staff are currently working on the following

procurements: o Fire Suppression System & Extinguisher Service o Radio Dispatch and Maintenance o OEM Ford Parts for Ada County System o Fixed Line and Demand Response Transit Vehicles o HDTC Exterior Remodel o City of Middleton Park and Ride o HVAC and CNG System Design & Replacement – Boise o CNG Compressors and Sensors – this contract will be extended o Community Transportation Vehicles o Phone System – Notice of Intent to Award was issued September 8th. o Annunciators – This funding has not been obligated by ITD, presently in review with

FTA.

For More Information: Contact Jim McMahon, Finance Director, (208) 258-2709, or e-mail: [email protected]

110

ITEM VII-E



TOPIC: Development Department Monthly Report DATE: September 14, 2017 Summary: Update of Development Department activities for the month of July/August 2017 VRT Strategic Plan Goal 1 - Demonstrate responsible stewardship of public resources Performance based decision-making

• ValleyConnect 2.0 VRT is working with the Vc2.0 Technical Resource Group (TRG) to begin drafting the plan. We reviewed the plan outline and development schedule. We also identified the need to include a longer range service network and capital vision, along with policy language regarding network design, performance measurement and prioritization. We further reviewed the important supporting role of specialized services and agreed on the primary importance of expanding the fixed route network based on its usefulness to all populations, types of trips, efficiency and cost-effectiveness. We renewed our solicitation for comment on the draft networks and their support of planned development. Next steps will include reviewing capital needs for Vc2.0 individual projects and prioritizations.

• 2040 Public Transportation Plan (COMPASS Lead) This group is now meeting in conjunction with the ValleyConnect 2.0 Technical Resource Group. Performance Measures were reviewed and determined. Performance Measures will be finalized in the next meeting. Rail will be discussed in the next meeting as well.

• National Transit Database Reporting VRT will be reviewing what data is being submitted, what data can be submitted, and who should be submitting the data. VRT will work with ITD on this project.

• Transit Asset Management VRT is working with ACHD Commuteride and Boise State on scoring all public transportation assets within the region. Once the scoring is completed and approved by the VRT Board, targets will be set. Those targets will then be entered in National Transit Database (NTD) and submitted to COMPASS for incorporation into their application prioritization process for alternative transportation projects. A Transit Asset Management Policy will also be forthcoming to the VRT Board for review and approval.

111

ITEM VII-E

• Fare Analysis

No new report.

Increase ridership and revenue • Service Changes

Service Changes o Canyon County - being presented for approval and then incorporate

changes for mid–January implementation.

Goal 3 - Build institutional and regional capacity Technology Improvements

• Asset Management – Phase II – Work Orders VRT and Boise State are utilizing Trapeze to complete scoring of assets for FTA.

Regional Capital Enhancements • Downtown Boise Main Street Station

Staff is being trained on the controls system. The boiler system for the facility is no longer running during the summer months. Project is being closed out.

• Boise Operations Facility Upgrades

HVAC/CNG project is underway. 95% drawings are being reviewed. • Happy Day Transit Center Interior Remodel and Site Improvements

Customer Service is now utilizing the renovated space within the facility. Second Phase of improvements has been scoped and approved by the VRT Directors. Implementation of this project will be in FY18.

• College of Western Idaho Roundabout

Staff is working on the Environmental Document Approval. Design funding cannot be utilized until the NEPA document is complete and approved by the FTA.

• Middleton Park & Ride

Bids were received over the project budget. Project was rebid; bids were presented to Executive Board on August 25, 2017 and approved. Construction will start in the Fall of 2017.

• Emmett Park & Ride

Staff is working with Emmett and Gem County personnel on finalizing plans for Phase II design and construction.

112

ITEM VII-E

• Nampa Transit Orientated Development VRT staff is working with the stakeholders to finalize needs for the project. The original site selected has been contracted with another entity. A second location that was ranked accordingly is being reviewed. 5339 Bus and Bus Facilities grant was submitted for this project.

Other Development Activities

• National Transit Data (NTD) Reporting - FY16 year-end reporting has been closed by NTD.

• Title VI – VRT is updating the Title VI report this year. An update of past items/issues was presented to the RCC in April and a draft was presented to the RCC in June 2017. On 07/10/17, the Executive Board approved the draft update with any recommended changes that may come from FTA. Submission of the Title VI document is due to the FTA in Fall 2017. Final submission will be presented to the VRT Board at the September 25, 2017.

• Budget – No new items to report.

More Information: Rhonda Jalbert, Development Director, 208.258.2707. [email protected]

113

ITEM VII-E



TOPIC: Operations Department Monthly Report DATE: September 13, 2017 Summary: Status update of activities related to Safety, Traditional Transportation Services, Specialized Transportation (mobility), Information Technology, Intelligent Transportation Systems, Customer Service (Rideline), & Coordinated Marketing. Valley Regional Transits Operations Department is responsible for providing support and oversight of the Ada and Canyon County operations, Customer Service “Rideline” Department, Specialized Transportation, Marketing activity; Information Technology & Intelligent Transportation System functions. The Operations Director also serves as the regional Safety Officer responsible for policy development, emergency planning, coordination and implementation of first responder transportation and logistics support. Highlights Safety Management Systems (SMS)

o CTAA training for FTA Safety Management Systems (SMS) certification. The regulation will remain in a holding phase until the determination is made as to whether or not the federal government will fund the proposed ruling. VRT will continue to implement the new best practice standards in accordance with the guidelines.

o Process and flow: Operations Department recently completed an assessment of all responsibilities and task related to each department.

o Performance reviews were completed for operations staff o Carry forward projects: Operations Department is currently in the process of

identifying carry forward dollars associated with capital projects not completed within the fiscal year.

o Air Show Support: Operations and Development Department have been working on developing a support plan for the National Guards Air Show which is scheduled to take place on October 14 & 15, 2017. VRT is working on marketing, planning, and operations

Procurement Activity AVL/GPS: Completed

o Follow the link below to review some of the highlights related to this project: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8ipaYCScyWiT0lob2MxMldwUnc/view?ts=598a382f

Also attached to this report is a VRT-Cradlepoint Case Study Testimonial.

Fare Collection: ETA 9/20/2017 o GFI Fare Boxes estimated time of arrival is September 20, 2017. The VRT

Board agenda in July of 2017 called for an Authorization of Expenditure to delegate authority to the Executive Board to approve the procurement at the August Executive Board meeting; however, it was later discovered the authorization had already been approved earlier in the year by the VRT Board on

114

ITEM VII-E

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8ipaYCScyWiT0lob2MxMldwUnc/view?ts=598a382f

01/09/17 (Resolution VBD17-001) to authorize the Executive Board to approve the procurement. The Executive Board did so on 02/06/17 (Resolution VEB17-001). The oversight was a product of lag time associated with Federal funds being appropriated for the project.

The following procurements are before the VRT Board for approval at the 09/25/17 VRT Board of Directors meeting:

• Fire Suppression System & Extinguisher Service • OEM Ford Parts • Ada County Transit Management Contract • Canyon County Transit Management Contract • Radio Dispatch Equipment & Maintenance • Phone System

Transportation Activities

Ada County • Vehicle Procurements:

• Tire Contract: Completed • Triennial Review: Completed with improved outcome compared to

previous audits in all areas of compliance. One of the notable findings included ADA.

Canyon County System

• Vehicle Procurements • Tire Contract: Completed • Triennial Review: Completed with improved outcome compared to

previous audits in all areas of compliance. One of the notable findings included ADA.

Customer Service

• Restructure: Phone System procurement and training underway. • Staffing new facilities: The Canyon County facility is currently staff during

regular business hours. Mobility Programs

• Coordinated Marketing o Website upgrades are in progress

• TDM Department and supports have been in the process of development. ETA, October 1, 2017

Mobility Operations

• Vehicle Share pool: See mobility update • Service Ridership: • Volunteer Program

o Limited English Proficiency compliance

115

ITEM VII-E

o Operators o Title VI methodology

Information Technology

• New hire James Mundell, IT Administrator • Assess replacement plan for internet coverage • Phone System replacement in progress

Intelligent Transportation Systems • Additional Staffing – Data Base Administrator • Automated Vehicle Announcements • Replacement PEM machines

Attachment: VRT-Cradlepoint Case Study Testimonial More Information: Billy Wingfield, Operations Director, 208.258.2726. [email protected]

116

ITEM VII-E


Case Study / In-Vehicle

SOLUTION:COR SERIES ROUTERS, NETCLOUD MANAGER, CRADLECARE, ZSCALER

APPLICATION:IN-VEHICLE, GPS, WiFi, M2M/IoT, CLOUD MANAGEMENT

MARKET:PUBLIC SECTOR

Metro Transit Agency Keeps Network & GPS Connected for Accurate Real-Time InformationValley Regional Transit in Idaho Boosts Scalability With Comprehensive Cradlepoint Solution

SUMMARY

As the sole public transit provider in Idaho’s Boise Metro Area, Valley Regional Transit no longer could afford intermittent connectivity, inaccurate data from GPS downtime, and technology that could not keep up with the ongoing digital transformation.

Valley Regional Transit future-proofed its operations with a comprehensive solution from Cradlepoint, including ruggedized COR Series in-vehicle routers and NetCloud Manager. Now the agency has constant connectivity, real-time data, and cloud management for streamlined operations, better passenger service, and the ability to scale up for years to come.

CUSTOMER PROFILE

ValleyRide is the transit services division of Valley Regional Transit (VRT), the regional public transportation authority for Ada and Canyon counties in southwest Idaho.

The agency, which spreads 1.3 million trips per year across roughly 60 revenue vehicles, provides fixed-line public transportation services throughout the Boise Metro Area and operates door-to-door paratransit bus services for disabled residents.

BUSINESS NEEDS

Before VRT was introduced to Cradlepoint, the 2G/3G modems in the organization’s fixed-route buses had become a significant problem. Connectivity was routinely lost. Further, if accidentally plugged into the wrong port of a vehicle logic unit (VLU), both the modem and VLU could be ruined—a problem that happened often.

“The biggest obstacle in our bus system was inconsistent connectivity,” said Nick Moran, IT&S administrator.

Each Internet failure prevented the VLU from doing its job, which was to provide GPS/AVL functionality and to communicate with a traffic signal priority (TSP) radio. TSP automatically triggers traffic lights to turn green for buses that are behind schedule.

In Boise, inconsistent connectivity was causing VLUs to send outdated information—instead of trustworthy real-time data—to VRT’s system, which often caused TPS to unnecessarily manipulate traffic lights. Inaccurate information also greatly hindered transit users who depended on VRT’s route tracking web portal.

With a new underground public transportation hub looming, VRT knew its connectivity issues were becoming even more complex. With as many as eight buses underground at any given time, how could the agency ensure reliable GPS access?

The agency also had the future in mind. Its existing solution was not capable of allowing the agency to keep up with the U.S. government’s 10-year IT&S plan for public transit organizations. Further, VRT wanted to begin offering free rider WiFi.

“We needed the best technology to help us move forward,” said Nick Moran, IT&S administrator.

SOLUTION

For the utmost connectivity and flexibility, VRT installed Cradlepoint’s future-proof in-vehicle COR Series routing platform in each bus, with an external antenna mounted on the roof.

©Cradlepoint. All Rights Reserved. | +1.855.813.3385 | cradlepoint.com 2


VRT also is using Cradlepoint’s NetCloud Manager for remote troubleshooting, instant firmware upgrades, and many other benefits.

“It wasn’t just a modem for our buses. It was a comprehensive solution,” said Billy Wingfield, operations director for VRT.

This solution provided the platform capacity to implement initiatives such as vehicle annunciators and automated passenger counters, all of which are in the organization’s five-year IT/IT&S plan.

BENEFITS

ALWAYS-ON CONNECTIVITY

Whether VRT’s buses are in the agency’s under-ground hub or anywhere in Idaho’s Treasure Valley, the IT team and drivers can rely on reliable WAN connectivity.

HIGHLY ACCURATE REAL-TIME DATA

On each bus, a Cradlepoint router is teamed with a multi-zone GPS repeater to ensure uninterrupted vehicle tracking.

“Today the information available to our riders is much more reliable than ever, thanks to our Cradlepoint solution,” said Rhonda Jalbert, VRT’s development director.

LESS TROUBLESHOOTING

Constant WAN connectivity and GPS access improve the accuracy of information provided to riders, which translates into fewer phone calls for VRT’s customer service team to address.

“We had been averaging 9,000 to 10,000 customer service calls per month. With Cradlepoint, that number has fallen by about 25 percent. The difference saves us an entire full-time employee,” said Wingfield.

“Without Cradlepoint, I can’t even imagine what our staff hours would be,” said Jalbert.



“Cradlepoint provided a strong and stable solution to our communication problems. We now have an information system that is both dependable and reliable.” — Kelli Badesheim, Executive Director of VRT



HIGH-QUALITY PASSENGER WIFI

Now VRT adds value to its transit service by offering free passenger WiFi. More than 350 passengers per day are utilizing guest WiFi, and that number is sure to rise as the service becomes more well-known.

“Providing free WIFI on our buses has been a huge hit with our riders,” said Badesheim.

The agency now has opportunities to easily track WiFi usage, customize its splash page, survey its riders, and pursue various marketing options.

REMOTE MONITORING & MANAGEMENT

Through NetCloud Manager, VRT’s IT team, which covers three operations locations as well as

dozens of buses, can troubleshoot and deploy firmware updates remotely.

“Prior to our Cradlepoint solution, we had been pushing out firmware upgrades between midnight and 4 a.m. to avoid disrupting our services. Today, we can instantly update our entire fleet with the click of a button,” said Moran.

SCALABILITY

With the flexibility to think big, VRT is considering implementing fare boxes that enable payment by credit card or phone, along with real-time monitoring of the CCTV system.

EXCEPTIONAL CUSTOMER SUPPORT

VRT benefited from Cradlepoint’s expert engineers during solution deployment and enjoys ongoing support through CradleCare, which provides resources and expertise to keep the network running smoothly.

Learn more: cradlepoint.com/in-vehicle

“There are benefits that we never even imagined.” — Billy Wingfield, VRT Operations Director


TOPIC: Community Projects/Outreach Efforts Update DATE: September 14, 2017 Summary: This memo provides updates on current and future community outreach

efforts, including those related to VRT Strategic Plan goals. VRT Strategic Plan Goal 2 - Build community partnerships/Build advocates for public transportation

• Regional Outreach Toolkit and Speakers Bureau Goal 3 – Build institutional and regional capacity

• Secure and Stable Funding Sources o Public transportation ambassadors and outreach campaign o Coalitions and partnerships

Highlights:

• Communication – The Regional Coordination Council (RCC) is expected to approve a final version of the Public Communication Plan at October 17th RCC meeting. The RCC will also review a draft VRT Social Media Policy and approve a final version at the October RCC meeting.

Miscellaneous: » The startup date for going live with the new Valley Regional Transit website is Monday, September 25th. The new website consolidates four existing websites. In addition to containing VRT administrative information (e.g. Board agendas, projects and studies, procurements), the new website includes comprehensive information about ValleyRide bus services, specialized services, and transportation services available from other providers in the region. The web address is www.valleyregionaltransit.org. Additional work on the website will continue after September 25th. That additional work will focus on providing the public tools to navigate and access the variety of transportation services currently available. » The second round of public open houses on the proposed changes to Valleyride bus service in Caldwell/Nampa and between Ada and Canyon counties were/will be held September 12th and September 19th.

117

ITEM VII-E

http://www.valleyregionaltransit.org/

» I am completing my community relations activities plan for FY2018. The first major project will be completion of an outreach plan, including a speaker’s bureau for ValleyConnect 2.0.

More Information: Mark Carnopis, Community Relations Manager, (208) 258-2702, or [email protected]

118

ITEM VII-E



TOPIC: Bike Share Program DATE: September 7, 2017 VRT Strategic Plan Goal 3 - Build institutional and regional capacity

• Regional Capital Enhancements Highlights: Program Administration

• Twenty-seven official station hubs, 10 of which have kiosks, 26 ‘Flex Hubs’. The

increase in station hubs adds utility to the system and dramatically increases the system’s footprint across the city, making the bikes more available to more people.

• On June 5th Boise GreenBike took delivery of 80 new racks and 16 new sign panels. These assets will add a total of 16 new branded station hubs to the system. All but three of the new station hubs have been installed, most of them in the parks along the Boise River Greenbelt. We are still awaiting site improvements on two station hub locations and trying to identify a third final location for the station slated for Hyde Park.

• As of September 7, 2017 Boise GreenBike has 10,427 active members, who have made 52,687 unique trips since the beginning of the program, covering 123,207 miles and burning 4.9 million calories.

• Boise GreenBike has created new flex hubs at the Handlebar (15th & Main) and across the street from Main Street Station on Main Street in downtown Boise.

• In August, Boise GreenBike purchased 20 used racks and base plate units and two sign panels from Social Bicycles at half the usual retail price. Five of those racks will go to The Watercooler development and another 10 are scheduled to be installed at The Fowler development.

• The Kristin Armstrong bike, which benefits the Kristin Armstrong Youth Scholarship Fund, has been rented about 200 times. Every time the bike is rented a $1 donation goes to the scholarship fund.

Sponsorship Plan

• Title Sponsorship o SelectHealth & St. Luke’s

119

ITEM VII-E

• Station sponsors: o Boise Co-op o Banner Bank (3 stations) o University of Idaho o University of Idaho Law School o CCDC (2 stations) o Bodybuilding.com o Treasure Valley Clean Cities Coalition o ACHD o Harris Ranch o Dutch Bros Coffee o HDR o The Watercooler (Local Construct) o Midas Gold

• Membership Card Sponsorship – sponsorship renewed for 2 more years! o Key Bank

• Helmet Sponsorship o Idaho Power

• We continue to schedule meetings with potential sponsors. • Boise GreenBike is currently renegotiating its title sponsorship and will be

renegotiating station sponsorships in the coming months.

More Information: Dave Fotsch, Boise Bike Share Director, 208-331-9266 (cell), [email protected]

120

ITEM VII-E


table of contents agenda 3 - valley regional transit · 2017-10-10 · table of contents agenda 3...

Documents