TMC/RMC Joint Meeting

Transcription

1 MEETINGS OF THE Management Committees Transit Management Committee (TMC) MEETING DATE Wednesday, June 1, 2016 TMC/RMC Joint Meeting MEETING DATE Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Rail Management Committee (RMC) MEETING DATE Wednesday, June 1, 2016 TIME 11:00 a.m. TIME 11:15 a.m. TIME 11:45 a.m. LOCATION Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor Phoenix VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

2 May 25, 2016 Transit Management Committee Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor 11:00 a.m. Action Recommended 1. Public Comment 1. For information A 15-minute opportunity will be provided to members of the public at the beginning of the meeting to address the TMC on all agenda items. The Chair may recognize members of the public during the meeting at his/her discretion. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker or a total of 15 minutes total for all speakers. 2. Minutes 2. For action Minutes from the May 4, 2016 TMC meeting are presented for approval. CONSENT AGENDA 3A. Purchase of Diesel and Unleaded Fuel 3A. For action Staff will request TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a cooperative agreement purchase order with Senergy Petroleum LLC under Arizona State Contract #ADSPO for diesel and unleaded fuel for a not-to-exceed amount of $5,500,000 over a five-year period. 3B. Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Contract Change Orders 3B. For action Staff will request that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute contract change orders in order to extend the period of performance and/or provide budget authority for FY17 projects under contract tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

3 3C. Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) 3C. For action Staff will request that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute FY17 IGAs and IGA amendments for projects tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget. 3D. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Change Orders with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass- Through Grants 3D. For action Staff will request that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute change orders for IGAs with the City of Phoenix to allow Valley Metro to be reimbursed for eligible activities. 3E. Contract Award for the Manufacture and Delivery of 30 Heavy Duty Transit Buses 3F. For action Staff will request that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a contract with ElDorado National Inc. for the manufacture and delivery of eight heavy duty 30 transit buses over a two-year period at an estimated base cost of $3,985,530 plus $320,000 for optional components and Producer Price Index (PPI) increases. REGULAR AGENDA 4. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events 4. For information and discussion Chair Fitzhugh will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events. 5. Next Meeting 5. For information The next meeting of the TMC is scheduled for Wednesday, August 3, 2016 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 Valley Metro at or TTY at To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact the receptionist at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can be found on our web site at 2

4 DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Public Comment PURPOSE A 15-minute opportunity will be provided to members of the public at the beginning of the meeting to address the TMC on all agenda items. The Chair may recognize members of the public during the meeting at his/her discretion. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None COST AND BUDGET None COMMITTEE PROCESS None RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only. CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer ssmith@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

5 DATE AGENDA ITEM 2 May 25, 2016 Summary Minutes Valley Metro RPTA Transit Management Committee Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor Phoenix, AZ 11:00 a.m. Members Present David Fitzhugh, City of Avondale, Chair Ed Zuercher, City of Phoenix, Vice Chair Roger Klingler, City of Buckeye Dan Cook, City of Chandler Jorge Gastelum for Dr. Spencer Isom, City of El Mirage Marc Skocypec, Town of Gilbert Kevin Phelps, City of Glendale Brian Dalke, City of Goodyear (via phone) Chris Brady, City of Mesa Jeff Tyne, City of Peoria Madeline Clemann, City of Scottsdale Nicole Lane, City of Surprise Steven Methvin, City of Tempe Members Not Present Sara Allred, ADOT City of Tolleson Mitch Wagner, Maricopa County Chair Fitzhugh called the meeting to order at 11:05 a.m. 1. Public Comment Mr. Crowley said I need to get some things resolved here. One, it's for anything dealing with what you're doing. Action items I have a separate ability to come and speak on that. And I'd like to point out that in the joint meeting you don't have a thing for public comment, which being that there are agenda items on there that are for information, how is it that I am able to comment on it, because I'm going to be taking -- could you please stop and restart this? I'm discussing something with the Chair. I'll be discussing the information items on your meeting today. Could you please stop the -- and start this again. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

6 I was getting things resolved with you and trying to get some clarity, because I was going to use my three minutes on bus to discuss two of the items that are for information. And thank you for starting now. The items I'm going to be discussing are the short-range plan and the transit life cycle. With the short-range plan, the part that I find the most fascinating is when you are building infrastructure, I know that all of your communities, Buckeye included, are really happy that you're getting a park-and-ride. But every park-and-ride costs $10,000 for each one of those spaces, which is, what, the same price for a bus stop. I don't see in the short-range plan where we're going to be doing any of those kinds of things. The other part in the short-range plan that I find fascinating is it's supposed to show where you're going to be doing the new routing and such. And with it in here -- I've asked how many times over these last months could you give me the document showing where in '06 that you said you were going to be doing the changes. And what I have gotten is nothing. So when I see that -- and back in the day, it said that the East Valley between 2015 and 2020 a lot of those routes that I pointed out to you that you don't have anything on: Chandler, you know, Gilbert that those roads are supposed to be addressed and dealt with. But where is that being done. But then I look at the other side of the equation, at the Surprise and the Peoria s, and how much of the sales tax are we collecting from them, and what percentage are they getting taken care of. And then I'll go to Avondale, of course, my favorite little one. I'll be spending money there today and tomorrow. My girlfriend has a doctor's appointment, so I'm going to the hospital out there. And we had won prizes to Fired Pie, so we'll be visiting there. And I'll be picking up some cat food at the tractor store, because I buy it in 40-pound bags, but where is your transit. Why can't I use transit to get there. And in this short-range plan, where are your bus routes, because they ain't there. So when I look at the West Side and what is supposed to be done and what is done already, I go, inadequate. You need to get it done better. You need to be considering each of your populations. When are you going to get transit there, because today, according to the feds we're having an ozone alert. Whose fault is that, because we -- and you've suggested, the way to solve this problem is for your citizens to use mass transit. Now other than Express, 100 percent of your population in Avondale could use your transit, right, because there is none. Dianne Barker said I'm a transit advocate. I've been able to make it work and was able -- I was just sharing with another citizen to get independent, you know, really from out of a failed marriage and living with my parents by using the bus system. And this was 2

7 when I moved here in about 1986, and I found that I was able to live without owning a car which was very good, because it cut down on expenses and I became independent and I'm self-supporting today. Sure, I'd like to earn more, but I'm very happy with some of the benefits, which was going through many trials and tribulations like a lot of people do with their health. I've been able to rebound and I owe a lot of it is moving. When you use transit you move. Now, it's not always been that romantic, but overall, there are huge benefits and I say walk the talk. Everybody here that knows about it is building it. The best thing is firsthand. You know what they say if you wanna dance, you get out and you move your feet. Oh, I don't dance. I just walk. Well, you know, you do it. And that's what it is. And so I've read your information today and I just, you know, let's get on the road of like leaner, kinder, and maybe even meaner, you know, tough love. Is when I got to MAG and they have more jurisdictions than you folks do, I get this, you know, for the agenda. I come here and most of it -- a little bit of Board of Supervisors -- but this is all from today. Let's get rid of all -- why do you have to have these extra, you know, glossy things. Does it make it look like we're so much more prosperous. We have people that have studied, they're engineers and like this, but an engineer's dream is when the public gets butted out. The public's here. You're to serve the public. I'm passionate about it because it's right. Many of you have taken the oath to. Let's not glossy up everything. Let's get out and actually do it. Meet the people that are using your systems. You may find your system's better than you have it today. And now finally, with the audits, and I go back from Debra Davenport from the State, on this entity, MAG, and so forth, lots of times METRO didn't even respond. Dennis Smith over at MAG was apparently handling all of those recommendations and serious ones with the State audit of this entity and MAG, CTOC, and so forth. Mr. Crowley went to meetings at CTOC. Do you know that Mr. Arnett never ever, ever took any recommendations. Some of them were valid. You know, from him and other citizens that went there into MAG like you're supposed to. I say the system has failed. I'd like to believe more in the Board of Supervisors, like, I think, Ed Zuercher pointed out and others in your last joint meeting, this needs to be full government, not any agency that doesn't have administrative procedure relief for citizens and be like a district under the authority of Maricopa County accountable to the citizenry. Ms. Fields said thank you, Mr. Chair, our distinguished ladies and our distinguished gentlemen here. Last time we were -- you met, there were a lot of things about public service in your customer service also about all of the new buses you bought. And I remember two times before, one time before, I missed a meeting, that you were talking about fareboxes. Well, Monday there was quite something that happened that 3

8 just rocked my socks and scared the bus driver half to death. This gentlemen his -- and I have a picture of the box. The farebox said: passes only, no bills. Gentleman came on the bus and had his bills out, and he wanted to buy $6 worth of transit. And the bus driver said, well, this farebox does not accept bills. So he hands the bus driver money. And he says, you have to give -- I'll buy a complimentary pass or a pass from you. Now the bus driver nearly jumped out of his seat. And he said, I can't do that. I don't touch money. That's not my job. He said, there's cameras all around. He said, just take a seat. And this person sat down. And he looked at me and he said, honestly, an honest bus driver. And I couldn't understand what he meant. But you have some drivers in a different city than Mesa. Mesa drivers are straight. They know what the rules are. But evidently in a neighboring town their bus drivers are given a bunch of, you know, the one-day passes. If reduced fare pass doesn't work or it doesn't print right, they can give them a pass. Right? Okay. Well, that's what we're talking about, that little pass. Evidently from what this gentleman said, and he's got dates, times, and when he reported it in and he said those drivers are still driving. They take the money, give them the pass, and put the money in their pocket. Now, I don't know about you, but to me, this sounds like someone is taking money from your companies. I don't know how to stop this. I don't know what to do about it. I'm afraid because I'm telling you this that there might be repercussions from that city. And every now and again I have to go to that city. But you want to know where your money is going and why you're losing money, this is the reason. I know the Mesa bus drivers and what they have to go through to get the complimentary passes is almost signing their name in blood, but evidently, these people are getting these passes from somebody who is handing them handfuls of passes and they're doing it -- it's not one, it's going on quite a few. I'm sorry to bring this to you. And I thank you for your kind attention. It would also be nice if you could possibly think about sending a bus down Greenfield and on Higley. Those are two main arteries that are used a lot by the seniors. And I've talked to a lot of bus riders that ride the LINK -- the Main Street LINK, and they ask and they pray that you would not take it away from them so they could get to work or get to their doctor's appointments in Phoenix. And I thank you for your time. 2. Minutes Minutes from the April 6, 2016 TMC meeting were presented for approval. IT WAS MOVED BY ED ZUERCHER, SECONDED BY DAN COOK AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 6, 2016 TMC MINUTES. 4

9 3. Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Operation of East Valley, Northwest Valley and Regional Paratransit Services Mr. Smith said thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Today we -- because of the nature of the action items, we don't have a consent agenda, so we're going to handle them separately. This item is basically just approval or recommendation to go before the Board so we can issue an RFP to consolidate what now is covered by two separate contracts: one for the Northwest Valley, one for the East Valley. For a variety of reasons, we'd like to consolidate those contracts into a single contract so we have consistency between how we manage contracts. So that's what Item 3 is for. If you have any questions, we'd be more than willing to address those, but I think it's pretty self-explanatory. This is not awarding anything. It's just to issue the RFP for that. Chair Fitzhugh said thank you, Mr. Smith. Any comments or discussion? And, Blue, I see you have a request to comment. Public Comment Mr. Crowley said the only problem I really have with this is in times of budget constraints, being that most of the East Valley and Northeast Valley don't have actual bus service. And more than once -- and the Northwest, especially in the Northwest Valley, you know, anything north of Bell or west of 67th Avenue really doesn't have a bus and that would include -- which I don't see in here -- would be the Southwest Valley. Not that we have Goodyear, Avondale, Tolleson, Litchfield I'll even go Waddell, there's communities on that side. But the problem I have when you do the Dial-A-Ride is you're supposed to be a regional system and all of your communities are supposed to have some form of transit working within a whole frame work. When is Buckeye, Gila Bend, Tolleson, Cashion, Avondale when are you going to get a bus so that they have to put the paratransit there. IT WAS MOVED BY MADELINE CLEMANN, SECONDED BY ED ZUERCHER AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE INTERIM CEO TO ISSUE A FEDERALLY COMPLIANT RFP FOR A TOTAL TERM OF TEN YEARS (FIVE-YEAR BASE CONTRACT PLUS FIVE ONE-YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS) TO OPERATE EAST VALLEY, NORTHWEST VALLEY AND REGIONAL PARATRANSIT. 4. Contract Change Order with First Transit, Inc. for Fixed Route Bus Service Mr. Smith said thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. We are -- Valley Metro provides bus service in the East Valley under a contract with First Transit that is a 5

10 ten-year contract with a three-year initial term that is now coming up for -- that threeyear term is ending June 30. The terms of the contract are three-year term plus a seven-year option. Based on feedback from many of you, we have been in discussions with First Transit as to the terms and conditions as to which we would issue the extension and whether it would be for the full seven years or just a shorter period. We think this is significant enough that, because there have been some changes in the contract that we hope will elevate the levels of service. There are some changes in some costs, and we thought it appropriate to bring this extension to you for your feedback and for your recommendation. I'd like to introduce Ray Abraham, our Director of Operations, who will go over, very quickly, the changes in this extension to First Transit. Ray. Mr. Abraham said thank you, Scott. Mr. Chair, members of the TMC, we're here today to ask your recommendation to execute a contract change order with First Transit for three years of their seven-year option for $187.5 million dollars for revenue service and engine transmission rebuilds. We're also asking -- we're also to include a nine and a half million dollar contingency into this three-year package for extra revenue miles, enhanced service, special events, bus bridges, what you have you. Included in the change order, we've worked long and hard with your cities. We've worked with our contractor. So we've tried to make some changes to this contract. We tried to be careful that we didn't make changes that would result in cardinal changes that would cause us any procurement issues. But included in this change order will be increased revenue miles. It will also include engine and transmission mid-life overhaul expenses. It will also -- we've also changed some contract language, nothing real significant. And, of course, as Scott said, we revised the contract term from a full seven-year option to a three-year extension plus a four-year option. Some of the changes that we put in there at the request of our cities was we added a work stoppage clause which requires the contractor to provide Saturday level service in the event we have a work stoppage after five days of the work stoppage. We've also revised some of our performance standards. Each standard obviously will be measured monthly and we will keep the Boards posted on their performance. And we'll put the contractor on notice if their performance starts to fail. Your packets don't have the performance standards, but what they will be is ontime performance, preventable accidents, customer complaints, raw customer complaints, mechanical failures per 100,000 miles, and revenue miles completed. That will be their five major performance standards that we will hold them too. 6

11 There's also additional contract language where we could assess liquidated damages for deferred maintenance failures, preventative maintenance inspections that are not up to our standards, missed trips due to manpower. That's been a real point of contention with us. We feel we need more manpower on this contract. And early departures will also be assessed separately from the five performance indicators. And just so everyone understands, we are comparing the cost of the base contract which went out to 2013 and it was based on 10.6 million miles. So this is how we're going to derive your cost per mile, not your actual full loaded cost. And you can see all the detail up here. If anyone has any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. If not, I'll move on to the next slide. The proposed change order amount, this is the real cost, it is the for year '17, it will be $57 million base, plus the increased miles from when we put the contract out at 10.6 million, we're running over a little over $11 million right now. So that will be an additional $1.7 million, which will give you a total revenue cost of $58.7 million plus the engine overhauls of $1.3 million are rolled into this contract. Prior to that, that was paid for through the contract, but was not in the actual contract so we had to create a change order to do that. So that's your total cost for the next three years or your total proposed cost, I should say. Any questions thus far? I know some of the cities asked about the blended cost per mile and that's for all three service levels. I have your cost for local express service, circulator service, if you're interested. I think we sent that out to everybody yesterday, but in the event you don't, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Cook said Mr. Chair, I don't have any questions but I would like to take a moment and thank Ray, Scott Wisner, and Mike Taylor, and all your other staff who worked on this. They did an excellent job in going through the process and negotiating, you know, this new contract extension, so I think they did an excellent job. And it's good to see it coming to fruition. I think one of the things that I noted in the contract that I saw an improvement in is the language in the work stoppage. And I think being able to get to Saturday level service is an improvement. And I think it also -- contract also allows for sort of a ramping up period to get to that Saturday level of service, which I think is an improvement over what we had before, so I think those are good valid improvements in terms of the stoppage clause. And I think the other thing was the performance indicators. I think there is some good clarification of what those are and some minor adjustments to make those more industry standard performance. 7

12 I do like the fact that the contract does talk about strict compliance or enforcement of those. But I also know that Valley Metro will be very reasonable in how that strict compliance is done. Should end up with better overall performance. And I also appreciate the effort to push a lot of this data and performance numbers out to the cities on a monthly -- to all the cities on a monthly basis. So, again, thank you, and your staff for all the great work you did on this. Mr. Brady said so, put aside the contract for a second. Today, if you could, is this the relationship you would want going forward for the next three years? Mr. Abraham said I think it is our best option. Mr. Brady said okay. So, and that's fair. That's fair. That's a good response. So what happens if the -- you know, the level of service, the level of performance continues not to meet our expectations, then, as I heard you talk about, the good news is we're not having to make a seven-year commitment, but we are making a three-year commitment. And help me understand, at what point in this amendment that's an adjustment that we would again have to evaluate and sign, is this service, is this performance meeting our expectations. Because I always get concerned is that we know today we've got some -- we have concerns. There's some things that we think could be improved. Mr. Abraham said of course. Mr. Brady said and yet, we're, kind of, going to get locked into this. And obviously, it will look like we're trying to be more descriptive in performing -- descriptive in their expectations about performance information. But if nothing changes, what are our options. Do we have to wait a whole three years? What tool do you have to be responsive if this isn't meeting our needs and our expectations? I just worry about sometimes these contracts are like perpetuating a bad relationship. So how do we, I mean, help me understand what we could do. Mr. Abraham said I think if the service quality doesn't improve to our expectations between now and the next two years, I think we have an option, and it would follow contract procurement rules, put our contractor on notice with letters of concern, follow it up by potentially a cure letter. And if we don't get the results we want, we always have an option to terminate them for cause. And if we would do that that it would be a little unique, and I threw this out at the RTAG and there was a lot of concern from the cities. If you would terminate for cause, I believe we would have to reach out and bring an emergency contractor in. I call it an emergency contractor, but we would have to bring someone in within a reasonable 8

13 amount of time, thirty days, forty-five days to take over the operation for us while we put together a new RFP and put it out on the street. If we could get the service we want, then after two years we would obviously come back and evaluate the service. If we're content with it, we would move on to offer them a four-year option. If we're not, we would then have time to put a normal procurement out, a normal RFP, and start the procurement process. Mr. Brady said was there any thought about flipping this around a little bit differently saying we'll give you at least one more year to demonstrate that there's real change being made and if that -- we meet those expectations, then we're willing to do a twoyear renewal and then be able to have the option? I mean, I'm just curious kind of the thinking here, because it seems to be we're going to locked in for two years, the end of the second year we could say, this isn't really working out. Terminating for cause is a very high standard, and I -- I mean, unless this thing totally implodes, that's probably very difficult. Most likely it's just going to be you're having to work a lot more and your staff is because the performance isn't meeting your expectations and that's what will make the decision about whether to continue. So I'm just trying to -- it seems to me, unless I'm just throwing this out it looks to me that this is a two-year commitment and at the end of the two years, we can say, you know, this isn't really working, but we need a whole full year to go put it out for another process, so we're still going to live with three years of less. And, listen, I don't know that I have the full solution. I'm just making sure I understand what we're committing to here. And have you thought about flipping that around and saying why don't we give you a year to make improvements. If you've met certain thresholds, then certainly we could, you know, then the extension -- you earned the extension further -- multiple years out from there. Mr. Abraham said we spoke of that. We discussed it at length with the cities. Internally there were concerns. First of all, a year is not a lot of time. So for us to give them six months to improve, eight months to improve when do we pull the plug and say we're going to go out with a reprocurement. It would almost put us in the same situation, I would think, that we'd have to bring a contractor in to take over in the interim time between us putting an RFP out on the street, doing a whole evaluation process. I understand where you're coming from, terminating for cause can be somewhat legally challenging possibly, but... Mr. Brady said I'm not trying to suggest to -- and I understand the method -- having that extended period of time to do a new RFP, I get that, and so let's preserve that in there that you have a year. 9

14 I guess I'm just concerned that, frankly, many of us who have to oversee very large complex operations, we're often only given a year to turn things around. So I'm not going to -- I'm sorry, but it's going to be difficult for me to say that you couldn't go to some company and say you've got one year to turn things around. You know we're faced with that every time when we do a budget and doing performance measures, so help me out with that. Mr. Smith said and if I could, we had a lot of discussions about this. Here's the reality of the situation that we dealt with. This isn't a new contract. We're operating under a procurement that was three years ago. And so that puts limits as to what we can do in our relationship. We can't renegotiate this contract basically. And we actually pushed it as far as we could to provide new incentives, to provide new measurements. But if you go past a certain amount, you get into the cardinal change, which runs us headlong into both state procurement and FTA rules. So we had a limited amount of room to truly work whether it was one year or three years. And we had a lot of internal discussion as to the realities of changing horses in the middle of the stream, time that would be needed -- and we all agree that someone should be able to prove themselves in a year. At the end of the day, we took all the factors that were in place, the things we could put in place in the contract, what the downside would be, what if they don't do this, are we going to -- with just a one-year extension. Does that leave them in a place where they truly want to do better, or at that point in time are they a placeholder. All these factors came in. And we're not saying it's the best, but it's our best guess that we believe that the three year will actually give us the time with some of the things -- with the new system we put in -- and basically what we did is we change it to where this is incentive based, but also includes some punishment. Before it was purely a big stick, and, you know, you can only beat people so hard and say you will enjoy this. And so we've changed some things to try to change our relationship. We're in a contract administration business model. We don't run the buses. We manage the contract for those who do run the buses. To make that change to another company or to take that on is a very, very laborious process that is fraught with a lot of downside. We tried to change how we're -- we had very honest discussions with First Transit. They knew we were talking about one year or three years. We came to the conclusion that three years actually gives us the best opportunity to actually achieve price stability, because that was something that your staff came back and said, you know, that's also important. We want to increase service, but we also want price and cost stability. 10

15 A one-year would not provide us the kind of cost stability we're talking about. It brought a level of uncertainty that we believed would be counterproductive, and so that's why we arrived at the three year. We decided early only we weren't going to go beyond three years, but we just didn't see what we could attain a one-year extension based on the parameters we had to work with and that's why we decided to go for the three. Mr. Brady said great. And that helps a lot. And just one last comment, all I would say is somebody put a note -- write a note today so that two years from now I don't want to hear, oh, sorry, we just forgot this and we're into the third year and now we're going to have to wait another year. So let's make sure that at some point well before the end of that second year we're having this critical conversation about performance so we're running into -- if we need to make a change, we can take full advantage of that time. That's -- because I see that happen, someone forgets, change in leadership, who knows, something like that, but let's just make sure we have that tickler file that we make sure we stick to this commitment. Mr. Zuercher said so you mentioned this is a contract management model. My observation without knowing the depth is something didn't work in contract management here. Because, here we are, less than sixty days from the beginning of the contract year, and if we decided to vote no, we basically have no option. We can't vote no on this, or we're going to be -- we can't vote no and reasonably have bus service in South Phoenix and the East Valley. So I have a problem with that, because you've put us in a place where there's no real option for us or for the Board. You know, just the information I get from staff is, this is a chronically bad performance that the ontime performance is bad, that the customer service is way out of whack with the rest of the Valley, and this contractor works elsewhere in the Valley, so -- and they do better elsewhere. We also didn't just wake up today three years into the contract and say, oops, this isn't any good. So what was going on for the last three years in contract management to have alerted us to this problem there. So those are probably all more rhetorical questions, but here's one I do have is in the information summary in the packet in the second paragraph under background discussion, consideration, the first sentence says, "During the initial three-year base term Valley Metro has worked closely with First Transit to improve ontime performance, customer satisfaction, and overall quality of service." 11

16 Can you describe that to me a little bit about what did we do to work closely with them, and have we seen it improve? Mr. Abraham said we have worked closely with them, Mr. Zuercher. We have tried to make recommendations to them within our contractual rights. We've seen what we believe are flaws in their operation. We've asked them to correct them. Let's start from the beginning. The first year we sort of have partnered with them and tried to give them some time to get acclimated and to get their staffs in order. Performance started well. The first six months or eight months it was fine. It started dropping off. We reacted to it. But as Scott said, this is a contract management type contract, so I can't mandate they do anything. I can't mandate that they schedule things or train my way, so we worked with the contractor as closely as we can, we got as much cooperation as we could. As far as this timeliness, we were negotiating this extension with the contractor back in September, August, September into October. And then, as you all know, things happened here, things changed. And our negotiations were put on hold until some of the more prevalent issues had to be taken care of. So I was -- Mr. Zuercher said so it's Steve Banta monitoring the contract? Mr. Abraham said no. There was a change order that was in question that was put on hold, and we were asked to stop any further negotiations until the change order got settled. And that got settled sometime after January, February. Then we began negotiations again. But we didn't want to come here this late. We had planned to come here before the end of the year, but, as I said, other things -- Mr. Zuercher said well, and the time is something you can't rewind. I guess what I'm reacting to a little bit is it's -- their performance is not a mystery. Their performance has been known, I guess, or we should have known it for three years. And certainly in a contract management model, it's irrelevant what your way is or my way is. What's relevant is their performance. And so they can -- they can do whatever way they want to, it's the performance they got to deliver on the -- to the customer. And I just don't see that performance being good at all. So, setting all the past aside, what's going to be different in these next three years in how we manage the contract that we're not, as Chris says, here in two years with the same result. Mr. Smith said if I could, Mr. Zuercher, first of all, in your budget that you'll go over are two new positions specifically related to management of this contract, which were discussed with your staff and we've added, so there's more oversight. 12

17 Secondly, we've tried to -- first of all, we've had this same discussion with First Transit. This is no mystery. They know what our position is and they understand that this is not going to be something that's going to be put on the back burner and going to be ignored for two years. We will be monitoring on a monthly basis, and you will be receiving monthly performance results. We're changing the way we report those so it gets out of the detail, number driven that nobody looks at, because the numbers -- it will be more graphical so that you are in almost as much of a real time as you can. At least with less than thirty days we'll know where they are headed. The reality of this is this is a bargain contract. I mean, and that's not an excuse, but many times what you get is what you bargained for. Mr. Fitzhugh said with all due respect, I don't see that as an excuse for them, because we all work in contract. We all get contracts that are low bid. Mr. Smith said I didn't say that. Chair Fitzhugh said I'm really trying to push that our staff, and I'm on this with our staff in Phoenix too, we have to do a better job of contract management. Mr. Smith said I agree with you. Chair Fitzhugh said before we end up in a place like this. And the people who suffer from it, not me. It's the people who are riding the bus every day and the bus is late or it leaves early or the number of complaints are -- at least they appear to be twice that of our other routes throughout the Valley and other contractors. So it really, I think, it falls to us to hold their feet to the fire, and I'm hearing a commitment to that, which I think is really good, and I'm not so interested in me seeing the monthly performance measures, because you're not going to depend on me to hold their feet to the fire. We and our elected officials are going to depend on you all to hold their feet to that fire and to let us know when they're not living up to that now that we're aware of it and what we're going to do to change that. That's really where I'm coming from. Mr. Smith said and I agree with it wholeheartedly. Believe me. We went through all the different scenarios of what can we do within the -- that's the only reason I bring up the original contract, because it does establish certain confines and it affects options and alternatives. And that's the only reason I bring it up. And the fact of the matter of is, is that we recognize the situation. First Transit now understands that going into this that this is a different -- this is a different world than it used to be. We are not going to just say, well, gee, you're doing a bad job and we hope you do better. 13

18 This will be a monthly -- a monthly accountable. And the reason I see why I say we're going to provide you information, we want to be accountable and I want this staff to be accountable to you and the elected officials so they know every month if the numbers and the data show an improvement in the contract. They'll know that because they'll get fewer phone calls from their constituents and their riders. We'll know that because we'll see improvement in things such as canceled trips, missed trips, partial trips, ontime performance. Nobody can claim that they're not on notice going forward. First Transit knows very well. Believe me. The discussions were brutally honest, and it was discussed openly as to whether we should just walk from this. In some cases, you know, we decided that this is a salvageable relationship. And salvageable, I mean it is one where they and we can be committed to the type of improvement you're talking about. We believe -- we asked -- when I first came on here, what do you need to make this better. We went to your staff. And they said we need more oversight. That's why we put two new supervisors on our side in place, including one scheduler. The idea that that could help us to better monitor and better know what's going on on a daily basis. We have required First Transit to put additional supervisors and additional people in there, and that's one reason why the costs are going up, is because they've committed to those kind of steps. So we have taken steps to bring real improvement. Time will tell. We are committed to making that happen. The data will show whether that is happening. We will share that data on an ongoing basis so that we don't run into the situation Mr. Brady talked about, which is where -- if we sit here two years from now, and say, gee, I didn't know this was happening or this snuck up on us, then shame on all of us, because you're right. We're going into this three-year extension eyes wide open knowing with the situation is and knowing what we need to do. Now it's up to us and First Transit to perform on that. Chair Fitzhugh said thank you. This is the last thing I'm going to say, and I understand we've got to make chicken salad here, but I'm a little bothered by the fact that in order for First Transit to actually live up to the contract that they signed up for, we have to pay them more to have the kind of staffing that they should have had from the beginning to get us a quality product. And I don't know if that was a flaw in how the contract was really structured or what, but I'm trusting that we haven't -- we're not paying them more to do what they said they were going to do upfront through all this. But this is actually something that is -- was outside of the contract scope. That's a little troubling, actually. Mr. Smith said I don't know that I would characterize it as that, but the reality is that I think there needed to be some adjustments to what the original contract said to ensure 14

19 we were receiving the level of service that realistically was possible under the terms of the revised contract. Chair Fitzhugh said are there any other comments? Mr. Brady said that a great statement, because that goes to low bid is not always in our best interest. So when you evaluate proposals, the evaluation you just did now, is the evaluation that should have been done in the beginning and said you can't do this for that much money. It doesn't work. So someone's taking notes, so two years from now those kind of questions we have to ask. Mr. Smith said and just so you know, the mantra now is low -- we don't do a low-price bid. We do a low-cost bid. And we're finding out the difference between those two. I've been in contracting long enough to know that don't get too excited. And speaking bluntly, remember the time frame in which this contract was originally let. Budget situations were different. And this was substantially lower than the next bid. We're talking millions and millions of dollars. I wasn't, I mean, you know, I don't know what the process was at that time. And I'm not going to go back and try and second-guess or Monday morning quarterback it, but it's easy to see how in that time frame, in the period where we had -- where everybody was under significant constraints that a very, what was considered to be a reasonable, low amount was attractive. And I think, you know, this should be a lesson for everybody that there is a difference between low price and low cost. Right now we're analyzing what that cost is. And as we present this to you, we look at it by our cost was also analyzing all of our options. What are the alternatives if we don't do this extension. And, frankly, in many cases the ultimate cost, the medicine was worse than the -- the cure was worse than the disease, and so we have taken what we believe is the best course of action for us, and one that allows us the opportunity to succeed and that means it will succeed for the cities and for our customers. Mr. Zuercher said I'm glad we're having this dialogue. For me, the bottom line is, I know it's yours too, the experience for the customer. And so what I'm responding to is the fact that the folks that I'm responsible for in Phoenix, and Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale, others who get this service can speak for their own residents, but I'm sure it's the same, this kind of service is not acceptable for our bus riders in South Phoenix or anywhere. And so you're going to hear from us very strongly that message all the way through this. And I would expect if our Phoenix contractors are providing service that's bad, you should absolutely come after me and Maria on that, too, so that is what I'm focused on is what kind of service are our customers getting in South Phoenix, Mesa, and Tempe, 15

20 wherever. This is not acceptable. And you guys have to do better on that monitoring that contract. Mr. Smith said message received. Mr. Methvin said thank you, Mr. Chair, Mr. Abraham, there's five performance standards; they're failing three. So a year from now, how do you expect to raise those scores in those three, and what happens if they're still failing in those same three categories? So we're locked in, if we refer this to the Board and the Board approves, we're locked in for three years. I hear that we can stop mid-term, go into an emergency contract. It's highly unlikely. But what performance milestones are you putting in place now to make sure that a year from now a city saying, -- I'm glad we gave them another chance, because now they're performing in all five performance standards. Mr. Abraham said our hope is that by them increasing staff, as you see in the memo, that that is going to resolve a lot of the on-time performance and should then result in less customer complaints. Mr. Methvin said so that's an easy answer to a lot of questions. So with more staff, what are they going to do with those more staff members that are going to increase those performances? Mr. Abraham said reduce the amount of missed trips due to manpower, increase their training, increase the fact that the operators are training properly, because they have staff now to train the operators, increase their supervision, because right now a lot of times supervisors are operating the bus because they're short of operators. We're in an environment -- I understand we're in a union environment. There's FMLA, but everybody deals with that and I understand that. So we felt for the last year and a half that the staffing wasn't adequate when we see missed trips because of operators, when we see supervisors all operating buses that tells me something. When we see operators getting lost because they don't know the routes that tells me something. And First Transit has committed to increase their staff, increase their training program, increase their supervision levels. To me, that should result in better performance, less complaints. Mr. Methvin said have they provided you a plan that says we have 104 drivers right now. We're going to have 115 drivers and that should increase our ontime performance by this much. If we added 130 drivers, we could increase our performance -- our ontime performance by this much. Do we have that kind of detail? 16

21 Mr. Abraham said they have committed to an enhanced staffing plan, yes, and that is part of the contract. Mr. Abraham said yes staff has seen it. Mr. Methvin said and we're all comfortable with it? Mr. Smith said as comfortable as we can be. Mr. Smith said I have not seen that plan yet. As comfortable as we can be, once again, we can put it on paper, they have a plan, we have a standard that they will be held to. Now the question is how do we monitor it and how do they respond. I mean that's what it comes down to. We'll be in the same position -- if they don't respond, we'll be in the same position we were two months ago when we were talking about termination and we talked about replacement. That's the challenge with this. There's no good time to make that change unless you're going through a normal process of turning over at the end of a contract. We're in the middle of a contract right now. There's no good way or good time. We've tried to make the best that we could to ensure the kind of response including them doing a plan. And, once again, this is why our additional supervisors are important because now we have more eyes to make sure that on a daily basis that we are covered all the different places. If we have more eyes watching this contract, hopefully then we can identify shortfalls and deviations from the plan more quickly. We have somebody there who can address it with their supervisors immediately. We hope it will help. We hope. But that can only be seen when we actually get into the administration of the contract. And, once again, if within the year, there's no improvement, we're back here not two years from now. We're back here a year from now saying this is not improved. We need to make a change. We have the ability within the contract, even if it is a high standard to make that kind of change. That's going to be a change nobody likes because that's going to fraught with downside also, but that will be made considering the long-term customer satisfaction that we need to achieve to make sure that not only our cities, but, as Mr. Zuercher says, our riders. They're the most important. And that's where we'll be. Mr. Methvin said Mr. Smith, I would ask that when you make this presentation to the Board that you have more details. I don't think this conversation is going to be any easier with the Board. 17

22 Mr. Smith said Oh, I'm assuming it's going to be worse. Because our council members are the ones that get the phone calls from the constituents and they're the ones who call us. So we don't like those phone calls. But we recognize that that's part of the business, and our job is to lower the complaints, not only so our customers have a better experience, but so that we don't have -- we don't put our elected officials out there having to try to explain under performance. Mr. Methvin said Sure. So I would like to see in that packet and others can chime in if they like it as well, especially in those areas of the performance standards where they're unsatisfactory or failing, on how we're going to get them up to a minimum to meet standard, but I'd like to see that we're working towards exceeding standards. Mr. Smith said we will increase the specificity with the plan. We'll include that. We'll also discuss specifically what we're going to do, and some of the points we put in to both incentivize and to punish. One of the things that I found out is in the latter part of the last contract we eliminated incentives and went purely to a punishment or a penalty type of thing. I found that usually doesn't work, once again. You have to have both. You have to have ones when they perform, I have no problem with incentivizing people who over perform. I want them to beat the standards every time. I don't want them just to meet. I want them to beat the standards. And we have to give them a carrot. There has to be something out there that says we'll have a better relationship, it will be more beneficial for you, and it will be more -- they'll be more longterm stability. In addition to, if you don't, there's the ongoing penalties and the liquidated damages, but also the ultimate penalty is we'll end our relationship. We'll include in the packet for the Board more specifics as to that plan and also both the incentives and the damages, and the monitoring program we'll set up to make sure that we don't go six, eight, twelve months and then you say, gee, how is that contract doing. No. Monthly accountability has got to be part of it and reporting and accountability, so both for First Transit and for us to you and to the Board. So those three components are essential to this contract succeeding. Mr. Methvin said so in this chart it says if they're unsatisfactory, that there's $12,000 it has in parenthesis. Is that $12,000 a month? Mr. Abraham said yes. Mr. Methvin said $12,000 a month. Okay. So it's measured on a monthly basis. So just out of curiosity, how much has First Transit been fined in these five performance standards? Mr. Abraham said well, understand the present contract isn't the same as this is written. The present contract had five levels: A, B, C, D, and F. And, they've been assessed substantial penalties the last six months. 18

23 Mr. Methvin said substantial as $100,000? Mr. Abraham said no, probably between $50, $60, $70,000 a month. Chair Fitzhugh said I had one question to my left here first, and then I'll catch you, Madeline. Ed. Mr. Zuercher said I'm going to reluctantly vote yes on this because I think you're making the best out of a bad situation. I also encourage us to strike the word "hope" from our discussion of this. That we hope something's going to happen. We either believe it is or we shouldn't accept it. So we believe they're going to perform and we're going to check on it. We don't hope they're going to perform. They're going to do it or we're going to find that they're not doing it with that. I think we ve got to do it unfortunately, I just, to the previous comments, we just have to make sure we're not back in this position. And that really rests with RPTA staff. Ms. Clemann said I just wanted to interject that another important component of this is local jurisdiction feedback. You know, we are all out there as the eyes and ears of our own communities. And we have been meeting with Valley Metro on a monthly basis, on a quarterly basis for the last year, year and a half, and we have brought it to their attention the issues, the same issues that were a result of this contract that helped them also, you know, dig down deeper and drill down. It's very important that we not just sit away and expect them to do the service according to the contract and manage it. When we see problems in the field, we need to feed that black cloud to make sure that they're looking at it and seeing what we're seeing. So I would encourage all of you who are a part of this contract to contact Ray when you see things in your community. We noticed a lot of issues with the Route 72, and we brought those up at our quarterly meetings for quite some time and we kept suggesting and they kept trying different methodologies to get this contractor to adhere. And the bottom line was they didn't have enough drivers to meet the schedule sometimes. And I reluctantly agree with this just like everybody else. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it deserves a chance and it's what we have to work with and the constraints that we have to work in. So I appreciate all of Valley Metro's work on regrouping with this contracting coming up with at least some solutions that, you know, should work, and if they don't you know what the consequences will be. Chair Fitzhugh said I do have -- if there is no further discussion of the committee, I do have one request to speak from Mr. Crowley. 19

24 Public Comment Mr. Crowley said wish I would of had the performance standard in my document, because all I got was a thing you got shipped and it isn't here. I've got a couple of big problems with this. First off, there were people three years ago that were saying stuff. Ed, don't you remember? It was the union and Veolia saying, what you're getting into here, they don't have enough people and they're not going to perform to the level they should. I know that you weren't sitting at the dais, you were in the audience as a member of staff, but that has been brought up and that they weren't at the level that they should be. When I look at cost per mile, I find it fascinating, because when you go cost per mile, how many miles does a bus average in an hour, twenty, so it's real easy multiplication there. And we go from $100 an hour. And isn't it fascinating that we're not paying the operator more than, I think Veolia's top is $27, but First Transit is $20 an hour. So we're going from a hundred, eighty of which is insurance and maintenance cost and administration and administration and administration and administration and administration. And we're giving them more money to get more administrators. Not the answer, especially since we're going from $100 per hour for operating to $115 an hour. So we're increasing, you know, the amount that we're giving them and it's just about the cost of what it costs for an operator. So when I look at that, I go, how and why, because I know that with Veolia and with the Local 1433, when it comes to early departures, that don't happen. It's unacceptable. You get fired for that. Because there's only two ways that the buses run in Phoenix that's ontime and late. But with First Transit, as you said, when they don't have an operator to drive the bus, and that was pointed out to you three years ago by the 1433 union. I appreciate, Tempe, the things that you said, but as you know, you were here at that time, too, it was brought up then. So when I see that you're doing three years instead of one, I don't like it, because that's giving them three years to mess up. I really don't appreciate, in the last moments of this, the change to the wording in the contract when it comes to work stoppage. So you're saying to them, you can do Saturday service and you can change the union and say to them, well, we only have to do Saturday service and we can use all of our supervisors. So is it that you are trying to make it easier for them to avoid dealing with the union and giving them an excuse for more substandard service. Chair Fitzhugh said all right. Good discussion. I guess at this point I will call for a motion. And we do have a situation here, I think, it's been clearly pointed out that it's the alternative that is not desirable. 20

25 IT WAS MOVED BY DAN COOK, SECONDED BY MADELINE CLEMANN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE INTERIM CEO TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER WITH FIRST TRANSIT, INC. FOR THREE YEARS OF THE SEVEN-YEAR OPTION IN THE AMOUNT OF $187,500,000 FOR REVENUE SERVICE AND ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION REBUILDS PLUS A $9,500,000 CONTINGENCY FOR ITEMS SUCH AS ADDITIONAL REVENUE SERVICE, ENHANCED SERVICE FOR SPECIAL EVENTS, TRANSIT EDUCATION AND BUS BRIDGES, ETC. 5. Valley Metro Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Operating and Capital Budget and Five- Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY17 thru FY21) Mr. Smith said Mr. Chair, members of the committee, there have not been any significant or material changes since the last time we presented this to you, so we won't have a presentation, unless there are questions that need to be followed up on. And if there are none, then just leave it for your action. Chair Fitzhugh said are there any members of the committee have any comments or questions? IT WAS MOVED BY CHRIS BRADY, SECONDED BY DAN COOK AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVAL OF VALLEY METRO FISCAL YEAR 2017 (FY17) OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET AND FIVE-YEAR OPERATING FORECAST AND CAPITAL PROGRAM (FY17 THRU FY21). 6. FY17-21 Short Range Transit Program Mr. Smith said Mr. Chair, Items 6 and 7 are really together. We're going to be as efficient as we possibly can -- Jorge and Paul, okay -- in the consideration of the time, to talk about the things which really define our system. And that is, both the short-range transit program, which is an ongoing process that Jorge will explain to you, which then helps to decide or bleed into the longer term and more fixed transit life cycle program update. So we'll go in and talk just a little bit about that process so you understand. And, by the way, I'd like to tell you how much I appreciate you being here. The kind of discussion we just had on that contract, while not fun, is a very different discussion when you were sitting on that side of the table as opposed to your staff. So thank you so much for being here. We appreciate it. We appreciate it very much. And, likewise, would like to give this presentation to you so that -- make sure that you are understanding what's happening at the staff level and at the citizen level as we update and ask for new services and look at our budgets and what we can and cannot do, and that's what these two programs are all about. So, Jorge, I'll turn it over to you for a very efficient presentation. 21

26 Mr. Luna said thank you very much, Scott. Chair, members of the board, my name is Jorge Luna and I'll be giving you a presentation on the short-range transit program. And, first, let me start off by differentiating a little bit what the short-range transit program is in comparison to the TLCP. The Short Range Transit Program is it's a playbook, if you will, for the different type of improvements in the region over a five-year period regardless of funding source. It's a playbook that we come together, we work with all your staff in putting ideas together, we look at data, we look at different sources of information, completed studies, customer feedback, and we put together these five-year windows of improvement, and we draw from there to eventually make those improvements through the biannual service change process. As compared to the TLCP, the TLCP is the 20-year Prop 400 program that implements the services outlined in the regional transportation plan. So one is the funding aspect; the other one is sort of a guiding playbook for us. Overview, again, is to identify all regional potential transit improvements regardless of funding source. The SRTP built on adopted policies such as from the TLCP as well as adopted Board standards -- transit standards and performance measures. And the SRTP is put together with great effort from your staff, so thank you very much for everyone participating in that effort. And it's noted here. It's updated every two years, actually we're doing it every year, so it's an annual update to the SRTP as we work together. The objectives, again, is to develop input. We get input from all member agencies to develop a five-year plan. We put together the production years and the development years. If anything is to be recommended for TLCP or regional funding, we pass that recommendation on to the TLCP process for additional discussion and approval through the different committee processes. Lastly, the main idea is to always be a step ahead of the game in preparing for future service, understanding future fleet needs, understanding customer feedback, and working together to provide a seamless service for the customer. As noted before, there's two different planning periods. There is the short term or production period, that we call, and also the development period. The short-term period is one to two years in the five-year program. And the development period is years three through five. In essence, an item that's sort of ready for implementation, it gets put into the production year. An item that is still needs additional analysis would go through the development years. And an item can slip -- can move between the different production and development year stages, because 22

27 based on, you know, different things happened, different things, budget discussions, coordination, additional work needs to be done, so an item can definitely slide between the production years or the development years. So there's a list of proposed changes or the list of proposed concepts and appendix. I believe one of your memo includes a wide range of improvements that are outlined over here. Again, this is a list of proposed changes, service change concepts, staff will bring as necessary through the biannual service change process -- different pieces or the buckets of the different years through the biannual service change process, through RTAG, through TMC, and eventually through the Board to get those items adopted. But that's only every six months in April and October. This concludes my presentation and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Chair Fitzhugh said are there any questions from members of the committee? All right. 7. Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Update Mr. Smith said thank you. Now we'll go to the next which is Paul Hodgins will talk about the transit life cycle plan. And this is the more permanent or the Prop 400 type plan, as you heard Jorge explain, and so he'll talk to you about some of the changes that are upcoming in the bus services related to that. Paul. Mr. Hodgins said thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Chair, members of the Transit Management Committee. The transit life cycle program is one of the three life cycle programs as part of Prop 400. MAG manages the freeway and the arterial life cycle programs, and Valley Metro manages the transit life cycle program. This is an information item. We'll be bringing it back next month for adoption. But basically, the first chart here looks at our current revenue forecast. We get our forecast from ADOT. The bottom line, the green line, was the forecast from last year that was used in last year's update. The purple line is our current forecast. You can see our forecast in '17 and beyond is a little bit higher. The blue line, however, is what we assumed back in the regional transportation plan when Prop 400 was developed. So we're still well short of where we initially hoped we'd be with Prop 400, but we do have about $49 million dollars additional in our forecast for the bus program this year in our forecast. But still about 1.1 billion short of where we thought we'd be. So we can't do everything we want, but we do have some improvements. Mr. Smith said we're over a billion dollars short. And, I mean, that's the reality that we work with. You know, there's a lot of talk about where we go and how often we go, and we'd love to be all things to all people, but, once again, when this plan was first laid out, 23

28 we anticipated it would be over a billion dollars ahead of where we are. That's a lot of money. So that shortfall is not a one-time shortfall. That blue line, as you can see, that's a compounding shortfall, so that's just to put into perspective the challenge that we have to meet the service demands. Mr. Hodgins said and just as a note, the sharp increase at the beginning and the decrease at the end is because of the timing of the tax. It's a half-year revenues on each side, so it's -- it just represents a half year. So we do have the capacity to do some changes or a couple of key areas where we got those changes from. First is the Short Range Transit Program that Mr. Luna just discussed. Looking at the service improvements programmed over the next five years of what we have funding available for that are -- for regional routes, did it meet our transit standards and performance measures. And also the regional ADA paratransit plan, the Board recently adopted a new service model for regional ADA trips that don't require transfers, and that's feeding some of the changes that we are proposing. Just on a high level, we have some program changes to the fixed route, which include extended hours of service, some increased frequencies, some additional weekend service. We also have some shifts in funding. As a result of the recession, we had to defer regional funding for many of the routes. With this increased forecast, we're able to convert some of those locally funded routes back to regional, bring them back into the plan, so that would free up some local funding for the cities to implement other services. As I mentioned, as a result of the new regional ADA, some of the cities have asked for additional PTF funding to fund that regional level of service. Along with the service changes, we do have some fleet plan changes. I just want to highlight that we've added a significant number of expansion fleet that aren't necessarily tied yet to specific improvements, but we do want to have a placeholder in the life cycle program that we can put into the transportation improvement program at MAG so that we have the ability to purchase expansion fleet when those improvements are finally put in place. Just as a high level, our cash flow summary shows a surplus at the end. It's a statutory requirement for us. We have to show that revenues and expenditures are balanced. We have at the end of the program roughly a $43 million dollar balance. We also have a Board policy that requires us to balance the program from a jurisdictional equity perspective. 24

29 Let me just highlight real quick how we do this. We look at our revenue forecast. There's some things that we pay for kind of off the top such as the regional services, the call center, the mobility center so we pay for those, and then what's left is what's available for projects across the cities. And our adopted life cycle policies have certain percentages by city and by subregion, and so we calculate what each subregion should get. And that's in the second column. Then we calculate how much is actually programmed within each subregion. So that's in the first column. The difference is -- and if we take the central region, for instance, which is primarily Phoenix, were programmed $433 million in expenditures when they should be getting about $449, so the $16-million balance and we'll work with the city to program those funds. But the policy really requires us to be within two and a half percent, plus or minus, for each subregion, which we are, except for Phoenix. Mr. Smith said and just to, so we don't leave you hanging. There's ongoing discussions with Phoenix to try and narrow that gap so that we get a better match we fall between. And that we are constantly are talking with the staffs, your staffs, within the region to make sure that that doesn't get out of balance like it is with Phoenix. Mr. Hodgins said yes. Again, this is just for information this month. There are opportunities for some minor changes or to add some projects for Phoenix before we come back next month for adoption. And that's a very quick presentation, Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Chair Fitzhugh said all right. Thank you, Paul. Any comments or questions from the committee? All right. Thank you. 8. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events None. Chair Fitzhugh said our next meeting is Wednesday, June 1, 2016, at 11:00 a.m., same place. And with that, this meeting is adjourned. With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 12:20 p.m. 25

30 DATE May 25, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3A SUBJECT Purchase of Diesel and Unleaded Fuel PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a cooperative agreement purchase order with Senergy Petroleum LLC under Arizona State Contract #ADSPO for diesel and unleaded fuel for a not-to-exceed amount of $5,500,000 over a five-year period. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Cooperative Agreements are contracts that are solicited and awarded by other public entities and whose cooperative language allows RPTA to utilize these contracts for goods and services it requires. This cooperative contract for diesel and unleaded fuel was procured via the State of Arizona Procurement Office of the Department of Administration and is currently awarded to, Synergy Petroleum LLC. Valley Metro uses this contract to fulfill its diesel and unleaded fuel purchase needs. Valley Metro is looking for approval of a five-year term. In FY16, Valley Metro s contract with Senergy Petroleum LLC totaled $936,000. The increase for FY17 over the previous year is due to an increase in revenue service miles. COST AND BUDGET The diesel and unleaded fuel usage over five years has a total estimated value of $5,500,000. The five year forecast for diesel and unleaded fuel for Mesa and the West Valley is in the chart below. Mesa Diesel West Valley Diesel West Valley Unleaded FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 Total $ 500,000 $ 520,000 $ 540,000 $ 550,000 $ 570,000 $ 2,680,000 $ 510,000 $ 532,500 $ 552,500 $ 562,500 $ 582,500 $ 2,740,000 $ 15,000 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ 17,000 $ 80,000 Total $1,025,000 $1,068,500 $1,108,500 $1,128,500 $ 1,169,500 $ 5,500,000 VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

31 For FY17 the Valley Metro Mesa Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility needs are estimated to be $500,000 and the West Valley Bus Operation and Maintenance Facility needs are estimated to be $525,000. The total FY17 contract obligation is estimated to be $1,025,000 and is included in the RPTA Adopted FY17 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract obligations beyond FY17 are incorporated into the Adopted RPTA Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY2017 thru FY2021). STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic A: Operate an effective, reliable, high performing transit system o Tactic E: Maintain strong fiscal controls to support Valley Metro s longterm sustainability. COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information TMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a cooperative agreement purchase order under Arizona State Contract #ADSPO for diesel and unleaded fuel for a not-to-exceed amount of $5,500,000 over a five-year period. CONTACT Michael Minnaugh General Counsel (602) mminnaugh@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None 2

32 DATE May 25, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3B SUBJECT Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Contract Change Orders PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute contract change orders in order to extend the period of performance and/or provide budget authority for FY17 projects under contract tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION There are a number of contract change orders that require Board approval prior to the start of FY17. This memo and its attachment summarize RPTA required FY17 contract change orders. These change orders when executed will align both the budget and contract authority for multiyear contracts awarded by the Agency. COST AND BUDGET Please see the attached spreadsheet. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic E: Maintain strong fiscal controls to support Valley Metro s longterm sustainability. COMMITTEE ACTION RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information TMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute contract change orders that provide contract budget authority for FY17 projects currently under contract and tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

33 CONTACT Michael Minnaugh General Counsel ATTACHMENT List of FY17 RPTA Contract Change Orders 2

34 Fiscal Year 2017 Contract Change Orders Contractor Brief Description FY 2016 Change Order Amount FY 2017 Change Order Amount Change from FY 2016 to 2017 (Difference) Term of Contract HDR Engineering, Inc. Contract # PSS Planning Support Services. HDR awarded contract in 2011 for consulting services. RPTA Board approved utilization of this contract in August $1,280,000 $270,000 ($1,010,000) 3-year base period with two one year options. Term: November 16, 2011 to November 15, The option years were exercised by the VMR Board in November Total Transit Enterprises, LLC. (Formerly Total Transit Inc.) Contract # S Northwest Valley Paratransit (Dial a Ride) Services Regional Paratransit (Dial a Ride) Services $2,926,900 $2,415,847 ($511,053) NA $2,403,857 $2,403, year base with no options. Term: November 1, 2010 to October 31, 2020 This contract will end early. The new RFP (for combined NW and EV services) is to be issued in June Total $2,926,900 $4,819,704 $1,892,804 LogicTree, Inc. Contract #14006-IVR (Previously # S) Short Message Service (SMS) fees for the NextRide Program. $60,000 $52,000 ($8,000) 5-year base Term: July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2018

35 DATE May 25, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3C SUBJECT Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) PURPOSE To authorize the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute FY17 IGAs and IGA amendments for projects tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION There are a number of IGAs and IGA amendments that require Board approval prior to the start of FY17. This memo and its attachment summarize the FY17 RPTA required IGAs and renewals. The IGAs are based on the latest estimates of costs and services funded by each member. IGA changes that are required as a result of service changes in October 2016 or April 2017 will be brought to the Board for approval after the final list of service changes is determined. COST AND BUDGET Please see the attached spreadsheet. COMMITTEE ACTION RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information TMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute FY17 IGAs and IGA amendments for projects tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget as listed in the attachment for the period of performance and in the amount indicated for each agreement. CONTACT Michael Minnaugh General Counsel mminnaugh@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT Attachment 1 - List of FY17 IGAs VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

36 Expense/ Revenue Member Agency/Jurisdiction Intergovernmental Agreement No. Brief Description FY 2016 Amount * FY 2017 Amount Change from FY 2016 to FY 2017 PTF Reimbursement City of Avondale ADA Allocations $211,920 $207,727 ($4,193) PTF Reimbursement City of Avondale Fixed Route Transit Services $737,852 $735,414 ($2,438) PTF Reimbursement City of Avondale Regional DAR $0 $9,873 $9,873 Revenue City of Avondale Fixed Route Transit Services $579,737 $594,157 $14, Revenue City of Buckeye Fixed Route Transit Services $33,000 $32,340 ($660) PTF Reimbursement City of Chandler East Valley DAR $1,215,400 $1,210,828 ($4,572) PTF Reimbursement City of Chandler Fixed Route Transit Services $4,176,707 $4,487,535 $310,828 PTF Reimbursement City of Chandler Regional DAR $0 $199,172 $199,172 Revenue City of Chandler East Valley DAR $124,064 $353,602 $229,538 Revenue City of Chandler Fixed Route Transit Services $325,179 $375,689 $50,510 Revenue City of Chandler RideChoice $45,813 $73,979 $28,166 PTF Reimbursement City of El Mirage ADA Allocations $24,100 $0 ($24,100) PTF Reimbursement City of El Mirage Regional DAR $0 $24,800 $24,800 Revenue City of El Mirage Northwest Valley DAR $63,430 $42,196 ($21,234) Revenue City of El Mirage Regional DAR $0 $8,634 $8,634 PTF Reimbursement City of Glendale ADA Allocations $710,785 $729,059 $18,274 PTF Reimbursement City of Glendale Capital Projects $2,784,380 $2,557,571 ($226,809) PTF Reimbursement City of Glendale Fixed Route Transit Services $3,496,690 $3,375,884 ($120,806) Revenue City of Glendale Pilot Supplemental ADA Taxi Program $6,210 $0 ($6,210) Revenue City of Glendale Regional DAR $0 $213,000 $213,000 PTF Reimbursement City of Goodyear ADA Allocations $23,372 $19,067 ($4,305) PTF Reimbursement City of Goodyear Regional DAR $0 $4,889 $4,889 Revenue City of Goodyear Fixed Route Transit Services $66,248 $144,857 $78,609 1 of 4

37 Expense/ Revenue Member Agency/Jurisdiction Intergovernmental Agreement No. Brief Description FY 2016 Amount * FY 2017 Amount Change from FY 2016 to FY 2017 PTF Reimbursement City of Mesa East Valley DAR $2,948,543 $2,806,047 ($142,496) PTF Reimbursement City of Mesa Fixed Route Transit Services $7,633,489 $8,297,319 $663,830 PTF Reimbursement City of Mesa Regional DAR $0 $408,253 $408,253 Revenue City of Mesa East Valley DAR $712,461 $875,862 $163,401 Revenue City of Mesa Fixed Route Transit Services $3,645,817 $3,779,881 $134,064 Revenue City of Mesa RideChoice $406,462 $517,109 $110,647 PTF Reimbursement City of Peoria ADA Allocations $222,100 $228,100 $6,000 PTF Reimbursement City of Peoria Capital Projects $24,595 $0 ($24,595) PTF Reimbursement City of Peoria Fixed Route Transit Services $0 $244,017 $244,017 Revenue City of Peoria Northwest Valley DAR $200,000 $226,374 $26,374 Revenue City of Peoria Regional DAR $0 $49,947 $49,947 Expense City of Phoenix Fixed Route Transit Services - RPTA Buys $9,794,093 $8,415,024 ($1,379,069) PTF Reimbursement City of Phoenix ADA Allocations $16,951,089 $17,448,559 $497,470 PTF Reimbursement City of Phoenix Fixed Route Transit Services $1,003,211 $867,526 ($135,685) PTF Reimbursement City of Phoenix Regional DAR $0 $489,341 $489,341 Revenue City of Phoenix Fixed Route Transit Services - Phx Buys $4,255,380 $4,444,109 $188,729 PTF Reimbursement City of Scottsdale ADA Allocations $329,842 $364,317 $34,475 PTF Reimbursement City of Scottsdale Capital Projects $722,388 $809,346 $86,958 PTF Reimbursement City of Scottsdale East Valley DAR $1,110,828 $879,759 ($231,069) PTF Reimbursement City of Scottsdale Fixed Route Transit Services $5,015,186 $6,081,523 $1,066,337 PTF Reimbursement City of Scottsdale Regional DAR $0 $235,524 $235,524 Revenue City of Scottsdale East Valley DAR $125,275 $72,409 ($52,866) Revenue City of Scottsdale Fixed Route Transit Services $286,985 $265,296 ($21,689) 2 of 4

38 Expense/ Revenue Member Agency/Jurisdiction Intergovernmental Agreement No. Brief Description FY 2016 Amount * FY 2017 Amount Change from FY 2016 to FY 2017 PTF Reimbursement City of Surprise ADA Allocations $23,847 $48,300 $24,453 PTF Reimbursement City of Surprise Regional DAR $0 $24,500 $24,500 Revenue City of Surprise Fixed Route Transit Services $83,897 $109,959 $26,062 Revenue City of Surprise Northwest Valley DAR $646,100 $504,013 ($142,087) Revenue City of Surprise Regional DAR $0 $39,684 $39,684 PTF Reimbursement City of Tempe Fixed Route Transit Services $3,495,968 $3,983,669 $487,701 Revenue City of Tempe Fixed Route Transit Services $14,349,394 $14,612,568 $263,174 PTF Reimbursement City of Tempe East Valley DAR $1,025,813 $1,041,370 $15,557 PTF Reimbursement City of Tempe Regional DAR $0 $12,120 $12,120 Revenue City of Tempe East Valley DAR $61,002 $35,774 ($25,228) Revenue City of Tempe Regional DAR $0 $102,509 $102,509 Revenue City of Tempe RideChoice $75,402 $103,315 $27,913 PTF Reimbursement City of Tolleson ADA Allocations $22,400 $23,000 $600 PTF Reimbursement City of Tolleson Fixed Route Transit Services $376,909 $200,616 ($176,293) PTF Reimbursement City of Tolleson Regional DAR $0 $12,120 $12,120 Revenue City of Tolleson Fixed Route Transit Services $214,144 $322,409 $108,265 Revenue Gila River Indian Community Fixed Route Transit Services $1,051,652 $932,847 ($118,805) Revenue Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) #1 Transit Planning Services $224,720 $224,720 $0 Revenue Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) #2 Regional Rideshare/Telework $594,000 $594,000 $0 PTF Reimbursement Maricopa County Regional DAR $0 $17,543 $17,543 Revenue Maricopa County 1 Northwest Valley DAR $1,098,647 $835,186 ($263,461) Revenue Maricopa County 2 Regional DAR $0 $231,028 $231,028 PTF Reimbursement Maricopa County 3 ADA Allocations $128,700 $132,200 $3,500 3 of 4

39 Expense/ Revenue Member Agency/Jurisdiction Intergovernmental Agreement No. Brief Description FY 2016 Amount * FY 2017 Amount Change from FY 2016 to FY 2017 Revenue Maricopa County 4 Trip Reduction Expansion $370,000 $370,000 $0 Revenue Maricopa County 5 Trip Reduction $260,000 $260,000 $0 Revenue Salt River Pima Indian Community Fixed Route Transit Services $0 $58,453 $58,453 PTF Reimbursement Town of Fountain Hills ADA Allocations $37,400 $38,400 $1,000 PTF Reimbursement Town of Fountain Hills Fixed Route Transit Services $25,897 $27,042 $1,145 PTF Reimbursement Town of Gilbert East Valley DAR $1,030,584 $1,006,202 ($24,382) PTF Reimbursement Town of Gilbert Fixed Route Transit Services $3,125,590 $3,220,506 $94,916 PTF Reimbursement Town of Gilbert Regional DAR $0 $200,298 $200,298 Revenue Town of Gilbert East Valley DAR $367,627 $506,643 $139,016 Revenue Town of Gilbert RideChoice $50,591 $71,973 $21,382 PTF Reimbursement Town of Guadalupe ADA Allocations $5,000 $5,000 $0 PTF Reimbursement Town of Guadalupe Fixed Route Transit Services $171,710 $172,036 $326 PTF Reimbursement Town of Youngtown Northwest Valley DAR $1,600 $1,600 $0 PTF Reimbursement Town of Youngtown Regional DAR $0 $4,889 $4,889 Revenue Town of Youngtown Northwest Valley DAR $24,326 $29,323 $4,997 Revenue Town of Youngtown Regional DAR $0 $10,681 $10,681 4 of 4

40 DATE May 25, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3D SUBJECT Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Change Orders with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grants PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute change orders for IGAs with the City of Phoenix to allow Valley Metro to be reimbursed for eligible activities. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Valley Metro has requested extensions to the pass-through IGAs for five existing grants. The extensions are needed to allow additional time to complete the projects identified in the grants. The table below summarizes the requested changes: Grant Source Extension AZ FG Modernization December 31, 2016 AZ-37-X JARC October 31, 2016 AZ-57-X New Freedom December 31, 2016 AZ-90-X Formula June 30, 2016 AZ-95-X023 STP Flex December 31, 2017 Grant AZ includes funding for an expansion bus which City of Phoenix has reprogrammed from other projects. This new funding for Valley Metro requires an extension to the existing IGA to allow time for the bus to be acquired. Grant AZ-37-X017 includes funds from the Job Access Reverse Commute program to support operations on several Valley Metro routes. The extension is required to allow additional time to draw the funds. Grant AZ-57-X016 includes additional funding which City of Phoenix has reprogrammed from other projects. This new funding for Valley Metro requires an extension to the existing IGA to allow time to draw the funds. Grant AZ-90-X114 includes funds awarded through the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program for operating assistance on several routes in the Southwest Valley. The extension is required to allow additional time to draw the funds. Grant AZ-95-X023 include funds from the Surface Transportation Program flexed from the Federal Highways Administration for replacement and expansion fleet for the vanpool program. The extension is required to allow additional time to purchase vans and draw the funds. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

41 The City of Phoenix is the designated recipient for all FTA grant funds for the region. Valley Metro undertakes projects approved for FTA grant funding, then submits requests to Phoenix for reimbursement of actual expenses incurred. Phoenix then executes a drawdown of funds from FTA to pass-through the reimbursement to Valley Metro. The pass-through IGAs are required in order for Phoenix to reimburse Valley Metro for eligible expenses. COST AND BUDGET All expenses are in the approved budget for FY17 and 5-Year Capital and Operating Forecast. The grant funds will offset expenses, reducing the net cost to the Public Transportation Fund and member agency budgets. COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : o Goal 2: Advance performance based operation Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget Tactic E: Maintain strong fiscal controls to support Valley Metro s longterm sustainability o Goal 4: Focus on economic development, regional competitiveness and financial resources Tactic B: Pursue all available funding opportunities for transit projects and services Tactic C: Seek opportunities to increase revenue generation RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute change orders to the intergovernmental agreements with the City of Phoenix for the listed grants. CONTACT Paul Hodgins Manager, Revenue Generation and Financial Planning phodgins@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None 2

42 DATE May 25, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3E SUBJECT Contract Award for the Manufacture and Delivery of 30 Heavy Duty Transit Buses PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract with ElDorado National Inc. for the manufacture and delivery of eight (8) heavy duty 30 transit buses over a two-year period at an estimated base cost of $3,985,530 plus $320,000 for optional components and Producer Price Index (PPI) increases. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION In October 2013, the Board of Directors authorized the CEO to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the purchase of heavy duty transit buses and in January 2014, the City of Phoenix and Valley Metro issued the first joint regional RFP for the Greater Phoenix area. The City of Phoenix and Valley Metro combined resources for this joint procurement to award a five-year contract for the purchase of 30, 40, 60 and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) transit buses, and spare parts. This joint procurement resulted in a recommendation to award contracts to ElDorado National Inc. for 30 buses, Gillig for 40 buses, and New Flyer for the BRT and 60 buses. During the initial Board action that was taken on November 13, 2014, Valley Metro did not have any plans to purchase 30 buses, so staff did not include a contract award to ElDorado National Inc. at that time. However, the City of Phoenix did enter into an agreement with ElDorado National Inc. to purchase a base quantity of four 30 buses and four optional buses. Since that time, the City of Phoenix has altered their plans and decided not to purchase these vehicles from ElDorado National Inc. The City of Phoenix has notified Valley Metro these buses are available for purchase and have assigned these quantities to Valley Metro through the original cooperative procurement. Recently, the City of Tempe has decided to add one additional route to their Orbit neighborhood circulator service. The addition of this route will require seven additional buses to operate this service starting in October Tempe also has plans to replace a significant portion of their existing Orbit fleet with new heavy duty buses. As a result, staff recommends purchasing the full allotment of eight 30 heavy duty buses from ElDorado National Inc. to fulfill the service request for the city of Tempe. COST AND BUDGET The estimated two-year cost for Valley Metro is as follows: VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

43 Fiscal Year Qty. Length Bus Type * Std. Standard, CNG Compressed Natural Gas Fuel Type Mfg. Base Price Total FY ft. Std. (E) CNG ElDorado $497,880 $3,485,160 FY ft. Std. (E) CNG ElDorado $500,370 $500,370 Total 8 $3,985,530 The above chart is based on the current schedule and may change based on future requirements. Any cost increases for each year of the contract, from the base price quoted, will be determined by increases in the Producer Price Index (PPI) and optional equipment including any on-board equipment required to place the vehicle into service. All vehicles will be funded with 85% Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds and 15% Regional Proposition 400 funds. All costs are fully funded within the RPTA Adopted FY 2017 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract Obligations beyond FY 2017 are incorporated into the Adopted RPTA Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY2016 thru FY2020). STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic A: Operate an effective, reliable, high performing transit system COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information TMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2015 for action RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a contract with ElDorado National Inc. for the manufacture and delivery of eight (8) heavy duty 30 transit buses over a two-year period at an estimated base cost of $3,985,530 plus $320,000 for optional components and Producer Price Index (PPI) increases. CONTACT Ray Abraham Chief Operating Officer rabraham@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None 2

44 DATE AGENDA ITEM 4 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events PURPOSE Chair Fitzhugh will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None COST AND BUDGET None COMMITTEE PROCESS None RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only. CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer ssmith@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT Pending Items Request VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

45 Pending Items Request Item Requested Date Requested Planned Follow-up Date 2

46 May 25, 2016 Joint Meeting Agenda Transit Management Committee and Rail Management Committee Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor 11:15 a.m. Action Recommended 1. Chief Executive Officer s (CEO) Report 1. For information Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will brief the TMC and RMC on current issues. 2. Minutes 2. For action Minutes from the May 4, 2016 Joint TMC and RMC meeting are presented for approval. 3. Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III 3. For action Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Jorge Luna, Service Planning Manager, who will request that the TMC and RMC forward to the Boards of Directors approval of the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III Report. 4. Transit Life Cycle Program Update 4. For action Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Paul Hodgins, Manager, Revenue Generation and Financial Planning, who will request that the TMC and RMC forward to the Boards of Directors approval of the Transit Life Cycle Program Update for bus and rail. 5. Chief Executive Officer Recruitment Update 5. For information Scott, Smith, Interim CEO, will provide an update on the CEO recruitment process. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

47 6. Travel and Expenditures 6. For information The monthly travel and expenditures for Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail are presented for information. 7. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events 7. For information Chairs Fitzhugh and Zuercher will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events. 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 Valley Metro at or TTY at To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact the receptionist at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can be found on our web site at 2

48 DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Interim Chief Executive Officer s Report PURPOSE Scott Smith, Interim Chief Executive Officer, will brief the TMC and RMC on current issues. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None COST AND BUDGET None COMMITTEE PROCESS None RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only. CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer ssmith@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

49 DATE AGENDA ITEM 2 May 25, 2016 Minutes of a Joint Meeting of Transit Management Committee and Rail Management Committee Wednesday, April 6, :45 a.m. Transit Management Committee Meeting Participants David Fitzhugh, City of Avondale, Chair Ed Zuercher, City of Phoenix, Vice Chair Roger Klingler, City of Buckeye Dan Cook, City of Chandler Jorge Gastelum for Dr. Spencer Isom, City of El Mirage Marc Skocypec, Town of Gilbert Kevin Phelps, City of Glendale Chris Brady, City of Mesa Jeff Tyne, City of Peoria Madeline Clemann, City of Scottsdale Nicole Lane, City of Surprise Steven Methvin, City of Tempe Members Not Present Sara Allred, ADOT Brian Dalke, City of Goodyear City of Tolleson Mitch Wagner, Maricopa County Rail Management Committee Meeting Participants Ed Zuercher, City of Phoenix, Chair Steven Methvin, City of Tempe, Vice Chair Chris Brady, City of Mesa Dan Cook, City of Chandler Kevin Phelps, City of Glendale Chair Zuercher called the joint meeting to order at 12:20 p.m. 1. Chief Executive Officer s Report Mr. Smith provided an update on the following items: Rail Rodeo Design A Transit Wrap TIGER Grant Application VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

50 Audit Legislative Report 2. Minutes Minutes from the April 6, 2016 Joint TMC and RMC meeting were presented for approval. (RMC Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY STEVEN METHVIN, SECONDED BY CHRIS BRADY AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 6, 2016 JOINT TMC AND RMC MINUTES. (TMC Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY ED ZUERCHER, SECONDED BY CHRIS BRADY AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 6, 2016 JOINT TMC AND RMC MINUTES. 3. Financial Services Contract Award Mr. Smith said thank you, Mr. Chair. We have chosen CliftonLarson Allen as the auditor. This is a normal transition. Our last contract expired. We put it out for bid. And we're asking for your recommendation to the Boards to approve this selection of CliftonLarson Allen as our auditors for the next, I think it's, three-year period. (RMC Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY CHRIS BRADY, SECONDED BY DAN COOK AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE INTERIM CEO TO PROCURE THE REQUIRED FINANCIAL AUDIT SERVICES FOR VALLEY METRO FROM CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP UTILIZING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THROUGH THE STATE OF ARIZONA CONTRACT ADSP FOR $181,650 WITH A 10% CONTRACT CONTINGENCY OF $18,165. (TMC Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY ED ZUERCHER, SECONDED BY CHRIS BRADY AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE INTERIM CEO TO PROCURE THE REQUIRED FINANCIAL AUDIT SERVICES FOR VALLEY METRO FROM CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP UTILIZING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THROUGH THE STATE OF ARIZONA CONTRACT ADSP FOR $181,650 WITH A 10% CONTRACT CONTINGENCY OF $18, Passenger Wi-fi Update Mr. Smith said Chairs, members of the committee, there's been a lot of on ongoing conversation about the status of Wi-Fi on our buses and on our trains, and we thought 2

51 that we'd give you a quick update as to where that stands. I'd like to introduce Mr. Bill Tsuei, who is our Chief Technology Officer, who will go over very quickly where we are and where we're headed on that situation. Mr. Tsuei provided a presentation which included the following: Wi-fi Solution Introduction Light Rail Wi-fi Update Fixed Route Wi-Fi Update Public Comment Mr. Crowley said I have some problems with this. I'm glad that we're going for it. But when I look at the cost and such, I'm saying, what was it 35 to, what, almost $60,000. And I know the Valley Metro fleet only is part of it. Then you put the other 892 buses onto it. I look at -- it's per bus; right? And when you first presented this, you weren't going to be doing it for the fixed route; it was just going to be for the RAPIDs and the EXPRESS. So I'm glad that you've expanded it to the whole community. But then again, at that amount of $53,000, that's five bus stops for me that aren't out there since we only have one-third of the buses have a stop that they should have. So when I see that it's to improve customer satisfaction and enhance customer service to member cities, that's pretty broad. Advance performance based operations to make it a more reliable and effective high-performing system, wait a minute. Me using a Wi-Fi on the bus is going to make it a better system. When you're putting these done as what you're trying to accomplish, I go, why, what, where, and how. And, as I said, with it being originally just going to be the EXPRESS and RAPID fleet when they're being charged how much per day. And on those particular buses they're used all day long. Oh, no, they're not. They're only used for approximately two and a half hours per day, because it's a one and a half hour coming in and one and a half hour going back out. So when I see the price, I'm going, that's a little steep. And, like I said, I'd really like you to be buying buses and routes and bus stops, because that's what you're supposed to be doing. 5. Chief Executive Officer Recruitment Update Mr. Smith said Mr. Chair, thank you very much. Members of the committee, right now based on instruction by the Boards of both RPTA and Valley Metro Rail, we are in the process of soliciting proposals from executive search firms. We've narrowed down a certain level and put those out. We will have that recommendation to the Boards prior to their May 19 meeting. And we will present that first to the subcommittee for their approval and hopefully two or three days before that. Then get it to the Board by May 19, with the idea that once that is 3

52 approved, they will get together with Maricopa County, coordinate their efforts, and we'll have the job posted no later than June 1 in accordance with the instructions given by the Boards. 7. Travel and Expenditures This item was presented for information. 8. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events None. With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 12:43 p.m. 4

53 DATE AGENDA ITEM 3 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Transit Standards & Performance Measures Phase III PURPOSE To request approval of the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III Report. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION The importance of a performance based transportation system is emphasized and required as part of the federal government s Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and in the subsequent Fixing America s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). In addition, the Arizona State Legislature, in its legislation leading to Proposition 400 in 2004, stressed performance based transportation planning and programming and required audits every five years to verify operational performance and address potential changes to the plan to improve performance. In October 2012, Valley Metro initiated an effort to establish a baseline for transit service delivery across the Valley. Supporting actions included the following: Develop service standards and performance measures Develop a prioritization process for service requests and to identify service needs Phase I of the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures (TSPM) was approved by the Board of Directors on November 21, Phase I included the establishment of service delivery goals, definition of service types and associated service standards (days of operation, span, frequency), passenger stop spacing standards, and modifications to the regional transit service change process. Phase II of the regional TSPM effort was approved by the Board of Directors on December 18, Phase II included the identification of regional transit performance measures and associated planning tools, transit service performance thresholds, standards for implementing and prioritizing new transit services, and principles for the application of regional transit standards and performance measures. Phase III of the TSPM effort was initiated after the adoption of Phase II with the purpose of developing service design standards and to identify a process for prioritizing the assignment and programming of regional transit fleet. Consistent with the process undertaken to complete earlier phases, the TSPM Technical Advisory Group (TAG), comprised of representatives from Valley Metro member agencies, was retained to assist with the development of the Phase III recommendations. The TAG met regularly throughout the Phase III process and developed the recommendations summarized below (additional detail is provided in the attached Executive Summary): VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

54 Service Design Standards for Local and Key Local Bus Routes Route planning criteria were identified for regionally funded or operated routes to establish the maximum number and length of deviations from the primary operating corridor of a route, minimize route duplications, and provide routing parameters for revenue service end-of-line vehicle turnarounds. Regional Fleet Prioritization Process The proposed process establishes separate methods for prioritizing available regional fixed route bus fleet and expansion fleet needs for the entire region. The fleet prioritization process will be conducted annually as part of the regional Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) with involvement from member agencies. A Phase III final report has been prepared to document the recommendations and is available upon request. The TSPM Phase III Executive Summary is attached and defines the recommendations for Board consideration. The full report will be available on the Valley Metro webpage once the Board has approved it. Valley Metro staff recommend the following actions subsequent to Board approval of the TSPM Phase III recommendations: Valley Metro will update the TSPM procedures guide to incorporate Phase III recommendations. In collaboration with member agencies, Valley Metro will review and update, if needed, the TSPM policies and procedures every two years. COST AND BUDGET No cost at this time. The cost to conduct the annual performance analysis defined in Phase III can be accomplished with the level of Planning and Accessible Transit Division staff currently budgeted. COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, for information TMC/RMC: June 1, for action Board of Directors: June 16, for action STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : Goal 2: Advance performance based operation Tactic A: Operate an effective reliable high performing transit system. Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on budget. Goal 3: Grow transit ridership Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness 2

55 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC and RMC forward to the Boards of Directors approval of the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III Report. CONTACT Wulf Grote, P.E. Director of Planning and Development ATTACHMENT Executive Summary 3

56 5/25/2016 Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III June 2016 Purpose To request the TMC and RMC recommend the Board approve the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III Report 2 1

57 5/25/2016 Background Performance based transportation system emphasized and required by law MAP-21 FAST Act Prop 400 audits October 2012 TSPM initiated Phase I (Adopted November 2013) - Service delivery goals - Service types - Service standards (span, frequency, etc.) - Passenger stop spacing Reports are posted on the VM website Phase II (Adopted December 2014) - Performance measures - Planning tools - Performance thresholds - Standards for implementing and prioritizing new transit services - TSPM application principles Phase III (Current Phase 2016) - Service design standards (route deviations, route duplication, end-of-line turnarounds) - Fleet prioritization process 3 TSPM Phase III Recommendations Service design standards Route Deviations Route Duplications End of line Vehicle Turnarounds 4 2

58 5/25/2016 TSPM Phase III Recommendations Regional SRTP fleet prioritization Production years (existing fleet) Development years (expansion fleet) 5 Development Years Prioritization Outcome Single list of region-wide un-programmed fleet expansion needs to Valley Metro Board List forwarded to MAG for TIP consideration 6 3

59 5/25/2016 Recommendation To request the TMC and RMC recommend the Board approve the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III Report 7 4

60

61

62 Executive Summary Valley Metro s Transit Standards and Performance Measures (TSPM) process was initiated for multiple purposes, including the necessity of developing a performance-based public transportation system consistent with federal and state (including Transit Life Cycle Program) requirements. The Fixing America s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act furthers several important goals, including safety, state of good repair, performance and program efficiency. The act establishes performance-based planning requirements that align federal funding with key goals and tracks progress towards these goals. From the state perspective, the application of performance-based planning and programming was emphasized in the Arizona Auditor General s 2011 performance audit. The auditor s recommendation stated that it does not appear that performance data is considered nor is a methodical, disciplined approach using set criteria in place to guide project priority decisions and changes to projects. In coordination with representatives from member agencies, Valley Metro initiated a process to establish agency transit service and capital standards and performance measures. In addition to the collaborative participation of member cities, Valley Metro also received input from a panel of peer agencies with experience in the formation and implementation of transit service standards and performance measures. The scope of Valley Metro s transit service standards and performance measures effort required the completion of the process through multiple phases. The initial phase, adopted by the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) Board of Directors and Valley Metro Rail Board of Directors in November 2013, considered elements critical to the establishment of transit service standards including the identification of service provision goals, service types (including minimum operating standards for each), preliminary performance measures and the process for evaluating and recommending service changes. The second phase, adopted by the RTPA and Valley Metro Board of Directors in December 2014, focused on the development of transit service performance measures, transit service thresholds, application principles and implementation standards for new service. The third phase, which is documented in this summary, focused on defining the process for the development of performance thresholds, the establishment of service design standards, and the development of a regional fleet prioritization process for existing and expansion fleet needs. Adopted Service Provision Goals Valley Metro adopted five service provision goals in 2013 as the first step in developing regional transit service standards and performance measures. The goals, outlined below, also Phase III Executive Summary ES-1 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

63 serve as a means to guide the operation and development of Valley Metro-funded and operated public transportation services. 1. Implement services identified in the RTP in consideration of a performance-based system. 2. Give high priority to services that focus on the transit-dependent population. 3. Provide transit service that is desirable as an alternate mode to automobile travel. 4. Improve Valley Metro s overall performance and promote the long-term financial stability of the agency. 5. Promote expansion that builds existing services to meet standards and focuses new services in key areas, including the following: Higher population density Limited auto availability Low income Major activity centers Performance Thresholds Transit service thresholds serve as a tool for comparing and measuring the relative performance of individual services/operations by transit service type. In Phase II of Valley Metro s TSPM efforts, a methodology was developed where routes were numerically ranked for each performance measure (by service type) and quartile breakpoints were established to identify the top 25% and bottom 25% performers. As a part of Phase III, Valley Metro conducted research to determine whether performance targets should be established to replace the performance thresholds. After a comprehensive peer city analysis and through discussions with the TSPM Technical Advisory Group (TAG), it was determined that the current performance threshold methodology was most appropriate for Valley Metro services and would therefore be retained. Figure ES-1 illustrates the quartile-based performance threshold concept that was adopted in Phase II of Valley Metro s TSPM efforts. Phase III Executive Summary ES-2 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

64 Figure ES-1. Transit Service Performance Thresholds Service Design Standards Service design standards have been developed for regionally funded or operated routes to establish the maximum number and length of deviations from the primary operating corridor of a route, minimize route duplications, and provide routing parameters for revenue service end-of-line vehicle turnarounds. The proposed service standards are discussed below. Route Deviation Standards Route deviations typically occur between a route s termini using one of the following methods: 1) depart from and return to the primary corridor at the same location or 2) depart from and return to the primary corridor at a different location (Figure ES-2). To maintain the integrity of the regional transit system s grid architecture and optimize route and system-level performance, new deviations on any existing regionally funded route or any new regionally funded route (local, key local, limited stop peak, and limited stop allday) shall be avoided; however, a route deviation may be warranted if it is no greater than 1-mile or 5-minutes one-way (2-mile or 10-minutes round trip), results in no more than a total of two deviations per route, does not require additional fleet (unless additional fleet has been prioritized for the service), and one or more of the following conditions are met: connects to a light rail station; connects to a regional transit center; connects to an inter-modal transportation facility (i.e. passenger airport, greyhound terminal, etc.); connects to another transit service at the route s end-of-line location; projected performance of deviation does not negatively impact the overall performance of the route under consideration. Phase III Executive Summary ES-3 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

65 Additional considerations for route deviations are discussed in detail in the Valley Metro TSPM Phase III Final Report. Figure ES-2: Example of Typical Route Deviations Route Duplication Standards Route duplication is defined as the operation of two or more routes or services along the same street segment or on closely parallel streets (within one-quarter mile of each other) (Figure ES-3). Regionally funded transit services shall avoid route duplication; however, under the following conditions, route duplication may be warranted: availability of a designated transit corridor (high occupancy vehicle [HOV] lane, bus and right-turn only [BAT] lane, transit guideway, etc.); access and egress to park-and-ride facilities, transit centers, rail stations, or intermodal transportation facility; if duplicative routes provide enhanced frequency in a corridor or corridor segment where the performance of the individual routes can be maintained at a performing level; and Phase III Executive Summary ES-4 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

66 if duplicative routes have different stop spacing characteristics (for example, local bus and light rail operating within the same corridor provide access and egress at different intervals, which may be necessary to conveniently transport passengers to and from their desired origin/destination). Figure ES-3: Route Duplication Revenue Service End-of-Line Vehicle Turnaround Standards Revenue-service vehicle turnarounds should avoid excessive circulation to maintain the transit system s grid architecture and minimize operating costs. However, without a facility to accommodate turnarounds at a route s terminus, excessive circulation may be necessary to maneuver vehicles into the proper position/location for return trips (Figure ES-4). The following considerations are applied for the design of revenue-service end-ofline vehicle turnarounds on new regionally funded transit services or existing regionally funded transit services where the end-of-line location is being modified: If there is a dedicated transit facility (e.g. park-and-ride or transit center) within one mile of the designated route terminus that can accommodate off-street transit vehicle circulation and has the capacity to stage the quantity of vehicles being planned for the new service or service modification, the route shall be extended to the transit facility. If no dedicated transit facility exists to accommodate the end-of-line layover, the following considerations should be utilized to define a route s revenue-service endof-line turnaround(s). Phase III Executive Summary ES-5 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

67 o operate on arterial and collector streets with sufficient lane width to accommodate a full-size transit bus travelling in each direction at the posted speed; o avoid circulating through areas with potentially non-compatible land uses such as single-family residential areas; o avoid circulating through private property unless other options are inefficient (excess circulation) or undesirable (incompatible land uses); o avoid left turns at un-signalized intersections; and o consider routing that provides opportunities to accommodate interlining between transit routes where possible to reduce non-revenue miles (and turnaround segments). Figure ES-4: End-of-Line Turnaround Phase III Executive Summary ES-6 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

68 Regional Bus Fleet Prioritization Process Given the finite quantity of vehicles available in the region and the length of time required to procure expansion vehicles, not all service adjustments or expansion needs submitted through the Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) may be accommodated with available fleet in a particular year. Thus, separate processes have been developed for prioritizing existing and expansion fleet should requests for vehicles exceed the quantity available. The proposed fleet prioritization process is based on the following key elements: The process will be administered through the SRTP for bus mode fleet needs within the short-range planning horizon (present to 5 years); The process only applies to fleet that is regionally funded (capital match or operating) and/or operated by Valley Metro; Service adjustments in the production years (1-2) of the SRTP will be ranked using the 12-level fleet prioritization process. The process is only applied if fleet requests exceed available vehicles; and Service adjustments in the development years (3-5) of the SRTP that require expansion fleet will be ranked using the expansion fleet prioritization process. The rankings will be submitted to the Valley Metro Board of Directors for final review and potential recommendation to MAG for consideration as part of the regional federal funds programming process. Figure ES-5 summarizes the need and applicability of the fleet prioritization process. The process for identifying and prioritizing service adjustments and associated fleet requirements through the SRTP is depicted in Figure ES-6. For additional details on the prioritization processes described herein, refer to the Valley Metro TSPM Phase III Final Report. Phase III Executive Summary ES-7 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

69 Figure ES-5: Fleet Prioritization Need and Applicability Figure ES-6: SRTP Fleet Prioritization Process Phase III Executive Summary ES-8 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

70 Existing Fleet Prioritization Process For service adjustments in the production years of the SRTP, a fleet prioritization process (referred to as the 12-level existing fleet prioritization process) has been developed. The 12-levels, which serve as a ranking mechanism, were developed by applying priorities to elements such as funding source, type of service adjustment and purpose of the service adjustment. If multiple service requests receive the same rank level in the same planning year, the transit propensity tool that was developed during Phase II is used as a tiebreaker. The proposed 12-level existing fleet prioritization process is summarized in Figure ES-7. Figure ES-7: 12-Level Existing Fleet Prioritization Process Note: If multiple adjustment requests have same rank, the Transit Propensity Tool is applied. The service adjustment with the highest Transit Propensity Index will receive priority. Expansion Fleet Prioritization Process For service adjustments in the development years of the SRTP with expansion fleet requirements, a process has been developed that evaluates the service adjustments and assigns points based on their funding characteristics, compliance with established TSPM standards, and regional connectivity. The more points a service earns, the higher it is prioritized in the list of fleet requests submitted to the Board for their consideration and Phase III Executive Summary ES-9 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

71 possible recommendation to MAG. The proposed expansion fleet prioritization process is summarized in Figure ES-8. Figure ES-8. Expansion Fleet Prioritization Process In the event of a tie, each service improvement is further evaluated using the metrics summarized in Figure ES-9. If the service improvements remain tied after the tie breaker assessment has been completed and the available funds for the number of vehicles required does not allow for implementation of both, Valley Metro will work with affected member cities to mutually determine if other options, such as advancing or delaying one or more of the services or adjusting the service characteristics may allow for the affected service requests to be advanced for implementation. Phase III Executive Summary ES-10 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

72 Figure ES-9. Expansion Fleet Prioritization Ranking Process Tie Break Methodology Conclusion The process for developing Valley Metro s Regional Transit Service Standards and Performance Measures was divided into multiple phases. Board approval of the elements discussed and recommended in this executive summary and the Phase III Final Report will conclude the third and final phase of the process. The transit service standards and performance measures will be reviewed every two years and updated regularly as appropriate to ensure they are consistent with Valley Metro s evolving goals. Phase III Executive Summary ES-11 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

73 DATE AGENDA ITEM 4 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Update PURPOSE To present the draft 2016 TLCP Update for action. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION The TLCP was developed in 2005 to provide guidance for the implementation of the transit component of the Regional Transportation Plan. The TLCP includes Guiding Principles, policies, procedures and financial forecasts to ensure that the program can be balanced. The most recent update to the TLCP was in June Since that time, the official forecast has projected a modest increase in revenues for the Transportation Excise Tax. Some adjustments are being proposed to the bus program to take advantage of the higher revenue forecast. Bus Program The current Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) has identified some service and/or funding changes that are recommended to be incorporated into the bus program within the TLCP, along with some associated fleet expansion needs. The SRTP was developed cooperatively with member city transit staff and includes service improvements that are ready to be implemented in the next two years. It also includes many potential improvements that are not quite ready for implementation. These improvements will continue to be analyzed and developed and could be recommended for regional funding in a future TLCP Update. Capital Program In the 2016 TLCP update, there are some minor adjustments to the replacement fleet and facilities projects related to timing and federal funding. In addition, the SRTP has identified some expansion buses that may be required for planned service enhancements. Although some of these enhancements are still in the development phase, a number of expansion buses have been included in this TLCP update as placeholders to be ordered once the service enhancements have been finalized. There is a total of 68 expansion buses programmed in the next 5 fiscal years. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

74 TLCP Fleet Acquisition 2016 Update 2015 Update Change % Change Fixed route buses 1,503 1, % Paratransit buses % Rural route buses % Vanpools 1,541 1, % Total Fleet 3,670 3, % Operating Program Valley Metro planning staff developed the SRTP to guide the implementation of new service improvements, including those funded with PTF. The current SRTP includes some service enhancements which are eligible for TLCP funding. Some of these proposed enhancements are included in this update for regional funding. The proposed changes to TLCP funded service are listed below along with the estimated annualized cost impact for the fiscal year in which the improvement is implemented. Route Scheduled Date Annualized Impact to Jurisdictional Equity Jurisdictions Other Project Information 40 Main Street Oct 2016 $680,000 Mesa LINK Main Street Oct $980,000 Mesa Increase frequency on weekdays, Saturday and Sundays Replaced with increased service on Route Hayden/McClintock Oct 2016 $250,000 Scottsdale, Tempe Increase frequency on Saturdays and Sundays 112 Country Club/ Arizona Avenue Apr 2017 $875,000 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa Increase frequency on weekdays, Saturday and Sundays LINK Country Club/ Arizona Avenue Apr $975,000 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa Replaced with increased service on Route Broadway Road Oct 2017 $380,000 Mesa Increase frequency on Saturdays, add Sunday service 136 Gilbert Road Oct 2018 $870,000 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa Increase frequency on weekdays and Saturdays, add Sunday service 156 Chandler Blvd Apr 2021 $390,000 Chandler 45 Broadway Road Jul 2021 $1,100,000 Mesa 83 83rd Avenue Jul 2024 $1,175,000 Peoria Increase peak frequency on weekdays Replace local funding, existing service levels Replace local funding, existing service levels In 2016, the Valley Metro Board of Directors authorized the implementation of a new regional ADA paratransit overlay service which eliminates the need for transfers among current paratransit providers. The new service will be implemented in FY2017. The incremental cost for the service has been budgeted as a local cost. However, some 2

75 cities have asked that their ADA PTF allocations be increased to pay for the incremental costs. The 2016 update includes an additional $14.3 million ADA PTF funds to accommodate the requests. The fund balance at the end of the program is anticipated to be about $43.2 million, up from $35.2 million in the 2015 update. The following table summarizes the changes in fund balance. Comparison of Net Revenues 2016 Update 2015 Update Change Operations Revenue $2,076.6 $2,035.2 $41.4 Capital Revenue $1,039.4 $1,004.9 $34.5 Total Revenue $3,116.0 $3,040.1 $75.9 Operations Expenditures $1,754.4 $1,726.3 $28.1 Capital Expenditures $1,319.5 $1,278.6 $40.9 Total Expenditures $3,073.9 $3,004.9 $69.0 Net Revenues less Expenditures $42.2 $35.2 $6.9 The TLCP Guiding Principles require that jurisdictional equity be maintained for the bus program. The policy allows that each sub-region can be within 2.5 percent above or below their policy allocation. In the current model, the East and West sub-regions are within this policy allowance, but the Central sub-region is not. Additionally, the policy allows that regardless of sub-regional percentages, no jurisdiction can be underallocated by $7.5 million or more. In the current model one jurisdiction, Phoenix, meets that condition. Phoenix is in the process of identifying potential projects that could be programmed to bring them within the policy guidelines. Jurisdiction Equity Summary by Sub-Region (millions of dollars) May 9, 2016 Sub-Region Total Calculated PTF Total Policy PTF Allocation JE Under (JE Over) Percent of JE Calculated Central $ $ $ % East $ $ $ % West $ $ ($0.94) -0.57% $1, $1, $ % 3

76 Rail/High Capacity Transit Program The baseline rail model has some significant changes from the adopted 2015 TLCP Update. The passage of Proposition 104 in Phoenix has brought about some changes in the priorities for Phoenix rail corridors. Many of the future rail projects within Phoenix are recommended for change. On January 26, 2016 the Phoenix City Council took formal action to establish these priorities for the corridors in Phoenix. The action was taken after public discussion through the Citizens Transportation Commission and upon recommendation from the City of Phoenix Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee. Projects programmed after calendar year 2026 are outside of the TLCP. Priority of projects for new future funding is yet to be determined. Changes in the financial model have been made so as to not impact the PTF available, or the timing of, any non-phoenix corridors. Below is a summary of the proposed changes to the corridors including an update of the Tempe Streetcar project. Capitol/I-10 West The project is proposed to be separated into two phases, with Phase I to the Capitol complete by 2023 and Phase II west along I-10 complete by Funding for Phase I includes federal CMAQ that is currently programmed and PTF. Funding for Phase II is assumed to be City of Phoenix local funds. South Central The project is recommended to be advanced from 2034 to The cost estimate has been increased to include a share of the OMC expansion project and additional expansion vehicles to accommodate increased frequency along Central Avenue north to Dunlap. The project is programmed to be funded with federal 5309 New Starts funds, City of Phoenix local funds and PTF. The PTF is being reallocated from the Capitol/I-10 West project. Northwest Phase II This project is recommended to be advanced from 2026 to Moving the schedule forward results in a slightly lower project cost, due to decreased inflation. The project is assumed to be a Small Starts project, with the maximum federal participation of $100 million. The PTF funding for the project is held at the same level as the 2015 TLCP update. The remaining funding is City of Phoenix local funds. Tempe Streetcar The Streetcar project received a Medium-High rating from the Federal transit Administration (FTA). The project has been recommended for a $75 million Small Starts grant and has been incorporated into the President s Budget for federal FY2017. Staff is currently working toward a Small Starts Grant Agreement during FY2017. The completion year for the project is now

77 Corridor 2016 TLCP Open Year 2015 TLCP Open Year Central Mesa Northwest Phase I Gilbert Road Tempe Streetcar * Capitol/I-10 West Phase I Northwest Phase II * South Central * West Phoenix/Central Glendale Capitol/I-10 West Phase II ** Northeast Phoenix * schedule changes from 2015 TLCP) ** phase and schedule change In addition to the proposed changes to the corridors, Phoenix is funding the addition of a light rail station along the current line in the vicinity of 50 th Street. The project is in the design phase and is fully funded by Phoenix local funds. West Phoenix/Central Glendale high capacity transit corridor is currently programmed as a 5-mile corridor connecting the existing 19th Ave LRT extension serving West Phoenix and Downtown Glendale. Valley Metro initiated a transit corridor study in 2013 to identify high capacity transit options in partnership with the cities of Phoenix and Glendale. After completing three levels of technical analysis and extensive public outreach, staff is considering a 7-mile leading alternative connecting 19th Avenue and Camelback LRT station through Camelback Road, north along 43rd Avenue and west along Glendale Ave and Glenn Drive. Additional technical analysis and community outreach will be conducted in FY16 and FY17 with a proposed recommendation taken for city council actions and Valley Metro Rail Board action in late 2016 or early The 2017 TLCP will be updated to reflect the revised alignment following Board action. Currently, the rail program baseline financial model is balanced, with a surplus of $88.2 million remaining. The rail program currently anticipates additional financings. An additional issue in FY17 is anticipated and expected to generate up to $62 million. In addition, in FY22 short term financing is needed to cover cash flow. The final financing needs are driven by the construction of three projects simultaneously and will likely change as those projects advance. 5

78 Proposed Art Policy The FAST Act eliminated all art and non-functional landscaping from the list of federally eligible projects. Valley Metro and the member cities believe that art is an important component of capital projects. To that end, staff proposes to implement a regional policy that dedicates up to one percent of the construction budget of each major rail capital project to art. The specific art will be determined on a project-by-project basis working with city staff, artists and community members to define the needs for each project. Rail capital projects with regional PTF would include the art budget as a regional element, whereas the art for projects that are locally funded would also be locally funded. COST AND BUDGET Some of the proposed changes to the TLCP bus model have been incorporated into the proposed FY2017 Operating and Capital Budgets and the Five-Year Operating and Capital Forecasts. The increase in ADA PTF reimbursements are not in the proposed budget and may require a mid-year budget adjustment and amendments to current IGAs. Revenues and expenditures forecast within the TLCP are balanced as required by State Statute. COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information TMC/RMC: June 1, 2016 for action Boards of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : o Goal 2: Advance performance based operation Tactic E: Maintain strong fiscal controls to support Valley Metro s long-term sustainability o Goal 3: Grow transit ridership Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the TMC and RMC forward to the Boards of Directors approval of the Transit Life Cycle Program Update for bus and rail. 6

79 CONTACT Paul Hodgins Manager, Revenue Generation and Financial Planning ATTACHMENT ADOT Revenue Forecast PTF for Bus Program ADOT Revenue Forecast PTF for Rail Program Jurisdiction Equity Summary by Jurisdiction Powerpoint Presentation 7

80 Transportation Excise Tax Revenues PTF for Bus Program Comparison of 2015 and 2014 Forecasts (millions of dollars) Fiscal Year 2015 Forecast Annual Growth 2014 Forecast Annual Growth 2015 $ % $ % 2016 $ % $ % 2017 $ % $ % 2018 $ % $ % 2019 $ % $ % 2020 $ % $ % 2021 $ % $ % 2022 $ % $ % 2023 $ % $ % 2024 $ % $ % 2025 $ % $ % 2026 $72.3 $67.4 Actuals $618.4 $617.6 Forecast $1,044.4 $ Year Total $1,662.8 $1,613.4 Transportation Excise Tax Revenues PTF for Rail Program Comparison of 2015 and 2014 Forecasts (millions of dollars) Fiscal Year 2015 Forecast Annual Growth 2014 Forecast Annual Growth 2015 $ % $ % 2016 $ % $ % 2017 $ % $ % 2018 $ % $ % 2019 $ % $ % 2020 $ % $ % 2021 $ % $ % 2022 $ % $ % 2023 $ % $ % 2024 $ % $ % 2025 $ % $ % 2026 $55.1 $51.3 Actuals $471.1 $470.5 Forecast $795.7 $ Year Total $1,266.7 $1,

81 Jurisdiction Equity Summary (millions of dollars) May 9, 2016 Total Calculated PTF Total Policy PTF Allocation JE Under (JE JE Calculated JE Policy Jurisdiction Over) Percent Percent Avondale $19.8 $21.8 $ % 1.54% Buckeye $4.7 $1.0 ($3.7) 0.34% 0.07% Chandler $132.4 $134.0 $ % 9.46% County $16.5 $9.2 ($7.3) 1.19% 0.65% El Mirage $1.5 $3.2 $ % 0.23% Fountain Hills $0.6 $1.2 $ % 0.09% Gila Bend $0.0 $1.9 $ % 0.14% Gilbert $87.3 $86.6 ($0.7) 6.29% 6.12% Glendale $79.7 $80.4 $ % 5.68% Goodyear $4.1 $3.7 ($0.4) 0.30% 0.26% Guadalupe $3.6 $0.1 ($3.5) 0.26% 0.01% Litchfield Park $0.0 $3.2 $ % 0.23% Mesa $269.8 $275.3 $ % 19.44% Paradise Valley $3.2 $7.6 $ % 0.54% Peoria $28.6 $31.4 $ % 2.22% Phoenix $433.5 $449.4 $ % 31.74% Queen Creek $0.0 $0.9 $ % 0.06% Salt River Reservation $1.1 $0.0 ($1.1) 0.08% 0.00% Scottsdale $142.2 $147.4 $ % 10.41% Surprise $5.0 $3.3 ($1.7) 0.36% 0.23% Tempe $149.6 $149.6 ($0.0) 10.78% 10.56% Tolleson $4.5 $4.4 ($0.1) 0.32% 0.31% Wickenburg $0.0 $0.3 $ % 0.02% Youngtown $0.6 $0.2 ($0.4) 0.04% 0.02% $1,388.3 $1,416.1 $ % % 9

82 5/25/2016 Transit Life Cycle Program 2016 Model Update June 2016 Bus Program Summary 2 1

83 5/25/2016 Prop 400 Bus Revenues $240.0 $220.0 $200.0 $180.0 $160.0 $ millions $140.0 $120.0 $100.0 $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $ Forecast 2014 Forecast RTP Forecast 3 Source for Changes Short Range Transit Program Five-year program of improvements Projects eligible for regional funding Meet or support Transit Standards/Performance Measures Funding availability Regional ADA Paratransit Plan 4 2

84 5/25/2016 Program Changes Operating program changes Improved service Increased funding for existing bus service ADA funding Fleet plan changes 5 Operating Program Route Scheduled Date 40 Main Street Oct 2016 $680,000 Mesa Annualized Impact to Jurisdictional Equity Jurisdictions Other Project Information Increase frequency on weekdays, Saturday and Sundays LINK Main Street Oct $980,000 Mesa Replaced with increased service on Route Hayden/McClintock Oct 2016 $250,000 Scottsdale, Tempe Increase frequency on Saturdays and Sundays 112 LINK Country Club/ Arizona Increase frequency on weekdays, Saturday and Avenue Apr 2017 $875,000 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa Sundays Country Club/ Arizona Avenue Apr $975,000 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa Replaced with increased service on Route Broadway Road Oct 2017 $380,000 Mesa Increase frequency on Saturdays, add Sunday service 136 Gilbert Road Oct 2018 $870,000 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa Increase frequency on weekdays and Saturdays, add Sunday service 156 Chandler Blvd Apr 2021 $390,000 Chandler Increase peak frequency on weekdays 45 Broadway Road Jul 2021 $1,100,000 Mesa Replace local funding, existing service levels 83 83rd Avenue Jul 2024 $1,175,000 Peoria Replace local funding, existing service levels 6 3

85 5/25/2016 Operating Program Funding for ADA Additional PTF funding/reimbursements Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Surprise 7 Capital Program Fleet changes Updated fleet replacement plan Updated fleet expansion plan Based on projected SRTP improvements Placeholders for future expansion 8 4

86 5/25/2016 Fleet Acquisition 2016 Update 2015 Update Change % Change Fixed route buses 1,503 1, % Paratransit buses % Rural route buses % Vanpools 1,541 1, % Total Fleet 3,670 3, % 9 Expenditures 2016 Update 2015 Update Change % Change Operations Expenditure Fixed Route Operations $1,013.1 $997.2 $ % ADA & Alternatives $497.2 $482.9 $ % Regional Expenditures $244.1 $246.1 ($2.1) 0.8% Sub Total Operations Expenditures $1,754.4 $1,726.3 $ % Capital Expenditure Debt Service $72.1 $72.1 $ % Fleet $979.7 $938.3 $ % Facilities $267.7 $268.2 ($0.5) 0.2% Sub Total Capital Expenditures $1,319.5 $1,278.6 $ % Total Expenditures $3,073.9 $3,004.9 $ % 10 5

87 5/25/2016 Revenues 2016 Update 2015 Update Change % Change Revenue Operations PTF $1,662.8 $1,613.4 $ % RARF $84.7 $86.5 ($1.8) 2.12% Fares $235.1 $243.6 ($8.5) 3.49% Federal $68.8 $71.3 ($2.5) 3.44% Other revenues $25.2 $20.5 $ % Sub Total Operations Revenue $2,076.6 $2,035.2 $ % Revenue Capital Federal Capital $960.2 $925.7 $ % Financed Revenue $58.3 $58.3 $ % Other revenues $20.9 $20.9 $ % Sub Total Capital Revenue $1,039.4 $1,004.9 $ % Total Revenue $3,116.0 $3,040.1 $ % 11 Cash Flow Summary Bus Program TLCP Totals Funding Surplus / Shortfall Total Program Revenues $3,066.0 Total Operating Costs ($1,754.4) Funding surplus before capital and financing $1,311.7 Total Capital Costs ($1,246.5) Financing Needs anticipated: Proceeds Debt Service Series 2009 $50.0 ($73.0) Total Financing $50.0 ($73.0) ($23.0) Total Program Cost 2026 ($3,023.9) Net Fund Balance $

88 5/25/2016 Jurisdictional Equity Summary Calculated Policy Percent Sub region Allocation Allocation Difference Difference Central $433.5 $449.4 $ % East $789.8 $802.7 $ % West $165.0 $164.1 ($0.9) 0.57% $1,388.3 $1,416.1 $ % 13 Rail Program Summary 14 7

89 5/25/2016 Prop 400 Rail Revenues $200.0 $180.0 $160.0 $140.0 $ millions $120.0 $100.0 $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $ Forecast 2014 Forecast RTP Forecast 15 Capital Projects Tempe Streetcar updated completion date South Central updated cost estimate and completion date Capitol/I-10 West phased with new completion date for Phase II Northwest Phase II updated completion date 16 8

90 5/25/2016 Capital Projects 50 th Street light rail station West Phoenix/Central Glendale No update to current TLCP Expect to update next year Add 2 miles Adopt specific alignment and identify structures Update cost and funding assumptions 17 High Capacity Transit Map Projects programmed after calendar year 2026 are outside of the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP). Priority of projects for new future funding is yet to be determined. 18 9

91 5/25/2016 Capital Revenues Assumptions Capitol/I-10 West Phase I All CMAQ currently programmed to corridor PTF local match South Central FTA New Starts (FFGA in 2018) PTF local match shifted from Capital/I-10 West Phoenix local match 19 Capital Revenues Assumptions 50 th Street station Phoenix funded 20 10

92 5/25/ Proposed Corridor Costs Base Utilities 2016 Total 2015 Update Change Central Mesa $182.6 $8.2 $190.8 $190.8 $0.0 Northwest Phase I $303.4 $26.2 $329.6 $326.6 $3.0 Gilbert Road $147.0 $0.0 $147.0 $147.2 ($0.1) Tempe Streetcar $162.9 $13.7 $176.6 $176.6 $0.0 Capitol/I-10 West Phase I $158.1 $20.4 $178.5 $993.0 ($814.5) Northwest Phase II $262.7 $11.2 $273.8 $295.0 ($21.2) South Central $645.5 $26.9 $672.3 $0.0 $672.3 West Phoenix/Central Glendale $523.1 $28.7 $551.8 $552.9 ($1.0) Capitol/I-10 West Phase II $148.7 $67.0 $215.6 $0.0 $215.6 Northeast Phoenix $16.5 $0.0 $16.5 $16.5 $0.0 Sub-Total Corridor Extensions $2,367.8 $194.0 $2,561.8 $2,698.5 ($136.7) Proposed Other Capital Costs Other Capital Expenditures Base Utilities Total 2015 Update Change LRV Acquisition $96.8 $0.0 $96.8 $96.1 $0.7 50th Street Station $23.8 $0.0 $23.8 $0.0 $23.8 OMC Expansion $18.0 $0.0 $18.0 $31.1 ($13.1) CP/EV Regional Reimbursements $198.8 $73.6 $272.4 $273.1 ($0.7) System-wide Support Infrastructure $62.6 $0.0 $62.6 $70.8 ($8.2) Corridor Planning/CPDA $65.7 $0.0 $65.7 $77.5 ($11.8) Design Standards & System Planning $93.6 $0.0 $93.6 $68.1 $25.5 Sub-Total Other Capital $559.3 $73.6 $632.9 $616.7 $

93 5/25/ Proposed Capital Revenues 2016 Update 2015 Update Change % Change PTF $1,316.1 $1,265.7 $ % FTA 5309 $953.3 $971.0 ($17.7) 1.8% CMAQ $381.3 $264.0 $ % Other federal $43.3 $67.7 ($24.4) 36.1% Phoenix T2000 $619.3 $481.2 $ % Mesa $77.6 $147.7 ($70.1) 47.5% Glendale $106.5 $100.1 $ % Tempe $13.0 $13.0 $0.0 NA MAG / RPTA $24.3 $22.0 $ % Sub Total Capital Revenue $3,534.8 $3,332.5 $ % Proposed Cash Flow Summary Funding Surplus / TLCP Totals Shortfall Total Program Revenues $3,534.8 Total Base Program Cost ($3,109.8) Funding surplus before PTF utility expenses and financing $425.0 Non Prior Right Utility Relocations ($275.8) ($275.8) Financing Needs anticipated: Proceeds Debt Service Series 2009 $55.5 ($77.6) Series 2014 $135.4 ($156.9) Series 2017 $61.3 ($72.9) Series 2022 $80.0 ($86.6) Advance Funds by Phoenix $60.0 ($63.0) Total Financing $392.2 ($457.0) ($64.8) Total Program Cost 2026 ($3,450.4) Net Fund Balance $

94 5/25/2016 Art Policy FAST Act eliminated art as eligible activity Establish policy to fund art Up to 1% of construction budget PTF funded regional element for projects with regional funding Locally funded for non-ptf projects Coordinate art design with cities 25 Timeline TMC and RMC - information May 3, 2016 AFS - information May 11, 2016 Board - information May 18, 2016 RTAG May 17, 2016 TMC and RMC - action June 1, 2016 Board - action June 16,

95 DATE AGENDA ITEM 5 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Chief Executive Officer Recruitment Update PURPOSE To provide an informational update regarding the Chief Executive Officer recruitment process. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Scott Smith, Interim CEO along with MaryEllen Sheppard, Assistant County Manager and Andy Mesquita, Deputy Director, Human Resources, with Maricopa County will provide an update on the recruitment process. COST AND BUDGET None COMMITTEE PROCESS TMC/RMC: June 1, 2016 for information Boards of Directors: June 16, 2016 for information RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information. CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer ssmith@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

96 DATE AGENDA ITEM 6 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Travel and Expenditures PURPOSE The monthly travel and expenditures are presented for information. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None COST AND BUDGET None COMMITTEE PROCESS None RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only. CONTACT John McCormack Chief Financial Officer jmccormack@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT Valley Metro Travel Reimbursement Report Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail Monthly Accounts Payable over $25,000 VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

97 Job Title Purpose of Travel Location Dates Traveled Program Supervisor Community Relations Manager Chief Engineer Interim CEO Deputy Director Service Planning Manager, Accessible Transit Chief of Staff Community Relations Program Manager NTI Training - QC and QA in Transit Rail-Volution Committee Meeting APTA Rail Track Test Forum APTA Bus and Paratransit Conf. APTA Bus and Paratransit Conf. APTA Bus and Paratransit Conf. APTA Bus and Paratransit Conf. WTS Annual Conference Report reflects Out of State (AZ) Travel * Misc. cost includes airport parking. ** Misc. cost includes luggage Valley Metro Travel Reimbursement Report For Travel Completion Dates April 26, 2016 through May 25, 2016 Total Travel Cost Airfare Other Transport Lodging Meals Misc. Birmingham, AL 4/26/16-4/28/16 $1, $ $0.00 $ $ $0.00 San Francisco, CA 4/26/16-4/30/16 $1, $ $14.30 $1, $ $45.00 * Cleveland, OH 5/4/16-5/7/16 $1, $ $2.50 $ $ $37.21 *** Charlotte, NC 5/14/16-5/18/16 $1, $ $0.00 $1, $ $45.00 * Charlotte, NC 5/14/16-5/18/16 $1, $ $19.70 $ $ $58.00 ** Charlotte, NC 5/14/16-5/18/16 $1, $ $36.76 $ $ $50.00 ** Charlotte, NC 5/15/16-5/18/16 $1, $ $47.50 $ $ $33.00 * Austin, TX 5/17/16-5/20/16 $1, $ $33.60 $ $86.25 $50.00 **

98 Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Monthly AP Payments over $25,000 April 21, May 20, 2016 Document Number Name Transaction Description Effective Date Transaction Amount City of Phoenix FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 4,356, W003 FirstGroup America, Inc. April 2016 Fixed Route Bus Service - East Valley 5/20/2016 4,353, W City of Phoenix May 2016 Fixed Route Service, Dial-A-Ride, Monthly Svc 5/20/2016 1,642, City of Tempe EVBOM Use and Lease Agreement - Jan. thru March /27/2016 1,624, City of Mesa FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 1,322, W002 FirstGroup America, Inc. March 2016 Fixed Route Bus Service- East Valley 4/22/ , W004 Total Transit, Inc. March 2016 East Valley ParaTransit Services 5/20/ , City of Chandler - MS 412 Transit Services FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , City of Glendale FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , City of Scottsdale - Remittance Processing FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , Town of Gilbert FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , City of Tempe FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , City of Peoria FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , W001 ADP PPE 5/8/16 ADP Wages Payable 5/13/ , W001 ADP PPE4/24/16 ADP Wages Payable 4/29/ , City of Surprise FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , W003 United Healthcare May 2016 Employee Dental, Medical & Vision Coverage 4/29/ , W004 Total Transit, Inc. March 2016 NW Valley ParaTransit/Mobility Center Services 5/20/ , City of Avondale FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , City of Goodyear FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , W001 ADP PPE 5/8/16 Payroll Taxes and Garnishments 5/13/ , W001 ADP PPE4/24/16 Payroll Taxes and Garnishments 4/29/ , W002 ASRS PPE 5/8/16 ASRS 5/13/ , W002 ASRS PPE 4/24/16 ASRS 4/29/ , City of Buckeye FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , Goodmans Interior Structures Purchase and Delivery of Office Chairs 5/19/ , W002 Valutrans, Inc March 2016 Zoom (Avondale) Fixed Route Services 5/6/ , Dell Marketing L.P. 48 Replacement Desktop Computers OptiPlex /27/ , City of El Mirage FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , W002 Valutrans, Inc March 2016 Vee Quiva Fixed Route Services 5/6/ , vride, Inc. Jan 2016 Vanpool Services 5/5/ , vride, Inc. Feb 2016 Vanpool Services 5/5/ , Wells Fargo Bank April 2016 Wells Fargo Credit Card Purchases 5/15/16 55, Dell Marketing L.P. Network Gear, Power Edge Servers 5/19/ , Moses, Inc. Feb 2016 Marketing and Advertising 4/21/ , W007 CopperPoint Mutual Insurance Company May 2016 Mobility Center Rent 4/29/ , W003 City of Mesa April 2016 CNG Fuel Expense 4/30/ , W002 Valutrans, Inc March 2016 Glendale Fixed Route Services 5/6/ , Trend Offset Printing Services Transit Book Printing 5/5/ , Town of Paradise Valley FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/ , C.A.R.E Evaluators, Inc. March 2016 Mobility Center ADA Evaluations 5/5/ , Dell Marketing L.P. 24 Replacement Desktop Computers OptiPlex /27/ , World Wide Technology Router for Data Center 5/5/ , Don Sanderson Ford, Inc Ford Excape VIN 1FMCU0G9XGUC /5/ , ,847,826.62

99 Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Monthly AP Payments over $25,000 April 21, May 20, 2016 Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Date Check Amount W001 Sundt/Stacy & Witbeck Joint Venture NWX March 2016 NWE Phase 1 Rail Construction 4/22/2016 1,000, W002 Alternate Concepts Inc. March 2016 Transportation Services 5/13/ , W003 Jacobs Engineering March 2016 GRE Design Services 5/13/ , W004 Allied Barton Security Services March 2016 Fare Inspection and Security Services 5/20/ , W005 PB-Wong Joint Venture March 2016 NWE Project Management/Construction Management 4/29/ , Southwest Gas Corporation Northwest Extension Prop 400 Utilities 4/21/ , W004 Allied Barton Security Services April 2016 Fare Inspection and Security Services 5/20/ , W001 DMS - Facility Services, Inc. March 2016 Facilities and LRV Cleaning Svcs 5/13/ , RPTA VMR Capital Contribution I.T. Equipment Purchases 5/20/ , W005 USBC Real Estate LLC June 2016 Rent 101 Bldg 5/20/ , W HDR/SR Beard & Associates March 2016 Public Involvement Consulting Svcs 4/29/ , Parsons Transportation Group Inc. April 2016 Engineering Design and Consulting Services for SCADA Upgrade 5/20/ , W005 PB-Wong Joint Venture March 2016 GRE Project Management/Construction Management 4/29/ , Aconex 3/30/15-9/29/20 Project Controls Systems Services 4/26/ , W001 URS Corp Feb 2016 Planning & Conceptual Engineering 4/29/ , W006 City of Mesa-Central Mesa Billings 10/5/15-1/10/16 CME Expenditures 4/29/ , Motorola Solutions 800 MHZ Radios and Accessories 5/5/ , SRP Miscellaneous Accts Receivable Gilbert Road Extension Utilities 4/26/ , City of Phoenix TVM Mag Stripe Fare Media Rolls and TVM Receipt Blank Rolls 4/21/ , City of Phoenix- Public Transit April Fare Handling Fee 5/5/ , Brinks, Incorporated March 2016 Armored Car & Cash Mngt Svc 5/5/ , W005 PB-Wong Joint Venture March 2016 CME Project Management/Construction Management 4/29/ , W004 Enterprise Technology Services April 2016 IT Service Consultant 4/29/ , United Right-of-Way March 2016 Facilities Landskeeping Services 5/5/ , United Right-of-Way April 2016 Facilities Landskeeping Services 5/20/ , Report Total 4,834,898.72

100 DATE AGENDA ITEM 7 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events PURPOSE Chairs Fitzhugh and Zuercher will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None COST AND BUDGET None COMMITTEE PROCESS None RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only. CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer ssmith@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT Pending Items Request VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

101 Pending Items Request Item Requested Date Requested Planned Follow-up Date 2

102 DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Public Comment PURPOSE A 15-minute opportunity will be provided to members of the public at the beginning of the meeting to address the RMC on all agenda items. The Chair may recognize members of the public during the meeting at his/her discretion. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None COST AND BUDGET None COMMITTEE PROCESS None RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only. CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer ssmith@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

103 May 25, 2016 Rail Management Committee Wednesday, June 1, 2016 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, 10 th Floor 11:45 a.m. Action Recommended 1. Public Comment 1. For information A 15-minute opportunity will be provided to members of the public at the beginning of the meeting to address the RMC on all agenda items. The Chair may recognize members of the public during the meeting at his/her discretion. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker or a total of 15 minutes total for all speakers. 2. Minutes 2. For action Minutes from the May 4, 2016 RMC meeting are presented for approval. CONSENT AGENDA 3A. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Change Orders with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass- Through Grants 3A. For action Staff will recommend that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute change orders for IGAs with the City of Phoenix to allow Valley Metro Rail to be reimbursed for eligible activities. 3B. Rail Rolling Stock Inspection Services Contract Award 3B. For action Staff will recommend that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a contract with LTK Engineering Group, Inc. to provide inspection services for rail rolling stock for a total term of seven years (five-year base contract plus one two-year renewal option). For the total term of the contract, the award amount is $395,000 plus a 10% contract change contingency of $39,500 that is included in the overall budget established for the project. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

104 REGULAR AGENDA 4. Planning and Community Relations Support Services Contract Award 4. For action Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Wulf Grote, Director, Planning and Accessible Transit, who will recommend that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a five-year contract with three, one-year extension options with HDR Engineering Inc. for Planning and Community Relations Support Services in an amount not to exceed $35 million in initial five-year base. 5. Gilbert Road LRT Extension Project Design Services Contract Contingency Allocation and Design Services During Construction Contract Modification 5. For action Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Rick Brown, Chief Engineer, who will request that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization to: 1) allocate previously authorized project contingency to the Design Services Contract in the amount of $705,000; and 2) for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract modification for Design Services During Construction with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. in the amount of $1,250,000 and a 10% contingency amount of $125,000 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed $1,375, Gilbert Road LRT Extension Project CM@Risk Contractor Contract Modification for Early Work/Procurement 6. For action Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Rick Brown, Chief Engineer, who will request that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a contract modification with Stacy and Witbeck/Sundt, a Joint Venture, to incorporate Early Work/Procurement into the Phase 1 preconstruction services on the Gilbert Road LRT Extension (GRE) Project for $9,676,228 and a 10% contingency amount of $967,623 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $10,643, th Street Station Project Design Services Contract Award 7. For action Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Rick Brown, Chief Engineer, who will request that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO execute a Design Services contract for the 50th Street Station Project with Gannett 2

105 Fleming, Inc. for $1,221,532 and a 10% contingency amount of $122,153 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $1,343, th Street Station Project Public Art Services Contract Award 8. For action Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Rick Brown, Chief Engineer, who will request that the RMC forward to the Board authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a contract for the 50th Street Station Project Public Art Services with Barbara Grygutis for $250,000 and a 10% contingency amount of $25,000 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $275, General Consulting Support Services Contract Award 9. For action Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Rick Brown, Chief Engineer, who will request that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a five-year contract, with three, one-year extension options, for the General Consulting Support Service (GCSS) Contract with Arcadis, Inc. for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed $11,800, Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events 10. For information Chair Zuercher will request future RMC agenda items from members and members may provide a report on current events. 11. Next Meeting 11. For Information The next meeting of the RMC is scheduled for Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at 11:45 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 Valley Metro at or TTY at To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact the receptionist at for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can be found on our web site at 3

106 DATE AGENDA ITEM 2 May 25, 2016 Members Present Ed Zuercher, City of Phoenix, Chair Steven Methvin, City of Tempe, Vice Chair Chris Brady, City of Mesa Dan Cook, City of Chandler Kevin Phelps, City of Glendale Minutes from the Rail Management Committee Wednesday, May 4, 2016 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1 st Avenue, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 11:45 a.m. Chair Zuercher called the meeting to order at 12:44 p.m. 1. Public Comment Mr. Crowley said I don't believe you were in the room earlier, Ed, when I did say that you and I had agreed on something and I complimented your grilling of the situation. With the rail and what you're doing, as I've stated before, the one coming in from the west, the one coming in from the northwest and your relationship to, as I said, the bus before, when you're going across I-17 why are you going to north corner of Metrocenter when in the center of it you have a transit station. Only cost us $27 million dollars. Been there how long, oh, yeah, and it's got a park-and-ride that cost us more than $27 million dollars because it's got almost 500 spots. Well, I look at that and I don't see where you are coordinating with the other parts of the system. On the two information items, the 50th Street project and construction and interface, what's happening on 16th Street, and since I was the one that when I got up here said, when you build it, make it so that you can upgrade and improve it to begin with, so when you're doing it the way you're doing, I go, why. And then I also look at the projects that you have built and where are they gonna go. I got a letter from one of your assistants saying the reason we didn't put the transit facility in the Deck Park, which was built to get there, is because there wasn't a hundred-story complex built next to it and that the center of downtown is by the central station. Poor planning. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

107 I'd like that the rail with its life cycle and the amount of moneys coming in, when I put the question to the staff officer over there to give me the documents showing what your bonding had paid for, and I got from him a document saying the original one $50 million dollars went to the bus and everything since then has all gone to rail. And I asked about that $50 million going to the bus where it went. So just don't give me a thing saying $50 million to the bus. I want all the projects, because when I continually see that the moneys are going to rail rather than the bus, I have a problem with it. So I'll give you back your time. Have a pleasant one. 2. Minutes Minutes from the April 6, 2016 RMC meeting were presented for approval. It was noted that there is a correction to the minutes, Brent Stoddard was here for Kevin Phelps. IT WAS MOVED BY CHRIS BRADY, SECONDED BY STEVEN METHVIN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 6, 2016 RMC MEETING MINUTES WITH THE CORRECTION. 3. Operations and Maintenance Center Emergency Backup Generator Mr. Smith said Mr. Chair, members of the committee, this is simply to expand our abilities. Right now we have a two-hour backup at the operations center. We don't believe that that is sufficient considering the integrity of our system. So we're proposing going with a generator that will extend the ability to run without mainline power for longer than two hours. IT WAS MOVED BY CHRIS BRADY, SECONDED BY KEVIN PHELPS AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE INTERIM CEO TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH CANNON AND WENDT ELECTRIC FOR AN AMOUNT OF $566,000 TO DESIGN, PURCHASE AND INSTALL AN EMERGENCY GENERATOR AT THE VALLEY METRO OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CENTER AND TO ESTABLISH A 10% CONTRACT CHANGE CONTINGENCY OF $56,000 THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE OVERALL BUDGET ESTABLISHED FOR THE PROJECT. 4. Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Operating and Capital Budget and Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY 2017 thru FY 2021) Mr. Smith said Mr. Chair, members of the committee, there have been no significant updates, so unless there's questions, we present this for your action and recommendation to the full Board. 2

108 IT WAS MOVED BY CHRIS BRADY, SECONDED BY DAN COOK AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVAL OF THE VALLEY METRO RAIL, INC. FISCAL YEAR 2017 (FY17) OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET AND FIVE-YEAR OPERATING FORECAST AND CAPITAL PROGRAM (FY 2017 THRU FY 2021). 5. Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) (Rail Program) Mr. Smith said Mr. Chair, members of the committee, with all the activity going on in rail, we'd thought it would be important for you to have a report on the TLCP as it relates to just rail. So, Paul. Mr. Hodgins said Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I'm going to start out with basically the same chart showing the PTF, the tax revenues, for the rail program. Our revenues are split by policy at a percentage, so, it's virtually the same chart. I'll note that revenues are up about $37 million in this forecast from last year for the rail program, but again short about $830 million from the original RTP. We are proposing some changes in our capital projects: an updated completion date for the streetcar. The South Central, I have an updated cost estimate and completion date. Capital I-10 West, we're proposing to do it in two phases with Phase II being pushed out a little bit. Northwest Phase II, we have an updated completion date. We've added the 50th Street light rail station. And although we're not making changes here to the West Phoenix Central Glendale corridor, I did want to highlight it, because there has been a lot of discussion. We do anticipate next year we'll have an update potentially adding up to two miles into the corridor, but we won't do that until we have a specific alignment adopted by the cities involved with an updated cost estimate and funding assumptions. So this is our current map. Some of the changes in dates are largely a result of an action taken by the City of Phoenix Council and those are noted. The changes are in black. Starting from the east, we still have the Gilbert Road extension scheduled for Tempe Streetcar is now scheduled for South Central corridor is now moved up to Capital I-10 West Phase I is 2023 still with Phase II being moved up to And the Northwest Phase II has moved up to So we have basically the remainder of the Central Avenue corridor being completed by 2023 with the capital extension. Some of the changes, key changes, in our revenue assumptions as a result: Phase I for the Capital I-10 West we're proposing to keep all of the currently programmed CMAQ on that project with PTF local match. So it would be roughly a two-thirds federally funded project. 3

109 South Central, we're assuming a FTA New Starts grant, full funding grant agreement, in federal fiscal We've moved some PTF regional PTF in as a local match with the remainder of the funds coming from the City of Phoenix. And then with the 50th Street station, it is 100 percent City of Phoenix funded. Overall our cash flow is a little better than we had last year. We're showing about an $84-million-fund balance on a three- and- a- half- billion-dollar program. It's still a little bit thin, but last year, I think we were at million, so we're up a little bit. So we've met our statutory requirement to have a balanced program. One other thing in the rail program we're looking at is to adopt an art policy. The FAST Act, following up from MAP-21, restricted the eligibility of art to functional art. The FAST Act has actually eliminated all art as being eligible for federal participation. So we'd like to establish a regional policy to fund art at a local level. And it would be up to 1 percent of the construction budget for any projects that are PTF funded. It would be considered one of those regional elements for PTF funding. Anything that's a completely locally funded project then would have local funding for the art. Mr. Smith said just to clarify that, what changed was, for example, the artwork that we did on both, the Central Mesa and the Northwest, both were embedded in the platform and the station and that was outside. MAP-21 took away anything that was outside the platform, but it allowed the design element of the platform, which we did a very good job on both, Northwest and Mesa, including art into the design of the station itself. That no longer can be included in the federal funds. So we'll have to fund that separately. And that's what we're talking about is actually adopting a policy, because I don't think we want to go back to simply utilitarian in the future. The standard has been raised. The bar's been raised, and so that's why we'll need to go with this policy so that we can continue to even integrate artwork into the station itself and not run afoul of -- or not -- and be able to fund those without using any federal funds. Chair Zuercher said would this be a requirement, or would each city have the option to opt into it? Mr. Smith said Mr. Chair, it will be optional. There's no requirement that we have artwork. Generally, it's the city design's that decides what level they want to go. It's just that before we could have sort of shared cost with federal moneys. Now they can go as extravagant or as lean as they want, and depending on what standard they want, they'll just have to figure out a way to pay for it either through savings in the regular program or the PTF. There are no restrictions on local funds, regional funds. 4

110 Chair Zuercher said but this is saying there's an art policy that we will fund it up to 1 percent of the construction budget. What if the city says we don't want to spend any? Mr. Smith said no, we'll just set aside 1 percent. We want to put that in there so that it's not -- on an ongoing basis we're stating that arts is important and we'll set aside, if desired, up to 1 percent of the fund. It's not required, but we want to make sure that it's just there so people understand that we don't have that recurring discussion as it relates to stations. But if they don't want to use that, if they want to apply that to other areas, certainly we can. Mr. Hodgins said we'll change it to say up to 1 percent. I think it says up to 1 percent in the memo. So again, this is just for information. We are happy to take any feedback from our members on the program. We will come back next month for adoption. I will be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Chair th Street Station Project Train Operations/Construction Interface This item was pulled from the agenda. 7. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events None. With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 12:57 p.m. 5

111 DATE May 25, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3A SUBJECT Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Change Orders with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grants PURPOSE To request Board authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute change orders for IGAs with the City of Phoenix to allow Valley Metro Rail to be reimbursed for eligible activities. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Valley Metro Rail has requested extensions to the pass-through IGAs for four existing grants. The extensions are needed to allow additional time to complete the projects identified in the grants. The table below summarizes the requested changes: Grant Source Extension AZ TIGGER December 31, 2016 AZ-90-X Formula December 31, 2018 AZ-95-X015 CMAQ/STP Flex December 31, 2018 AZ-95-X023 CMAQ/STP Flex December 31, 2018 Grant AZ was provided through the Transportation Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) program. The funds were used to construct the solar powered electric generation plant at the Operations and Maintenance Center. There are funds remaining and VMR needs time to identify potential uses for the remaining funds. Grant AZ-90-X131 includes funding from the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program. The funds remaining in this grant are for construction costs associated with the planned transit center in Mesa at Main St. The remaining funds will be reprogrammed for the planned transit center at Main St. and Gilbert Rd. Additional time is needed to complete the project. Grant AZ-95-X015 includes funds remaining for the upgrade to the SCADA system. Additional time is needed to complete the project. Grant AZ-95-X023 includes funds remaining primarily for the Gilbert Road Extension. Additional time is needed to complete the project. The City of Phoenix is the designated recipient for all FTA grant funds for the region. Valley Metro Rail undertakes projects approved for FTA grant funding, then submits requests to Phoenix for reimbursement of actual expenses incurred. Phoenix then executes a drawdown of funds from FTA to pass-through the reimbursement to Valley Metro Rail. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

112 The pass-through IGA is required in order for Phoenix to reimburse Valley Metro Rail for eligible expenses. COST AND BUDGET All expenses associated with grant funds are in the approved FY 2017 Adopted Operating and Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Program. The grant funds will offset expenses, reducing the net cost to the Public Transportation Fund and member agency budgets. COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute change orders to the intergovernmental agreements with the City of Phoenix for the listed grants. CONTACT Paul Hodgins Manager, Revenue Generation and Financial Planning ATTACHMENT None 2

113 DATE May 25, 2016 AGENDA ITEM 3B SUBJECT Rail Rolling Stock Inspection Services Contract Award PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract with LTK Engineering Group, Inc. to provide inspection services for rail rolling stock for a total term of seven years (five-year base contract plus one two-year renewal option). For the total term of the contract, the award amount is $395,000 plus a 10% contract change contingency of $39,500 that is included in the overall budget established for the project. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Currently, the estimated number of vehicles planned for the LRV procurement is 11 base LRV s and up to 67 additional options over a seven-year period. Valley Metro will also be contracting for Streetcars within the next seven years. These purchases will be subject to FTA Buy America requirements. The Pre-Award audit, Interim audit and Post Delivery audit will be performed in the LRV and Streetcar manufacturer s locations. The purpose of this contract award is to establish Pre-Award, Post-Delivery Buy America audits service for Valley Metro rail rolling stock procurements. Interim Buy America audits as required will also be assigned. Production Inspections will not be part of this scope of services. Per the scope of services, the Contractor shall perform necessary audits and verify certifications required for FTA Buy America regulations pertaining to rolling stock purchases. In March 2016, Valley Metro issued a federally compliant Request for Proposals for this contract. Proposals were evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) Firm Qualifications & Experience, (2) Understanding / Approach to the Scope of Services and (3) Price. The list of proposers were: 1. SNC Lavalin 2. LTK Engineering Group, Inc. 3. Raul V Bravo and Associates 4. Steve Policar Consulting At the conclusion of the evaluation process, the selection committee chose the proposal from LTK Engineering Group, Inc. and negotiated contract terms to achieve best value for the agency. COST AND BUDGET The rail rolling stock inspection services are for a total term of seven years (five-year base contract plus one two-year option). For the total term of the contract, the award VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

114 amount is $395,000. A 10% contract contingency of $39,500 is established that is included within the overall budget for the project for unanticipated changes. For the first year of the contract, the contract obligation is $47,400, which is fully funded within the VMR Adopted FY17 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract Obligations beyond FY17 are incorporated into the Valley Metro Rail Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY2017 thru FY2020). STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic A: Operate an effective, reliable, high performing transit system COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a contract with LTK Engineering Group, Inc. to provide inspection services for rail rolling stock for a total term of seven years (five-year base contract plus one two-year renewal option). For the total term of the contract, the award amount is $395,000 plus a 10% contract change contingency of $39,500 that is included in the overall budget established for the project. CONTACT Ray Abraham Chief Operations Officer rabraham@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None 2

115 DATE AGENDA ITEM 4 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Planning and Community Relations Support Services Contract Award PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a five-year contract, with three, one-year extension options, with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Planning and Community Relations Support Services (PCRSS). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Currently, Valley Metro Rail (VMR) has a Planning Support Services contract and a Public Involvement Consultant Services contract, both with HDR Engineering, Inc. The Planning Support Services contract term ends on November 15, 2016; however, the corresponding budget authority will be expended in summer The Public Involvement contract, originally awarded to Infraconsult, later acquired by HDR, will end September 17, In an effort to streamline contract management efforts and better coordinate planning and public involvement efforts, the two services were included into the Scope of Services as part of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) issued in January The PCRSS consultant will be utilized to conduct major transit corridor and facility studies, which would include Alternatives Analyses, environmental studies, conceptual design and federal grant process support. Additionally, the consultant may provide ongoing planning support services such as feasibility studies, environmental support, transit facility site selection, transit service and route planning, paratransit services planning, travel forecasting, transit system planning, transit oriented development planning, traffic engineering analyses, geographic information systems (GIS), planning research, preparation of specialty transit grant applications (e.g. TIGER), project programming, graphics and visual renderings, data collection and transit ridership survey support. Community Relations support will continue to be needed across all phases of planning, design and construction of future high-capacity transit projects. The consultant will also support Valley Metro RPTA transit facility and bus related services to include support for fixed route, paratransit and alternative mode outreach, agency marketing and fare programs and transit facility development. The Community Relations tasks include, but are not limited to establishing working relationships with residents, businesses, and other stakeholders within an assigned area of a project; serve as primary liaison between community interests and technical staff; assist with research, production, and dissemination of project materials; arrange and schedule public meetings and workshops for the project; and assist the agency in the execution of significant event planning and/or marketing initiatives. The contract shall be in effect for a five-year base, with three, one-year extension options, for up to eight years. To exercise the options, Board discussion and approval will be required. The contract will provide full-time consultant staff who will serve as an extension of Valley Metro staff. The contract is also utilized to bring in part-time, specialized expertise, as needed. Work under this contract will be issued on an annual task order basis. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

116 This type of multi-year support services contract is beneficial for the following reasons: Staffing continuity is critically important across multi-year, corridor projects to ensure effective coordination and expeditious project development. Creates familiarity of the Valley Metro organization and priorities across a consistent consultant team. Key members of the consultant team co-locate with Valley Metro, which also maximizes coordination and communication. Assures consistent and timely coordination with the Federal Transit Administration. Provides quick access, when needed, to specialized experts who are familiar with Valley Metro s work practices and priorities. In January 2016, VMR issued a RFQ for PCRSS. Extensive outreach was conducted to promote competition including advertisements in several industry print and online publications. Multiple firms were made aware of and expressed interest in this RFQ. Also, to be noted, VMR has several significant contracts in procurement at this time. In addition to the PCRSS, the Program Management/Construction Management (PM/CM) and General Engineering Support (GES) are active. To assure that work is spread over multiple consultant teams and to avoid potential conflicts of interest, Valley Metro determined that the prime consultant for each of these three contracts is not permitted to pursue work on the other two contracts. A single proposal was received for PCRSS from HDR Engineering, Inc. It was determined to be responsive. The evaluation committee, consisting of four Valley Metro staff and a representative each from the cities of Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa, evaluated the proposal on the following criteria: (1) Firm Qualifications & Experience; (2) Firm s Capacity; (3) Proposed Technical Staff and Their Competence; and (4) Program/Project Approach The committee recommended moving ahead with HDR Engineering, Inc. given that their qualification statement was responsive, their costs were deemed fair and reasonable and they have demonstrated expertise and familiarity with transit projects in the metro Phoenix region. It was determined that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for this contract is 5.25 percent. It is anticipated that the PCRSS contract will be used to support Valley Metro RPTA projects and initiatives. This potential use was identified in the initial RFQ advertisement and is anticipated to be less than 15% (approximately $1 million per year) of the overall contract. An Intergovernmental Agreement between VMR and RPTA is being prepared and will be presented to both Boards for approval in August to allow RPTA to utilize the PCRSS. COST AND BUDGET The five-year base cost will not exceed $35 million. For FY17, the VMR cost is estimated at $5.2 million and the RPTA portion is $900,000. These costs are included in the VMR and 2

117 RPTA Adopted FY17 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract obligations beyond FY17 are incorporated into the Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY17 thru FY21). The projects supported by the PCRSS consultant are funded by a mix of federal, regional and local dollars. RELEVANCE TO STRATEGIC PLAN This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : Goal 1: Increase customer focus o Tactic C: Enhance customer service to member cities o Tactic D: Continue to provide high-level and timely business assistance to communities and businesses in construction areas Goal 2: Advance performance based operations o Tactic A: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget Goal 3: Grow transit ridership o Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets o Tactic C: Communicate availability, attractiveness and safety of transit service COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a five-year contract with three, one-year extension options with HDR Engineering Inc. for Planning and Community Relations Support Services in an amount not to exceed $35 million in initial five-year base. CONTACTS Wulf Grote, P.E. Director, Planning and Accessible Transit wgrote@valleymetro.org Hillary Foose Director, Communication and Marketing hfoose@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None 3

118 5/25/2016 Planning and Community Relations Support Services (PCRSS) Contract Award June 2016 Background Current Support Services contracts: Planning support services contract (Nov 2011 Nov 2016) Public involvement consultant support (Sep 2012 Sep 2017) Combine the two contracts: Streamline contract management Greater coordination between planning and public involvement 2 1

119 5/25/2016 PCRSS Contract Objectives Maintain staffing continuity during multi-year project development process Co-location of staff at Valley Metro allows better coordination and communication Assures timely and consistent coordination with FTA Quick access to specialized expertise 3 Contract Support Provide full-time technical staff support Corridor and facility planning studies Other planning support services Community relations support Specialized technical support as needed Serve as extension of Valley Metro staff 4 2

120 5/25/2016 Anticipated Projects Major Project Support (60%): Gilbert Road 50 th Street LRT Station Tempe Streetcar Capitol/I-10 West (Phase I and Phase II) Northwest Phase II South Central West Phoenix/Central Glendale Value of Projects = $2 billion 5 Other Planning Support Corridor/Facility Studies (25%) Northeast Corridor Fiesta/Downtown Chandler Corridor West Glendale Corridor Peoria Park-and-Ride (RPTA) Planning studies (15%) Includes RPTA work Travel forecasting Graphics and visual renderings support Data collection and transit ridership surveys Service planning and scheduling Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 6 3

121 5/25/2016 Community Relations Support Provides support for VMR and RPTA activities For rail program, supports projects in planning, design and construction Business assistance support and major event planning/execution 7 PCRSS Contract Procurement Contractor Outreach: Advertised in several print and online publications notifications to 50 vendors registered on e- procurement website Pre-submittal conference Participation in 2016 DBE and SBE Transportation Expo 8 4

122 5/25/2016 PCRSS Contract Procurement Consultant Selection process: RFQ issued in January, proposal received: HDR Engineering Panel: Valley Metro (4), Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa Proposal was deemed responsive and qualified Conducted price/cost analysis in line with FTA requirements for single-bid response 9 PCRSS Contract Terms Five-year initial contract period Optional extension period: Three (1) year extension Support planning and community relations support activities Annual task orders issued Approximately $7 million 10 5

123 5/25/2016 Proposed Contract Terms Contract with Valley Metro Rail RPTA use of services, as needed Approximately $1 million per year Intergovernmental Agreement between VMR and RPTA needed Request for Board approvals in August 11 Proposed Cost and Budget 5-year budget not to exceed $35 million 3 one-year extension options amount TBD Proposed FY17 budget - $6.1 million $5.2 Million Valley Metro Rail $900,000 Valley Metro/RPTA 12 6

124 5/25/2016 Recommendation Authorize the Interim CEO to execute a contract with HDR Engineering for the PCRSS Contract: 5 year initial contract 3 one-year extension options Not to exceed $35 million 5-year base 13 7

125 DATE AGENDA ITEM 5 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Gilbert Road LRT Extension Project Design Services Contract Contingency Allocation and Design Services During Construction Contract Modification PURPOSE To request approval to 1) allocate previously authorized project contingency to the Design Services Contract in the amount of $705,000; and 2) for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract modification for Design Services During Construction with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. in the amount of $1,250,000 and a 10% contingency amount of $125,000 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed $1,375,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION In August, 2015, the Board approved the total Gilbert Road LRT Extension (GRE) Project for $152,726,625 which included Design, Design Services During Construction, Construction, Right-of-Way acquisition, Public Art, Light Rail Vehicles, Professional Services, Finance Costs and Project Contingency. Also In August, 2015, the Board authorized the CEO to enter into a contract for GRE Design Services with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $7,050,000 excluding contingency. We now need to allocate contingency for the contract to address changes in scope. This item requests Board approval to allocate contingency funds to the Design Services Contract in the amount of $705, (10% of the contract value) to fund any necessary changes that may occur during the design process. Should the total cost of changes under-run this $705,000, then any unused contingency will move back into project contingency to be used as needed. Additionally, Design Services During Construction are now needed as early work/procurement is about to commence on the GRE Project. The scope of services for this work will include review of submittals, responses to RFI s, design changes, and performance of all special inspections. Costs for Design Services During Construction have been negotiated with Jacobs in the amount of $1,250,000. COST AND BUDGET The GRE project is funded by Federal CMAQ Funds, City of Mesa Funds, 5307 and PTF Funds for the Transit Center and Operator Facility and TPAN Funds. The total budget for the GRE Project is $152,726,625 and this budget will remain unchanged as $705,000 from Un-Allocated Contingency is being allocated as a contingency for the Design Services Contract. The summary cost report and associated changes are found in the table below. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

126 Description Current Forecast Contingency Allocation Commitment Updated Forecast Contracted Services $100,317,912 $705,000 $1,375,000 $101,022,912 Right of Way $14,786,915 $14,786,915 Public Art $804,502 $804,502 Vehicles $20,123,631 $20,123,631 Un-Allocated Contingency $11,037,615 ($705,000) $10,332,615 Subtotal $147,070,575 $0 $1,375,000 $147,070,575 Financing Costs $5,656,050 $5,656,050 Total $152,726,625 $0 $1,375,000 $152,726,625 Funding for Design Services During Construction was previously included in the Contracted Services budget line item for an amount of $1,339,884 and does not impact forecasted costs. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget. Goal 3: Grow transit ridership o Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets. o Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness. COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization to: 1) allocate previously authorized project contingency to the Design Services contract in the amount of $705,000; and 2) authorize approval for the CEO to execute a contract modification for Design Services During Construction with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. in the amount of $1,250,000 and a 10% contingency amount of $125,000 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed $1,375,000. 2

127 CONTACT Rick Brown, P.E. Chief Engineer ATTACHMENT None 3

128 DATE AGENDA ITEM 6 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT Gilbert Road LRT Extension Project CM@Risk Contractor Contract Modification for Early Work/Procurement PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract modification with Stacy and Witbeck/Sundt, a Joint Venture, to incorporate Early Work/Procurement into the Phase 1 pre-construction services on the Gilbert Road LRT Extension (GRE) Project for $9,676,228 and a 10% contingency amount of $967,623 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $10,643,851. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION In 2011, Valley Metro and the City of Mesa initiated a planning study of the Gilbert Road Extension. The study identified and evaluated various ways light rail could be placed in the 1.9-mile segment of Main Street extending east of Edgemont to Gilbert Road. Alternatives were evaluated to identify a street configuration that would best incorporate light rail along Main Street. Valley Metro prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA evaluated station locations and a park-and-ride transit center, which is proposed for the west side of Gilbert Road at Main Street. Two station locations were identified at Stapley Drive and Gilbert Road. The EA was finalized and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in November The GRE project has four major procurements: Design Services, Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) Services, Public Art Services, and Light Rail Vehicles. To date the Design Consultant, CM@Risk Services, Phase 1, and Public Art Services contracts have all been awarded and final design is approaching the 90% level. The Light Rail Vehicle procurement is underway. In October, 2015, the Board authorized the CEO to execute a contract for the GRE CM@Risk Contractor for Phase 1, Pre-Construction services with Stacy and Witbeck/Sundt, a Joint Venture for a NTE amount of $1,275,000. The GRE CM@Risk Contractor is performing two phases of work on the GRE Project. Phase 1 is currently underway for pre-construction services that include collaboration with the Design Consultant during the design process, constructability reviews of the design, potholing for utilities, and the preparation for negotiations of the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for construction. Phase 2 will be for the actual construction of the GRE Project after reaching agreement of a GMP. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

129 During the course of design it has been determined that in order to achieve the November 2018 Revenue Service date the Contractor needs to proceed with some early work/procurement on the GRE Project in advance of negotiations of the GMP for Phase 2 and the actual start of Phase 2 work. The early work consists of median demolition, offset manholes, sewer work, drainage work and temporary street light installation. The early procurement consists of special trackwork and traction power substations. This action is only for the GRE CM@Risk Contractor early work/procurement, a subsequent Board action for the Phase 2 construction services will be required when the GMP has been negotiated. COST AND BUDGET The GRE project is funded by Federal CMAQ Funds, City of Mesa Funds, 5307 and PTF Funds for the Transit Center and Operator Facility and TPAN Funds. The cost for the contract modification with Stacy and Witbeck/Sundt, a Joint Venture, to perform Early Work/Procurement on the GRE Project and its associated 10% contingency is included in the overall budget established for the project of $152,726,625. The budget for this contract modification is contained in the line item entitled Contracted Services in the table below. Description Current Forecast Commitment Updated Forecast Contracted Services $101,022,912 $10,643,851 $101,022,912 Right of Way $14,786,915 $14,786,915 Public Art $804,502 $804,502 Vehicles $20,123,631 $20,123,631 Un-Allocated Contingency $10,332,615 $10,332,615 Subtotal $147,070,575 $10,643,851 $147,070,575 Financing Costs $5,656,050 $5,656,050 Total $152,726,625 $10,643,851 $152,726,625 Project funding is included in the Valley Metro Rail FY16 Adopted Operating and Capital Budget and FY16 FY20 Five-Year Capital Program. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget. Goal 3: Grow transit ridership o Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets. 2

130 o Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness. COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a contract modification with Stacy and Witbeck/Sundt, a Joint Venture, to incorporate Early Work/Procurement into the Phase 1 pre-construction services on the Gilbert Road LRT Extension (GRE) Project for $9,676,228 and a 10% contingency amount of $967,623 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $10,643,851. CONTACT Rick Brown, P.E. Chief Engineer rbrown@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None 3

131 DATE AGENDA ITEM 7 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT 50th Street Station Project Design Services Contract Award PURPOSE To request Board approval for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a Design Services contract for the 50th Street Station Project with Gannett Fleming, Inc. for $1,221,532 and a 10% contingency amount of $122,153 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $1,343,685. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION The 50th Street Station Project consists of building a new station located between 48th Street and 51st Street on the existing Valley Metro light rail line in the City of Phoenix. The 50th Street Station Project has three major procurements: Design Services, Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) Services and Public Art Services. To date the procurement process for Design Services and the Public Art Services is complete. The procurement process for CM@Risk Services is underway. This action is only for the Design Services contract. The Design Services Contract will include the design of structures, drainage, utility relocations, two station platforms, street reconstruction; geotechnical activities; right-ofway (ROW), systems engineering, urban design, and pavement markings/signage. The Design Services Contract will also provide design management, studies, analyses, cost estimates, design coordination with operations, utility engineering, civil engineering, architectural design, structural engineering, systems engineering, ROW development, surveying, technical support, geotechnical analysis, and all design elements required for the Project. During the design period, the Design Services Consultant will collaborate with the CM@Risk contractor and Valley Metro to determine the best means and methods for design and construction of the project which will be constructed while revenue service continues through the project site. The Design Services Consultant will also provide design services during construction which includes review of submittals, responses to RFIs, design changes, and performance of special inspections. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for 50th Street Station Project Design Services was issued on March 18, Statements of Qualifications were due and received on April 25, A total of nine submittals were received and deemed responsive. The selection committee, which was comprised of two City of Phoenix employees and three Valley Metro employees, shorted listed three firms and interviews were held with each on May 13, The selection committee determined that Gannett Fleming, Inc. was the most qualified and highest ranked firm to perform the design services. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

132 COST AND BUDGET The 50th Street Station Project is funded by City of Phoenix Proposition 104 Funds. The total budget for the Project is $22,961,981. The cost for the contract with Gannett Fleming, Inc., for Design Services and its associated 10% allocated contingency is included in the overall budget established for the project of $22,961,981. The budget for this contract is contained in the line item entitled Contracted Services in the table below. Description Current Budget Commitment Current Forecast Contracted Services $17,436,479 $1,221,532 $17,436,479 Right of Way $672,769 $672,769 Public Art $264,411 $264,411 Contingency $4,588,322 $122,153 $4,588,322 Subtotal $22,961,981 $1,343,685 $22,961,981 Financing Costs $0 $0 Total $22,961,981 $1,343,685 $22,961,981 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : o Goal 2: Advance performance based operation Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget. o Goal 3: Grow transit ridership Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets. Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness. COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a contract for Design Services for the 50th Street Station Project with Gannett Fleming, Inc. for $1,221,532 and a 10% contingency amount of $122,153 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $1,343,685. 2

133 CONTACT Rick Brown, P.E. Chief Engineer ATTACHMENT None 3

134 DATE AGENDA ITEM 8 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT 50th Street Station Project Public Art Services Contract Award PURPOSE To request Board approval for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract for the 50th Street Station Project Public Art Services with Barbara Grygutis for $250,000 and a 10% contingency amount of $25,000 for a total authorized amount notto-exceed of $275,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION The 50th Street Station Project consists of building a new station located between 48th Street and 51st Street on the existing Valley Metro light rail line in the City of Phoenix. The 50th Street Station Project has three major procurements: Design Services, Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) Services and Public Art Services. To date the procurement process for Design Services and Public Art Services is complete. The procurement process for CM@Risk Services is underway. This action is only for the Public Art Services Contract. The Public Art Services Contract will develop, design and install artwork at the 50th Street Station. The artist will work with the community to develop artwork that works within the environment and reflects the spirit of the project. The artist will collaborate with the Design Consultant and the CM@Risk Contractor through the process of design and construction. A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for 50th Street Station Project Public Art Services was issued on March 31, The RFQ solicited information in the form of Submittals of Qualifications (SOQ) from experienced artists. The Agency received 46 SOQs. The SOQs were then evaluated and ranked to determine Offerors who could successfully deliver the public art. On May 10, 2016, the 50th Street Station Project evaluation panel selected, Barbara Grygutis as the best qualified artists for Valley Metro. COST AND BUDGET The 50th Street Station Project is funded by City of Phoenix Proposition 104 Funds. The total budget for the Project is $22,961,981. The cost for the contract with Barbara Grygutis, for Public Art Services and its associated 10% allocated contingency is included in the overall budget established for the project of $22,961,981. The budget for this contract is contained in the line item entitled Public Art in the table below. If needed, the 10% allocated contingency will draw from the Contingency line. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

135 Description Current Budget Commitment Current Forecast Contracted Services $17,436,479 $17,436,479 Right of Way $672,769 $672,769 Public Art $264,411 $250,000 $250,000 Contingency $4,588,322 $25,000 $4,602,733 Subtotal $22,961,981 $275,000 $22,961,981 Financing Costs $0 $0 Total $22,961,981 $275,000 $22,961,981 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : Goal 2: Advance performance based operation Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget. Goal 3: Grow transit ridership Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets. Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness. COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a contract for the 50th Street Station Project Public Art Services with Barbara Grygutis for $250,000 and a 10% contingency amount of $25,000 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $275,000. CONTACT Rick Brown, P.E. Chief Engineer rbrown@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None 2

136 DATE AGENDA ITEM 9 May 25, 2016 SUBJECT General Consulting Support Services Contract Award PURPOSE To request approval for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a five-year contract, with three, one-year extension options, for the General Consulting Support Service (GCSS) Contract with Arcadis, Inc. for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed $11,800,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Valley Metro is in need of consultant support with specialty expertise to assist Valley Metro as projects are implemented. The GCSS Consultant will provide the expertise needed to ensure that projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) are completed on time, within budget and meets Valley Metro s expectations. The types of services provided by the GCSS Consultant are engineering services, construction management/inspection services, project scheduling, cost estimating, environmental, quality assurance, real estate support and other services as required. The GCSS Consultant may provide design and construction support for the following Valley Metro projects: Gilbert Road Extension, 50th Street Station, Tempe Streetcar, Northwest Extension Phase 2, South Central, OMC Expansion, Capitol I-10 West, and the West Phoenix/Central Glendale. The GCSS Consultant may also be utilized to provide design and construction support for modifications to the existing 26-mile light rail line. Most of the services required will be short term in duration and on an as needed basis. On February 22, 2016, Valley Metro issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) for General Consulting Support Services. A Pre- Submittal Conference was held on March 2, 2016, and the RFQ closed on April 7, A single responsive SOQ was received from a qualified Offeror. A Cost/Price Analysis was performed and the Offeror rate structure has been deemed to be fair and reasonable. A Selection Committee, consisting of four Valley Metro staff and a representative from the City of Phoenix was appointed to evaluate the responsive SOQ. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, the Selection Committee found Arcadis, Inc. to be qualified and the proposal advantageous to Valley Metro. Arcadis has also met the Small Business Outreach Requirements of the DBE Program for this contract. VALLEY METRO 101 N 1ST AVE STE 1300 PHOENIX AZ

137 COST AND BUDGET This contract will be in effect for five years from the date of contract approval by the Board with an option of up to an additional three years. The value of this contract over the eight-year duration will be for an amount not-to-exceed $11,800,000. Annual funding amounts and revenue sources for the GCSS Contract will be identified in the Fiscal Year budgets. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY : o Goal 2: Advance performance based operation Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget. o Goal 3: Grow transit ridership Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets. Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness. COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a five-year contract with three, one-year extension options with Arcadis, Inc. for General Consulting Support Services for an amount not-to-exceed $11,800,000. CONTACT Rick Brown, P.E. Chief Engineer rbrown@valleymetro.org ATTACHMENT None 2