Transit Management Committee

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Transit Management Committee"

Transcription

1 MEETING OF THE Transit Management Committee MEETING DATE March 7, 2012 TIME LOCATION 11:00 a.m. Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor Phoenix

2

3 February 29, 2012 TO: FROM: RE: Members of the Valley Metro RPTA Transit Management Committee Steve Banta Chief Executive Officer March 7, 2012 TMC Packet Notes Attached is the March 7, 2012 Transit Management Committee Meeting agenda and supporting information. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 11:00 a.m. and will be held in the Lake Powell Conference Room at 101 N. 1 st Avenue, Suite This meeting can be attended via teleconference. Please contact Rosalia Castro for the call-in information. If you have any questions regarding the information in this packet, please let me know. Parking is available onsite and parking can be accessed via the entrance on Adams Street. Parking validation will be available at the meeting. Transit tickets are also available to those who attend the meeting using transit. If you need detailed directions, please contact the receptionist at Thank you.

4

5 February 29, 2012 Transit Management Committee Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, Suite 1000 Wednesday, March 7, :00 a.m. Action Recommended 1. Public Comment 1. For information An opportunity for general public comment on issues related to Valley Metro RPTA. Up to three (3) minutes will be provided for each speaker. 2. Summary Minutes 2. For action Summary minutes from the February 1, 2012 TMC meeting are presented for approval. 3. Chief Executive Officer Report 3. For information Steve Banta, Chief Executive Officer will brief the TMC on current issues. 4. Consent Agenda 4. For action The TMC will consider items A through D on consent. A. FY 2010/2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Single Audit Act Report A. For action Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, acceptance of the FY 2010/2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Single Audit Act Report. To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at: 1

6 B. Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) for Arizona Avenue and Mesa Main Street LINK Station Maintenance with the cities of Chandler and Mesa and the town of Gilbert B. For action Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute the IGAs with the cities of Mesa and Chandler and the town of Gilbert for LINK station maintenance. C. Intergovernmental Agreements with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grant Reimbursements C. For action Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute the Intergovernmental Agreements with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grant Reimbursements FTA Section 5307 Formula, Surface Transportation Program, New Freedoms, Jobs Access/Reverse Commute and TIGGER. D. FY 2011 Transit Performance Report (TPR) D. For action Staff requests the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, approval of the FY 2011 Transit Performance Report. 5. Acceptance of the Dial-a-Ride Passenger Survey and the Alternative Services for Passengers Survey Reports 5. For acceptance Steve Banta, Chief Executive Officer, will introduce Kathy DeBoer of WestGroup who will present the results for the Diala-Ride and Alternative Services Passenger surveys. 6. Fare Policy Recommendation Steve Banta, Chief Executive Officer, will introduce Mario Diaz, Chief Marketing Officer, who will request the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, approval of the fare policy recommendation: 6. For information and possible action Increase the base fare by $0.25 on July 1, 2012 Revise the fare policy to consider fare changes every three years to maintain the 25% farebox recovery target (requires public involvement and board approval) Maintain the existing pricing rules including adjustments to all related fares (East Valley and Sun City Dial-a-Ride fare (2x To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at: 2

7 local 1-Ride), ASU U-Pass, Platinum Pass, etc.) Eliminate the 3-day pass on July 1, 2012 Introduce a 15-day pass on July 1, 2012 Simplify the rural route fare structure to one-flat fare of $4.00 per one-way trip ($2.00 reduced fare) 7. Legislative Update Bryan Jungwirth, Chief of Staff, will provide an update on current legislative issues. 8. Future TMC Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events 7. For information and possible action 8. For information Chair Maher Hazine will request future TMC agenda items from the TMC members and TMC members may provide a report on current events. 9. Next Meeting 9. For information The next meeting of the TMC is scheduled for April 4, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. Qualified sign language interpreters are available with 72 hours notice. Materials in alternative formats (large print, audiocassette, or computer diskette) are available upon request. For further information, please call Nichole Myers, Valley Metro at or TTY at To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact Rosalia Lopez at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can now be found on our website at: 3

8

9 1

10 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Agenda Item 1 Date February 29, 2012 Subject Public Comment Background An opportunity for general public comment on issues related to Valley Metro RPTA. Up to three (3) minutes will be provided for each speaker. Budget Source None Impacts None Committee Action Process None Recommendation For information only. Contact Person None Attachments None 1

11

12 2

13 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Agenda Item 2 Date February 29, 2012 Subject Summary Minutes from the February 1, 2012 Transit Management Committee Meeting Summary Summary Minutes from the February 1, 2012 Transit Management Committee meeting are presented for review and approval. Fiscal Impact None Considerations None Prior Committee Action None Recommendation Approval of the Summary Minutes from the February 1, 2012 TMC meeting. Contact Person Bryan Jungwirth Acting Executive Director Attachments Summary Minutes from February 1,

14

15 Summary Minutes Valley Metro RPTA Transit Management Committee Wednesday, February 1, 2012 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ Members Present Maher Hazine, City of Peoria, Chair Mike James, City of Mesa, Vice Chair Greg Jordan, City of Tempe, Neal Young, City of Phoenix Kristen Sexton for Rogene Hill, City of Avondale Paul Ward, Town of Buckeye Dan Cook for RJ Zeder, City of Chandler Terry Johnson for Jamsheed Mehta, City of Glendale David Meinhart, City of Scottsdale Dave Kohlbeck, City of Surprise Mitch Wagner, Maricopa County Cato Esquivel, City of Goodyear Ken Maruyama, Town of Gilbert Steve Banta, METRO Lance Calvert, City of El Mirage Chris Hagen, City of Tolleson Members Not Present Mike Normand, ADOT Chairman Maher Hazine called the meeting to order at 11:01 a.m. 1. Public Comment None. 2. Consent Agenda The following items were presented on the consent agenda: A. Summary minutes from January 4, 2012 B. Worker s Compensation and Employer s Liability Insurance Coverage Renewal C. Contract Award for Closed Circuit Televisions (CCTV) Cameras 2

16 D. Congressional Delegation Request for High Priority Project Funding E. Amendments to the IGA with the cities of Mesa, Chandler, and the town of Gilbert for LINK Construction F. Not used G. Request to Issue and Invitation for Bids (IFB) for Vehicle Painting and Graphics Removal H. Contract renewal for Denny Miller Associates I. FY 2011 Transit Performance Report (TPR) Bryan Jungwirth provided the following comments on the consent agenda: Item D Mr. Jungwirth noted that the fact sheet for this item is currently being drafted and reviewed and said it will be sent as part of the Board packet. Item I has been pulled from the agenda for consideration because information in the report is being revised. IT WAS MOVED BY MIKE JAMES, SECONDED BY TERRY JOHNSON AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A THROUGH E AND ITEMS G THROUGH H. (Letter F was not used.) 3. Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals for Fixed Route Service Operations Mr. Jungwirth said the city of Tempe and RPTA staffs have conducted in-depth discussions and research regarding a unified procurement for both RPTA and Tempe fixed route services. In the meeting materials is a copy of the City of Tempe memorandum detailing the concept of a unified fixed route service with RPTA. Jim Wright gave a presentation which included the following: Background Combined Bus Operations RPTA and Tempe Evaluation Team Major Conclusions Strengths and Challenges Project Timeline Recommendation Mr. Wright said staff is requesting authorization to issue a Request for Proposals for a RPTA fixed route contractor and the RFP will request three options of service to be provided: RPTA fixed route service proposal City of Tempe fixed route service proposal o Conditional upon approval of Tempe City Council Unified fixed route service proposal o Conditional upon approval by Tempe City Council 3

17 It will be a long term contract for eight years with two one year options Mr. Wright said the contract award for this service is expected in November 2012 with service beginning July 1, Greg Jordan said the city of Tempe is supportive of this effort and looks forward to reviewing the proposals to determine if savings can be gained from combining the two service contracts. He said the city has been cutting service and staff over that past couple of years to try and maximize the transit service that is provided to its residents. He said Tempe is hoping that combining the contract will result in savings and better transit service. Mike James said the location of the East Valley Facility will reduce deadhead miles and will provide efficiencies for the entire system. Dave Meinhart said he is very interested in this concept. Dan Cook said Chandler is supportive of this effort and it is good to look for improvements. Terry Johnson said it looks like a good deal and a possibility for the future of the service in the West Valley. IT WAS MOVED BY MIKE JAMES, SECONDED BY DAN COOK AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD THIS ITEM TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR CONSIDERATION. 4. Regional Fare Policy Recommendation Mr. Jungwirth said this item was presented for information at the January TMC and Board meetings. He said MAG s Transportation Review Committee (TRC) will be allocating $21 million from CMAQ for bus buys and the funds currently in the TLCP for bus buys may be moved to preventive maintenance. He said new farebox data is being gathered. He also said that the City of Phoenix does have a Fare Ordinance that will be reviewed by the Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee of the Phoenix City Council. He said proposed fare increase goes hand and hand with the Phoenix Ordinance. Mario Diaz gave a presentation that included the following: The planning process Why the proposed fare change Fare pricing in other cities Proposed fare changes Public Input Summary Recommendation Recommended fare structure and pricing rules 4

18 The Alternative Program Schedule Neal Young said Phoenix Transportation and Infrastructure will be reviewing this information next week. They will be looking at issues. The information will then be forwarded to the Phoenix City Council. Mr. Jungwirth said the farebox recovery goal is 25 percent and the current recovery rate is 22.9%. Mr. Meinhart said it has been three years since the last fare increase and the one prior to that was 14 years ago. IT WAS MOVED BY DAVE MEINHART, SECONDED BY GREG JORDAN AND CARRIED TO FORWARD THE FARE POLICY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR CONSDIERATION. PHOENIX AND MESA VOTED NO. 5. Proposed Changes to the Reduced Fare ID Program Scott Wisner provided an updated presentation which included: Recap of Previous Options Direction of TMC in January Two Phase implementation Approach Reduced Fare ID Cards Costs Staff Recommendations Mr. Wisner said the staff recommendation includes increasing the cost of the ID card from $2.50 to $5.00 to help cover the actual cost of the card. He said the recommendation also includes the process for an expedited process for an additional $ Mr. Hazine asked if the person requesting an ID card is in a treatment program for drugs and alcohol and the program is only for 30 days does that person receive the card for a year? Mr. Wisner said the cards will be issued for the amount of days the person is in a certified program. Mr. Meinhart asked if it is the federal mandate that the reduced fare be 50 percent of the full fare? He said the value of the card is enormous and charging more for the card would seem worthwhile. Mr. Wisner said yes. Terry Johnson asked about the length of time the cards are valid. 5

19 Mr. Wisner said the length of time the ID cards are valid on based on the need. If a person is in a treatment program their card would only be valid for the amount of time they are in the approved program. Mr. Young said he would be supportive of the increase to $5.00 but any larger increase may be an issue for individuals with low income or on a fixed income. IT WAS MOVED BY DAVE MEINHART, SECONDED BY DAN COOK AND CARRIED TO APPROVE THE INCREASE TO THE REDUCED FARE ID CARD TO $10.00, REPLACEMENT $5.00 AND EXPEDITED PROCESSING AT $5.00. PHOENIX, MESA, TEMPE, AND GLENDALE VOTED NO. 6. Legislative Update Mr. Jungwirth provided the an update on the following items: State Legislative Transportation Issues - Transportation Projects Advancement Notes (TPANs) Surface Transportation Reauthorization Similarities in the House and Senate Bills Differences in the House and Senate Bills 7. Future TMC Agenda Items Request and Request on Current Events None 8. Executive Director s Report Mr. Jungwirth reviewed the following items: Labor Update MAG Grant Update Ridership information for bus and rail Upcoming events for Business Services Upcoming Board agenda items for March Conference information for local organizations and the Congressional Staff Luncheon Next meetings Mr. Maher said the next meeting of the TMC is scheduled for Wednesday, March 7, 2012 at 11:00 a.m. With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 12:02 p.m. 6

20

21 3

22 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Agenda Item 3 Date February 29, 2012 Subject Chief Executive Officer Report Background Steve Banta, Chief Executive Officer, will provide an update on agency issues. Budget Source None Impacts None Committee Action Process None Recommendation For information only. Contact Person Steve Banta Chief Executive Officer Attachments None 1

23

24 4

25 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Agenda Item 4 Date February 29, 2012 Subject Consent Agenda Background The Transit Management Committee (TMC) will consider items A through D on consent. Budget Source Please refer to individual items for this information. Impacts Please refer to individual items for this information. Committee Action Process Please refer to individual items for this information. Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC approve the items listed on the consent agenda and forward to the Board of Directors for consideration. Contact Person Steve Banta Chief Executive Officer Attachments Consent Agenda Items 1

26

27 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Agenda Item A Date February 29, 2012 Subject FY 2010/11 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and Single Audit Act Report Background Heinfeld, Meech & Co., P.C., Certified Public Accountants, has completed the FY 2010/11 RPTA audits. Completion of the June 30, 2011, financial statement and Single Audit Act audits indicates Valley Metro s compliance with both state and federal statutory audit requirements. Preparation of a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report demonstrates Valley Metro s commitment to the highest standard of financial reporting for a governmental entity. The accompanying report is submitted for review and acceptance. In planning and performing the audit of the financial statements, Heinfeld, Meech & Co., P.C. considered RPTA s internal controls in order to determine auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing opinions on the financial statements and not to provide an opinion on internal controls. During the course of the audit there was one finding and recommendation for internal control improvements with respect to the financial statements and federal reporting for the Schedule of Expenditures of Awards. Audit adjustments were necessary to properly state account balances, transaction classifications, and related disclosures. In addition, incorrect presentation of a program Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number resulted in an understatement of expenditures; as a result, the program cluster was not audited as a major federal program as required in the prior year. The auditor s recommendation was that the Authority must design and implement effective internal control procedures to ensure the financial statements and related notes are complete and free from material misstatements and misclassification. Specifically, the Authority should use checklists to aid in the review of the financial statements and related notes to the financial statements. The Authority s personnel should obtain additional training to increase their understanding of the GAAP basis financial statements as well as the related adjusting entries and reclassifications notated throughout the audit of the Authority s financial statements. Also, controls should include 1

28 a review of the Schedule of Expenditures and Federal Awards to include verification of CFDA numbers. The Authority concurs with this recommendation and will implement a checklist to aid in the review of the financial statements. As budget allows, personnel will obtain ongoing training to increase their understanding of the GAAP basis financial statements. In addition, we have asked the Federal grantee to include in the Intergovernmental agreements verification of CFDA numbers for all future grants. The Authority s total net assets decreased $25.8 million in FY 2011, an increase of $6.9 million in governmental activities and a decrease $32.6 million in business-type activities. Total net assets of the Authority are $90.6 million, of which $67.7 million is unrestricted. Impacts Details are included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Committee Action Process TMC March 7, 2012 for action Board March 22, 2012 for action Recommendation It is recommended the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, acceptance of the FY 2010/11 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and Single Audit Act Report. Contact Person Michael Taylor Acting Director of Finance Attachments Independent Auditor s Report Master Single Audit Section FY 2010/11 Management s Discussion and Analysis 2

29 HEINFELD, MEECH & CO., P.C. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT 25 th Heinfeld, Meech & Co. Anniversary Chair and Members of the Board of Directors Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, the businesstype activities, and each major fund of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (the Authority), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise the Authority s basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Authority s management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and the significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, and each major fund of the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority, as of June 30, 2011, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, thereof and the respective budgetary comparisons for the General Fund and major special revenue funds for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. As described in Note 1, the Authority implemented the provisions of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, for the year ended June 30, 2011, which represents a change in accounting principle. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated February 27, 2012, on our consideration of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in assessing the results of our audit N. Oracle Road, Tucson, Arizona Tel: (520) Fax: (520)

30 Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require that the management s discussion and analysis on pages 3 through 13 be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We have applied certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management s responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our audit of the basic financial statements. We do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence to express an opinion or provide any assurance. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the Authority s financial statements as a whole. The accompanying supplementary information such as the introductory section, individual fund financial schedules, and statistical section are presented for purposes of additional analysis and are not a required part of the financial statements. The individual fund financial schedules are the responsibility of management and were derived from and relate directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the information is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements as a whole. The introductory and statistical sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on them. HEINFELD, MEECH & CO., P.C. Certified Public Accountants February 27, 2012 Page 2

31 HEINFELD, MEECH & CO., P.C. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 25 th Heinfeld, Meech & Co. Anniversary REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS Board of Directors Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, and each major fund of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, which collectively comprise Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated February 27, 2012, which was modified as to consistency because of the implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 54. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Management of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. In planning and performing our audit, we considered Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the preceding paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses and, therefore there can be no assurance that all deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses have been identified. However, as described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs we identified a certain deficiency in internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be a material weakness. Page N. Oracle Road, Tucson, Arizona Tel: (520) Fax: (520)

32 A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. We consider the deficiency described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as item to be a material weakness. Compliance and Other Matters As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s response to the finding identified in our audit is described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. We did not audit Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s response and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the Board of Directors, others within the entity, federal awarding agencies, and pass-through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. HEINFELD, MEECH & CO., P.C. Certified Public Accountants February 27, 2012 Page 93

33 HEINFELD, MEECH & CO., P.C. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 25 th Heinfeld, Meech & Co. Anniversary REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS THAT COULD HAVE A DIRECT AND MATERIAL EFFECT ON EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133 Independent Auditors Report Board of Directors Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Compliance We have audited Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on each of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditors results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to each of its major federal programs is the responsibility of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s compliance with those requirements. In our opinion, Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, Page N. Oracle Road, Tucson, Arizona Tel: (520) Fax: (520)

34 Internal Control Over Compliance Management of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts, and grants applicable to federal programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s internal control over compliance with the requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program to determine the auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s internal control over compliance. A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, and each major fund, of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, and have issued our report thereon dated February 27, 2012, which was modified as to consistency because of the implementation of Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 54. Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority s basic financial statements. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by OMB Circular A-133, and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements. The information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. Page 95

35 This report is intended solely for the information and use of management, the Board of Directors, others within the entity, federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. HEINFELD, MEECH & CO., P.C. Certified Public Accountants February 27, 2012 Page 96

36 VALLEY METRO REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 SUMMARY OF AUDITORS RESULTS Financial Statements Type of auditors report issued: Unqualified Internal control over financial reporting: Material weakness(es) identified? X yes no Significant deficiency(ies) identified? yes X none reported Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? yes X no Federal Awards Internal control over major programs: Material weakness(es) identified? yes X no Significant deficiency(ies) identified? yes X none reported Type of auditors report issued on compliance for major programs: Unqualified Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with section 510(a) of OMB Circular A-133? yes X no Identification of major programs: CFDA Numbers Name of Federal Program or Cluster , Federal Transit Cluster , Transit Services Program Cluster Highway Research and Development Program Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs: $309,919 Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? X yes no Page 97

37 VALLEY METRO REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 FINDINGS RELATED TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS REPORTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS Reference Number: Type of Finding: Material weakness Description: Insufficient internal controls over financial reporting and the schedule of expenditures of federal awards CRITERIA The Authority s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls that include controls for the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) basis financial statements issued by the Authority. The Authority s system of internal controls must extend beyond the general ledger and the supporting schedules prepared by the Authority; rather it must also include controls over the GAAP basis financial statements. In addition, OMB Circular A-133 requires proper presentation of federal awards in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. CONDITION/CONTEXT Management requested outside consultants prepare a draft of the financial statements, including related note disclosures. The outsourcing of these services is not unusual and is a result of management's cost benefit decision to rely on the accounting expertise of the consultants. The Authority's management did not have adequate internal control procedures in place over the financial statements issued by the Authority using the basis of accounting required by GAAP. In addition, the Authority s internal controls over federal reporting for the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards did not include a review process to ensure that Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers are correct. EFFECT Audit adjustments were necessary to properly state account balances, transaction classifications, and related note disclosures. In addition, incorrect presentation of a program CFDA number resulted in an understatement of expenditures; as a result, the program cluster was not audited as a major federal program as required in the prior year. CAUSE The Authority's limited resources contribute to difficulties in establishing controls over financial reporting at the financial statement level. In addition, a clerical error was made on the Schedule of Expenditures and Federal Awards. Page 98

38 VALLEY METRO REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 FINDINGS RELATED TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS REPORTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS (Concl d) Reference Number: RECOMMENDATION The Authority must design and implement effective internal control procedures to ensure the financial statements and related notes are complete and free from material misstatements and misclassification. Specifically, the Authority should use checklists to aid in the review of the financial statements and related notes to the financial statements. The Authority's personnel should obtain additional training to increase their understanding of the GAAP basis financial statements drafted by the consulting firm as well as the related adjusting entries and reclassifications notated throughout the audit of the Authority's financial statements. In addition, the Authority must design and implement effective internal control procedures to ensure the federal reporting and presentation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and related notes are free from material misstatements and misclassification. Such controls should include a review of the Schedule of Expenditures and Federal Awards to include verification of CFDA numbers. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS AND PLANNED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS The Authority concurs with this recommendation and will implement a checklist to aid in the review of the financial statements. As budget allows, personnel will obtain ongoing training to increase their understanding of the GAAP basis financial statements. In addition, we have asked the Federal grantee to include in the Intergovernmental agreements verification of CFDA numbers for all future grants. Page 99

39 VALLEY METRO REGIONAL PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF PRIOR AUDIT FINDINGS YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 Status of Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs Reference Number: Program Name: Federal Transit Cluster CFDA Nos.: , Status: Corrected. Page 100

40

41 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Management s Discussion and Analysis As management of Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (the Authority), we offer this narrative overview and analysis of the financial activities of the Authority for the fiscal year ended June 30, This discussion and analysis is designed to (1) assist the reader in focusing on significant financial issues, (2) provide an overview of the Authority s financial activity, (3) identify changes in the Authority s financial position, (4) identify any material deviations from the financial plan (adopted annual budget) and (5) identify individual fund issues or concerns. Financial Highlights The Authority s total net assets decreased $25.8 million in FY 2011, an increase of $6.9 million in governmental activities and a decrease $32.6 million in business-type activities. Total net assets of the Authority are $90.6 million, of which $67.7 million is unrestricted. The governmental activities revenues increased by approximately $3.7 million (3.5%) over the previous year. The business-type activities revenues decreased by approximately $11.5 million (25%) from the previous year. At June 30, 2011, the Authority s governmental fund balance sheet reported a combined ending fund balance of $52.4 million, an increase of $6.2 million (13.5%) compared to the previous fiscal year. OVERVIEW OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The financial statements are presented as follows: Government-wide reporting presents financial statements on a government-wide basis. Fund financial statements presents governmental, proprietary and fiduciary fund financial statements, with the focus on major funds within each fund type. Measurement focus for governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements all activities, including the governmental activities, are reported using the economic resources measurement focus and accrual basis of accounting. The current financial resources focus and modified accrual basis of accounting are followed for the governmental fund financial statements. Budgetary reporting the display of both the original adopted budget and the revised budget in the budgetary comparison schedules is required by GAAP. These schedules are only required for the general fund and major special revenue funds; these statements are presented as part of the basic financial statements, and the Authority has presented this information for the proprietary funds in the other supplementary information section as additional information. Required narrative analysis the financial statements are required to be accompanied by narrative introduction and analytical overview of the government s financial activities in the form of Management s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). 1

42 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Management s Discussion and Analysis (Continued) As presented below, the financial section of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the Authority consists of this discussion and analysis, the basic financial statements and required supplementary information (other than MD&A). There are also additional non-required supplementary schedules presented after the basic financial statements. The basic financial statements include the government-wide financial statements, fund financial statements, including the budgetary statements for the general fund and major special revenue funds, and notes to the financial statements. Government-wide Financial Statements The government-wide financial statements (see pages 14 16) are designed to provide a broad overview of the Authority s finances in a manner similar to those used by private businesses. All of the activities of the Authority, except those of a fiduciary nature, are included in these statements. The activities of the Authority are broken down into two columns on these statements governmental activities and business-type activities. A total column for the Authority is also provided. The governmental activities include the basic services of the Authority including general government (administration), regional planning, transportation demand management and regional customer services. Grants and general revenues generally support these activities. The business-type activities include the private sector type activities which are transit service operations and light rail transit. These activities are partially supported by user charges and provide substantial benefits, both direct and indirect, to the public at large. The statement of net assets presents information on all of the Authority s assets and liabilities, both current and noncurrent, with the difference between the two reported as net assets. The focus on net assets is designed to be similar to the emphasis for businesses. Over time, increases or decreases in net assets may serve as a useful indicator of whether the financial position of the Authority is improving or deteriorating. To assess the overall health of the 2

43 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Management s Discussion and Analysis (Continued) Authority, other indicators, including non-financial indicators like the Authority s tax base and the condition of its capital assets, should also be considered. The statement of activities presents information showing how the Authority s net assets changed over the most recent fiscal year. Since full accrual accounting is used for the government-wide financial statements, all changes to net assets are reported at the time that the underlying event giving rise to the change occurs, regardless of the timing of the related cash flows. This statement also focuses on both the gross and net costs of the various functions of the Authority, based only on direct functional revenues and expenses. This is designed to show the extent to which the various functions depend on general taxes and revenues for support. Fund Financial Statements Also presented are more traditional fund financial statements for governmental funds, proprietary funds and fiduciary funds. A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or conditions. Funds are used to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements as well as for managerial control to demonstrate fiduciary responsibility over the assets of the Authority. Governmental funds Governmental funds are used to account for most of the Authority s basic services. Unlike the governmental activities column on the government-wide financial statement, these fund financial statements (pages 17-18) focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information is useful in looking at the Authority s near-term financial requirements. Since the governmental activities on the statements focus on near-term spendable resources, while the governmental activities on the government-wide financial statements have a longer term focus, a reconciliation of the differences between the two statements is provided following the fund financial statements and is also provided in Note 2 (pages 38-39). Proprietary funds Proprietary funds are used to account for business-type activities of the Authority. Enterprise funds are used for activities that primarily serve customers outside the governmental unit. The proprietary fund financial statements (pages 23-25) are prepared using the same long-term focus as the government-wide financial statements. The enterprise funds generally provide information similar to the business-type activities column of the government-wide financial statements, but provide more detail and additional information (i.e., cash flows). Fiduciary funds Fiduciary funds are used to account for resources held for the benefit of others. Fiduciary funds are not included in the government-wide financial statements because the resources of those funds are not available to support programs of the Authority. The fiduciary fund statement (page 26) is prepared on the same basis as the government-wide and proprietary fund statements. Notes to the Financial Statements The notes to the financial statements (pages 28 50) provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements and should be read with the financial statements. 3

44 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Management s Discussion and Analysis (Continued) Required supplementary information other than MD&A Governments have an option of including the budgetary comparison statements of the general fund and major special revenue funds as either part of the fund financial statements within the basic financial statements, or as required supplementary information after the footnotes. The Authority has chosen to present these budgetary statements as part of the basic financial statements. GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS The following tables and analysis discuss the financial position and changes to the financial position for the Authority as a whole as of and for the year ended June 30, 2011, with comparative information for the previous year. Net Assets Net assets may serve over time as a useful indicator of a government s financial position. The following table reflects the condensed Statement of Net Assets as of June 30, 2011 compared to the prior year: Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total Primary Government Percent Change Current and other assets $ 53,235.3 $ 46,808.8 $ 43,424.5 $ 37,341.4 $ 96,659.8 $ 84, % Noncurrent assets Cash and cash equivalents , , , , % Deferred charges % Capital assets 1, , , , , % Total assets $ 54,581.9 $ 47,498.6 $ 170,842.8 $ 214,985.5 $ 225,424.7 $ 262, % Other liabilities $ 1,486.5 $ $ 29,948.1 $ 38,262.1 $ 31,434.6 $ 38, % Long-term liabilities , , , , % Total liabilities $ 1,733.7 $ 1,521.7 $ 133,109.9 $ 144,610.5 $ 134,843.6 $ 146, % Net assets: Invested in capital assets, net of related debt $ 1,346.6 $ $ 21,322.7 $ 106,601.8 $ 22,669.3 $ 107, % Restricted % Unrestricted 51, , ,410.2 (36,226.8) 67, , % Total net assets $ 52,848.2 $ 45,976.9 $ 37,732.9 $ 70,375.0 $ 90,581.1 $ 116, % The Authority s total net assets decreased $25.8 million in FY 2011, an increase of $6.9 million in governmental activities and a decrease of $32.6 million in business-type activities. Total net assets of the Authority are $90.6 million, of which $67.7 million is unrestricted. 4

45 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Management s Discussion and Analysis (Continued) A portion of net assets (25.0%) represents the Authority s investment in capital assets net of accumulated depreciation and related outstanding debt used to acquire those assets. The Authority uses these capital assets to provide services to the region s citizens; consequently, it is not the Authority s intention to sell these assets, and they are therefore not available for future spending. The capital assets are reported net of related debt; as discussed in the Capital Assets and Debt Administration section (pages 11-12). The Authority pledged future transportation excise tax revenues to repay the outstanding debt obligations. The capital assets themselves are not intended to be used to liquidate these liabilities. An additional 0.2% ($0.2 million) of the Authority s net assets reflects resources that are subject to external restrictions, of which the majority is restricted for compensated absences. The remaining 74.8% ($67.7 million) represents unrestricted resources that may be used to meet the Authority s ongoing obligations to citizens, member agencies, contractors and creditors within the respective governmental and business-type activities. The governmental activities reported an increase of $6.0 million (13.3%) of unrestricted net assets over the prior year largely attributed to an increase in the interfund balance relating to short-term loans to cover temporary cash deficits in the Transit Service Operations Fund. The significant increase of $47.0 million (129.9%) of unrestricted net assets over the prior year in business-type activities is significantly due to the change in classification of the invested in capital assets net of related debt to accurately report net assets from capital purchases net of the 2009 bond issuance. Changes in Net Assets The following table compares the revenues and expenses of the Authority for the current and previous fiscal year. The increase (decrease) in net assets for each year represents the extent to which revenues were over (under) expenses during the year. (Remainder of this page intentionally left blank) 5

46 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Management s Discussion and Analysis (Continued) Governmental Activities Changes in Net Assets Fiscal year ended June 30 (in thousands of dollars) Business-type Activities Total Pimary Government Percent Change REVENUES Program revenues: Charges for services $ $ $ 23,374.8 $ 27,253.1 $ 23,563.8 $ 27, % Operating grants and contributions 2, , , , , , % Capital grants and contributions - - 8, , , , % General revenues: Sales taxes 107, , , , % Interest earnings % Other % Total revenues 109, , , , , , % EXPENSES Governmental activities: Regional planning 2, , , , % Transportation demand management 1, , , , % Regional customer services 7, , , , % Administration 1, , , , % Business-type activities: Transit service operations , , ,337 93, % Light rail transit , , ,140 60, % Total expenses 13, , , , , , % Excess (deficit) before transfers 96, ,227.2 (121,892.0) (107,683.2) (25,770.5) (15,456.0) 66.7% Transfers in (out) (89,250.2) (84,745.3) 89, , N/A Increase (decrease) in net assets $ 6,871.3 $ 7,481.9 $ (32,641.8) $ (22,937.9) $ (25,770.5) $ (15,456.0) 66.7% The largest financing source for the Authority as a whole is sales taxes (74.1%). The major funding sources of governmental activities are sales taxes (97.5%) and federal and state grants (2.1%). The major funding source for business-type activities are charges for services (67.6%) and transfers from the government activities (72.1%). Business-type activities also received substantial federal grants and contribution revenue (8.4%). The Authority s overall revenues decreased by $7.8 million, or 5.1%, compared to last fiscal year. Total revenues of governmental activities increased by $3.7 million, or 3.5% over the previous year mainly due to the sales tax revenues in the Public Transportation Fund. Program revenues of business-type activities decreased by $11.5 million, or 25%, compared to last fiscal year, which is largely attributable to decreases in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) capital grants. The Authority s sales tax revenue over the prior year is limited to incorporating those elements necessary for implementing the sixth year of the Proposition 400 Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP). The Public Transportation Fund (PTF) revenues are restricted to the implementation of the transit element of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The laws pertaining to Regional Area Road Fund (RARF) revenues have changed beginning with FY Most notably, as a result of changes in the distribution of funds made by House Bill 2292, the amount of money that the Authority received previously has been divided in two, with one half going to the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG). Additionally, the allowable use of these funds has changed as well. Previously, RARF was unrestricted as to use. However, RARF revenue is now limited to fund administration in the General Fund and planning and is no longer available to fund transit services. 6

47 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Management s Discussion and Analysis (Continued) The largest user of resources for the Authority as a whole is the business-type activities (91.9%). For the governmental activities, the users of resources are regional customer services (58.0%), administration (14.3%), regional planning (16.5%), and transportation demand management (11.2%). Overall expenses increased by $2.5 million, or 1.5%, compared to last fiscal year. The governmental expenses decreased by $ 0.2 million, or 1.6%, over the prior year due to conservative spending practices. The expenses of business-type activities increased by $2.7 million, or 1.8%, compared to the prior year due to increase of disbursements in the Valley Metro Rail Fund. The increases in the business-type activities expenses were adhered to plan as the Authority entered its fourth year of implementing the Proposition 400 TLCP. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS OF THE AUTHORITY S FUNDS As previously mentioned, the Authority maintains fund accounting to demonstrate compliance with budgetary and legal requirements. The following is a brief discussion of financial highlights from the fund financial statements. Governmental Funds The focus of the governmental funds financial statements (pages 17 22) is to provide information on near-term inflows, outflows and balances of spendable resources. The fund balance of the governmental funds is $52.3 million, an increase of $6.2 million, or 13.5%, from the previous year. Of the $52.4 million total fund balance, the Authority has restricted $0.8 million for compensated absences and the remainder is in unassigned fund balance in the General Fund (see Note 5 - page 42). Unassigned fund balance may serve as a useful indicator of a government s net resources available for spending at the end of the year. Of the $52.4 million fund balance, $52.2 million is reported in the General Fund which includes $47.6 million of Public Transportation Funds. With the implementation of GASB Statement No. 54, the General Fund includes the Public Transportation Fund, the Regional Customer Service and the Capital and Other Grants Funds. Previously the Public Transportation Fund was shown separately and the Regional Customer Service Fund and the Capital and Other Grants Funds were part of the non major government funds. The Public Transportation Fund was a fund developed in FY 2006 for activities relating to the first year of Proposition 400 Public Transportation Fund (PTF) sales tax revenues. The $102.7 million PTF sales tax revenue increased by $3.3 million from the last year. The Regional Customer Services Fund accounts for activities related to marketing, customer services, Americans with Disabilities (ADA) compliance, contract maintenance and quality monitoring, and farebox data reporting for the region. It provides information and customer service for the region through its centralized transit information call center. The Capital and Other Grants Fund accounts for state and federal grant revenues and expenditures not related to planning, transportation demand management or regional customer services. 7

48 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Management s Discussion and Analysis (Continued) The Transit Planning Fund accounts for activities related to the development of strategies to promote social and economic well-being of the community through the provision of an efficient and effective regional transit system. Revenues increased $0.6 million (254.1%) due to the increase of $.4 million in Federal grants and $.2 million in charges for services to Valley Metro Rail to complete an Origins & Destinations study. The expenditures increased 24.8% from the prior year due to an increase in short range planning and to complete an Origins and Destinations study. Prior to 2006, sales taxes allocated to the Transit Planning Fund were shown as revenues. These monies are now shown as transfers in. Total transfers in decreased 9.5% over the prior year. The Transportation Demand Management Fund accounts for activities related to the countywide ridesharing program, trip reduction program and clean air campaign. Revenues decreased 16.0% and expenditures decreased 14.7% from the prior year due to decreases in grant funds available for regional rideshare, telework and bike education programs. Proprietary Funds The proprietary fund financial statements (pages 23 25) are prepared on the same accounting basis and measurement focus as the government-wide financial statements, but provide additional detail since each enterprise fund is a major fund and is shown discretely on the fund statements. The Transit Service Operations Fund accounts for the activities related to the operations of local and express bus, paratransit and vanpool services for the region. Net assets decreased $35.6 million (58%) over the prior year due mainly to increases in transfers out to Valley Metro Rail for bond proceeds, decreases in Federal grants, and reduction in bus service. The Valley Metro Rail Fund accounts for staffing and administrative services that are contractually provided by the Authority to Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (VMR) and the PTF sales tax revenues and expenses of such funds related to the Regional Transportation Plan approved light rail projects. Valley Metro Rail, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation organized for the purpose of planning, designing, constructing and operating the light rail transit project in metropolitan Phoenix (see Note 1(a) on page 28). The Valley Metro Rail Fund has net assets of $12.0 million as of June 30, 2011 as compared to net assets of $9.0 million at the end of the previous year. In fiscal year 2011, the Valley Metro Rail Fund received 42.4% of the total PTF sales tax revenues distributed to the Authority from the Arizona Department of Revenue, totaling $40.8 million and received 11.3% of the $4.4 million RARF sales tax revenue received by the Authority, totaling $0.5 million. Additionally, the Valley Metro Rail Fund received $19.5 million of transfers in of 2009 Bond proceeds from the Transit Service Operations Fund for VMR capital expenditure reimbursements. GENERAL FUND BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS During the year there was a decrease $0.2 million in appropriations between the original and final amended expenditure budget. For the year ended June 30, 2011, actual expenditures were under the adopted budget amounts by $0.5 million. The positive variance was attributable to the Marketing and Finance & Management Services activities of the General Fund being under budget because of conservative spending practices. 8

49 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Management s Discussion and Analysis (Continued) CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEBT ADMINISTRATION Capital Assets As of June 30, 2011, the Authority had $94.6 million invested in various capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation, for its governmental and business-type activities. The overall net decrease in the Authority s capital assets for the current fiscal year was 13.2%, an increase 95.2% for governmental activities and a decrease of 13.8% for business-type activities for the current year. Major capital asset events in the current year attributing to the decrease included the following: Depreciation expense in the current year totaled $11.7 million, $0.5 million for governmental activities capital assets and $11.2 million for business type capital assets. Projects that had been recorded as work in process in the prior year were completed and subsequently conveyed to various member cities. This decreased the capital assets in total by $7.6 million. The following table provides a breakdown of capital assets of the Authority at June 30, 2011 with comparative information for the previous year. Additional information on the Authority s capital assets may be found in Note 7 on pages Capital Assets, Net of Accumulated Depreciation As of June 30 (in thousands of dollars) Governmental Activities Business-type Activities Total Primary Government Percent Change Non-depreciable assets: Land $ - $ - $ 5,292.0 $ 5,292.0 $ 5,292 $ 5, % Work-in-progress - - 2, , ,719 13, % Depreciable assets: Transit fleet , , ,411 65, % Building , , ,517 12, % Site improvements , , , , % Computers & software % Equipment , , , , % Vehicles (0) (0.0) % Furniture & fixtures % Total assets $ 1,346.6 $ $ 93,285.7 $ 108,271.0 $ 94,632.3 $ 108, % Debt Administration At June 30, 2011, the Authority had total bonded debt outstanding (including unamortized premium) of $105.1 million related to business-type activities. The Authority has pledged future transportation excise tax revenues to repay this outstanding debt. 9

50 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Management s Discussion and Analysis (Continued) Business-type Activities Revenue bonds payable $ $ Plus unamortized premium: Bond premium payable Total $ $ The Authority s current bond ratings on transportation excise revenue tax bonds are AA+ from Standard & Poor s and AA+ from Fitch. Additional information on the Authority s bonded debt and other long-term liabilities can be found in Note 9 on pages ECONOMIC FACTORS RPTA undertook a number of key projects during FY 2011, as the agency continues the implementation of the TLCP operating and capital projects. Funding for these projects and studies comes from a combination of sales tax revenues (Public Transportation Funds [PTF] and Regional Area Road Funds [RARF]) and federal grants. The key initiatives for fiscal year 2011 included: Opening of the Valley Metro Mobility Center with a transit walk offering in-person Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) assessments for the first time in the Valley. Start-up of Route 184, offering bus service to Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport, as well as public transportation for the first time south of Superstition Springs Mall on Power Road. New LINK bus route began on Arizona Avenue and Country Club Drive allowing a direct public transit link to METRO light rail from Chandler and Gilbert. Developed a new model for providing ADA Dial-a-Ride service in the West Valley utilizing a partnership with Discount Cab. For the first time ever, provided bus service to the Gila River Indian Community. Enhanced the mobile website and began using bar codes for enhanced communication to passengers. Kicked off the NextRide program to assist passengers with getting automated next bus and train information using a cell phone or the internet. Implemented the Interactive Voice Response system for East Valley Dial-a-Ride service making it easier for passengers to check on the status of upcoming trips or cancel trips. A real time bus tracker was initiated for the LINK bus routes, which is available at the station or by using the internet or a cell phone to see the exact location of a bus in real time. 10

51 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Management s Discussion and Analysis (Continued) The adopted FY 2012 combined operating and capital budget is $233.1 million (up approximately 4% from fiscal year 2011). The FY 2012 budget includes the sixth full year of projects funded with Proposition 400 PTF sales tax revenues ($103.4 million). Of the $103.4 million PTF revenue budgeted, $58.7 million is for bus operating and bus capital and $44.7 million is for light rail/high capacity capital. The total operating budget of $84.7 million represents a $563,000 (1%) decrease under the fiscal year 2011 operating budget of $85.3 million. The total capital budget of $148.4 million represents an $8.7 million (6%) increase over the fiscal year 2011 capital budget of $139.7 million. The major reason for the decrease in the operating budget is directly related to the projects programmed in the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) for fiscal year The budget is balanced; decreases in net assets other than capital assets are not anticipated for fiscal year FINANCIAL CONTACT The financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the Authority s finances and to demonstrate accountability for the use of public funds. Questions about any of the information provided in this report, or requests for additional financial information should be addressed to the Authority s Acting Finance Director, Valley Metro RPTA, 101 N. 1 st Avenue, Suite 1100, Phoenix, AZ

52 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Agenda Item B Date February 29, 2012 Subject Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) for Arizona Avenue and Mesa Main Street LINK Station maintenance with the communities of Chandler, Gilbert and Mesa Background The Arizona Avenue/Country Club LINK and the Mesa Main LINK are Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) projects that were approved by voters as part of Proposition 400. The Mesa Main Street LINK Bus Rapid Transit route is approximately 13 miles long connecting Superstition Springs Transit Center to the Sycamore Light Rail Transit (LRT) Center in the City of Mesa. The Arizona Avenue/Country Club LINK Bus Rapid Transit route is approximately 12 miles long with termini at Chandler Park and Ride on Germann Road in the City of Chandler and the Sycamore Transit Station in west Mesa. The design and construction costs for the Main Street LINK were funded 100% with Public Transportation Funds (PTF) under the Regional Transportation Plan. The design costs for the Arizona Avenue/ Country Club LINK route were funded by PTF under the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) while the construction costs were funded through an American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant from the Federal Transit Administration. RPTA continues to serve as the lead agency in the design and construction of BRT capital improvements. The IGAs that currently exist with each of the affected municipalities regarding design and construction of the BRT will expire when the projects are complete. The LINK station maintenance IGA with each of the three municipalities will be in effect immediately following project completion and acceptance. The maintenance IGAs with each of the three member agencies delinates the responsibilities of the cities/town as well as RPTA with regard to the ongoing maintenance of the various elements of the BRT routes including but not limited to: cleaning and maintenance of the LINK stations maintenance of traffic signal proirty infrastructure maintenance and cash collection of fare vending machines 1

53 maintenance of closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras maintenance of dynamic message signs (DMS) and associated audio announcement equipment as well as power and telecommunications infrastructure associated with the LINK stations and the LINK bus fleet. Fiscal Impacts Maintenance responsibilities of RPTA and the affected municipalities will incur ongoing operating costs which will be reflected in the annual budgets of RPTA and the affected municipalities. Costs associated with RPTA maintenance responsibilities associated with the LINK service will be billed through the service rate for these two routes. Considerations If the Intergovernmental Agreements are not approved, RPTA may not be in full compliance with FTA grant requirements and could be subject to Federal Transit Administration (FTA) audit findings. Non-compliance could potentially impact current grant reimbursements. Committee Action Process RTAG February 21, 2012 for review TMC March 7, 2012 for action Board March, 2012 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the Transit Management Committee forward to the Board of Directors a recommendation to authorize the Chief Executive Officer to execute the IGAs. Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Director of Planning Attachments The IGAs are available upon request. 2

54 Date February 29, 2012 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Agenda Item C Subject Intergovernmental Agreements with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grant Reimbursements Grant AZ-90-X Formula, Grant AZ-95-X009 Surface Transportation Program, Grant AZ-57-X013 New Freedoms, Grant AZ-37-X014 Jobs Access/Reverse Commute, and Grant AZ TIGGER Summary RPTA, as the lead agency, is being provided FTA funding in the following grants: AZ-90-X109 $25,116,226 Formula funds/$5,535,905 local match for bus purchases and preventive maintenance. AZ-95-X009 - $2,133,904 Surface Transportation Program funds/$37,118 for vanpool replacements and preventive maintenance. AZ-57-X013 - $539,500 New Freedoms funding/$515,500 local match for electronic fare processing system and operating assistance for the East Valley Alternative Transportation Program. AZ-37-X014 - $120,000 Job Access/Reverse Commute funds/$120,000 local match for operating assistance on Route 184 (Power Road). AZ $1,349,715 TIGGER funds/$374,229 local match for electric fan retrofit of 70 buses. The City of Phoenix is the designated recipient for all Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant funds for the region. Agencies region-wide undertake projects approved for FTA grant funding. Agencies then submit requests to Phoenix for reimbursement of actual expenses incurred and then Phoenix executes drawdown of funds from FTA to pass-through reimbursement to agencies for their expenses. At this time, RPTA requires authorization to enter into Intergovernmental Agreements with the City of Phoenix to allow the City to reimburse RPTA for expenditures against the approved projects. 1

55 Fiscal Impact The RPTA is reimbursed the federal share of expenses by the City of Phoenix for projects undertaken as listed in the approved grant. The reimbursements approved in this grant are funded with FTA funds. Local match is in the current approved FY2011/2012 budget for some of the New Freedoms funding and for bus purchases for the City of Tempe, and for preventive maintenance. Local match for the remaining projects will be included in the agency s FY2012/2013 budget. It is anticipated that reimbursements will not exceed the approved budgeted amounts. Considerations Without approved agreements, Phoenix cannot reimburse federal funds to RPTA for any expenses covered by the grants and RPTA would need to use other funds for the project or not undertake the services provided and will be offered in the FY 13 budget. These projects are in the RPTA Operating and Capital Budgets. Prior Committee Action TMC March 7, for action Board March 22, for action Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, authorization for the Chief Executive Officer to execute Intergovernmental Agreements with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grant Reimbursements. Contact Person Bob Antila Senior Management Analyst Attachments Copies of the draft IGAs with the City of Phoenix are available upon request.

56 Date February 29, 2012 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Subject FY 2011 Transit Performance Report (TPR) Agenda Item D Background The Transit Performance Report (TPR) is updated annually using data provided by our member agencies and the Valley Metro Regional Ridership Report. In previous years, performance targets that were developed as part of the Service Effectiveness and Efficiency Study were updated using inflationary factors. This resulted in a large gap between the inflated targets and actual performance. Given the ongoing discussions on how to appropriately update the performance targets, the draft FY 2011 TPR does not include performance targets. For the FY 2011 TPR, some reporting cities have changed their methodology used in accounting for and reporting transit performance data. As a result, some financial measures are not directly comparable to previous years data. Where this is the case, explanatory footnotes have been included with the tables and graphs. The report also distinguishes between all service and PTF funded service. Where PTF funded service is addressed, system level data such as fare recovery rates are only for PTF funded service and not for all service. Where all service is being reported, system level data will reflect both PTF and non-ptf funded service. Budget Source Funding for staff to develop this report is in the adopted FY Operating and Capital Budget (project 3315) and is paid by Regional Area Road Funds and MAG/FTA Section 5303 fudning. Impacts This report is a tool used in the five-year State performance audit process required under Proposition 400. The report also provides member agencies with service performance by mode that can be utilized to improve operational efficiencies of the various transit modes.

57 Recommendation It is recommended the TMC forward to the Board of Directors for consideration, approval of the FY 2011 TPR as well as any additional or corrected data that becomes available prior to the final Board adoption. Said additional or corrected data will be included in the draft as it is reported to the Board. Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Director of Planning Attachments FY 2011 TPR

58 V a l l e y M e t r o Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) valleymetro.org RPT1568

59 Issued: january 2012 Transit Performance Report The Transit Performance Report (TPR) is prepared and updated annually by Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA). This report is developed using input from, and reviewed by, member agencies and the RPTA committees and governing board. The TPR serves as input to the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) updates and to RPTA s new Short Range Transit Plan. This year s report reflects many changes based on recommendations from our member agencies. One such change is the methodology for updating performance targets. Because this discussion is ongoing, targets have been left out of this report. Our member agencies also suggested breaking down fixed route service by the jurisdiction operated in. For example local Route 3-Van Buren provides service in the communities of Phoenix, Avondale and Tolleson. Reports 4a through 4c found in the appendix have been reformatted to indicate not only which entity is operating the service but also where the service was operated. This year s report layout has been reformatted to provide more information. Transit service in the region is made possible and supported by multiple funding sources including local city taxes. This report reflects data as reported to RPTA by local operating agencies. Highlights From FY 2010 to 2011: System wide ridership decreased slightly (down 0.20%) Ridership on light rail increased by approximately 5.6% or 680,000 Subsidy per boarding (operating cost minus fare revenue) system wide increased by over 5%. Boardings per revenue mile for fixed route increased by over 10%. This reflects the elimination of less productive routes and route segments. Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 2

60 System Summary FY 2011 Performance Indicator Proposition 400 Fixed Route Level Fixed- Route Paratransit Vanpool Light Rail System Total % Change from FY 2010 Farebox Recovery 21.7% 22.3% 7.1% 100.8% 33% 22.8% -2.18% Operating Cost Per Boarding $4.37 $3.73 $36.11 $2.98 $2.42 $ % Subsidy Per Boarding $3.42 $2.90 $33.56 $0.00 $1.62 $ % Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile $5.51 $6.92 $4.50 $0.60 $12.90 $ % Average Fare $0.95 $0.83 $2.55 $3.00 $0.80 $ % Total Boardings 7,782,061 54,814, ,833 1,054,315 12,793,529 69,462, % Percent of Total Boardings 11.21% 78.91% 1.15% 1.51% 18.42% Boardings Per Revenue Mile % information Notes: For segments of fixed route service funded by Proposition 400 or Public Transportation Fund (PTF), net operating cost is the same as the amount of PTF used for that segment. Operating costs for fixed route service includes circulator routes. Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 3

61 2011 YEAR IN REVIEW Goodyear Park & Ride The Goodyear park-and-ride was introduced to the regional transit system in December 2010 providing a place for Express route 562 riders to catch the bus as well as serving as a meeting place for carpools and vanpools. Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 4

62 Cost Efficiency and service Effectiveness Performance Results Proposition 400 Bus (Fixed-Route) Several of these indicators for Proposition 400 funded service differ from what is experienced with general fixed-route service. This may be explained in part by the newness of Proposition 400 funded service which may take time to mature and build ridership and also by the fact that Proposition 400 funding is more likely to be used in areas outside of the urban core. In FY 2011, boardings for PTF segments consisted of 14.20% of all fixed route service compared to only 11.65% in FY Please see Report 3A in the Appendix for more details. Farebox Recovery Ratio 21.7% of operating costs on segments funded by Proposition 400 were covered by fare revenue. This recovery rate is slightly less when compared to 22.3 % for all fixed route service. 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 0% 17.9% 2009 Subsidy Per Boarding $8.00 $7.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 $ % 2010 $ % 2011 $ Operating Cost Per Boarding $8.00 $7.00 $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 $4.49 $ Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile Proposition 400 funded service cost $1.41 less per mile when compared to all fixed route service ($5.51 per revenue mile for Proposition 400 funded service and $6.92 per revenue mile for all fixed route service.) $6.00 $5.00 $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 $0.00 $ $ $5.51 $ information Note: City of Phoenix began a new contract for fixed route service on July 1, Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 5

63 Cost Efficiency and service Effectiveness Performance Results Proposition 400 Bus (Fixed-Route) Average Fare Compared to all fixed route service, the average fare was more than for Proposition 400 funded service ($0.95 for Proposition 400 funded service and $0.83 for all fixed route service). $1.25 $1.00 $0.80 $1.03 $0.95 $0.75 $0.50 $0.25 $0.00 Target $0.69 (Proposed 2010) Boardings Per Revenue Mile Boardings per revenue mile increased slightly for Proposition 400 funded service from the previous fiscal year. However, when compared to all fixed route service, Proposition 400 funded service had fewer boardings per revenue mile (1.86 boarding per revenue mile for fixed route service and 1.26 for Proposition 400 funded service) Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 6

64 2011 YEAR IN REVIEW NextRide - New Innovative Service NextRide was launched. NextRide is an innovative new service giving transit riders instant access to bus and train arrival times using cell phones and the Internet. Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 7

65 Cost Efficiency and service Effectiveness Performance Results Bus (Fixed-Route, System-Wide) Includes Local, Circulator, Express, LINK, RAPID, and Rural Routes Farebox Recovery Ratio For all fixed route (all modes), farebox recovery. Operating Cost Per Boarding ALERT TRANSIT SERVICE CHANGES Service Reduction Circulator routes - ALEX, MARY and SMART 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% $5.00 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.50 $3.00 $3.50 $ % $2.00 Route eliminations Express routes - 536, 570, 572, 576, 582 and 590 Circulator routes - Dash-Downtown Loop, DART, Deer Run, Flash to University Local routes - 29A and 32 30% 20% 10% 0% 22.3% 2009 Subsidy Per Boarding 24.1% % 2011 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $ Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile Fix route service reduced revenue miles by over 10% or by 3.4 million miles. New Routes Arizona LINK and 184-Power Road and Route 3A incorporated into Route 3 $3.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $2.33 $2.66 $2.90 $7.00 $6.50 $6.00 $5.50 $5.00 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $6.06 $5.90 $6.92 $1.00 $3.00 $2.50 Please see reports 4a - 4c in the Appendix for more details. $0.50 $ $2.00 $1.50 $0.50 $ Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 8

66 Cost Efficiency and service Effectiveness Performance Results Bus (Fixed-Route, System-Wide) Includes Local, Circulator, Express, LINK, RAPID, and Rural Routes Average Fare Fixed route average fare increased by 2.6%. $1.00 $0.90 $0.80 $0.70 $0.60 $0.50 $0.40 $0.30 $0.20 $0.10 $0.00 $0.67 $0.84 $ Annual Increase/Decrease in Total Boardings 15% 12% 9% 9% 6% 3% 0% -6% -1.37% -9% -12% -15% % -18% Annual Increase/Decrease in Weekday Total Boardings The number of holiday service days observed increased compared to FY 2010, That is, the number of weekdays operated decreased. This resulted in the weekday average ridership increasing slightly. 15% 12% Annual Increase/Decrease in Saturday Average Boardings Fixed route service operated more Saturdays in FY 2011 compared to FY This resulted in the Saturday average ridership decreasing slightly. In addition, Saturday service had a larger percentage of service cuts compared to weekday service. 15% 12% 9% 6% 7.5% 9% 6% 7.5% 3% 0% -6% 1.24% 3% 0% -6% -1.77% -9% -9% -12% -12% -15% % -15% % -18% % Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 9

67 Cost Efficiency and service Effectiveness Performance Results Bus (Fixed-Route, System-Wide) Includes Local, Circulator, Express, LINK, RAPID, and Rural Routes Annual Increase/Decrease in Sunday Average Boardings 15% 12% 13.4% 9% 6% 3% 3.82% 0% -6% -9% -12% -15% -18% % Boardings Per Revenue Mile Fixed route service provided fewer revenue miles compared to FY 2010 (over a drop of 10% or 3.4 million miles) Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 10

68 2011 YEAR IN REVIEW Solar-Powered Cooling Station To help commuters during the heat of the summer, a solar-powered cooling station was installed at the 3rd Street and Washington Metro station, which was modeled after a station in Dubai. Parking and shaded parking was also increased at the light rail stations along Camelback Road. Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 11

69 Cost Efficiency and service Effectiveness Performance Results Light Rail Please see Report 5 in the Appendix for more details. Farebox Recovery Ratio 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 28% 21.2% 20% 10% 0% % 2011 Operating Cost Per Boarding $5.00 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.00 $2.85 $2.72 $2.50 $2.42 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $ Subsidy Per Boarding Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile $3.00 $50.00 $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $2.24 $1.96 $1.62 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $11.66 $12.43 $12.90 $ $ Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 12

70 Cost Efficiency and service Effectiveness Performance Results Light Rail Total Boardings Light Rail service operated only 6 months in FY 2008/09. Boardings Per Revenue Mile Millions Millions On-Time Performance 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 93.9% 95.80% 97.5% Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 13

71 2011 YE AR IN REVIEW Valley Metro Mobility Center In February 2011, we celebrated the opening of the Valley Metro Mobility Center. The Mobility Center is a stateof-the-art multi-functional facility that simulates the look and feel of the Valley s public transit system. The center provides eligibility evaluation assessments and a travel training program for people with disabilities. Customers can take a transit walk through the simulated streetscape and transit system stations in an indoor environment. The center provides several services for customers with specialized mobility needs: ADA paratransit Dial-A-Ride service eligibility ADA Platinum Pass Bus and light rail travel training Alternative transportation programs Customer service call center Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 14

72 Proposition 400 Paratransit This data represents Proposition 400 funding used to fund service for ADA certified passengers only. Each operating system may include more than one jurisdiction. The values in the Proposition 400 column represents the amount reimbursed or credited to each jurisdiction in FY 2010 and may not correlate to the amount of Proposition 400 a jurisdiction spent that year. System Operating Cost is the total operating cost for each operating system. Please see Report 3 in the Appendix for further details. Paratransit Operating System Proposition 400 (1) System Operating Cost Proposition 400 as a Percentage of Total Operating Costs East Valley DAR $5,703,741 $9,096, % Glendale DAR $375,465 $2,570, % Peoria DAR $165,286 $1,006, % Phoenix DAR $7,754,948 (2) $16,634, % Surprise DAR $6,633 $617, % Sun Cities Area Transit (SCAT) $10,540 $228, % Scottsdale Cab (3) $195,442 $0 TOTAL $14,212,054 $30,154, % (1) Total ADA reimbursement PTF in FY 2011 does not include a payment to Maricopa County for $64,844. (2) Phoenix does not receive Prop 400 funding for ADA service within its municipal boundaries. The amount listed is for ADA paratransit service in Avondale only. (3) Data will be supplied in near future. information East Valley DAR includes the cities of Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Scottsdale and Tempe Phoenix DAR includes the cities of Phoenix, Avondale, Goodyear, Tolleson and Paradise Valley Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 15

73 Cost Efficiency and service Effectiveness Performance Results Paratransit Please see Report 6 in the Appendix for more details. Farebox Recovery Ratio Many DAR systems increased their ADA DAR fares in July Operating Cost Per Boarding 10% $ % $ % $ % 7.1% $35.00 $36.44 $36.99 $ % 6.3% $ % $ % 4.1% $ % $ % $ % $5.00 0% $ Subsidy Per Boarding $40.00 $30.00 $34.95 $34.69 $33.56 $20.00 $20.00 $15.00 $10.00 $5.00 $ Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 16

74 Cost Efficiency and service Effectiveness Performance Results Paratransit The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 is federal law which prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities in public accommodations, including public transportation. On-time performance measures how many ADA boardings occurred within 30 minutes of the pick-up time given to the passenger at the time of their reservation. Operating Cost Per Revenue Hour $70.00 $60.00 $60.70 $60.15 $50.00 $40.00 $30.00 $20.00 $10.00 $65.35 Boardings Per Revenue Mile $ ADA On-Time Performance 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 96.08% 97.35% 97.39% Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 17

75 2011 YEAR IN REVIEW Over 335 Vanpools in Service Vanpooling is a convenient, stress-free, environmentally-friendly alternative to driving alone to work. Save money. Vanpoolers save about $800 a year or more compared to driving alone. Plus, by driving your car less, you spend less on gas, repairs and maintenance. Faster Commute. Get where you re going faster thanks to quick-moving and less congested High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Less stress. With someone else behind the wheel you can sleep, read, or just relax. Tax Savings. Federal tax laws allow you to pay your vanpool fares out of pre-tax dollars saving you significant money. Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 18

76 Cost Efficiency and service Effectiveness Performance Results Vanpool Please see Report 1 in the Appendix for more details. Farebox Recovery Ratio 120% 110% 100% 92.9% 90% 85.06% 100.8% Operating Cost Per Boarding $5.00 $4.50 $4.00 $3.50 $3.07 $3.00 $ % 70% 60% 50% $2.50 $2.00 $1.50 $1.00 $0.50 $ % $ Subsidy Per Boarding Operating Cost Per Revenue Mile $0.50 $0.46 $1.00 $0.40 $0.80 $0.71 $0.30 $0.60 $0.47 $0.60 $0.20 $0.17 $0.40 $0.10 $0.20 $0.00 $ $ Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 19

77 Cost Efficiency and service Effectiveness Performance Results Vanpool Net Vanpool Starts % Total Vanpool Boardings 2.0 million 1.5 million 1.0 million 1,429,232 1,135,783 1,054, , ,000 50, Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 20

78 2011 YEAR IN REVIEW Accomplishments Arizona Avenue LINK Bus Route In January 2011, a new LINK bus route serving the East Valley was introduced. The new Arizona Avenue LINK bus route provides a direct public transit link to METRO light rail from Chandler, Gilbert, and Mesa. New Bus Route 184 Traveling along Power Road, the new Route 184 takes residents to the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport and Polytechnic Campus. Avondale ZOOM Circulator The Avondale Zoom circulator replaced the Route 131-START this summer and has become a popular service with more than 400 daily passengers traveling to local neighborhoods, businesses and schools including Estrella Mountain Community College. Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 21

79 2011 YEAR IN REVIEW Accomplishments 1.5 Million Bicycles Annually More than 1.5 million bicycles are being boarded on buses annually. ShareTheRide.com The share the ride online ride matching system has logged over 300,000 commutes, saved over 5 million pounds in greenhouse gas emissions and saved over 260,000 gallons in fuel. Transit Book and ValleyMetro.org The Transit Book, ValleyMetro.org and shelter maps have all been re-worked to make them easier to read and understand. Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 22

80 2011 YEAR IN REVIEW Valley Metro NOTES Valley Metro NOTES is an online educational campaign comprised of a series of animated videos and songs delivering how to use transit information in a clear, fun and engaging way. Over the last twelve months the Notes campaign has driven a 33% increase in new visits to additional transit information on ValleyMetro.org and has helped to reduce customer service phone calls by 3%. Despite a 30% cut in service, Valley Metro bus ridership didn t drop. In fact, overall year-over-year ridership increased 5.1%, or by 146,324 rides, during the campaign. Train ridership increased 9.4%, or by 79,290 rides, during the same time period. Results from Valley Metro s Rider Satisfaction Survey showed that 21% of all riders reported having been riding 12 months or less, meaning they were new riders during the campaign. Transit satisfaction scores also increased during the time of the Valley Metro Notes campaign with 83% of riders reporting being likely to recommend riding the bus or train to others, versus 78% the year prior. Likewise 77% of riders stated that they would be likely to ride Valley Metro a year from now, up from 72% before the campaign s launch. The overall satisfaction with the transit service in the Valley continues its upward trend, and now stands at 78%, one of the highest ratings ever. Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 23

81 Glossary ADA On-Time Performance Measures how many ADA boardings occurred within 30 minutes of the pick-up time given to the passenger at the time of their reservation. Average Fare Average fare is the average price a person pays for a transit trip. It is equal to total fare revenue collected divided by total boardings. Boarding A boarding is known as an unlinked passenger trip. Every time a person boards a vehicle it is counted as a boarding. For example, if a person makes a trip involving one transfer, this trip is counted as two boardings. Circulators Circulator routes typically serve small specific areas with short routes that are designed to provide connections between transportation systems and other area attractions like employment centers or schools. Many circulator routes charge no fare. Express/Bus Rapid Transit (RAPID) Express/Bus Rapid Transit routes provide higher speed services by operating within a limited stop and other enhancements. Express/Bus Rapid Transit routes operate on regional freeways. Farebox Recovery Ratio This is the percentage of total operating cost that is covered by fares collected. It is equal to total fare revenue collected divided by total operating costs. Fixed-Route Fixed route bus service typically operates along a designated or fixed route with no deviations. Characteristics of this service type include controlled vehicle frequencies and scheduled passenger stops. In this report, fixed route service comprises Local, Express, Bus Rapid Transit, Circulator, and Rural Connector routes. LINK Service (Bus Rapid Transit, BRT) LINK is a new type of bus service operating on arterial streets that functions as an extension of the METRO light rail line and features limited stops, signal priority, and near level boarding. Local Route Local routes may operate on either arterial or local collector streets. These are designed to serve localized trip patterns with one or more cities. Mechanical Failure Mechanical failure is a failure of some mechanical element of the revenue vehicle that prevents the vehicle from completing a scheduled revenue trip or from starting the next scheduled revenue trip. In addition, mechanical failures include failures from mechanical element of the revenue vehicle, because of local agency policy, prevents the vehicle from completing a scheduled revenue trip or starting the next revenue trip even though the vehicle is physically able to continue in revenue service. Net Vanpool Starts Calculated by subtracting number of deleted vanpools from the number of new vanpools started. Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 24

82 Glossary Operating Cost The total cost to operate and maintain a transit system including labor, fuel, maintenance, and administration. Paratransit Service This service is a shared-ride origin to destination service where an individual can request transportation from one specific location to another specific location at a certain time. This service complements fixed route service. Some systems restrict service to those who are ADA certified while other systems offer service to the general public. Rail On-Time Performance Percentage of all trips which arrive at the opposite terminal within three minutes of scheduled arrival times. Revenue Hour A revenue hour is an hour that one vehicle in revenue service is available to pick up revenue passengers. If ten vehicles are in service for two hours each, they collectively perform twenty revenue hours of service. Revenue Mile A revenue mile is a mile traveled by one vehicle in revenue service that is available to pick up revenue passengers. If ten vehicles are in service for two miles each, they collectively perform twenty revenue miles of service. Revenue Service Revenue service occurs when a vehicle is available to the general public and there is an expectation of carrying passengers who pay the required fare. Vehicles operated in farefree service are also considered in revenue service. Revenue service includes layover/ recovery time, but does not include deadhead (i.e. travel from garage to the start point of a route), or vehicle maintenance testing. Rural Routes Rural routes typically provide connections between rural and urban communities. Subsidy per Boarding Also known as net operating cost per boarding, this is the operating cost per boarding minus the fare revenue per boarding. This number indicates the amount of public funding that is used to make up the difference between the cost of providing transportation service and the revenue generated by this service on a per boarding basis. Weekday/Saturday/Sunday Average Daily Boardings: This measures boardings on a typical weekday, Saturday, or Sunday. This is calculated by dividing total boardings on a weekday, Saturday or Sunday by the number weekday, Saturdays or Sundays in the fiscal year. Transit Performance Report FY 2011 (July 1, June 30, 2011) 25

83

84 5

85 Date February 29, 2012 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Agenda Item 5 Subject Acceptance of the Dial-a-Ride Passenger Survey and the Alternative Services for Passengers Survey Reports Background Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) conducts dial-a-ride passenger surveys periodically to gather demographic, trip-making and resources, and service satisfaction information. In June 2011, RPTA began the fourth regional Dial-a- Ride (DAR) Passenger Survey. The 2011 DAR Survey was augmented to include passengers of alternative services such as taxi coupon and voucher programs. The growing need for affordable transportation and the advent of Federal Transit Administration New Freedom (Section 5317) funding have resulted in an expansion of existing and implementation of new alternative services during the past few years. In June 2011, the RPTA Board of Directors approved a competitively procured contract with WestGroup Research to conduct the surveys. Dial-a-Ride (DAR) Passenger Survey: Passengers of the East Valley, Glendale, Peoria, Phoenix, and Surprise DARs, Tolleson Transportation service, and Valley Metro Mobility Services were included in the study. Each of the DARs provided WestGroup with a list of current passengers and their telephone numbers. A total of 1,701 DAR passenger interviews were conducted by telephone. Alternatives Services for Passengers Survey: Passengers of the East Valley Coupons for Cabs, Phoenix Senior Cab, Scottsdale Cab Connection; Recurring Medical Trip Voucher Service provided by Avondale, Glendale, and East Valley RideChoice; and the Mesa Mileage Reimbursement Program were included. Providers of the alternative services sent WestGroup provided a list of their current passengers and WestGroup randomly selected the passengers to be included in the survey. Each service mailed the questionnaires along with a customized cover letter and postage paid return envelope addressed to WestGroup. In order to achieve the established response quota, a second 1

86 mailing was required for all alternative services. A total of 329 questionnaires were completed and returned to WestGroup which represents a 46% response rate. Throughout the survey process the study has been guided by a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) comprised of representatives from Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Surprise, Tempe, Maricopa Association of Governments, METRO, and Valley Metro RPTA. In addition to numerous telephone and communications with TAG members regarding the study, four TAG meetings were held between July and December. On January 26, 2012 the final draft report was made available to TAG members for review. The objectives for the DAR Passenger and Alternative Services for Passengers Surveys are as follows: Provide current passenger demographic information for the region and for each of the DARs and Alternative services Provide passenger information on trip-making, transportation knowledge, and transportation options for each of the DARs and Alternative services Monitor and track passenger perceptions on service quality for each of the services. The attached power point provides key information from the DAR and the Alternative Passenger Study Reports. Budget Source The funding source for this project is from a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) New Freedom grant awarded in the amount of $62,500. The City of Phoenix Transit Department administers this program on behalf of the Valley Metro Region. Of this budgeted amount, $50,000 is FTA money and $12,500 is the required local match. The local match is being met by in-kind staff support provided by RPTA, METRO, and the TAG members for their documented time spent on the project. The contracted amount with WestGroup is $49,854 for the study. Considerations Information learned from the DAR Passenger and Alternative Services for Passengers Surveys provides Valley Metro and its members with updated passenger information to help guide service planning and delivery. The survey data also provides Valley Metro and its members with information useful in Title VI studies, fare modification analyses, and grant applications. The inclusion of satisfaction questions in this planning study allows Valley Metro and its members to view the services from the passenger point-of-view. Passenger perception of performance can be subjective and can differ from actual service delivery which is objectively measured and monitored. Both are important for consideration in planning and decision making. 2

87 Committee Action Process TMC March 7, 2012 for acceptance Board March 22, 2012 for acceptance Recommendation It is recommended that the TMC forward to the RPTA Board of Directors for consideration, acceptance of the 2011 Regional Dial-a-Ride Passenger Survey and Alternative Services for Passengers Survey Reports. Contact Person Carol Ketcherside Planning Director Attachments Powerpoint Presentation 2011 Regional Dial-a-Ride Study and Alternative Services Study Draft Reports are available upon request or can be downloaded at 3

88

89 WestGroup Research Report Valley Metro Dial-a-Ride and Alternative Services Research Results February North 44 th St., Ste. 100-A Phoenix, Arizona

90 2 DIAL-A-RIDE

91 Background 1,701 telephone interviews with current DAR passengers across the Valley Margin of error for the total sample is +2 at a 95% level of confidence Conducted between September 20 and October 29, 2011 Sample Size Margin of Error Total Sample 1701 ±2.0% East Valley DAR 566 ±3.0% Chandler 89 ±7.6% Gilbert 51 ±10.3% Mesa 231 ±4.8% Scottsdale 111 ±7.0% Tempe 84 ±8.0% Glendale 333 ±4.7% Peoria 104 ±8.3% Phoenix (including Phx SW) 548 ±3.6% Surprise 95 ±9.0% Tolleson Transportation 7 ±33.8% Valley Metro Mobility Services 48 ±12.4% 3

92 Summary of DAR Respondent Demographics Average age 65 yrs. Youngest avg. since 2000 Disability 88% % with Disability Up from 74% in % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

93 DAR: # of Trips Taken per Week Frequency of use continues to increase 5

94 DAR: Where Riders are Going Medical Appt Shopping* Social/Recreational Errands* Work Religious service School 4% 4% 3% 3% 12% 11% 9%* 6%* 7%* 6% DAR Trip Purpose 24% 24% 24% 27% 39% 40% 42% 42% Trips to work increasing 56% 60%* 61%* 63%* % 20% 40% 60% 80% Total Sample 2000 n=1117; 2002 n=1276; 2007 n=1811; 2011 n=1701 * data: 'Shopping/errands' combined and these purposes were separated in

95 DAR: Alternatives for Riders Riders continue to be dependent on service 7

96 Experience with Transfers between DARs Responses 2011 (n=1701) (A) 2007 (n=1811) (B) 2002 (n=1276) (C) Made a transfer past 3 months 11% 9%* 9% Concerns prevented use of service with transfer (n=1446) Yes 28% 22%* NA No 63% 70%* Don t know 9% 8% Despite low experience with transfers, satisfaction with the process is increasing 8

97 Use of Transit Frequency of Using City Buses/Light Rail** Use City Bus/Light Rail** FREQUENCY Daily 2-4x/week Once a week < Once a week Never 5% 11% 5%* 28% 23%* 15%* 15% 19% 18% 16% 46% 43% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent using transit increases, however, frequency has decreased Total sample: 2007 n=1811, 2011 n=1701 Frequency: 2007 n=421, 2011 n=482 Sample for frequency of ridership: n=482 ** In 2007, the question asked only about use/frequency of city buses. 9

98 DAR: Experience with On-time Pick-up Always Most of the time Sometimes Rarely Never DK DAR On Time Performance 33% 31% 36%* 16% 22%* 3% 6%* 1% 3%* 1% 2% 46% % of VM Mobility Services users report they are always picked up ontime 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Total Sample 2007 n=1811; 2011 n=

99 DAR: Experience with On-time Arrival Always Most of the time (1) Experience with DAR On Time Arrival 43% 42% 49%* 46% 40% 31%* 62% of VM Mobility Services users report they always arrive on-time Sometimes Rarely Never 12% 17%* 3% 5%* 9%* 10%* 1% 3%* 4%* 6%* 34% 34% % 20% 40% 60% Total Sample 2000 n=1117; 2002 n=1276; 2007 n=1811; 2011 n=1701 (1) Most of the time was added as a category in In previous surveys, sometimeswas the second category choice. *Significantly different from 2011 results 11

100 DAR: Satisfaction with Driver and Vehicles Satisfaction continues to be high 12

101 Overall Quality, Compared to Previous Year Overall Quality in Last Year 100% 80% 26%* 7% 12% 7% 60% 40% 20% 39%* 48% 29% 32% DK/Didn't ride last year Worse Same Better 0% Total sample:2007: n=1811, 2011: n=1701; *Significantly different from 2011 results Perception of overall quality is improving or staying the same 13

102 DAR: Conclusions Users of the various DAR systems in the Valley continue to be highly dependent on this service, with more users reporting they would not be able to make their trips without DAR service than in previous years of the study. In addition, overall frequency of use each week continues to grow. Both of these factors point to the strong need for this service in the Valley. Rider perceptions and overall satisfaction with the service continue to be strong overall. In general, riders believe that service has gotten better or stayed the same compared to previous years. The only measure showing a slight decrease in satisfaction was with the comfort of the vehicles. The use of transfers from one DAR system to another continues to be very low; however, those who do transfer between systems are reporting less dissatisfaction with the process. The percentage of riders indicating they use transit service did increase compared to 2007, and, not surprisingly, usage of public transit is higher in those areas of the valley offering more extensive service in terms of geographic coverage and span and frequency of service (e.g., Tempe). 14

103 15 ALTERNATIVE SERVICES

104 Background 2011 DAR study was expanded to include passengers of alternative services such as taxi coupon, voucher programs, and the Mesa Mileage Reimbursement program. Surveys were mailed to alternative services users by Valley Metro or the represented service the week of October 3, Findings represent surveys returned to WestGroup Research through November 11, Overall, there was a 46% response rate to the mailing, with 329 completed surveys returned. Surveys Mailed Surveys Returned Margin of Error Total ±5.2% Cab coupon/voucher ±5.6% East Valley Coupons for Cabs (Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Tempe) ±9.9% Phoenix Senior Cab ±8.5% Scottsdale Cab Connection ±11.5% Recurring Medical Trips (Avondale, Glendale, East Valley Taxi Voucher) ±21.5% Mesa Mileage Reimbursement ±16.7% 16

105 Alternative Services Group Descriptions East Valley Coupons for Cabs: Qualified Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, and Tempe residents who are 65 and older or who have a disability Phoenix Senior Cab: Qualified Phoenix residents age 65 and over Recurring Medical Trip Service: Avondale, Glendale, East Valley (i.e., Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa and Tempe) provide subsidized transportation to assist qualified residents making physician-ordered repetitive medical treatments and therapies such as dialysis, cancer treatments, and therapy following a stroke. 17

106 Alternative Services: Demographics Gender 22% 78% Male Female 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Age 1% 4% 7% 88% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 25 to to to Income 23% 34% 15% 21% 5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% < $10k $10k to $14,999 $15k to $19,999 $20K to $39,999 $40k+ 18

107 Alternative Services: Demographic Overview of Groups Cab Coupon/Voucher. The average income of these users is slightly lower than the average income reported by DAR users. These users are notably older than the users of the other alternative services (by close to 10 years, on average), as well as DAR users in general. Recurring Medical Trips. This is the youngest group of users, and closely mirrors the average age that is reported for dialysis patients. This group reports a higher average income in comparison to users of the other two alternative service. Mesa Mileage Reimbursement. Individuals who use this service are, on average, eight years younger than the cab coupon/voucher users, and their average annual household income is the lowest of the three groups surveyed. 19

108 Alternative Services Where Riders are Going Medical appointments Errands Senior Center Shopping School Social/recreational outing Social Security/VA Trip Purpose by Alternative Program 23% 22% 30% 16% 17% 13% 8% 7% 17% 8% 7% 13% 39% 38% 61% 60% 57% A 84% 82% 80% A 93% Total Cab coupon/voucher (A) Mesa Milage Reimbursement (B) 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Mesa Mileage Reimbursement users go to a wider variety of locations Where do you go when you use the service? Total n=303, Cab coupon/voucher: n=272, Mesa Mileage Reimbursement: n=30 20

109 Alternative Services: Transportation Options Transportation Method Total (n=319) Cab coupon/ voucher (n=271) (A) Recurring Medical Trips (n=18) (B) Mesa Mileage Reimbursement (n=30) (C) Users are highly dependent on these services Could not go 46% 42% 44% 77% AB With family/friends 42% 43% 39% 30% Taxi (w/o coupons) 22% 23% 17% 13% DAR 17% 17% 33% 13% VM bus/light rail 10% 12% - - Walk 7% 8% 6% 3% Drive self 5% 6% 6% - Community van 4% 5%

110 Alternative Services Satisfaction Satisfaction with Service Overall satisfaction Ease of ordering coupons Vehicle comfort Driver's safe driving Paying the fare with coupons Scheduling a trip On-time arrival at destination Driver's courtesy On-time pick up Trip cost 81% 85% 82% 81% 81% 79% 77% 77% 72% 69% 15% 12% 16% 17% 15% 16% 20% 20% 22% 22% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very satisfied Somewhat satisfied 22

111 Alternative Services Fixed Route Usage 100% Use of VM Transit (Bus or Light Rail) - By Service 80% 60% 40% 84% 83% 94% A 86% 20% No 0% 16% 17% B 5% Total Cab coupon/ voucher (A) Recurring Medical Trips (B) 14% Mesa Milage Reimbursement (C) Yes Do you use the Valley Metro transit (large bus or Metro Light Rail) service? Total n=312, Cab coupon/voucher: n=265, Recurring Medical Trips: n=18, Mesa Mileage Reimbursement: n=29 23

112 Conclusions Word of mouth referrals or presentations/information distributed by service providers are the two primary ways that residents find out about the alternative services programs available to them. It is important that Valley Metro and the service providers work with the appropriate groups to make sure they are prepared to provide information when requested by their constituencies. Alternative service users appear to use these transportation options for a much wider variety of trip purposes than those who use DAR. It is likely that these services offer more flexibility to the users not only because of availability, but also because these are individual, not multi-person trips. Satisfaction with these services is extremely high, with a significant majority reporting to be very satisfied. The alternative services riders are very dependent on these services to make their desired trips. Friends or family members are the most common back-up plan. 24

113 6

114 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Agenda Item 6 Date February 29, 2012 Subject Regional Fare Policy Recommendation Background Over the last few years Valley Metro agencies along with the RPTA have implemented service changes to streamline transit service and cost cutting measures to significantly reduce administrative costs. This has helped to maintain fare recovery revenues near the Board adopted 25 percent target. As the cost of providing transit increases, the portion that riders pay will continue to decline. In order to help minimize service reductions and maintain an appropriate fare recovery, a fare increase has been proposed. The proposed increase is forecasted to generate approximately $6 million in revenue per year which can be applied to local and regional transit service. Valley Metro RPTA and its member agencies may be required to implement significant service reductions - without a fare increase reductions may be exacerbated. It is our understanding that the following transit program deficits exist and are not inclusive of all transit program deficits: Entity Deficit Term City of Phoenix (T-2000) $60 million 8 years City of Tempe (Local Transit Tax) $14 million 4 years RPTA (Prop. 400 Bus Transit Element) > $63 million 13 years Even with a fare increase, it is likely that additional service reductions to the regional transit system will need to be made. To help resolve the current projected deficits, it is estimated that 2.6 million revenue miles of transit service would need to be reduced from the transit system which equates to approximately 8.2 percent of the current system. This is in addition to the ten percent reduction in the regional bus system that occurred in July 2010 due to the repeal of the Local Transportation Assistance Funds. 1

115 In addition to monitoring the cost paid by riders, an analysis was conducted of eight regions across the country with similar systems to better understand the pricing of transit service. Based on the analysis, pricing of transit services in Maricopa County are some of the lowest among similar and larger regions. City 1 Ride Fare 1-Day Pass (Local) 31-Day Pass (Local) Dallas $1.75 $4.00 $65.00 Los Angeles $1.50 $5.00 $75.00 Minneapolis * $2.25 $6.00 $85.00 Portland ** $2.40 $5.00 $92.00 Sacramento $2.25 $6.00 $ Salt Lake City $2.25 $5.50 $75.00 San Diego $2.25 $5.00 $72.00 San Jose $2.00 $6.00 $70.00 Valley Metro *** $1.75 Sources: Transit agency Web Sites (October 2011) * Minneapolis peak time pricing. ** Portland All zone pricing. *** Valley Metro - $5.25 is the price paid onboard fixed route buses $3.50 $5.25 $55.00 In addition, nearly 80% of transit agencies across the U.S. have been forced to cut service or raise fares in many cases both (American Public Transportation Association). To develop the recommendations, the Fare Policy Committee met over the last year (Oct. 8, Dec. 12, Feb. 15, March 22, April 19, Aug. 2, and Sept. 15) to discuss the fare policy program goals and structure. The program goals included: Recommend policies that encourage transit use while achieving the adopted 25% fare revenue target to help manage service Consider the negative and positive impacts to ridership Consider the impacts of route performance on the fare revenue target Target implementation by July 1, 2012 CH2M Hill (formerly Booz Allen Hamilton), a third party consultant, was contracted to work with the Valley Metro Fare Policy Committee to conduct the analysis and help identify and recommend fare policies that achieve the objectives. The following information includes the fare policy recommendations that were approved by the Board of Directors for public input on October 27, The Regional Fare Policy Proposal It is recommended that every fiscal year Valley Metro review the fare recovery rate to determine if a fare increase is needed. The goal is to implement periodic fare increases to minimize the impact to customers and to maintain the 25% fare recovery target. The fare goals will help evaluate the regional fare recovery and determine if a fare increase is needed based on attaining the 25 percent fare revenue target to help manage transit 2

116 service. Any change must be approved by the Board of Directors prior to a fare change being implemented. The proposed revisions to the fare policy incorporate an increase to the 1-ride base fare and maintain the existing Valley Metro pricing rules which apply to all fare products and programs. The Valley Metro fare programs include the East Valley, Phoenix and Sun City ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Dial-a-Ride fares, ASU U-Pass, Semester Pass, and the employer based Platinum Pass. The proposal also includes the elimination of the 3-day pass and the addition of a 15-day pass and a streamlined rate structure for the rural route fare (rural route 685 provides service between Ajo/Gila Bend, Buckeye and Phoenix). The following chart shows the proposed fare changes. Proposed fare changes presented during the Public Involvement process Fare Type Current Fare Proposed Change Percent Increase FULL LOCAL BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES 1-RIDE $1.75 $ % ALL-DAY Off-Board $3.50 $ % ALL-DAY On-Board $5.25 $ % 3-DAY $ DAY $17.50 $ % 15-DAY $ DAY $55.00 $ % EXPRESS/RAPID BUS FARES 1-RIDE $2.75 $ % ALL-DAY Off-Board $5.50 $ % ALL-DAY On-Board $7.25 $ % 31-DAY $85.00 $ % REDUCED BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES 1-RIDE $0.85 $ % ALL-DAY Off-Board $1.75 $ % ALL-DAY On-Board $2.60 $ % 3-DAY $ DAY $8.75 $ % 15-DAY $ DAY $27.50 $ % 3

117 OTHER PASSES ADA DIAL-A-RIDE $3.50 $ % RURAL ROUTE 685 *$3.25 $ % * Average fare The Alternative The alternative to implementing the proposed fare policy change on July 1, 2012 is to delay the change to a later date. The recommendation includes a fare increase which creates approximately $6 million in revenue per year. A delay beyond July 1, 2012 would represent approximately $500,000 per month in potential revenue. In this case, Valley Metro members would need to assess the service ramifications based on the length of the delay. Public Involvement Process and Results The Board of Directors approved the implementation of a Public Involvement process on October 27, The program to obtain public input ran from November 14, 2011 to January 3, Public messages were delivered on buses and light rail, Valleymetro.org, and in local newspaper and online advertisements. A press release and related information was provided to the local media. Much of the local media promoted the public involvement process and some carried the information on their web sites. The public outreach included: 200,000+ passengers per day over two weeks: bus and light rail announcements 2,100 customers: notices to Valley Metro customer database 1,200 Employers representing 600,000+ commuters: announcements, webinars, meetings and newsletters Customer service - On hold messages 8 public hearings in Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix and Tempe Social Media based communications using Facebook and Twitter 2 advertisements in the Arizona Republic Online advertisements on AZFamily.com over a 3 week period A survey was created to help capture and organize the public input. The survey was made available at the public hearings and on ValleyMetro.org. The results where then tabulated and summarized and presented in January to the Transit Management Committee and the Valley Metro Board of Directors. The following summarizes the participation and results using the various public input options: ValleyMetro.org online survey and comment system 1,907 visitors to Fare Change Input section on ValleyMetro.org 98 participated in the electronic survey Input via mail and 138 comments received 4

118 Input via Public Hearings and printed surveys 71 participants Input via Customer Service Phone line 3 registered comments The public interest level regarding the proposed fare change is less than that of the previous fare policy change in o The public outreach included a variety of methods used to help drive awareness regarding the input process for the proposed fare changes. This included local TV and printed news as well as Transit vehicle messages over a two week period. o 1,907 citizens visited the Proposed Fare Change page on ValleyMetro.org and 300+ participants provided input. Very few local organizations provided input. The cost to use transit versus the level of service available is slightly more important to those surveyed (54% vs. 46%). The difference is not statistically significant. A frequent, smaller fare increase has less of a budgetary impact to customers than less frequent, larger increases. o 64% considered an increase of $.25 every three years to be a big impact. o 72% considered an increase of $.75-$1.00 every 5 years to be a big impact. 30% of respondents are neutral or strongly support the proposed fare change. The majority of respondents (69%) indicated strong opposition to the proposed fare changes. With a fare increase, the public expects improved and expanded service. Program Schedule If the proposed Fare Policy recommendation is approved, here are the next steps. February-April: Valley Metro Board approval, consideration by the City of Phoenix March-June: implement and test new fare tariff and customer communications July 1: launch the revised regional fare policy Budget Source The budget to conduct the study, fare modeling, recommendations and public involvement program is $75,000. This is programmed in the approved FY 2011/ 2012 RPTA administrative budget and is paid for by Public Transportation Fund (PTF) revenues. Impacts The recommended fare policy is forecasted to create an additional $6 million in revenue per year which can be applied to local and regional transit service. Committee Action Process Fare Policy Committee meetings took place on October 8, 2010, December 12, 2010, February 15, March 22, April 19, August 2 and September 15. Regional Transit Advisory Group September 20,

119 Transit Management Committee October 5, 2011 Budget and Finance Subcommittee October 6, 2011 Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors October 20, 2011 for action Transit Management Committee January 4, 2012 for information Rail Management Committee January 4, 2012 for information Valley Metro Rail Board of Directors January 18, 2012 for information Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors January 19, 2012 for information Transit Management Committee February 1, 2012 approved Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors February 16, 2012 for action tabled Transit Management Committee March 7, 2012 for action Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors March 22, 2012 for action Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Directors consider for approval, the proposed regional fare policy revision which includes: An increase to the 1-Ride base fare by $0.25 on July 1, 2012 Maintain the existing pricing rules including adjustments to all fare programs ADA Dial-a-Ride fare (East Valley, Sun City), ASU U-Pass, Platinum Pass, etc. Eliminate the 3-day pass on July 1, 2012 Introduce a 15-day pass on July 1, 2012 Simplify the rural route fare structure to one-flat fare of $4.00 per one-way trip ($2.00 reduced fare) Revise the fare policy to consider fare changes every three years to maintain the 25% fare recovery target (requires public involvement and Board approval) Recommended Fare Structure and Pricing Fare Type Current: $1.75 Base Fare July 1, 2012 $2.00 Base Fare Pricing Rule FULL LOCAL BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES 1-Ride $1.75 $2.00 $0.25 increments All-Day $3.50 $4.00 2x 1-Ride All-Day On-Bus $5.25 $6.00 3x 1-Ride 3-Day $ Day $17.50 $ x All-Day Off-Board 15-Day - $ x 1-Ride 31-Day $55.00 $ x 1-Ride EXPRESS/RAPID BUS FARES 1-Ride $2.75 $3.00 ~1.5x 1-Ride All-Day $5.50 $6.00 2x Express 1-Ride All-Day On-Bus $7.25 $9.00 3x Express 1-Ride 31-Day $85.00 $ x Express 1-Ride 6

120 REDUCED BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES 1-Ride $0.85 $ x Local Fare All-Day $1.75 $ x Local Fare All-Day On-Bus $2.60 $ x Local Fare 3-Day $ Day $8.75 $ x Local Fare 15-Day $ x Local Fare 31-Day $27.50 $ x Local Fare The Alternative An alternative to the recommendation could be: Implement the fare change at a later date. A delay represents approximately $500,000 monthly revenue In this case, Valley Metro members would need to assess the ramifications to service based on the length of the delay. If a delay is an option, it is recommended that the Rural Route pricing continue to be implemented on July 1, Contact Person Mario Diaz Chief Marketing Officer or mdiaz@valleymetro.org Attachments Valley Metro Fare Policy recommendation presentation 7

121

122 Regional Fare Policy Recommendation March 2012

123 The planning process Fare Policy Committee Meetings 2010: October 8, December : February 15, April 19, August 2, September 15 CH2M Hill (formerly Booz Allen Hamilton) study and fare modelling April to September (study completed July 2011) Valley Metro working groups and committees September 20: Regional Technical Advisory Group discussion October 5: Transit Management Committee October 6: Budget and Finance Subcommittee October 27: Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors January 4: Transit Management Committee January 4: Rail Management Committee January 18: Valley Metro Rail Board of Directors January 19: Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors February 1: Transit Management Committee 2

124 Why the proposed fare change Streamlined transit service and significantly reduced administrative costs over the last 3 years Valley Metro RPTA and member agencies are facing large transit budget deficits requiring service reductions Without the added fare revenue Valley Metro will further reduce regional transit service 3

125 Fare recovery forecast The fare recovery target established by the Valley Metro Board is 25% Forecasted Share of Cost Paid by Riders Target Current Fare Policy 25% 25% 23.6% 23.3% 23.1% 22.9% 22.5% 22.2% Bus and light rail 4

126 Fare pricing in other cities Service Provider City 1-Ride Fare 1-Day Pass Local 31-Day Pass Local Dallas $1.75 $4.00 $65.00 Minneapolis * $2.25 $6.00 $85.00 Portland ** $2.40 $5.00 $92.00 Sacramento $2.25 $6.00 $ Salt Lake City $2.25 $5.50 $75.00 San Diego $2.25 $5.00 $72.00 San Jose $2.00 $6.00 $70.00 Valley Metro proposal $2.00 $4.00 $6.00*** $64.00 Valley Metro current $1.75 $3.50 $5.25*** $55.00 Sources: Transit agency websites (October 2011) * Minneapolis peak time, ** Portland All zones, *** Valley Metro - The price paid on fixed route buses 80% of all Transit Agencies have been forced to implement fare increases or service cuts due to flat or decreased funding. Source: American Public Transportation Association 5

127 Proposed fare changes Local bus and light rail service Express/RAPID bus service Rural route service ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) paratransit (Dial-A-Ride) City of Phoenix East Valley Sun City 6

128 Proposed Fare Changes For July 1, 2012 * Average fare Fare Type Current Fare FULL LOCAL BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES Proposed Change Percent Increase 1-RIDE $1.75 $ % ALL-DAY $3.50 $ % ALL-DAY On-Bus $5.25 $ % 3-DAY $ DAY $17.50 $ % 15-DAY $ DAY $55.00 $ % EXPRESS/RAPID BUS FARES 1-RIDE $2.75 $ % ALL-DAY $5.50 $ % ALL-DAY On-Bus $7.25 $ % 31-DAY $85.00 $ % REDUCED BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES 1-RIDE $0.85 $ % ALL-DAY $1.75 $ % ALL-DAY On-Bus $2.60 $ % 3-DAY $ DAY $8.75 $ % 15-DAY $ DAY $27.50 $ % OTHER PASSES ADA DIAL-A-RIDE $3.50 $ % RURAL ROUTE 685 *$3.25 $ % 7

129 Public Input Summary The interest level regarding the proposed fare change is less than that of the previous fare policy change in ,907 people visited the Proposed Fare Change page on ValleyMetro.org 300+ participants provided input. Very few local organizations provided input. The cost to use transit versus the level of service available is slightly more important (54% vs. 46%). Frequent, smaller fare increases have less of a budgetary impact than less frequent, larger increases ($.25 every three years vs. $.75-$1.00 every 5 years) 30% of respondents are neutral or strongly support the proposed fare change. With a fare increase, the public expects improved or expanded service. 8

130 Recommendation It is recommended that the Board of Directors consider for approval, the proposed regional fare policy revision which includes: An increase to the 1-Ride base fare by $0.25 on July 1, 2012 Maintain the existing pricing rules including adjustments to all fare programs ADA Dial-a-Ride fare (East Valley, Sun City), ASU U-Pass, Platinum Pass, etc. Eliminate the 3-day pass on July 1, 2012 Introduce a 15-day pass on July 1, 2012 Simplify the rural route fare structure to one-flat fare of $4.00 per one-way trip ($2.00 reduced fare) Revise the fare policy to consider fare changes every three years to maintain the 25% fare recovery target (requires public involvement and Board approval) 9

131 Recommended fare structure and pricing rules Fare Type Current: $1.75 Base Fare FULL LOCAL BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES July 1, 2012 $2.00 Base Fare Pricing Rule 1-Ride $1.75 $2.00 $0.25 increments All-Day $3.50 $4.00 2x 1-Ride All-Day On-Bus $5.25 $6.00 3x 1-Ride 3-Day $ Day $17.50 $ x All-Day Off-Board 15-Day - $ x 1-Ride 31-Day $55.00 $ x 1-Ride EXPRESS/RAPID BUS FARES 1-Ride $2.75 $3.00 ~1.5x 1-Ride All-Day $5.50 $6.00 2x Express 1-Ride All-Day On-Bus $7.25 $9.00 3x Express 1-Ride 31-Day $85.00 $ x Express 1-Ride REDUCED BUS/LINK/LIGHT RAIL FARES 1-Ride $0.85 $ x Local Fare All-Day $1.75 $ x Local Fare All-Day On-Bus $2.60 $ x Local Fare 3-Day $ Day $8.75 $ x Local Fare 15-Day - $ x Local Fare 31-Day $27.50 $ x Local Fare - Pricing rules includes the ADA Dial-a-Ride fare (East Valley, Sun City, Phoenix) at twice the 1-Ride fare Adjustments to the ASU U-Pass, Platinum Pass, and related fare programs 10

132 The Alternative Implement the fare change at a later date A delay represents approximately $500,000 monthly revenue On July 1, 2012 continue to implement the rural route fare change Without the added fare revenue Valley Metro will need to further reduce regional transit service 11

133 Program schedule February-April: Valley Metro Board approval, consideration by the City of Phoenix March-June: implement and test new fare tariff July 1: launch new fare policy and increase 12

134 7

135 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Agenda Item 7 Date February 29, 2012 Subject Legislative Update Background Bryan Jungwirth, Chief of Staff, will provide an update on current legislative issues. Budget Source None Impacts None Committee Action Process None Recommendation No formal action is required. Contact Person Bryan Jungwirth Chief of Staff Attachments None 1

136

137 8

138 Transit Management Committee Information Summary Agenda Item 8 Date February 29, 2012 Subject Future TMC Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events Background Chair Maher Hazine will request future TMC agenda items from TMC members and TMC members may provide a report on current events. Budget Source None Impacts None Committee Action Process None Recommendation For information only. Contact Person Steve Banta Chief Executive Officer Attachments None 1

139

140 9

141 10

Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Single Audit Reporting Package

Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Single Audit Reporting Package Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Single Audit Reporting Package For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2011 VALLEY METRO RAIL, INC. SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 CONTENTS Page Report

More information

Valley Metro Rail, Inc.

Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Single Audit Reporting Package For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 VALLEY METRO RAIL, INC. SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012 CONTENTS

More information

Valley Metro Rail, Inc.

Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Single Audit Reporting Package For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013 VALLEY METRO RAIL, INC. SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2013

More information

Single Audit Reporting Package

Single Audit Reporting Package Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Phoenix, AZ valleymetro.org Single Audit Reporting Package FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014 VALLEY METRO RAIL, INC. SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014

More information

Date: January 11, Starting Time 12:00 p.m. Location: Valley Metro Lake Mead Conference Room (10B) 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor Phoenix

Date: January 11, Starting Time 12:00 p.m. Location: Valley Metro Lake Mead Conference Room (10B) 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor Phoenix MEETING OF THE Audit and Finance Subcommitee Date: January 11, 2018 Starting Time 12:00 p.m. Location: Valley Metro Lake Mead Conference Room (10B) 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor Phoenix If you require

More information

Transit Management Committee

Transit Management Committee NEXT MEETING OF THE Transit Management Committee MEETING DATE June 3, 2009 TIME LOCATION 11:00 a.m. MAG Saguaro Room 302 N. 1 st Avenue Suite 200 Phoenix May 27, 2009 TO: FROM: RE: Members of the Valley

More information

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2010 Phoenix, Arizona Board of Directors Chair, Councilmember Michael Johnson, City of Phoenix Vice Chair, Councilmember Shana Ellis, City

More information

Valley Metro RPTA. Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor Phoenix

Valley Metro RPTA. Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor Phoenix MEETINGS OF THE Management Committees Valley Metro RPTA METRO Light Rail MEETING DATE November 1, 2012 TIME 11:00 a.m. MEETING DATE November 1, 2012 TIME 1:30 p.m. LOCATION Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell

More information

Audit and Finance Subcommittee

Audit and Finance Subcommittee MEETING OF THE Audit and Finance Subcommittee MEETING DATE January 12, 2017 TIME LOCATION 12:00 p.m. Valley Metro 101 N. 1st Ave., 10th Floor Lake Mead Conference Room (10B) Phoenix, AZ 85003 VALLEY METRO

More information

LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT EUGENE, OREGON AUDIT OF FEDERAL AWARDS

LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT EUGENE, OREGON AUDIT OF FEDERAL AWARDS LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT EUGENE, OREGON AUDIT OF FEDERAL AWARDS Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 LANE TRANSIT DISTRICT, OREGON TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Report of Independent Auditors on Internal Control over

More information

MEETING OF THE Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee. 10:00 a.m.

MEETING OF THE Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee. 10:00 a.m. VMOCC Meeting Packet MEETING OF THE Valley Metro Operations and Capital Committee MEETING DATE August 18, 2009 TIME LOCATION 10:00 a.m. METRO Rail Office 13 th Floor Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue,

More information

Valley Metro. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Regional Public Transportation Authority Phoenix, Arizona

Valley Metro. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Fiscal Year Ended June 30, Regional Public Transportation Authority Phoenix, Arizona Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013 Phoenix, Arizona Phoenix, Arizona Board of Directors Chair, Councilmember Ron Aames, Peoria Vice Chair, Councilmember Scott Somers,

More information

BUCKEYE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.

BUCKEYE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. BUCKEYE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 201 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 1000 East Narramore Avenue Buckeye, Arizona 85326 BUCKEYE, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL

More information

DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 97

DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 97 DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 97 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 20402 North 15 th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85027 PHOENIX, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL

More information

12:45 p.m. Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor Phoenix. MEETING OF THE Board of Directors

12:45 p.m. Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor Phoenix. MEETING OF THE Board of Directors MEETING OF THE Board of Directors MEETING DATE March 22, 2012 TIME LOCATION 12:45 p.m. Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor Phoenix March 14, 2012 TO: FROM: RE:

More information

TRANSIT LIFE CYCLE POLICIES

TRANSIT LIFE CYCLE POLICIES TRANSIT LIFE CYCLE POLICIES DRAFT January 6, 2011 Table of Contents GUIDING PRINCIPLE 1: A defined and consistent process will be established for allocating funding for projects in the Regional Transportation

More information

Jefferson County Public Transportation Benefit Area (Jefferson Transit Authority)

Jefferson County Public Transportation Benefit Area (Jefferson Transit Authority) Financial Statements and Federal Single Audit Report Jefferson County Public Transportation Benefit Area (Jefferson Transit Authority) For the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 Published

More information

Deer Valley Unified School District #97

Deer Valley Unified School District #97 Deer Valley Unified School District #97 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 Deer Valley Unified School District Phoenix, Arizona Prepared by: Fiscal Services Department

More information

QUEEN CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 95

QUEEN CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 95 QUEEN CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 95 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2014 20217 East Chandler Heights Road Queen Creek, Arizona 85142 QUEEN CREEK, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE

More information

Transit Management Committee

Transit Management Committee MEETING OF THE Transit Management Committee MEETING DATE September 2, 2009 TIME LOCATION 11:00 a.m. MAG Saguaro Room 302 N. 1 st Avenue, Suite 200 August 24, 2009 TO: FROM: RE: Members of the Valley Metro

More information

TOLLESON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17

TOLLESON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17 TOLLESON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 9261 West Van Buren Street Tolleson, Arizona 85353 TOLLESON, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL

More information

Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Phoenix, AZ 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30

Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Phoenix, AZ 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30 Valley Metro Phoenix, AZ 2017 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30 Phoenix, Arizona For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Board of Directors Chair, Councilmember Thelda Williams,

More information

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District Of Oregon

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District Of Oregon OMB Circular A-133 Single Audit Reports For the Year Ended June 30, 2014 (With Independent Auditors Reports Thereon) Table of Contents Page Independent Auditors Reports: 2-6 Report of Independent Auditors

More information

Audit and Finance Subcommittee

Audit and Finance Subcommittee MEETING OF THE Audit and Finance Subcommittee MEETING DATE February 9, 2017 TIME LOCATION 11:00 a.m. Valley Metro 101 N. 1st Ave., 10th Floor Lake Mead Conference Room (10B) Phoenix, AZ 85003 VALLEY METRO

More information

VICTOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY) SINGLE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018

VICTOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY (A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY) SINGLE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 VICTOR VALLEY TRANSIT AUTHORITY SINGLE AUDIT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Independent Auditors Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit

More information

Budget and Finance Subcommittee

Budget and Finance Subcommittee MEETING OF THE Budget and Finance Subcommittee MEETING DATE May 15, 2014 TIME LOCATION 12:00 p.m. Valley Metro 101 N. 1 st Ave. 10 th Floor Board Room Phoenix, AZ 85003 VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300

More information

BUCKEYE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 33

BUCKEYE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 33 BUCKEYE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 33 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015 25555 West Durango Street Buckeye, Arizona 85326 BUCKEYE, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL

More information

LOWELL REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (A Component Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation)

LOWELL REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (A Component Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation) Auditor s Reports as Required by the Uniform Guidance and Government Auditing Standards and Related Information Year ended June 30, 2017 Auditor s Reports as Required by the Uniform Guidance and Government

More information

BUCKEYE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 33

BUCKEYE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 33 BUCKEYE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 33 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 25555 West Durango Street Buckeye, Arizona 85326 BUCKEYE, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL

More information

FLORENCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2015

FLORENCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2015 FLORENCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2015 This page intentionally left blank. FLORENCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.1 SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE

More information

QUEEN CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 95

QUEEN CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 95 Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 20217 E. Chandler Heights Road Queen Creek, AZ 85142 QUEEN CREEK, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012 Issued by: Business

More information

DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 97 PHOENIX, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014

DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 97 PHOENIX, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014 PHOENIX, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014 Issued by: Fiscal Services Department TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal ASBO Certificate

More information

Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012

Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Phoenix, Arizona Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 VALLEY METRO RAIL, INC. Phoenix, Arizona Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the fiscal

More information

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MARCH 3, :45 A.M. 101 NORTH FIRST AVENUE 13TH FLOOR BOARD ROOM PHOENIX, AZ 85003

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MARCH 3, :45 A.M. 101 NORTH FIRST AVENUE 13TH FLOOR BOARD ROOM PHOENIX, AZ 85003 BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MARCH 3, 2010 9:45 A.M. 101 NORTH FIRST AVENUE 13TH FLOOR BOARD ROOM PHOENIX, AZ 85003 March 2, 2010 REVISED To: From: Chairman Simplot and Members of the METRO Board of Directors

More information

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 Phoenix, Arizona Board of Directors Chair, Vice Mayor Ron Aames, Peoria Vice Chair, Vice Mayor Scott Somers, Mesa Treasurer, Councilmember

More information

RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2

RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR ENDED Issued by: Business and Finance Department This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT...1-2 MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION

More information

PHOENIX-MESA GATEWAY AIRPORT AUTHORITY SINGLE AUDIT ACT REPORTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018

PHOENIX-MESA GATEWAY AIRPORT AUTHORITY SINGLE AUDIT ACT REPORTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 PHOENIX-MESA GATEWAY AIRPORT AUTHORITY SINGLE AUDIT ACT REPORTS FOR THE PHOENIX-MESA GATEWAY AIRPORT AUTHORITY TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

More information

Southern California Regional Rail Authority. Compliance Report Year Ended June 30, 2012

Southern California Regional Rail Authority. Compliance Report Year Ended June 30, 2012 Southern California Regional Rail Authority Compliance Report Contents Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 1-2 3 Independent Auditor s Reports

More information

MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY

MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY Auditors Reports as Required by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 and Government Auditing Standards and Related Information MASSACHUSETTS WATER

More information

DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 97

DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 97 DEER VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 97 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 20402 North 15 th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85027 PHOENIX, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL

More information

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA. SINGLE AUDIT Year ended June 30, 2018

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA. SINGLE AUDIT Year ended June 30, 2018 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OF SOUTHERN NEVADA SINGLE AUDIT Las Vegas, Nevada SINGLE AUDIT CONTENTS INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND

More information

SONOMA-MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT SINGLE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017

SONOMA-MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT SINGLE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017 SONOMA-MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT SINGLE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017 This Page Left Intentionally Blank SONOMA-MARIN AREA RAIL TRANSIT DISTRICT SINGLE AUDIT REPORT For The Year

More information

CITY OF HEALDSBURG Single Audit Report on Federal Award Programs

CITY OF HEALDSBURG Single Audit Report on Federal Award Programs Single Audit Report on Federal Award Programs June 30, 2016 SINGLE AUDIT REPORT ON FEDERAL AWARD PROGRAMS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Independent Auditor s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

More information

CITY OF CLARKSTON, GEORGIA

CITY OF CLARKSTON, GEORGIA REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AND THE OMB CIRCULAR A-133 FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

More information

Chairman Cavazos and Members of the Rail Management Committee

Chairman Cavazos and Members of the Rail Management Committee 1:30 pm I February 1, 2012 January 25, 2012 To: From: Chairman Cavazos and Members of the Rail Management Committee Stephen R. Banta, Chief Executive Officer Date: February 1, 2012 Time: Location: 1:30

More information

City of Tombstone, Arizona Financial Statements. Year Ended June 30, 2016

City of Tombstone, Arizona Financial Statements. Year Ended June 30, 2016 City of Tombstone, Arizona Financial Statements Year Ended June 30, 2016 CONTENTS Page INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT 1 MANAGEMENT S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS (MD&A) (Required Supplementary Information) 5

More information

CAPE COD REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (a component Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation)

CAPE COD REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (a component Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation) CAPE COD REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (a component Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation) Auditors Report as Required by the Uniform Guidance and Government Auditing Standards and Related

More information

HUNTERS POINT BOARDING SCHOOL, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT June 30, 2016

HUNTERS POINT BOARDING SCHOOL, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT June 30, 2016 CPAs & Financial Consultants HUNTERS POINT BOARDING SCHOOL, INC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT June 30, 2016 4011 Barbara Loop, Suite 106 Rio Rancho, NM 87124 Ph: (505)994-3001 Fax:

More information

FIRST 5 SACRAMENTO COMMISSION. Single Audit Report (OMB Circular A-133) For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013

FIRST 5 SACRAMENTO COMMISSION. Single Audit Report (OMB Circular A-133) For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013 Single Audit Report (OMB Circular A-133) For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013 SINGLE AUDIT REPORT (OMB CIRCULAR A-133) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS Independent Auditors

More information

FY17 FY16 Valley Metro RPTA Sources of Funds FY17 vs FY16

FY17 FY16 Valley Metro RPTA Sources of Funds FY17 vs FY16 FY17 ADOPTED ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) provides public transportation services for Maricopa County located in the metro Phoenix, Arizona.

More information

WORKFORCE ALLIANCE OF THE NORTH BAY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017

WORKFORCE ALLIANCE OF THE NORTH BAY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT 1 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL

More information

Hanáádlí Community School Dormitory, Inc. Single Audit Reporting Package. Year Ended June 30, 2016

Hanáádlí Community School Dormitory, Inc. Single Audit Reporting Package. Year Ended June 30, 2016 Hanáádlí Community School Dormitory, Inc. Single Audit Reporting Package Year Ended June 30, 2016 HANÁÁDLÍ COMMUNITY SCHOOL DORMITORY, INC. CONTENTS Page INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORT 1 MANAGEMENT S DISCUSSION

More information

Budget and Finance Subcommittee

Budget and Finance Subcommittee MEETING OF THE Budget and Finance Subcommittee MEETING DATE October 15, 2015 TIME LOCATION 12:00 p.m. Valley Metro 101 N. 1st Ave., 10th Floor Lake Mead Conference Room Phoenix, AZ 85003 VALLEY METRO 101

More information

SHEPHERD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT Shepherd, Michigan. Federal Awards (Supplementary Information To Financial Statements) June 30, 2009

SHEPHERD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT Shepherd, Michigan. Federal Awards (Supplementary Information To Financial Statements) June 30, 2009 SHEPHERD PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT Shepherd, Michigan Federal Awards (Supplementary Information To Financial Statements) June 30, 2009 Shepherd Public School District Federal Awards Supplementary Information

More information

CITY OF HEALDSBURG. Single Audit Report on Federal Award Programs June 30, 2015

CITY OF HEALDSBURG. Single Audit Report on Federal Award Programs June 30, 2015 Single Audit Report on Federal Award Programs June 30, 2015 SINGLE AUDIT REPORT ON FEDERAL AWARD PROGRAMS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Independent Auditor s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

More information

Brockton Redevelopment Authority. Financial Statements. June 30, 2017

Brockton Redevelopment Authority. Financial Statements. June 30, 2017 Brockton Redevelopment Authority Financial Statements June 30, 2017 Brockton Redevelopment Authority Financial Statements June 30, 2017 Contents Independent Auditor's Report Management's Discussion and

More information

City of Des Moines, Iowa. Single Audit Compliance Report Year Ended June 30, 2018

City of Des Moines, Iowa. Single Audit Compliance Report Year Ended June 30, 2018 City of Des Moines, Iowa Single Audit Compliance Report Year Ended June 30, 2018 Contents Report on internal control over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of financial

More information

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BISHOP COMPONENT UNIT FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BISHOP COMPONENT UNIT FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BISHOP COMPONENT UNIT FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BISHOP Component Unit Financial Statement For the

More information

TMC/RMC Joint Meeting

TMC/RMC Joint Meeting MEETINGS OF THE Management Committees Transit Management Committee (TMC) MEETING DATE Wednesday, May 4, 2016 TMC/RMC Joint Meeting MEETING DATE Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Rail Management Committee (RMC) MEETING

More information

QUEEN CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 95

QUEEN CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 95 QUEEN CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 95 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 20217 East Chandler Heights Road Queen Creek, Arizona 85142 QUEEN CREEK, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE

More information

Vistancia Community Facilities District Peoria, Arizona. Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016

Vistancia Community Facilities District Peoria, Arizona. Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 Vistancia Community Facilities District Peoria, Arizona Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016 District Board: Cathy Carlat, Chairperson Bridget Binsbacher, Vice-Chairperson John Edwards

More information

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District Of Oregon

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District Of Oregon Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards Single Audit Reports For the Year Ended June 30,

More information

DYSART UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 89

DYSART UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 89 DYSART UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 89 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 15802 North Parkview Place Surprise, Arizona 85374 SURPRISE, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL

More information

SOUTHWEST TRANSIT Eden Prairie, Minnesota

SOUTHWEST TRANSIT Eden Prairie, Minnesota Eden Prairie, Minnesota REPORTS ON COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS, OMB CIRCULAR A-133 SINGLE AUDIT AND MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE For the Year Ended December 31, 2011 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCHEDULE

More information

HEBER-OVERGAARD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6

HEBER-OVERGAARD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 HEBER-OVERGAARD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 6 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 3375 Buckskin Canyon Road P.O. Box 547 Heber, Arizona 85928 HEBER, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE

More information

RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.2 SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014

RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.2 SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014 RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.2 SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING PACKAGE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2014 This page intentionally left blank. RIVERSIDE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO.2 SINGLE AUDIT REPORTING

More information

Greater New Haven Water Pollution Control Authority. Federal Compliance Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018

Greater New Haven Water Pollution Control Authority. Federal Compliance Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018 Greater New Haven Water Pollution Control Authority Federal Compliance Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2018 Contents Report required by the Federal Single Audit Act and the Uniform Guidance Report on

More information

CITY OF RIPON CALIFORNIA SINGLE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2015

CITY OF RIPON CALIFORNIA SINGLE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2015 CALIFORNIA SINGLE AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2015 CALIFORNIA SINGLE AUDIT REPORT JUNE 30, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Independent Auditor s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

More information

TOLLESON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17

TOLLESON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17 TOLLESON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 17 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2015 9261 West Van Buren Street Tolleson, Arizona 85353 TOLLESON, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL

More information

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS AND SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS AND SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS AND SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY June 30, 2017 Table of Contents Report of Independent Auditors on the Financial Statements for the Year

More information

CAVE CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93

CAVE CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93 CAVE CREEK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 33606 North 60 th Street Scottsdale, Arizona 85262 CAVE CREEK, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL

More information

MANATEE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, INC. (A CHARTER SCHOOL AND COMPONENT UNIT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MANATEE COUNTY) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

MANATEE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, INC. (A CHARTER SCHOOL AND COMPONENT UNIT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MANATEE COUNTY) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS MANATEE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES, INC. (A CHARTER SCHOOL AND COMPONENT UNIT OF THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MANATEE COUNTY) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR

More information

HARRIS COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1

HARRIS COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 HARRIS COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 SINGLE AUDIT REPORT Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2012 HARRIS COUNTY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 SINGLE AUDIT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Independent Auditors Report

More information

Elmore County Commission

Elmore County Commission Report on the Commission, Alabama October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009 Filed: March 18, 2011 Department of Examiners of Public Accounts 50 North Ripley Street, Room 3201 P.O. Box 302251 Montgomery,

More information

CITY OF NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS

CITY OF NAPERVILLE, ILLINOIS SINGLE AUDIT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) Independent Auditor s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed

More information

Fiscal year ended June 30, 2012

Fiscal year ended June 30, 2012 SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA SINGLE AUDIT REPORT ON FEDERAL AWARDS SINGLE AUDIT REPORT ON FEDERAL AWARDS T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Independent Auditors Report on Compliance and other Matters and on Internal

More information

ATLANTIC COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL Table of Contents INTRODUCTORY SECTION

ATLANTIC COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL Table of Contents INTRODUCTORY SECTION 23550 ATLANTIC COMMUNITY CHARTER SCHOOL Table of Contents INTRODUCTORY SECTION Page Letter of Transmittal 2 Organizational Chart 6 Roster of Officials 7 Consultants and Advisors 8 FINANCIAL SECTION Independent

More information

CREIGHTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14 PHOENIX, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012

CREIGHTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14 PHOENIX, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012 PHOENIX, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2012 Issued by: Business and Finance Department TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal ASBO

More information

SOUTHWEST TRANSIT Eden Prairie, Minnesota

SOUTHWEST TRANSIT Eden Prairie, Minnesota Eden Prairie, Minnesota REPORTS ON COMPLIANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS, OMB CIRCULAR A-133 SINGLE AUDIT AND MINNESOTA LEGAL COMPLIANCE For the Year Ended December 31, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCHEDULE

More information

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF HI-NELLA SCHOOL DISTRICT

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF HI-NELLA SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF HI-NELLA SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017 22600 BOROUGH OF HI-NELLA SCHOOL DISTRICT Table of Contents INTRODUCTORY

More information

THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS AND INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORTS. For The Year Ended December 31, 2017

THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS AND INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORTS. For The Year Ended December 31, 2017 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT SCHEDULE OF EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AWARDS AND INDEPENDENT AUDITOR S REPORTS For The Year Ended December 31, 2017 - This page intentionally left blank - THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT

More information

Casa Blanca Community School, Inc. Single Audit Reporting Package. Year Ended June 30, 2017

Casa Blanca Community School, Inc. Single Audit Reporting Package. Year Ended June 30, 2017 Casa Blanca Community School, Inc. Single Audit Reporting Package Year Ended June 30, 2017 Casa Blanca Community School, Inc. Single Audit Reporting Package Year Ended June 30, 2017 Issued by: Business

More information

TROY SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 287 Troy, Idaho Audited Financial Statements For the Year Ended June 30, 2013

TROY SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 287 Troy, Idaho Audited Financial Statements For the Year Ended June 30, 2013 TROY SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 287 Audited Financial Statements For the Year Ended June 30, 2013 315 S Almon P.O. Box 9043 Moscow, Idaho 83843 1543 208 882 5547 Fax 208 882 3724 www.haydenross.com TROY SCHOOL

More information

BUCKEYE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 33

BUCKEYE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 33 BUCKEYE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 33 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 25555 West Durango Street Buckeye, Arizona 85326 BUCKEYE, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL

More information

Incorporated Village of Greenport, New York

Incorporated Village of Greenport, New York Incorporated Village of Greenport, New York Single Audit Reports Year Ended May 31, 2017 Incorporated Village of Greenport, New York Single Audit Reports Year Ended May 31, 2017 C O N T E N T S Page Schedule

More information

NANTUCKET REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (a component Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation)

NANTUCKET REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (a component Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation) NANTUCKET REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (a component Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation) Auditors Report as Required by OMB Circular A-133 and Government Auditing Standards and Related

More information

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GALVESTON WHARVES FEDERAL SINGLE AUDIT REPORT. Year Ended December 31, 2010

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GALVESTON WHARVES FEDERAL SINGLE AUDIT REPORT. Year Ended December 31, 2010 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GALVESTON WHARVES FEDERAL SINGLE AUDIT REPORT Year Ended December 31, 2010 THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE GALVESTON WHARVES FEDERAL SINGLE AUDIT REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

More information

SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY. Basic Financial Statements and Single Audit Reports Year Ended September 30, 2016

SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY. Basic Financial Statements and Single Audit Reports Year Ended September 30, 2016 SOUTHERN UTE INDIAN HOUSING AUTHORITY Basic Financial Statements and Single Audit Reports Year Ended September 30, 2016 Table of Contents Financial Section Page Independent Auditor s Report... 1-3 Management

More information

ALHAMBRA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 68

ALHAMBRA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 68 ALHAMBRA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 68 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2013 4510 North 37 th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85019 PHOENIX, ARIZONA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL

More information

VALLEY METRO RPTA FY18 Budget EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

VALLEY METRO RPTA FY18 Budget EXECUTIVE SUMMARY VALLEY METRO RPTA FY18 Budget EXECUTIVE SUMMARY FY18 ADOPTED ANNUAL OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) provides public transportation services for

More information

IMPERIAL COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. Financial Report of the Transit Planning and Programs Management Fund June 30, 2017 and 2016

IMPERIAL COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION. Financial Report of the Transit Planning and Programs Management Fund June 30, 2017 and 2016 IMPERIAL COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Financial Report of the Transit Planning and Programs Management Fund June 30, 2017 and 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT 3-4 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

More information

REPORT ON FEDERAL AWARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133

REPORT ON FEDERAL AWARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133 SACRAMENTO REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA REPORT ON FEDERAL AWARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA Table of Contents Independent Auditors' Report

More information

Cowlitz County. Financial Statements and Federal Single Audit Report. For the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017

Cowlitz County. Financial Statements and Federal Single Audit Report. For the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 Financial Statements and Federal Single Audit Report Cowlitz County For the period January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 Published December 20, 2018 Report No. 1022812 Office of the Washington State

More information

NANTUCKET REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (a component Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation)

NANTUCKET REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (a component Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation) NANTUCKET REGIONAL TRANSIT AUTHORITY (a component Unit of the Massachusetts Department of Transportation) Auditors Report as Required by OMB Circular A-133 and Government Auditing Standards and Related

More information

STATE OF MINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor

STATE OF MINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor STATE OF MINNESOTA Office of the State Auditor Rebecca Otto State Auditor MANAGEMENT AND COMPLIANCE REPORT PREPARED AS A RESULT OF THE AUDIT OF THE BOARD OF WATER COMMISSIONERS OF THE SAINT PAUL REGIONAL

More information

Bristol Warren Regional School District

Bristol Warren Regional School District Bristol Warren Regional School District Financial Statements FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2017 Bristol Warren Regional School District Table of Contents For the Year Ended June 30, 2017 Independent Auditor

More information

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CARROLL COUNTY MANAGEMENT S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF CARROLL COUNTY MANAGEMENT S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION MANAGEMENT S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION YEAR ENDED TABLE OF CONTENTS YEAR ENDED INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT 1 MANAGEMENT S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

More information

RAIL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 1, :30 P.M. 101 NORTH FIRST AVENUE 13TH FLOOR BOARD ROOM PHOENIX, AZ 85003

RAIL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 1, :30 P.M. 101 NORTH FIRST AVENUE 13TH FLOOR BOARD ROOM PHOENIX, AZ 85003 RAIL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2008 1:30 P.M. 101 NORTH FIRST AVENUE 13TH FLOOR BOARD ROOM PHOENIX, AZ 85003 September 24, 2008 To: From: Chairman Fairbanks and Members of the Rail Management

More information

BEDFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Temperance, Michigan ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT. June 30, 2015

BEDFORD PUBLIC SCHOOLS Temperance, Michigan ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT. June 30, 2015 Temperance, Michigan ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT June 30, 2015 Bedford Public Schools Table of Contents June 30, 2015 Independent Auditor s Report... 1-2 Independent Auditor s Report on Internal Control over

More information

Independent Auditor s Report

Independent Auditor s Report Independent Auditor s Report To the Board of Directors Ann Arbor Transportation Authority We have audited the accompanying basic financial statements of the Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (the "Authority")

More information