Report-Operations Department 64 Report-Community Relations 66

Transcription

1 Table of Contents Agenda 3 Approve Minutes of 05/07/18 Executive Board Meeting Minutes of 05/07/18 Executive Board Meeting 6 FY2019 Preliminary Budget Memo-FY2019 Preliminary Budget 10 Regional Preliminary Budget Summary 17 Bus Preliminary Budget Summary 18 Preliminary Revenue Summary 19 Federal Reconciliation 20 Canyon Shortfall 21 Memo-Infrastructure Buildings and Grounds Funding and Reserve 22 Memo - Table Only 24 Capital Plan by TAM Scores 25 Review Proposed Agenda for 07/09/18 VRT Board of Directors Meeting Memo-Proposed Agenda for 07/09/18 VRT Board of Directors Meetings 27 State Street Corridor Projects Memo-State Street Corridor Projects 29 Regional Approach to Dock-less Bike Share Memo-Bike Share RFP 41 PROCUREMENT - Support Vehicles/Canyon County AVE-Support Vehicles-Canyon County 43 RESO-VEB Support Vehicles-Canyon County 44 PROCUREMENT- Accessible Transit Van for City of Eagle/Senior Center AFE-Accessible Transit Van-City of Eagle-Senior Center 46 RESO-VEB Accessible Transit Van-City of Eagle -Senior Center 47 PROCUREMENT- Bus Lifts-Ada County AFE-Bus Lifts-Ada County 49 RESO-VEB Bus Lifts-Ada County 50 PROCUREMENT - On-Call General Construction Services AFE On-Call General Construction 52 Reso VEB On-Call General Construction 53 Transit Asset Management (TAM) - Targets Memo-TAM Targets 55 Procurement Calendar Procurement Calendar 58 Department Reports Report Executive Director 59 Report-Development Department 60 1

2 Report-Operations Department 64 Report-Community Relations 66 2

3 Executive Board Meeting Agenda Monday, June 4, :00 a.m. VRT Board Room 700 NE 2 nd Street Meridian, Idaho I. CALLING OF THE ROLL Chair Jim Hansen II. AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES III. PUBLIC COMMENTS IV. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the Consent Agenda will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion on these items unless an Executive Board Member requests the item be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed under Action Items. A. Approve Minutes of 05/07/18 Executive Board Meeting Pages 6-9 V. FINANCE COMMITTEE - ACTION A. FY2019 Preliminary Budget Pages Kelli Badesheim 1. The members will discuss the FY2019 Preliminary Budget and consider accepting the FY2019 Budget Analysis. (see pages 12-16) 2. The members will discuss and consider approving the FY2019 Preliminary Budget for the required public comment and public hearing. 3. The members will establish a public hearing date for the FY2019 Budget Public Hearing to be held during the regularly scheduled VRT Board meeting on July 9, 2018 at 12:00 p.m. VI. ACTION ITEMS A. Proposed Agenda for 07/09/18 VRT Board of Directors Meeting Pages Kelli Badesheim Staff requests the Executive Board approve the proposed agenda items for the July 9, 2018 VRT Board meeting and authorize the Executive Director to use discretion in adding any other information that may arise before the meeting packet is scheduled to be distributed in late June NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

4 B. State Street Corridor Projects Pages Stephen Hunt Stephen Hunt will present information related to current and future activities on State Street and request the Executive Board review for approval the comment letters to be signed by the Executive Board. 1. Glenwood & State Street Intersection Study Comment Letter Pages Alternatives Analysis and Right-of-Way Study Letter Pages BUILD Planning Grant Opportunity Letter Page 40 C. Regional Approach to Dock-less Bike Share Pages Kelli Badesheim Staff will discuss with the Executive Board a staff recommendation to consider developing and putting out a Request for Proposal (RFP) to evaluate a regional approach to deploying dockless bike share in the region. D. PROCUREMENTS 1. Support Vehicles/Canyon County Pages Nancy Lohr The members will review for approval Resolution VEB to procure two (2) Support Vehicles for Canyon County. 2. Accessible Transit Van for City of Eagle/Senior Center Pages David Pederson The Executive Board will review for approval Resolution VEB to procure an Accessible Transit Van for the City of Eagle/Eagle Senior Center. 3. Bus Lifts-Ada County Pages Gregg Eisenberg Members will review for approval Resolution VEB to procure two (2) sets of fourpost heavy duty bus lifts for the Orchard/Ada County maintenance facility. 4. On-Call General Construction Services Pages Jake Hassard Members will review for approval Resolution VEB for On-call Construction Services Contracts. VII. INFORMATION ITEMS A. Transit Asset Management (TAM) - Targets Pages Rhonda Jalbert The Executive Board will review the targets for Fiscal Year 2019 for all public transportation capital assets. B, Procurement Calendar Page 58 Kelly Jakovac The most current Procurement Calendar is included in the packet. C. Department Reports Pages VRT Staff The most current Department Reports are in included in the meeting packet. 4

5 VIII. EXECUTIVE SESSION (if needed) The Executive Board may convene into Executive Session at this time Pursuant to Idaho Code , identifying one or more of the specific paragraphs (a) through (j). An action by the Executive Board may follow the Executive Session. IX. ADJOURNMENT Ө = Attachment Agenda order is subject to change. NEXT VRT EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING: Monday, July 9, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Followed by the VRT Board of Directors Quarterly Meeting which begins at 12:00 p.m. VRT Board Room 700 NE 2 nd Street Meridian, Idaho Arrangements for auxiliary aids and services necessary for effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities or language assistance requests need to be made as soon as possible, but no later than three working days before the scheduled meeting. Please contact Mark Carnopis, Community Relations Manager at if an auxiliary aid is needed. 5

6 ITEM IV-A Executive Board Meeting Minutes Monday, May 7, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. VRT Board Room 700 NE 2 nd Street Meridian, Idaho MEMBERS ATTENDING MEMBERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Dave Bieter, Boise Kelli Badesheim, VRT Luke Cavener, Meridian Linda Ihli, VRT Elaine Clegg, Boise Billy Wingfield, VRT Corey Cook, Boise State University Rhonda Jalbert, VRT Tom Dale, Canyon County Jake Hassard, VRT Jim Hansen, ACHD Stephen Hunt, VRT Debbie Kling, City of Nampa David Lincoln, ACCHD Garret Nancolas, Caldwell Darin Taylor, Middleton Jim Tibbs, Ada County Dave Fotsch, VRT Nancy Lohr, First Transit-Caldwell Gregg Eisenberg, First Transit-Boise Kelly Jakovac, VRT Kaitlin Justice, VRT Leslie Pedrosa, VRT Susan Powell, VRT Brian Parker, VRT Nick Moran, VRT Matt Stoll, COMPASS Ryan Head, ACHD Rocky Perkins, ATU 398 Ken Pidgeon, Citizen Chair Jim Hansen began the meeting at 11:03 a.m. with a quorum present. AGENDA ADDITIONS/CHANGES Chair Jim Hansen requested Item V-D FY2019 Budget Development be moved before Item V-C FY2018 Financial Analysis-Draft Policy Review in order to talk about budget development before discussing policies. Elaine Clegg moved to approve the agenda with changes recommended; seconded by Luke Cavener. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS Ken Pidjeon, citizen, requested staff review and update information on pages 9 & 11 regarding the FY2018 Second Quarter Budget Report and page 32 under FY2019 Budget Development in the packet. CONSENT AGENDA Approve Minutes of 04/02/18 Executive Board Meeting Accept Minutes of 12/17/17 RCC Meeting (as approved by RCC 04/17/18) Jim Tibbs moved to approve the Consent Agenda; seconded by Elaine Clegg. The motion was approved unanimously. 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

7 ITEM IV-A FINANCE COMMITTEE FY2018 Second Quarter Budget Report Kelli Badesheim requested that in light of Mr. Pidjeon s comments and with the VRT Finance Director out on medical leave, that the FY2018 Second Quarter Budget Report be reviewed at the June Executive Board meeting so as to give staff time to review and clarify the information. Darin Taylor moved to table the item until the next regularly scheduled Executive Board meeting in June. There being no objections, the item was deferred. FY2018 Cash Balance Report FY2018 Qtr. 2 Kelli Badesheim presented the FY2018 Cash Balance Report for Quarter 2. Elaine Clegg questioned the regional operations numbers. Staff will review the information and present at a future Executive Board meeting. FY2019 Budget Development Gregg Eisenberg, General Manager/Ada County Operations and Nancy Lohr, General Manager/Canyon County Operations presented their FY2019 Expense Budgets. The members discussed wages differences and benefits in the two services. Dave Fotsch, Boise Bike Share Program Director presented the Boise GreenBike budget expenses for FY2019 and noted they are going forward to increase the size of the fleet and are adapting to competition that may be coming into the market. The members took a break for a special presentation made by Kendra Witt-Doyle, Executive Director of Blue Cross of Idaho Foundation. Kaitlin Justice, VRT Mobility Support Coordinator, accepted on behalf of VRT, a check in the amount of $20,000 from the Blue Cross of Idaho Foundation for a grant for the Rides2Wellness project in cooperation with St. Luke s and St. Al s which provides rides to patients for follow-up appointments. Jake Hassard distributed a memo and presented a PowerPoint to facilitate a discussion on a reserve fund for buildings and grounds maintenance and infrastructure. The suggestion was made to create a line item for capital projects/maintenance and begin to put funds in that line item. Staff will bring a Reserve Policy and a 5-10 year plan to the members to show how to get to a reserve fund to repair or maintain facilities, grounds, and infrastructure. Due to time constraints, Kelli Badesheim requested the Action Items be acted on and then return to the Financials Discussion. 7

8 ITEM IV-A ACTION ITEMS Ratify Additional SHIP Funding Billy Wingfield requested the members ratify the action of the Executive Director (04/12/18) in authorizing the approval of $4, toward the Supportive Housing & Innovative Partners (SHIP) purchase of service for transportation for seniors and persons with disabilities in order to keep the service running through FY2018. Garret Nancolas moved to ratify the action of Executive Director regarding the $4,176; seconded by Tom Dale. The motion was approved unanimously. PROCUREMENT On-Call General Marketing Services Kelli Badesheim requested the Executive Board approve Resolution VEB to approve Stolz Marketing for the On-Call General Marketing Services. On 04/02/18 the VRT Board delegated authority to the Executive Board to approve this procurement. Tom Dale moved to approve with the understanding that upon development of particular marketing projects, before it goes out, is approved by Executive Board; seconded by Darin Taylor. Members discussed scope of work versus task order and bringing the project scope with accompanying cost and schedule back to the Executive Board for approval. Following discussion, the motion was approved with one nay vote by Luke Cavener. Financials Discussion Continued At the June Executive Board meeting, staff will present the 2019 preliminary budget with expenses and revenues. The suggestion was made to have discussion at the June meeting as part of the budget discussion about jurisdiction goals in relation to ValleyConnect 2.0 and how much jurisdictions are willing to fund and talk about where we could go if we had funding and ideas about how to go forward with a more robust transportation system. Jim Hansen will talk with Stephen Hunt about proportions of services. Rhonda Jalbert noted that the FY2019 Capital information was included in the meeting packet, and there is coordination between the facilities maintenance items and capital. FY2018 Financial Analysis - Draft Policy Review Two draft policies related to establishing and maintaining adequate reserves and the end of year accounting and re-budgeting processes were included in the meeting packet. The policies will be refined to address any staffing implications or to make sure the policies and practices align with VRT's accounting system. The policies will be presented at a future Executive Board meeting. 8

9 ITEM IV-A Garret Nancolas reported that the Legislature had changed the way to notice a meeting, and as of July 1 st it will be more difficult to amend an agenda and add items. Clear notification for action items versus discussion items is to be included in the agenda. VRT staff will review the legislation in order to comply. Elaine Clegg pointed out that VRT will need to pass a resolution to identify the person and alternate as to who is responsible to receive public records requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Staff will review for future action. INFORMATION ITEMS ValleyConnect 2.0 Update Due to time constraints, the information Stephen Hunt was going to provide will be ed to the members. FY2018 Procurement Calendar The most current FY2018 Procurement Calendar was attached. Department/Staff Reports The most current Department/Staff Reports were included in the packet. ADJOURNMENT At 1:03 p.m., Tom Dale moved to adjourn the meeting. There being no objections the meeting was adjourned. NEXT VRT EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING: Monday, June 4, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. VRT Board Room 700 NE 2 nd Street Meridian, Idaho 9

10 ITEM V-A TOPIC: FY2019 Preliminary Budget DATE: May 24, 2018 Summary: Valley Regional Transit completes an annual budget for the VRT Board to consider and adopt in July of each year. The Executive Board reviews and approves a preliminary budget and sets the required public hearing at their June meeting. We are often building our budget assumptions for revenues based on requests we provide to the local governments we rely on to fund the organization. The Executive Board reviewed the expenses for the major operating budgets in May. Staff completed a detailed analysis of expenses and revenues along with a preliminary budget for the Executive Board s consideration at the June 4 meeting. Attached is a summary of the findings and recommendations from the detailed analysis. Chair Jim Hansen and I will be meeting with Canyon County members of the Executive Board on Tuesday, May 29 th to discuss the funding of services in Canyon County for the FY2019 budget. The Preliminary Capital Budget and the Reconciliation of Federal Funding will be provided as a handout at the meeting. Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff recommends the following actions pertaining to the FY2019 Preliminary Budget: 1. Discuss and consider accepting of the FY2019 Budget Analysis; 2. Discuss and consider approving the FY2019 Preliminary Budget to be forwarded for the required public comment and hearing; and/or 3. Set the budget public hearing for July 9, 2018 during the regularly scheduled VRT Board meeting. Implication (policy and/or financial): VRT is required to establish a budget per Idaho State Code by the second Tuesday each September. Staff works closely with local governments to establish estimates of available revenue needed to cover the expenses of the organization. A more detailed review of the policy and fiscal implications are provided in the attached FY2019 Budget Analysis. Highlights: The Executive Board received a detailed review of the budget divisions including the programs and services within each of those divisions at the March and April meetings. The Executive Board reviewed the expenses for the Boise and Canyon County operations and the Boise Greenbike. 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

11 ITEM V-A Staff has been conducting a FY2019 Budget Analysis to assess existing conditions and determine recommendations for addressing weaknesses in the structural balance of the organization s finances. The VRT Board will consider adopting the budget on July 9, More Information: 1) FY 2019 Budget Analysis: Findings and Recommendations 2) FY2019 Preliminary Budget Summary 3) Maintenance Findings and Recommendations 4) Canyon County Local Operating Shortfall For detailed information contact: Kelli Badesheim at (208) or by at kbadesheim@valleyregionaltransit.org 11

12 ITEM V-A FY2019 Budget Analysis Findings and Recommendations FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY DIVISION The findings and recommendations are numbered below to make them easier to locate and discuss. The findings and recommendations are not put in any priority order. Division Budgets Division 10 Increases from additional maintenance and operations cost for new phone system and technology Additional sick leave buy-outs for projected retirements Division 19 Reduction in budget overall due to realigning costs into other divisions This division will become an additional department in Division 10 This division will be focused on increasing revenue through contracts and increased ridership Division 20 Budget decreased by 2 percent Shifting labor from Professional Services to wages and salaries as a way to shift from using temporary staff for customer service to improve retention of employees Other expenses were moved to Division 41 Division 23 Budget increased by 7 percent Additional planning staff was added in FY2018 through shifting funding from professional services Additional 0.5 FTE was added to assist in federal compliance and reporting Division 12 Decrease budget by 7 percent primarily due to changes in connectivity fees and shifting marketing support to Division 19 Divisions 21 and 22 Decrease in overall budget for both divisions due to savings in insurance and from the management contract. Some savings was transferred to Division 10 and Division 23 to support contractor oversight and federal compliance Divisions 24, 25, and 31 Increases are being driven by wages and benefits to make the wages more competitive Some decreases in M and O costs due to savings under new contractor The percent split between the different divisions was changed to make the break out more aligned with revenue hours 12

13 ITEM V-A Capital Budget and Subrecipients Attached is the capital projects sorted by TAM Score. The far column is shows the actual projects that are in the Transportation Improvement Program to be funded in FY2019. The Executive Board will need to discuss and guide staff on a direction for prioritizing capital projects. Findings 1. The organization has established too many budget divisions leading to additional and unnecessary labor burden to track and report on finances. Over the years VRT staff added a variety of programs and services to better meet the mobility needs of the region. Some of these changes were done due to limitations in our accounting software and others were done to take advantage of changes in federal regulation and serving the needs of new local funding partners. This was built on top of VRT s complex accounting system that is required to provide adequate transparency and assurances to local and federal funding partners to demonstrate their funds are supporting the appropriate services and programs. While these additional divisions provide for an easier way for managers to track their programs and services, it requires additional labor to complete the required financial reporting on each division. 2. Federal and local revenue programming is completed through fragmented and disconnected processes. VRT is highly reliant on federal funding to deliver the services and programs provided by the organization. All of the region s programming processes are designed to prioritize and fund projects based on the available federal funding and identifying the local match that is required to utilize those funds. Overtime this has led to a lack of transparency on how much of our local funding is actually over-matching the federal funds. It has also led to a lack of transparency on how the administrative overhead is being funded by those local sources. 3. Local assistance revenues in all but the Boise operations divisions (Divisions 21 and 22) and the specialized transportation division (Division 41) haven t kept pace with actual expenses. Canyon County s services have been budgeted with a focus on maintaining existing levels of service and a relatively flat contribution over the years from the Canyon County system funding partners. There were a few years where both Nampa and Ada County maintained flat funding for the services even though expenses were increasing. Each year the operations staff managed the budget to the best of their ability. This has led to a structurally imbalanced budget in the area of maintenance, capital replacement, and Canyon County covering their fair share of the administrative expenses required to support the services. The budget has primarily been balanced due to adequate funding from City of Boise to cover administrative overhead costs. Each system s direct operations has been covered by the existing local sources from the Canyon County funders. 13

14 ITEM V-A Canyon County s operating wage rates have also been very low since VRT took over the system in This was related to how much Canyon County partners were willing to pay for their services. The wage gap has grown even farther outside the market rate leading to high rates of turnover and system instability. The FY2019 expense projections include increases in wages and benefits required to make decrease labor turnover. This will require requesting additional funding from Canyon County partners that is more than the original request we provided in April Methodology for calculating local shares of administrative overhead expenses not keeping pace with the administrative requirements of the organization. VRT has maintained the same local shares cost model since Since that time VRT has taken on more responsibilities in programming and overseeing sub-recipients, adding additional programs and services to oversee and track finances and utilization, expanding our role to coordinate a variety of specialized transportation services and providers, and increasing demands in planning and integrating planning support with our local partners. While all these activities have led to expanding services in rural, suburban and urban areas, providing additional funds to local jurisdictions for transit supportive infrastructure and equipment, and better efficiencies for our local transportation providers, the administrative burden to do these functions hasn t been fully recouped in the local revenues we get from our funding partners. 5. Federal assistance revenues in many categories have remained flat over several years while operating expenses have increased. COMPASS provides VRT a control total for each federal funding source every year used to program funding in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The TIP must be fiscally constrained and balance to those control totals. The federal funds available have been relatively flat due in part to the fact that Congress doesn t adopt and appropriate funds in regular and predictable cycles. This leads to very conservative control totals. In addition, VRT has a significant internal disconnect between our processes for programming local and federal revenues. Local revenues are often programmed at the time of the budget which is at least a year behind the federal funding programming. The process for allocating those local funds hasn t been updated which exacerbates the issue incrementally over time (see Finding 4 above). 6. Inadequate tracking and responding to fare revenue and ridership reports in Canyon County. Ridership based on employer contracts has been on the decline for the last four years due in part to favorable gas prices and a lack of direct and effective marketing to employers. Ridership and revenue in Canyon County has been hard to calculate due to fareboxes being outdated. VRT hasn t proposed or 14

15 ITEM V-A secured a fare increase in over 10 years. This has been in part due to the service cuts just after the recession hit and declining ridership in the last four years. Fare increases under those factors do not usually lead to additional revenue because it may drive even lower ridership. There needs to be additional focus on revenues in FY2019 to update revenue trends, revise the employer programs, and provide more marketing support to improve ridership and participation in employer programs. 7. Facility and infrastructure maintenance for the Boise and Canyon operating divisions (Divisions 21, 22, 24, 25, and 31) haven t kept pace with actual expenses. See the attached memo on this topic. 8. Capital prioritization and programming hasn t accurately reflected the priorities that are reflected in the new Transit Asset Management (TAM) scoring processes. Federal capital projects have been funded for the last several years through a competitive process administered through COMPASS. VRT is required by the Federal Transit Administration to adopt a Transit Asset Management Plan and Policy by September Developing the plan and policy has helped us see that we may have to re-prioritize our capital projects to better reflect the priorities we are seeing with the new scoring criteria. In addition, we there is not enough federal funding to be keep up with the replacement schedule that is primarily driven by the benchmark targets for the region s assets as required in the TAM policy. Recommendations 1. Reorganize the financial accounts to: Move Division 19 into Division 10; move Division 41 into Division 20; and move the capital and sub-recipients into Division Work with the Finance Committee to evaluate and revise the local allocation methodology to better reflect the operational needs of the organization to include administrative overhead, operations, maintenance and unexpected expenses reserves. 3. Utilize previous and unspent grants to leverage all federal funds available to cover FY19 expenses. Develop a long-term approach to reprogramming federal priorities for operations and capital that is better aligned with expense and local funding needs. 4. Develop and document a more formal programming process that includes all local, federal, and additional sources of revenue. This should include evaluating trends in revenue earlier in the budgeting process so that requests to local funding partners can be better tied to anticipated expenses. 15

16 ITEM V-A 5. Complete an analysis and reconciliation of federal operating and capital funding to include a re-prioritization schedule reflected by the TAM requirements and better coordinate the COMPASS and VRT federal prioritization requirements under the new system. 16

17 ITEM V-A VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT FY2019 PRELIMINARY BUDGET CONSOLIDATED BUDGET SUMMARY REGIONAL OPERATIONS Mobility Management Administration Totals Community Programs Support Coordinated Customer Support Community Transportation Program Admin & Support Regional Overhead Boise Green Bike Division 19 Division 20 Division 41 Division 23 Division 10 Division 12 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018 FY2019 Operating Revenues Farebox Revenues $ - $ - $ 70,000 $ 15,000 $ 27,798 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 110,035 $ 63,855 $ 195,035 $ 91,653 Pass Revenues - - Employer Contracts 50, , , , ,500 Auxiliary Revenues - - Other Revenues 25,000 25,000 - Federal Assistance 417, , , , ,936 1,258, , , , ,000 3,105,914 3,409,434 Local Assistance 104,374 83, , , , , , ,198 1,181,655 1,316,478 1,741,508 2,122,409 Total Revenues $ 521,869 $ 415,141 $ 1,064,353 $ 1,047,987 $ 1,189,345 $ 1,667,045 $ 614,000 $ 660,990 $ 1,618,655 $ 1,768,478 $ 367,335 $ 337,355 $ 5,375,557 $ 5,896,996 Difference Operating Expenses Wages and Salaries $ 96,525 $ 133,699 $ 296,026 $ 374,997 $ 92,261 $ 314,456 $ 398,569 $ 404,539 $ 510,968 $ 117,963 $ 127,965 $ 1,321,770 $ 1,546,198 Fringe Benefits 44,807 82, , ,542 39, , , , ,758 76,644 65, , ,991 Total Labor Costs $ 141,332 $ 216,142 $ 441,517 $ 603,539 $ 131,447 $ - $ 474,861 $ 594,040 $ 792,848 $ 898,726 $ 194,607 $ 193,743 $ 2,176,612 $ 2,506,189 Professional Services $ 359,922 $ 199,000 $ 453,651 $ 212,975 $ 5,620 $ 214,000 $ 125,679 $ 50,000 $ 127,023 $ 127,170 $ 103,928 $ 73,562 $ 1,175,823 $ 876,707 Materials and Supplies 17,115 36,385 6,935 1,635 85, ,855 22,855 15,300 14,800 93, ,990 Utilities ,660 1,700 3,560 4, ,107 78,151 3,000 3, ,327 88,171 Property and Casualty 35,000-57, ,711 31,182 5,000 5,250 72,711 94,949 Purchased Transportation 1,018,882 1,296, ,018,882 1,296,969 Miscellaneous 3,500 89, ,699 30,100 11,300 9,900 12,470 81, ,039 15,500 12, , ,508 Subrecipient Pass-Thru Expense 437, , , ,000 Interest Leases and Rentals 8,000 8, ,508 13,955 30,000 35,000 58,508 56,955 Depreciation 9,559 1,572 23,083 37,536 1, , ,232 77,084 77, , ,428 Total Operating Expenses $ 521,869 $ 415,142 $ 1,073,912 $ 1,049,560 $ 1,212,427 $ 1,704,581 $ 615,690 $ 660,990 $ 2,067,422 $ 2,538,710 $ 444,419 $ 414,443 $ 5,935,739 $ 6,784,266 Surplus (Deficit) - (0) (9,559) (1,573) (23,082) (37,536) (1,690) (0) (448,767) (770,232) (77,084) (77,088) (560,182) (886,430) Depreciation Offset - 0 9,559 1,573 23,082 37,536 1, , ,232 77,084 77, , ,430 17

18 ITEM V-A Fixed Route Division 21 Boise TMA Demand Response Division 22 VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT FY2019 PRELIMINARY BUDGET CONSOLIDATED BUDGET SUMMARY BUS OPERATIONS Fixed Route Division 24 Nampa UZA Demand Response Division 25 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018 FY2019 FY2018 FY2019 Operational Revenues Farebox Revenues $ 628,717 $ 750,000 $ 87,335 $ 93,682 $ 46,396 $ 61,764 $ 7,649 $ 7,064 $ 115,606 $ 166,000 $ 885,703 $ 1,078,510 Pass Revenues Employer Contracts Auxiliary Revenues 65,717 90,000 9,806 33,748 75, ,748 Other Revenues 185, ,232 - Federal Assistance 1,925,603 1,439, , , , ,099 52, , , ,790 3,510,190 3,359,563 Local Assistance 4,616,833 5,084, , , , ,413 14,899 30, , ,094 6,084,067 6,348,889 Total Revenues $ 7,422,102 $ 7,363,904 $ 1,571,727 $ 1,591,284 $ 826,179 $ 752,024 $ 74,917 $ 140,614 $ 845,790 $ 1,062,884 $ 10,740,715 $ 10,910,710 Over/Under 0 0 (42,188) (35,220) (41,707) Operational Expenses Wages and Salaries $ 2,697,155 $ 2,949,532 $ 629,530 $ 665,849 $ 344,745 $ 338,254 $ 30,644 $ 89,540 $ 390,711 $ 519,157 $ 4,092,785 $ 4,562,332 Fringe Benefits 2,670,881 2,601, , ,170 73, ,936 3,723 41,871 66, ,759 3,422,243 3,675, Total Labor Costs $ 5,368,036 $ 5,551,097 $ 1,237,760 $ 1,272,019 $ 417,882 $ 510,190 $ 34,367 $ 131,411 $ 456,983 $ 772,916 $ 7,515,028 $ 8,237, Professional Services $ 433,195 $ 477,445 $ 66,003 $ 75,720 $ 110,400 82,823 $ 11,450 24,213 $ 125,800 $ 87,242 $ 746,848 $ 747,442 Materials and Supplies 841, , , , , ,700 14,255 9, , ,170 1,353,656 1,186,070 Utilities 122, ,900 14,895 14,950 15,399 27,700 1,369 3,889 17,452 32, , ,759 Property and Casualty 414, ,820 66,441 45,851 74,148 54,450 10,026 4,271 82,972 48, , ,435 Purchased Transportation Miscellaneous 147,400 85,300 7,410 8,500 16,250 10,350 2,800 2,800 11,700 7, , ,050 Interest 3, , ,533 1,100 Leases and Rentals 94, ,042 15,956 20,344 2,500 2, ,300 1, , ,336 Depreciation 1,273,852 1,355, ,070 67, , ,884 26, , ,204 1,970,440 2,135,952 Total Operational Expenses $ 8,695,954 $ 8,719,592 $ 1,742,797 $ 1,658,556 $ 1,063,497 $ 1,192,096 $ 74,917 $ 202,738 $ 1,133,989 $ 1,392,795 $ 12,711,155 $ 13,165,777 Intercounty Division 31 TOTAL BUS Surplus(/Deficit) (1,273,852) (1,355,688) (171,070) (67,272) (237,318) (440,072) 0 (62,124) (288,200) (329,911) (1,970,441) (2,255,067) Depreciation Offset 1,273,852 1,355, ,070 67, , ,072 (0) 62, , ,911 1,970,441 2,255,067 % Change 0% -5% 12% 171% 23% 18

19 ITEM V-A FY 2019 Preliminary Budget Revenue Summary Total Costs $ 1,316,478 $ 415,142 $ 1,047,987 $ 660,990 $ 1,667,045 $ 7,363,904 $ 1,591,284 $ 794,212 $ 175,833 $ 1,104,592 $ 337,355 Revenues Total Federal - 332, , ,792 1,258,139 1,439, , , , ,790 - Total Fares 27, ,000 93,682 61,764 7, ,000 63,855 Total Advertising 90,000 33,748 Total Local 1,316,478 83, , ,198-5,084, , ,413 30, ,094 - Other Local 381, ,500 Total Revenues $ 1,316,478 $ 415,142 $ 1,047,987 $ 660,990 $ 1,667,045 $ 7,363,904 $ 1,591,284 $ 752,024 $ 140,614 $ 1,062,884 $ 337,355 Difference (0) 0 (0) (0) (0) - - (42,188) (35,219) (41,708) 0 19

20 ITEM V-A Federal Funding Reconciliation Funding UZA Grant Type Old Grant Est Grants 2019 TIP FY 2019 Federal Funds Required over under 5307 LU ADA Operations 394, ,000 (256,000) 5307 SU FR Operations 186, , ,571 87, SU FR Ops Administration 5307 SU ADA Operations 59,192 30,000 31,000 75,407 44, LU Preventative Maintenance 5307 LU 1,140,217 1,500,000 1,660, , SU Preventative Maintenance 5307 SU 18, , , , , LU Mobility Operations 306, , , , SU Mobility Operations 100, , LU Mobility Management 233, ,000 1,170,503 (244,865) 5307 SU Mobility Management 77, , LU Program Administration Support/Planning 184, , , , SU Program Administration Support/Planning 91, , LU Purchase of Service 414, , , , SU Purchase of Service 52, ,600 95, R Purchase of Service 83, ,475 87,858 TOTAL 492,365 2,966,187 4,854,000 6,245,957 2,066,595 20

21 ITEM V-A Canyon Contributions Shortfall 227,568 42,188 35,219 41,708 Service Contribution % Total Overhead Local ADA Paratransit Intercounty Service Only Service and Overhead ALLOCATION OF OPERATIONS OVERHEAD Ada County 20,140 3% 6,404 1, ,174 7,578 Boise State University 30,687 4% 9,757 1, ,788 11,546 College of Western Idaho 55,354 8% 17,601 3, ,226 20,826 City of Boise 13,665 2% 4, ,141 City of Eagle 18,599 3% 5,914 1, ,084 6,998 City of Meridian 90,268 13% 28,702 5, ,260 33,963 City of Star 5,957 1% 1, ,241 Canyon County 16,942 2% 5, ,374 City of Caldwell 126,711 18% 40,290 14,344 11,975 7, ,703 73,992 City of Middleton 5,957 1% 1, ,241 City of Nampa 331,418 46% 105,380 27,844 23,245 19, , ,782 Total Ada and Canyon Counties 715, % 227,568 42,188 35,219 41, , ,683 21

22 ITEM V-A TOPIC: Facility Maintenance Overview and Reserve Discussion DATE: May 25, 2018 Summary: At the May 7, 2018 Executive Board meeting, VRT staff presented the existing conditions of facility and infrastructure maintenance and offered some approaches to ensure appropriate maintenance of assets and establishing a dedicated maintenance reserve. Below is an outline of approaches with options for the Executive Board to consider. Three following three options are recommended for consideration: Maintain the status quo no change Slowly ramp up investment to the amount listed below (phased over 5-10 years) Quickly ramp up investment to the amount listed below (phased over 2-5 years) Below is an outline of the fiscal implications for how the phases could be staged: 1. Implement additional funds in the FY19 budget to allow the budget to cover the actual costs of maintaining infrastructure and equipment. The amounts on the attached spreadsheet assume that the changes start in FY19. This may be unrealistic given the shortfall in the operational funds in Canyon County. 2. In order to change the trajectory of facilities and infrastructure investment that is currently included in operational budgets. there would need to be an additional $55K added to the budget in Ada County and $16K for the budget in Canyon County. 3. This area assumes funding built into the budget for maintaining bus stops including service changes. This would require an additional $81K annually for Ada County and an additional $22K annually for Canyon County. 4. Funding a dedicated infrastructure reserve account at a rate of 4.5% of total operational budget would require having a total reserve of $350K in Ada County and a $90K reserve in Canyon County. The account should be administered by the finance department, programmed and expended by the development department, with the balance reported annually to the 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

23 ITEM V-A Executive Board. Amounts removed from the account greater than procurement limits (50k) would be approved according to VRT procurement policy. 5. Staff will provide a more detailed analysis of how to staff the maintenance of facilities and infrastructure to include the fiscal implications for the different approaches under consideration. Below is an outline of the options that will be considered: a. Temporary employment services b. Existing management contractor c. VRT staff positions Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff is recommending implementation of items 2 and 3 with VRT administering these items over the next four (4) years. In addition staff recommends implementing item 4 over the next six (6) years. Staff will bring a recommendation on Item 5 after the analysis is completed. Implication (policy and/or financial): The selection of options will provide direction for staff. If staff s recommendation is followed, and the full operational budget grows by 4% or less every year, that would be an increase of an additional funds depending on the selections decided on by the Board. These options should be evaluated against the consequences to the organization if these assets are not adequately maintained. 23

24 ITEM V-A Table of possible infrastructure and building and grounds changes Notes Memo item #2 Correction to infrastructure spending trajectory (does not include current budget amounts) corrects downward trajectory Ada Co $ 55,100 $ 58,400 $ 61,900 $ 65,700 $ 69,700 $ 73,900 $ 78,300 $ 83,000 $ 88,000 $ 93,300 $ 98,900 78% Canyon Co $ 15,600 $ 16,500 $ 17,500 $ 18,500 $ 19,600 $ 20,800 $ 22,100 $ 23,400 $ 24,800 $ 26,300 $ 27,900 22% Memo item #3 Bus stop and service change funds Adds bus stops and service change funds Ada Co $ 81,000 $ 88,200 $ 96,200 $ 104,900 $ 114,400 $ 124,700 $ 135,900 $ 148,100 $ 161,500 $ 176,000 $ 191,900 79% Canyon Co $ 21,500 $ 23,500 $ 25,600 $ 27,900 $ 30,400 $ 33,100 $ 36,100 $ 39,400 $ 42,900 $ 46,800 $ 51,000 21% Memo item #4 Building and grounds & infrastructure reserve account Adds reserve amount of 4.5% of total budget Ada Co $ 52,600 $ 55,300 $ 58,000 $ 60,900 $ 64,000 $ 67,200 $ 17,900 $ 17,900 $ 17,900 $ 17,900 $ 17,900 83% Canyon Co $ 10,800 $ 11,300 $ 11,900 $ 12,500 $ 13,100 $ 13,800 $ 3,700 $ 3,700 $ 3,700 $ 3,700 $ 3,700 17% Item #4 balance (reserve balance) $ 63,400 $ 130,000 $ 199,900 $ 273,300 $ 350,400 $ 431,400 $ 453,000 $ 474,600 $ 496,200 $ 517,800 $ 539,400 Reserve Balance Item 2 4 totals Ada Co $ 188,700 $ 201,900 $ 216,100 $ 231,500 $ 248,100 $ 265,800 $ 232,100 $ 249,000 $ 267,400 $ 287,200 $ 308,700 Canyon Co $ 47,900 $ 51,300 $ 55,000 $ 58,900 $ 63,100 $ 67,700 $ 61,900 $ 66,500 $ 71,400 $ 76,800 $ 82,600 24

25 CAPITAL NEEDS BASED UPON TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT SCORES ITEM V-A TAM Score TOTAL PER TAM SCORE Fiscal Year 2019 Projects RUNNING TOTAL LU SU Division Description Category Div Equipment - IT 0.0 Equipment - IT $ 35,148 $ 35,148 Div 21/22 Shop lighting 0.0 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Div 24/25/31 battery charger 0.0 Equipment - Shop $ 4,000 Div 12 Bluebird 0.3 Equipment - TRK $ 65,000 $ 65,000 Div Cutaway (CU) 0.3 Rolling Stock - CU $ 260,000 $ 182,000 $ 78,000 Boise State Maintenance Facility 0.5 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 2,000,000 Div Equipment - IT 0.5 Equipment - IT $ 8,700 $ 8,700 Div '-0" Motor Bus 0.5 Rolling Stock - BU $ 2,910,000 $ 2,425,000 $ 485,000 Div 21/22 Equipment - Shop 0.5 Equipment - Shop $ 175,000 $ 175,000 Div 24/25/31 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn 0.5 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 701,000 $ 701,000 Div Cutaway (CU) 0.5 Rolling Stock - CU $ 190,000 $ 190,000 $ 6,373,848 $ 2,915,848 $ 969,000 $ 485,000 $ 6,373, Div 24 Cutaway (CU) 0.7 Rolling Stock - CU $ 102,000 Div 21/22 Equipment - Shop 0.8 Equipment - Shop $ 330,000 Div Cutaway (CU) 0.8 Rolling Stock - CU $ 310,000 Div Van (VN) 0.8 Rolling Stock - VN $ 210,000 Boise State 1 - Cutaway (CU) 1.0 Rolling Stock - CU $ 90,000 Div Equipment - IT 1.0 Equipment - IT $ 14,895 Div 21/22 Orchard - Building - Fueling System & Shop 1.0 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 576,351 Div Cutaway (CU) 1.0 Rolling Stock - CU $ 200,000 Div 24/25/31 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn 1.0 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 202,000 Amount still needed Div Cutaway (CU) 1.0 Rolling Stock - CU $ 180,000 $ 2,215,246 $ - $ 8,589, ACHD 1 - Van (VN) 1.2 Rolling Stock - VN $ 62,000 $ 62,000 Div 21/22 Orchard - Building - Fueling System & Shop 1.2 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 270,700 Div 21/22 Parking lot surface replacement 1.2 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 1,500,000 Div Van (VN) 1.2 Rolling Stock - VN $ 230,000 Div Equipment - IT 1.4 Equipment - IT $ 40,942 Boise State 1 - Cutaway (CU) 1.3 Rolling Stock - CU $ 90,000 Div 21/22 Equipment - Shop 1.3 Equipment - Shop $ 62,800 ACHD 3 - Van (VN) 1.3 Rolling Stock - VN $ 186,000 $ 186,000 Div 21/22 Orchard - Building - Fueling System, Bus Wash, etc 1.5 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 1,836,100 Div Cutaway (CU) 1.5 Rolling Stock - CU $ 200,000 Div 24/25/31 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn 1.5 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 441,300 Boise State 1 - Cutaway (CU) 1.6 Rolling Stock - CU $ 90,000 Div 24/25/ Support - SDN 1.7 Equipment - AO $ 55,000 ACHD 10 - Van (VN) 1.7 Rolling Stock - VN $ 512,000 $ 49,000 $ 463,000 C:\Users\kfairless\Documents\TAM scoring and targets for FY19 r1 PAGE 1 OF 2 5/30/

26 CAPITAL NEEDS BASED UPON TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT SCORES ITEM V-A Division Description TAM Score Category Div Van (VN) 1.8 Rolling Stock - VN $ 200,000 ACHD 10 - Van (VN) 2.0 Rolling Stock - VN $ 593,000 Div '-0" Motor Bus 2.0 Rolling Stock - BU $ 485,000 Div 21/22 Orchard - Building - Fueling System, bus stops, etc. 2.0 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 2,354,500 Div 24/25/31 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn 2.0 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 63,000 Div Van (VN) 2.0 Rolling Stock - VN $ 40, ACHD 2 - Van (VN) 2.2 Rolling Stock - VN $ 124,000 Div 21/22 Roof 2.2 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 175,000 Div Cutaway (CU) 2.2 Rolling Stock - CU $ 300,000 Div 21/22 Equipment - Shop 2.3 Equipment - Shop $ 50,002 Div 21/22 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn 2.3 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 627,000 Div Cutaway (CU) 2.3 Rolling Stock - CU $ 500,000 Div Cutaway (CU) 2.3 Rolling Stock - CU $ 290,000 Div Van (VN) 2.3 Rolling Stock - VN $ 40,000 ACHD 13 - Van (VN) 2.4 Rolling Stock - VN $ 806,000 Div '-0" Motor Bus 2.5 Rolling Stock - BU $ 3,430,000 ACHD 1 - Van - 13 passenger 2.3 Rolling Stock - VN $ 62,000 Div Equipment - IT 2.3 Equipment - IT $ 22,190 Div 24/25/31 Equipment - Shop 2.5 Equipment - Shop $ 57,501 Div 24/25/31 lighting 2.5 Facilties/Infrastructure - Admin/Mtn $ 68,500 Div Van (VN) 2.5 Rolling Stock - VN $ 40,000 TOTAL PER TAM SCORE Fiscal Year 2019 Projects RUNNING TOTAL LU SU Amount still needed $ 9,312,342 $ 297,000 $ 463,000 $ - $ 17,901,436 $ 6,592,193 $ - $ 24,493,629 C:\Users\kfairless\Documents\TAM scoring and targets for FY19 r1 PAGE 2 OF 2 5/30/

27 ITEM VI-A TOPIC: Proposed Agenda Items for 07/09/18 VRT Board of Directors Meeting DATE: May 29, 2018 Summary of Proposed Agenda Items for 07/09/18 VRT Board of Directors Meeting INTRODUCE NEW MEMBERS: (if any) RCC QUARTERLY REPORT An RCC member (TBD) will provide the RCC Quarterly Report CONSENT AGENDA Approve Minutes of 04/02/18 VRT Board of Directors Meeting Quarterly Ridership Report FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT o Acknowledge FY2018 Qtr 2 Budget Variance Report o Acknowledge FY2018 Qtr 2 Cash Balance Report PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OUT BY June 25 Prior to the Public Hearing, VRT Staff will present the FY2019 Budget o The Chair will open the Public Hearing. o Public Comments will be taken. o The Chair will close the Public Hearing. ACTION Approve FY2019 Budget following the Public Hearing Transit Asset Management (TAM) Targets & Scoring PROCUREMENTS Capital Infrastructure Construction HVA Orchard Facility $600,000 INFORMATION ValleyConnect 2.0 Next Steps Service Changes Transit Asset Management (TAM) Policy & Plan Department/Staff Reports Recommendation: Staff requests the Executive Board approve the proposed agenda items for the July 9, 2018 VRT Board meeting, and authorize the Executive Director to use discretion in 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

28 ITEM VI-A adding any other information that may arise before the meeting packet is scheduled to be distributed in late June. For additional information contact: Kelli Badesheim, Executive Director, , 28

29 ITEM VI-B TOPIC: State Street Corridor Projects DATE: May 26, 2018 Summary: The State Street corridor has been a focus for VRT for many years. It is a vital east/west travel corridor that connects five jurisdictions. It is also VRT s highest ridership corridor and has been the subject of multiple land use and traffic studies over the years and its future rests in the successful coordination of actions between many different partners. This memo presents three different action items related to current and future activities on State Street. Those items are; Glenwood and State Street Intersection Study comments Alternatives Analysis and Right of Way Study BUILD Planning Grant opportunity Glenwood and State Intersection Study To accommodate growing travel demand along State Street and as part of the Transit and Traffic Operations Implementation Plan (TTOP), which widens State Street to seven (7) lanes with plans for curb running High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, ACHD and ITD are in the process of selecting a preferred intersection. Glenwood and State Street is an important intersection for Valley Regional Transit for the following reasons: Routes 9, State Street, 9X State Street Express, 10 Hill Road, and 12 Maple Grove all use this intersection It is a the site of a future BRT station and a key redevelopment site in the State Street Transit Oriented Development plan that supports the TTOP Valley Regional Transit staff has been participating in the Project Advisory Committee throughout the concept development process. ACHD and ITD are preparing to make a final decision on the intersection design this summer. Staff has provided the following comments during the process: 1. Given the specific plans for transit in the corridor and transit s potential to impact the operation of the intersection, transit should be considered as a separate evaluation criteria from bicycle and pedestrian mobility. Specifically, it would be helpful to highlight the mode share that transit and other non-sov travel options would need to achieve in order to enhance the intersection level of service to a set standard. 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

30 ITEM VI-B 2. Shifting mode share to higher occupancy vehicles is especially important along a heavily traveled corridor like State Street because a shift to higher occupancy modes will improve the intersection level of service (LOS) not just at State and Glenwood, but also at Collister, Veterans Memorial Parkway, and along the entire corridor. Add an objective measure to the land use criteria for promoting higher density, less auto-oriented development, e.g. intersection density with accessible cross walks. 3. It is not clear how pedestrian connectivity and crossing elements were scored. There were no negative scores for this measure, when several of the scenarios clearly make the crossings longer and more exposed or shorter crossing times, i.e. options 4B: Median U-Turn and the 5A: Partial Displaced Left. 4. Comments by Concept: a. Partial Quadrant: VRT staff ranked this option 1 st of the four options. Partial Quadrant will separate vehicle movements more, increase pedestrian and bicycle crossing opportunities, better support the TOD opportunities at the intersection and increase redundancy, i.e. not all movements have to happen at one location. It also provides the most seamless transfer opportunities between North/South and East/West service. b. Median U-Turn: VRT staff ranked this option 2 nd of the four options. Improves pedestrian crossing at the new signal East of Glenwood. This option adds an additional signal for the U-Turn. It also puts more traffic through the State and Glenwood intersection because each left turn will now pass through the intersection twice once straight, and then again when turning right. c. No Build Option: VRT staff ranked this option 3 rd of the four options. Pedestrian crossing at Glenwood is difficult. Current bus stop at Big Lots is not near a cross walk. d. Partial Displaced Left Turn: VRT staff ranked this option 4 th of the four options. In this design the intersection becomes dominated by vehicular movements. Pedestrian and bicycle crossings are deteriorated and opportunities for TOD are diminished. Alternatives Analysis and Right of Way Study For the past seven years the State Street Partners (ACHD, the Cities of Boise, Garden City, and Eagle Valley Regional Transit, ITD, COMPASS, and CCDC) have been working to implement the State Street Transit and Traffic Operations Implementation Plan (TTOP). The plan provides a framework for continued collaboration and updates to the TTOP as the partners work to build the plan in their respective area of responsibility (transit, traffic, land use). 30

31 ITEM VI-B To further the TTOP, VRT is proposing a new study to; 1. Evaluate transit routing alternatives from Whitewater Park Blvd. to the downtown transit hub - Main Street Station. 2. Retest the traffic flow and transit operation assumptions and conclusions of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and transit pull-outs. Specifically, VRT wishes to compare and contrast the planned lane configuration with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) operating in outside HOV lanes with two additional configurations, BRT with outside Business Access-Transit (BAT) or other right of way management alternatives, and a simple mixed lane scenario both with and without bus pullouts. All configurations will be modeled in an effort to determine the best approach for transit, traffic, and land use along the corridor. This study is necessary because at the time the TTOP was completed it was not known where the downtown transit hub would be, so the preferred alignment between Whitewater Park Blvd and State Street and downtown was left undetermined. With these facilities now complete, we need to study and finalize the last leg of this alignment. It is also necessary to review alternative treatments to the HOV lanes and bus pullouts for the following reasons; HOV lanes are still statutorily prohibited VRT lacks eminent domain authority to acquire additional right of way for pullouts The financial costs of pullouts would be substantial and may not provide a commensurate public benefit The right of way impacts of pullouts would also negatively impact development opportunities at the Transit Oriented Development sites along the corridor. Because this study will impact investments from other State Street Project Partners, VRT is asking for the support and cooperation of the State Street Project Partners. BUILD Planning Grant The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 appropriated $1.5 billion to be awarded by the Department of Transportation for National Infrastructure Investments through a new program called the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development program or BUILD. Included in this program is $15 million to be awarded for planning grants including environmental analysis, feasibility studies, and pre-construction activities of surface transportation projects. 31

32 ITEM VI-B As VRT staff coordinated with other project partner staff, it was determined that we were not yet ready to apply for a BUILD construction grant because the transit elements were not designed and the there was not sufficient environmental analysis completed for the roadway widening and several of the intersections. There was, however, interest in continuing the dialogue about how project partners could work together to prepare for future opportunities that could deliver the project earlier or in a more cost effective manner. The BUILD planning grant would be an opportunity to prepare this project for future funding by conducting necessary environmental analysis and design. Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff requests the Executive Board take the following actions Review, sign, and send the attached draft letter of comment on the State and Glenwood intersection design to the ACHD commission and ITD District 3 Office for their consideration. Review, sign, and send the attached draft letter asking project partners for their support and cooperation in conducting an Alternatives Analysis and Right-of- Way Study Review, sign, and send the attached draft letter asking project partners for their support and cooperation in submitting a 2018 BUILD planning grant to conduct necessary environmental analysis and design work. Implication (policy and/or financial): The success of the State Street BRT is critical to the coordinated efforts that have gone into the TTOP. A successful State Street BRT will also provide a strong foundation for the increased transit investments and expansion described in ValleyConnect 2.0. The Alternatives Analysis will impact the 2019 budget and planning staff time. It is expected that any budget increases due to this action will be borne by the City of Boise or other project partners and VRT. Similarly, if the BUILD planning grant is successful, it will impact our 2020 budget. In preparing the grant proposal, VRT would work out with any willing project partner a cost sharing arrangement between project partners and VRT. Attachments: Glenwood and State Street Study Draft Comment Letter Alternatives Analysis and Right of Way Study Letter BUILD Planning Grant Letter More information: Stephen Hunt, Principal Planner, , shunt@vallyregionatransit.org. 32

33 ITEM VI-B-1 Glenwood and State Street Study DRAFT Comment Letter on VRT letterhead DATE ITD District Engineer Amy Revis PO Box 8028 Boise, ID ACHD Commission President Sara Baker 3375 Adams Street Garden City, ID Dear Ms. Revis and Commissioner Baker: We very much appreciate the opportunity we have had to participate in the Glenwood and State Intersection Study. It has been encouraging to see ACHD and ITD s commitment to a solution that supports multiple objectives. Glenwood and State Street is a significant intersection and activity node on the State Street corridor and part of the State Street Transit and Traffic Operations Plan (TTOP). As such, it is critical that the intersection design be supportive of the multi-modal vision of outlined in the TTOP. The Valley Regional Transit Executive Board comments are based on the four key success factors identified for the project. Key Success Factors: 1. Improve intersection functionality for all users, including those with disabilities, 2. Provide enhanced opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, 3. Accommodate the surrounding current and planned land uses, including the proposed redevelopment of State Street as a transit-oriented corridor, and 4. Comply with ACHD and ITD standards and support the State Street TTOP. Based on the evaluations done to-date the Valley Regional Transit Executive Board recommends ACHD and ITD select the partial quadrant intersection design as the preferred intersection design. We feel this this design presents the most balanced approach to meeting all user needs, improves bicycle and pedestrian connectivity the most, is most consistent with the desired development patterns in the corridor and is most consistent with the State Street TTOP. 33

34 ITEM VI-B-1 Specifically, the quadrant design best meets the key success factors in the following ways: 1. The partial quadrant improves the intersection vehicle levels of service over the no build reducing delay for motorists and accommodating the expected growth in vehicular traffic. 2. By reducing the length of crosswalks at the intersections, this concept provides the most opportunities for improving intersection functionality for people with disabilities. 3. The additional roadways in the partial quadrant improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity more than any of the other alternatives. 4. The improved pedestrian and bicycle connectivity and narrower crosswalks of the partial quadrant are also most compatible with the TTOP vision of higher density, mixed use, multi-modal development. The Median U-Turn and Partial Displaced Left concepts were estimated to be less costly and projected to have improved vehicle movements through the intersection; however, these benefits were achieved at the cost of improving the functionality of other users. The TTOP identifies State Street as a multi-modal corridor that is being designed to carry more people in less space. The planned seven lane profile is already a reduction from a nine (9) lane profile which travel demand models suggest would be necessary if there is not a shift in how people travel. In order to achieve this, shift in travel we will need to better accommodate higher density modes of travel such as walking, cycling, car and vanpooling, and using transit. Shifting modes is especially important on State Street because moving people with higher density modes of travel not only increase the person throughput capacity of this intersection, but also all downstream intersections. Also, moving more vehicles through the intersection will only shift the capacity problem from the intersection to parking in downtown Boise. Although transit was not explicitly modeled in any of these concepts, the measures that promote bicycle and pedestrian activity and denser development patterns all have positive impacts on transit use. We recognize that there are many competing interests and needs and that it may be prudent to further analyze the implications of the intersection design. If there is time and budget to further analyze these concepts, Valley Regional Transit would recommend the following additional analysis: 34

35 ITEM VI-B-1 1. Include the costs and land use implications of the pedestrian overpass as part of the Partial Displaced Left. The relative cost effectiveness of the Partial Displaced Left was viewed as a positive, but there was also strong public support for a grade separated pedestrian crossing to mitigate the impacts of the larger more complicated intersection. 2. Explicitly include the impact/benefit of transit in the modeling and identify the non-sov target that will be necessary to keep the intersection performing optimally. This will provide better information to policy makers about what additional, non-infrastructure actions will need to take place to ensure the efficient movement of people and goods. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comment on the Glenwood and State Intersection Study. We look forward to continuing to work with you on improving public mobility and realizing the TTOP vision. Additional considerations to further improve the partial quadrant concept are attached. Sincerely, Valley Regional Transit Executive Board Attachment: Additional Considerations to Improve Quadrant Alternative KB/sh/li 35

36 ITEM VI-B-1 Additional Considerations to Improve Quadrant Alternative: Consider narrowing the width of the southern end of the new roadway by eliminating the northbound left hand turn business access pocket. Northbound motorists can access the development directly with a right turn north of the new roadway. This would reduce impacts on the existing development and shorten pedestrian and bicycle crossing distances Consider narrowing the width of the Southern leg of the Glenwood and new roadway intersection by replacing the north-bound double right with a longer one lane right only lane and permitting right turns from the second lane. This would reduce impacts on existing development. Consider removing the free right from State Street Eastbound onto Glenwood Southbound, replacing a right only at the intersection and a second lane that allows right and turns and through movements. This would reduce the pedestrian and bicycle crossing distance across State Street from eight (8) lanes with an island to seven, potentially reduce conflicts between eastbound cyclists on State Street and right turn traffic, reduce the turning speeds, and limit impacts on existing development and reduce. 36

37 ITEM VI-B-2 DRAFT State Street Bus Rapid Transit Downtown Routing Alternatives Analysis and Right-of-Way Study Letter on VRT Letterhead State Street Project Partners: DATE For the past seven years, the State Street Partners (ACHD, the Cities of Boise, Garden City, and Eagle, Valley Regional Transit, ITD, COMPASS, and CCDC) have been working to implement the State Street Transit and Traffic Operations Implementation Plan (TTOP). The plan provides a framework for continued collaboration and updates to the TTOP as the partners work to build the plan in their respective area of responsibility (transit, traffic, land use). VRT is proposing a new study to; 1. Evaluate transit routing alternatives from Whitewater Park Blvd. to the downtown transit hub, Main Street Station. 2. Retest the traffic flow and transit operation assumptions and conclusions of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and transit pull-outs. Specifically, VRT wishes to compare and contrast the planned lane configuration (BRT/HOV) with two additional configurations, BRT with Business Access-Transit (BAT) or other rightof-way alternatives, and a simple mixed lane scenario both with and without bus pull-outs. All configurations will be modeled in an effort to determine the best approach for transit, traffic, and land use along the corridor. The need for this study is described below. Transit Alternatives Analysis At the time the TTOP was completed, it was not known where the downtown transit hub would be located so the preferred alignment between 23 rd and State Street and downtown was left undetermined. Since completing the TTOP, ACHD built Whitewater Park Blvd., and Valley Regional Transit built Main Street Station as the downtown transit hub. With these facilities complete, we must study and finalize the transit alignment between Whitewater Park Blvd. and Main Street Station. Treatment of Additional Travel Lanes In deciding on a vision and implementation approach for the State Street Bus Rapid Transit facility, the project partners all agreed that a new approach to mobility was needed. Because of the characteristics of the travel shed, it was determined that expanding the road to seven (or even nine) mixed-traffic lanes would not ultimately 37

38 ITEM VI-B-2 solve congestion on the corridor, nor serve transit well. The engineering data and a robust public involvement process determined that a better, more cost-effective solution for moving more people through the corridor was through the addition of high-capacity transit, adding two lanes to the existing five-lane cross section to accommodate a Bus Rapid Transit line. Also, in response to a concern over underutilized lane capacity, the project team and the consultants added a provision to the plan calling for High Occupancy Vehicles to share the transit lane and as a result of that addition, included the use of bus pull-outs to clear the lane during boarding at the station locations. This configuration has implications for traffic, transit, and land use. VRT proposes a study to more fully analyze the planned configuration. High Occupancy Vehicle Lane One of the key features of the TTOP was to accommodate more people in the State Street Corridor by encouraging transit and other HOV use. The TTOP simply assumed that the Highway Districts and State Department of Transportation would be able to get the necessary authority from the State Legislature to implement HOV lanes along the corridor. Unfortunately, those entities still do not have the necessary authority to implement HOV lanes in this corridor. Without that authority, it is necessary to evaluate other right-of-way management alternatives that could still move more people in fewer lanes. Transit Pull-Outs Transit pull-outs at bus stops and transit stations along the corridor were originally planned to help encourage other HOV use in the HOV lanes. These features have become problematic for the reasons of legal authority, cost, and land use impacts. Building pull-outs will require the acquisition of additional right of way. Acquiring that right of way in the correct locations and in a timely manner would, in some instances, require the use of eminent domain. Valley Regional Transit does not have any eminent domain authority. In addition, the financial implications of acquiring additional right of way would be significant and may not provide a commensurate public benefit. The TTOP was developed as a land use and transportation plan. The land use envisioned for the corridor is mixed use, higher density development that will encourage non-motorized and transit modes of transportation. Pull-outs on either side of State Street will widen it to a cross section of eight or nine lanes. In most cases, these pullouts will be at or near intersections which will increase the length of the pedestrian crosswalks, discouraging pedestrian activity, and reduce development opportunities by reducing the amount of space available for development and complicate business access. The length of the pull-outs, determined by operational needs to safely merge buses back into traffic, can be in excess of several hundred feet. VRT believes it is 38

39 ITEM VI-B-2 prudent to review the impacts of these assumptions and ensure that the impacts have a sufficient public benefit to warrant the costs. Conclusion The implementing agencies have made tremendous progress on the TTOP Implementation including design and construction on several of the main intersections, a land use TOD study that will finalize the location of the Transit Stations at each identified TOD node, construction of Main Street Station, and transit service enhancements. Accordingly, now is the appropriate time to finalize the route to Main Street Station and analyze the original traffic and transit assumptions and decisions that were made in VRT is asking State Street Project Partners to participate in this study, engaging their staff to ensure the study outcomes are acceptable to all partners. The proposed study will provide the data necessary to help optimize the operation of both traffic and transit while potentially minimizing the land use impacts of the ultimate configuration of the system and update the TTOP as appropriate. Sincerely, Valley Regional Transit Executive Board KB/sh/li 39

40 ITEM VI-B-3 BUILD Planning Grant DRAFT Letter DATE State Street Project Partners: Over the past seven years, our collective agencies have made significant progress on the State Street Traffic and Transit Operations Plan (TTOP) implementation including design and construction on several of the main intersections, a land use Transit Oriented Development (TOD) study that will finalize the location of the Transit Stations at each identified TOD node, construction of Main Street Station, and transit service enhancements. To build on this momentum VRT is asking the State Street Project Partners to support the effort for a 2018 BUILD planning grant. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 appropriated $1.5 billion to be awarded by the Department of Transportation for National Infrastructure Investments through a new program called the Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development program or BUILD. Included in this program is $15 million to be awarded for planning grants including environmental analysis, feasibility studies, and pre-construction activates of surface transportation projects. As VRT staff coordinated with other project partner staff, it was determined that we were not yet ready to apply for a BUILD construction grant because the transit elements were not designed and the there was not sufficient environmental analysis completed for the roadway widening. There was, however, interest in continuing the dialogue about how project partners could work together to prepare for future opportunities that could deliver the project earlier or in a more cost effective manner. The BUILD planning grant would be an opportunity to prepare this project for future funding by conducting necessary environmental analysis, and design. VRT is asking State Street Project Partners to participate in preparing a BUILD Planning Grant application for July of The proposed application would be to conduct the necessary environmental analysis on all project elements that project partners would like to consider for future federal funding potentially including the roadway widening, intersection construction and transit infrastructure. Sincerely, KB/sh/li Valley Regional Transit Executive Board 40

41 ITEM VI-C TOPIC: Bike Share System Request for Proposal (RFP) DATE: May 28, 2018 Summary: The Executive Board discussed the changes in Bike Share landscape at their April and May 2018 meetings. The biggest change has been the advent of technology companies that are bringing dock-less bike share systems to urban areas. There has been an increased interest in bringing these systems to our region. These systems have had mixed reviews in the cities where they are being deployed. While it does bring about the advantage of increasing the number of bikes available to a city for bike share at no cost to the local jurisdiction, there are many questions about how to manage the use of the public pedestrian spaces including ensuring adequate access to facilities designed for persons with disabilities. Lime Bike has been reaching out to local governments to discuss launching their system in the region. To date, I am not aware of any city that has signed a Memorandum of Understanding or license agreement with Lime Bike. Other systems have reached out to City of Boise. City of Boise is currently studying the dock-less system for the implications they may have on downtown Boise. VRT has also been studying this new approach to bike share to determine any implications it may have, both positive and negative for Boise Greenbike. The organization encourages the provision of mobility services by the private sector when it is the most feasible and increases the public s access in a more cost effective way. Staff Recommendation/Request: Staff would like the Executive Board to consider VRT working with our local governments to determine if it would be viable to do a region-wide Request for Proposal (RFP) for dock-less bike share. This would allow for the optimal amount of competition and provide an adequate forum to address the questions and concerns that have been brought up in each of the individual conversations. This would also allow for the region to select and manage a contract with one vendor that offers the most advantageous approach. Implication (policy and/or financial): VRT is already operating a bike share system in downtown Boise called Boise Greenbike. An RFP for the region would help to coordinate the deployment of dock-less bike share and establish a level playing field and side-boards for the deployment of bike share within each of the communities where it can be deployed. VRT already has 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

42 ITEM VI-C experience at deploying bike share, as well as an interest in finding the most advantageous approach for increasing the availability of the services to the public. Highlights: Several cities within the region have been approached by dock-less bike share systems to expand and make their systems available in the region. Dock-less bike share is currently being considered on a city-by-city basis requiring a different agreement within each city for any bike share system that is deployed VRT could oversee the deployment of a regional system that meets the needs of all the local governments in a coordinated and transparent process More Information: For detailed information contact: Kelli Badesheim, Executive Director, , kbadesheim@valleyregionaltransit.org 42

43 ITEM VI-D-1 AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE EXECUTIVE BOARD APPROVAL PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL COST: $60,000 Two (2) Support Vehicles - Canyon County PURPOSE/ACTION: The Canyon County system is in need of procuring two (2) support vehicle to replace the existing equipment in use that has reached its useful life expectancy. SCOPE OF WORK: Procure two (2) support vehicles that can facilitate transportation for Canyon County employees who perform shift exchanges at off-site locations, road supervision support, and/or emergency transports. DISCUSSION: The Canyon County system is currently equipped with support vehicles that were transitioned over from the Ada County system. This transition was necessary to secure a reliable support vehicle until funds were made available for replacements vehicles to be procured. This purchase will bring the entire vehicle fleet at the Canyon County operation up to an acceptable condition rating per Valley Regional Transit s state of good repair targets. ALTERNATIVES: The alternate would be to not procure the rolling stock; therefore, causing Valley Regional Transit to spend more dollars for preventative maintenance as vehicles continue to age beyond their useful lives. FISCAL IMPACT: Valley Regional Transit included the budget for this expenditure in the FY18 Budget Amendment Resolution VBD as approved by the VRT Board on 01/08/2018. The total amount of funding available is $60,000. RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATION: Valley Regional Transit secured three quotes for this procurement and selected Larry H. Miller Dodge Boise as the vendor with the most competitive pricing that meets VRT s minimum specification requirements. POST RFP/FINAL SELECTION OF PROJECT: Recommend: VRT staff recommends the Executive Board approve Resolution VEB for the purchase of two (2) Support Vehicles for Canyon County from Larry H. Miller Dodge Boise. Quoted price is $56,790, with the remaining budgeted dollars of $3,210 to be used as a contingency for a total of $60,000. ROUTING ORDER OF REVIEW DATE APPROVED RESOLUTION # # 1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Up to $49,999 2 EXECUTIVE BOARD On agenda 06/04/18 VEB Approves procurements over $50,000 to $200,000 3 VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD Approves procurements $200,000 and over 700 N. E. 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

44 ITEM VI-D-1 EXECUTIVE BOARD RESOLUTION Support Vehicles/Canyon County System RESOLUTION VEB BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF SUPPORT VEHICLES FOR CANYON COUNTY SYSTEM: WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code, Chapter 21, Title 40, and as a result of the approval of the voters of Ada and Canyon Counties on November 3, 1998, a regional public transportation authority (now known as Valley Regional Transit ) was created to serve Ada and Canyon counties; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (1) confers to Valley Regional Transit, as a regional public transportation entity, exclusive jurisdiction over all publicly funded or publicly subsidized transportation services and programs except those transportation services and programs under the jurisdiction of public school districts and law enforcement agencies within Ada and Canyon Counties; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (2) and (5) provide that Valley Regional Transit, as a regional public transportation entity, has power to raise and expend funds as provided in Idaho Code Chapter 21, Title 40 and to make contracts as may be necessary or convenient for the purposes of the Regional Public Transportation Authority Act; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit is in need of replacing two support vehicle for Canyon County as currently the Canyon County system is using aged equipment that has exceeded its useful life expectancy; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit included the budget for this expenditure in the FY18 Budget Amendment Resolution VBD as approved by the VRT Board on 01/08/2018; and WHEREAS, the Valley Regional Transit staff completed the competitive quote process as required in the VRT Procurement Policies adopted by the Valley Regional Transit Board of Directors by Resolution VBD on 01/09/17 and updated by Resolution VBD on 09/25/17, and in compliance with all local and FTA requirements; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (5) provides that the Board of Valley Regional Transit may adopt resolutions consistent with law, as necessary, for carrying out the purposes of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties conferred to Valley Regional Transit Pursuant to Chapter 21, Title 40. VEB

45 ITEM VI-D-1 WHEREAS, the Board of Valley Regional Transit has created an Executive Board, conferring specific authority upon it to discharge its powers, pursuant to Resolution VBD11-011; WHEREAS, the Board of Valley Regional Transit has conferred upon the Executive Board the power to review and approve certain transactions in conformance with the procurement policy of the Authority pursuant to Resolution , all such power has been conferred for the carrying out the purpose of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties conferred to Valley Regional Transit pursuant to Chapter 21, Title 40. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT: Section 1. That the Executive Board authorizes the purchase of replacement two (2) support vehicles for Canyon County through Larry H. Miller Dodge Boise. Section 2. That the Executive Board delegates authority to the Executive Director to finalize and execute the contract. Section 3. That this resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon its adoption by the Executive Board of Valley Regional Transit and its approval by the Executive Board Chair ADOPTED by the Executive Board of Valley Regional Transit, this 4th day of June, APPROVED by the Executive Board Chair this day of, ATTEST: APPROVED: SECRETARY CHAIR OF EXECUTIVE BOARD VEB

46 ITEM VI-D-2 AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE EXECUTIVE BOARD APPROVAL PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL COST: $66,390 One (1) Accessible Transit Van for City of Eagle for Eagle Senior Center PURPOSE/ACTION: Eagle Senior Center and The City of Eagle have committed local funding for Valley Regional Transit to procure a nine (9) passenger, accessible transit van. SCOPE OF WORK: The purchase of this vehicle will facilitate expanding rides to additional seniors and persons with disabilities within the City of Eagle. DISCUSSION: Currently Eagle Senior Center has the use of one accessible van used primarily to provide rides to events and lunches at the Center. This vehicle and other enhancements will facilitate expanding service to include all qualified Eagle residents. ALTERNATIVES: The alternative would be to not purchase the van; therefore, hindering the ability of the City of Eagle and Eagle Senior Center to grow their transportation program. VRT has reached the saturation point in being able to provide additional accessible vehicles from the shared vehicle pool. FISCAL IMPACT: Valley Regional Transit included the budget for this expenditure in the FY18 Budget Amendment Resolution VBD as approved by the VRT Board on 01/08/2018. The total amount of funding available is $66,390. RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATION: Valley Regional Transit secured three quotes for this procurement and selected Davey Coach Sales as the vendor with the most competitive pricing that meets VRT s minimum specification requirements. POST RFP/FINAL SELECTION OF PROJECT: Recommend: VRT staff recommends the Executive Board approve Resolution VEB to procure one (1) Accessible Transit Van for the City of Eagle for the Eagle Senior Center through Davey Coach Sales. Quoted price is $66,390; $53,112/VRT (federal funds 80%), $13,278/City of Eagle & SV replacement allocation (local contribution 20%). ROUTING ORDER OF REVIEW DATE APPROVED RESOLUTION # # 1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Up to $49,999 2 EXECUTIVE BOARD On agenda 06/04/18 VEB Approves procurements over $50,000 to $200,000 3 VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD Approves all procurements $200,000 and over N. E. 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

47 ITEM VI-D-2 VEB EXECUTIVE BOARD RESOLUTION ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT VAN FOR CITY OF EAGLE / EAGLE SENIOR CENTER RESOLUTION VEB BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AN ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT VAN FOR THE CITY OF EAGLE/EAGLE SENIOR CENTER: WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code, Chapter 21, Title 40, and as a result of the approval of the voters of Ada and Canyon Counties on November 3, 1998, a regional public transportation authority (now known as Valley Regional Transit ) was created to serve Ada and Canyon counties; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (1) confers to Valley Regional Transit, as a regional public transportation entity, exclusive jurisdiction over all publicly funded or publicly subsidized transportation services and programs except those transportation services and programs under the jurisdiction of public school districts and law enforcement agencies within Ada and Canyon Counties; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (2) and (5) provide that Valley Regional Transit, as a regional public transportation entity, has power to raise and expend funds as provided in Idaho Code Chapter 21, Title 40 and to make contracts as may be necessary or convenient for the purposes of the Regional Public Transportation Authority Act; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit is in need of procuring a nine (9) passenger accessible transit van for City of Eagle for the Eagle Senior Center; and WHEREAS, the accessible transit van is necessary to facilitate expanding transportation services for City of Eagle seniors and persons with disabilities; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit included the budget for this expenditure in the FY18 Budget Amendment Resolution VBD as approved by the VRT Board on 01/08/2018; and WHEREAS, the Valley Regional Transit staff completed three (3) quotes in the procurement process as required in the VRT Procurement Policies adopted by the Valley Regional Transit Board of Directors by Resolution VBD on 01/09/17 and updated by Resolution VBD on 09/25/17, and in compliance with all local and FTA requirements; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (5) provides that the Board of Valley Regional Transit may adopt resolutions consistent with law, as necessary, for carrying out the purposes of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties conferred to Valley Regional Transit Pursuant to Chapter 21, Title

48 ITEM VI-D-2 WHEREAS, the Board of Valley Regional Transit has created an Executive Board, conferring specific authority upon it to discharge its powers, pursuant to Resolution VBD11-011; WHEREAS, the Board of Valley Regional Transit has conferred upon the Executive Board the power to review and approve certain transactions in conformance with the procurement policy of the Authority pursuant to Resolution , all such power has been conferred for the carrying out the purpose of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties conferred to Valley Regional Transit pursuant to Chapter 21, Title 40. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT: Section 1. That the Executive Board authorizes the purchase of an accessible transit van for the City of Eagle/Eagle Senior Center through Davey Coach Sales. Section 2. That the Executive Board delegates authority to the Executive Director to finalize and execute the contract. Section 3. That this resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon its adoption by the Executive Board of Valley Regional Transit and its approval by the Executive Board Chair ADOPTED by the Executive Board of Valley Regional Transit, this 4 th day of June, APPROVED by the Executive Board Chair this day of, ATTEST: APPROVED: SECRETARY CHAIR OF EXECUTIVE BOARD VEB

49 ITEM VI-D-3 AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE EXECUTIVE BOARD APPROVAL PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL COST: $100,000 Shop Equipment Bus Lifts - Ada County PURPOSE/ACTION: Procure two (2) sets of four-post heavy duty bus lifts for the Orchard/Ada County maintenance facility. SCOPE OF WORK: Valley Regional Transit (VRT)secured several competitive quotes from qualified vendors to procure two (2) sets of four-post heavy duty bus lifts. VRT will continue to work towards gradually improving the overall condition rating of its shop equipment by phasing out aging assets that are in poor condition and have reached or exceeded their useful life. DISCUSSION: The new heavy duty four-post lifts bus lifts are necessary to facilitate the fleet maintenance, repair and inspection programs for all vehicles in the Ada County operation. The bus lifts that are currently being used have all aged well beyond their useful life and are in need of replacement. The new bus lifts will immediately improve the overall condition rating for shop equipment and introduce upgraded features such as wireless capabilities, enhanced fail safe mechanisms, selfdiagnostic features and backwards compatibility with the current lifts. In 2017, the asset management condition rating for equipment ranked well below the proposed targets identified in VRT s transit asset management plan. ALTERNATIVES: The alternative would be to not purchase the bus lifts; therefore, causing Valley Regional Transit (VRT) to rely on aging equipment to perform safety sensitive maintenance work. The decision to not replace the bus lifts could result in higher costs for maintenance and repairs as parts becomes increasing difficult to source. FISCAL IMPACT: Valley Regional Transit included the budget for this expenditure in the FY2017 Budget Resolution VBD as approved by the VRT Board on 07/17/17 and FY18 Budget Amendment Carryforwards Resolution VBD as approved by the VRT Board on 01/08/2018. The total amount of funding available is $100,000. RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATION: Competitive quotes from several qualified vendors were secured and Ari-Hetra s heavy duty mobile lift was identified as the most competitively priced option that met Valley Regional Transits minimum specifications. POST RFP/FINAL SELECTION OF PROJECT: Recommend: VRT staff recommends the Executive Board approve Resolution for VBD to procure two (2) sets of four-post heavy duty bus lifts for the Orchard/Ada County maintenance facility for a total of $100,000. ROUTING ORDER OF REVIEW DATE APPROVED RESOLUTION # # 1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Up to $49,999 2 EXECUTIVE BOARD On agenda 06/04/18 VEB Approves procurements over $50,000 to $200,000 3 VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT BOARD Approves procurements $200,000 and over 700 N. E. 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

50 ITEM VI-D-3 EXECUTIVE BOARD RESOLUTION Two Heavy Duty Bus Lifts/Ada County System RESOLUTION VEB BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF TWO HEAVY DUTY BUS LIFTS FOR THE ADA COUNTY SYSTEM: WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code, Chapter 21, Title 40, and as a result of the approval of the voters of Ada and Canyon Counties on November 3, 1998, a regional public transportation authority (now known as Valley Regional Transit ) was created to serve Ada and Canyon counties; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (1) confers to Valley Regional Transit, as a regional public transportation entity, exclusive jurisdiction over all publicly funded or publicly subsidized transportation services and programs except those transportation services and programs under the jurisdiction of public school districts and law enforcement agencies within Ada and Canyon Counties; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (2) and (5) provide that Valley Regional Transit, as a regional public transportation entity, has power to raise and expend funds as provided in Idaho Code Chapter 21, Title 40 and to make contracts as may be necessary or convenient for the purposes of the Regional Public Transportation Authority Act; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit is in need of replacing two heavy duty four-post lifts for Ada County as currently the Ada County maintenance shop is using aged equipment that has exceeded its useful life expectancy; and WHEREAS, Valley Regional Transit included the budget for this expenditure in the FY2017 Budget Resolution VBD as approved by the VRT Board on 07/17/17 and carried forward into the FY18 Budget Amendment Resolution VBD as approved by the VRT Board on 01/08/18; and WHEREAS, the Valley Regional Transit staff completed the competitive quote process as required in the VRT Procurement Policies adopted by the Valley Regional Transit Board of Directors by Resolution VBD on 01/09/17 and updated by Resolution VBD on 07/25/17, and in compliance with all local and FTA requirements; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (5) provides that the Board of Valley Regional Transit may adopt resolutions consistent with law, as necessary, for carrying out the purposes of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties conferred to Valley Regional Transit Pursuant to Chapter 21, Title 40. VEB

51 ITEM VI-D-3 WHEREAS, the Board of Valley Regional Transit has created an Executive Board, conferring specific authority upon it to discharge its powers, pursuant to Resolution VBD11-011; WHEREAS, the Board of Valley Regional Transit has conferred upon the Executive Board the power to review and approve certain transactions in conformance with the procurement policy of the Authority pursuant to Resolution , all such power has been conferred for the carrying out the purpose of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties conferred to Valley Regional Transit pursuant to Chapter 21, Title 40. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT: Section 1. That the Executive Board authorizes the purchase of two heavy duty bus lifts for the Ada County System through Ari-Hetra. Section 2. That the Executive Board delegates authority to the Executive Director to finalize and execute the contract. Section 3. That this resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon its adoption by the Executive Board of Valley Regional Transit and its approval by the Executive Board Chair ADOPTED by the Executive Board of Valley Regional Transit, this 4th day of June, APPROVED by the Executive Board Chair this day of, ATTEST: APPROVED: SECRETARY CHAIR OF EXECUTIVE BOARD VEB

52 ITEM VI-D-4 AUTHORIZATION FOR EXPENDITURE VRT EXECUTIVE BOARD APPROVAL PROCUREMENT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL COST: Not to Exceed $199,000 (2 On-Call General Construction Services years + 1 year option) PURPOSE/ACTION: VRT s objective is to hire a contractor to provide construction services on an on-call basis to support a facility and infrastructure. SCOPE OF WORK: Contractor shall provide services on an as-needed basis for an initial term of approximately two (2) years with an option to renew upon mutual agreement of both parties under the same terms and condition for an addition one-year period of time. DISCUSSION: VRT frequently has to hire construction firms to perform construction related services as needed. ALTERNATIVES: Items not completed due to the lack of construction firms available fall to staff to complete, who either do not have the scheduled time, resources, knowledge, equipment, or required insurance coverage to complete. FISCAL IMPACT: The funding will be included in the current and future budgets which are approved by the VRT Board of Directors. This is a two-year contract with the option to exercise a third year. RECOMMENDATION/JUSTIFICATION: Valley Regional Transit staff has followed federal procurement guidelines and VRT s policy for procuring services. Three bids were received. Staff has completed negotiations with all qualified firms and determined that all responding firms are responsive and responsible offerors that will provide the best value to meet VRT s needs. POST RFP/FINAL SELECTION OF PROJECT: Recommend: Staff recommends that the Executive Board approve Resolution VEB for On-Call General Construction Services with Pacific Source Electric, Richwood Industries, & Mangeac Co. LLC not to exceed $199,000 up to a three-year period. ROUTING # ORDER OF REVIEW DATE APPROVED RESOLUTION # 1 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Up to $49,999 2 EXECUTIVE BOARD Approves procurements over $50,000 to $200,000 3 VRT BOARD Approves procurements $200,000 and over On agenda 06/04/18 VEB NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

53 ITEM VI-D-4 EXECUTIVE BOARD RESOLUTION On-Call General Construction Services RESOLUTION VEB BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT APPROVING A CONTRACT WITH PACIFIC SOURCE ELECTRIC, RICHWOOD INDUSTRIES, & MANGEAC CO. LLC FOR ON-CALL GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES WHEREAS, pursuant to Idaho Code, Chapter 21, Title 40, and as a result of the approval of the voters of Ada and Canyon Counties on November 3, 1998, a regional public transportation authority (now known as Valley Regional Transit ) was created to serve Ada and Canyon counties; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (1) confers to Valley Regional Transit, as a regional public transportation entity, exclusive jurisdiction over all publicly funded or publicly subsidized transportation services and programs except those transportation services and programs under the jurisdiction of public school districts and law enforcement agencies within Ada and Canyon Counties; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (2) and (5) provide that Valley Regional Transit, as a regional public transportation entity, has power to raise and expend funds as provided in Idaho Code Chapter 21, Title 40 and to make contracts as may be necessary or convenient for the purposes of the Regional Public Transportation Authority Act; and and WHEREAS, VRT has identified a need of On-Call General Construction Services; WHEREAS, the contract will be for up to three years for an amount not to exceed $199,000 total expended over the horizon of the contract; and WHEREAS, funding for the first year of this procurement is available in the FY2018 budget Resolution VBD on July 10, 2017 and other singly presented procurements subsequent to Board approval; and WHEREAS, subsequent year funding will be dependent on future budget dollars being approved by the VRT Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, the Valley Regional Transit staff completed a competitive procurement process through a Request for Proposal as required in the VRT Procurement Policies adopted by the Valley Regional Transit Board of Directors by Resolution VBD on 01/09/17 and updated by Resolution VBD on 09/25/17, and in compliance with all local and FTA requirements; and VEB

54 ITEM VI-D-4 WHEREAS, staff has completed a competitive procurement process and determined that the noted firms are the most responsive and responsible bidders that provide the best value to meet VRT s needs; and WHEREAS, Idaho Code (5) provides that the Board of Valley Regional Transit may adopt resolutions consistent with law, as necessary, for carrying out the purposes of Chapter 21, Title 40, Idaho Code and discharging all powers and duties conferred to Valley Regional Transit Pursuant to Chapter 21, Title 40; and WHEREAS, the Board of Valley Regional Transit has created an Executive Board, conferring specific authority upon it to discharge its powers, pursuant to Resolution VBD NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT: Section 1. That the Executive Board approves a contract with Pacific Source Electric, Richwood Industries, & Mangeac Co. LLC for On-Call General Construction Services, not to exceed $199,000 up to a three year period. Section 2. That the Executive Board delegates authority to the Executive Director to finalize and execute the contract. Section 3. That this resolution shall be in full force and effective immediately upon its adoption by the Executive Board of Valley Regional Transit and its approval by the Executive Board Chair ADOPTED by the Executive Board of Valley Regional Transit, this 4 th day of June, APPROVED by the Executive Board Chair this day of, ATTEST: APPROVED: EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT CHAIR OF EXECUTIVE BOARD VEB

55 ITEM VII-A TOPIC: Transit Asset Management (TAM) Targets for Fiscal Year 2019 DATE: May 25, 2018 Summary: The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has published a final rule to define the term state of good repair (SGR) and to establish minimum Federal requirements for transit asset management that will apply to all recipients and subrecipients of chapter 53 funds that own, operate, or manage public transportation capital assets. This final rule requires public transportation providers to develop and implement transit asset management (TAM) policies, plans, and targets. TAM plans must include an asset inventory, condition assessments of inventoried assets, and a prioritized list of investments to improve the state of good repair of their capital assets. Standard scoring criteria for condition assessments for regional public transportation assets has been established and implemented according to the Scoring Criteria for Regional Public Transportation Policy approved by the VRT Board of Directors in September of Agencies have reviewed the SOGR score of all real property assets, assessing what current and future needs are in order to maintain service and have suggested targets for each type/category of real property assets. Staff Recommendation/Request: Action item. Staff will present and recommend approval of targets for the Regional Public Transportation Inventory of Assets with corresponding State of Good Repair Condition Ratings and percentages. Implication (policy and/or financial): An inventory of assets and their corresponding SGR score will be used to determine the capital FY19 budget. Highlights: September 2016 Board of Directors Action Item Scoring Criteria for Regional Public Transportation Policy - Completed Executive Board Action Item Approval of Asset Inventory and SGR Overall Score for submittal to the FTA - Completed July 2017 Board of Directors Action Item Approval Performance Targets for Capital Assets based on the State of Good Repair Measures Completed May 2018 Public Transportation Providers Score Capital Assets Completed for VRT and Boise State ACHD Commuteride to complete by June 30, NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

56 ITEM VII-A June 2018 Executive Board Information Item Review Performance Targets for Capital Assets based on the SGR Measures July 2018 Board of Directors Action Item Approve Performance Targets for Capital Assets based on the SGR Measures Submit Targets for Capital Assets to COMPASS August 2018 Executive Board Information Item Review Transit Asset Management Group Plan and Policy September 2018 Board of Directors Action Item Approve Transit Asset Management Group Plan and Policy October 2018 Submit Transit Asset Management Group Plan and Policy to Federal Transit Administration More Information: Rhonda Jalbert, Development Director, , FTA Target Dates for Transit Asset Management If your fiscal year ends: June 30 Sept 30 Dec 31 Share initial targets with planning partners July2017 Report FY17 Asset Inventory Module (AIM) data to NTD Submit targets for FY18 to NTD (optional) Oct 2017 Jan 2018 Apr 2018 Complete compliant TAM Plan (1st required) Share TAM Plan with planning partners Oct 2018 Report FY18 AIM data to NTD (1st required) Submit targets for FY19 to NTD (1st required) Oct 2018 Jan 2019 Apr 2019 Report FY19 AIM data to NTD Submit targets for FY20 to NTD Submit narrative report to NTD (1st required) Oct 2019 Jan 2020 Apr 2020 Report FY20 AIM data to NTD Submit targets for FY21 to NTD Submit narrative report to NTD Oct 2020 Jan 2021 Apr 2021 Complete Updated TAM Plan Share TAM Plan with planning partners Oct

57 57 ITEM VII-A

58 VALLEY REGIONAL TRANSIT FY2018 PROCUREMENT CALENDAR EXECUTIVE BOARD / VRT BOARD OF DIRECTORS ITEM VII-B Goods/Service Total Procurement Amount Support Vehicles HDTC $60,000 Shared Vehicle $66,400 Ada County Facility Bus Lifts $100,000 On Call General Contractor Services Emerging Mobility Transit Technology and Service $198,000 $260,000 Potential Executive Board Action June 4, 2018 June 4, 2018 June 4, 2018 June 4, 2018 July 9, 2018 Potential VRT Board of Directors Action Comments Two support vehicles for Happy Day Transit Center. Purchase one shared vehicle for Eagle Senior Center for transportation services. Purchasing two bus-lifts which will replace older units. Services by contractors as needed by VRT would include but not limited to electrical, masonry, concrete, asphalt, carpentry, drywall, plumbing, painting on an as needed basis. Term of Agreement 2 years w/ 1 option years. Implementation of pilot technology and services for first and last mile connections to transit and late night low income job access. Pilot Term: Up to 18 months. On April 2, 2018 VRT Board delegated approval to Executive Board. Internet Service Provider $198,000 July 9, 2018 Internet service provider for all facilities in Ada and Canyon County. Term: 2 years with 3 option years. Capital Infrastructure Construction - HVAC Orchard Facility Capital Infrastructure Design CWI Roundabout Capital Infrastructure Construction CWI Roundabout $600,000 $100,000 $875,000 August 6, 2018 July 9, 2018 January 7, 2019 Amount is for construction of the project. Amount is for design. Presently awaiting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Report Amount is for construction of the project. Pending NEPA approval. Executive Board Approval Levels: $50,000 - $199,999 VRT Board of Directors Approval Levels: $200,000 and over Updated 5/29/18kh 58

59 ITEM VII-C TOPIC: Executive Director Report DATE: May 29, 2018 Highlights: FY2019 Budget and Financial Analysis Staff is taking a comprehensive look at VRT s financial systems and policies. We are focusing our attention toward what we need to look like to achieve the vision of our Growth Scenario. May was focused on building and balancing the FY2019 budget. Our Finance Director was out of the office most of May, so I was responsible for finishing the budget including balancing the revenues. This has required me to take a much more detailed look at the budget development. I have included my findings and recommendations for ways we can make the budget process more transparent and structurally balanced. The preliminary budget will be presented to the Executive Board in June. I am still coordinating the capital plan and the federal funding reconciliation. Those will be handed out at the meeting. The financial policies will be drafted and brought to the Executive Board for the July and August meetings to be considered for approval by the VRT Board in September. We will also be delaying bringing the Quarter 2 variance report. Jim McMahon returns to the office on June 11. He will be able to complete his review of the variance report and provide an updated memo in the July Executive Board packet. Regional Coordination Council VRT staff is working with Jeremy Maxand, the current RCC Chair, to look at the role of the RCC and develop a strategic plan for the Council that will better align their work around the needs of the current and future consumers of the region s mobility services. This work is progressing and will be ready to present to the Executive Board in August The Executive Board will be asked to approve the final recommendation at the annual Joint Meeting between the RCC and the Executive Board in November. Mobility Management Program Supports Throughout May I have met with VRT staff to discuss and seek input on the new department VRT is creating to house the program supports elements for our Mobility Management work. This department will include marketing, outreach, and coordination of a variety of mobility choices throughout the region. We are also continuing our work with other agencies that are doing this type of work to create a path for better coordination and to determine if we can gain efficiencies in our organizations. This is also including a more detailed review of the administration of Safe Routes to School. I am behind on this project due to my focus on the budget in May. I will use June and July to catch up on the schedule. More information: Kelli Badesheim, Executive Director, , kbadesheim@valleyregionaltransit.org 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

60 ITEM VII-C TOPIC: Development Department Monthly Report DATE: May 29, 2018 Summary: Update of Development Department activities for the month of May 2018 VRT Strategic Plan Goal 1 - Demonstrate responsible stewardship of public resources Performance Based Decision-making ValleyConnect 2.0 (VC2.0) Staff has been refining the projects in VC2.0 to be able to report out costs and benefits by jurisdiction and to inform potential 2020 budget requests. Staff has also been applying the network and route design principles in their review of existing service. Staff has also been using the service concepts in VC2.0 to guide near term service changes Public Transportation Plan (COMPASS Lead) The technical resource group for this has been reviewing public transportation priorities and plans for high capacity transit between Canyon and Ada County. The public transportation priorities were presented to COMPASS Board on April 16, 2018 and were approved. National Transit Database (NTD) Reporting Project Boise State and ACHD Commuteride have received their login IDs for NTD. ACHD and Boise State have input their FY17 data into NTD. Staff is working with ITD to input Eagle and Star Senior Centers data into NTD. The next step is to report SHIP and Harvest Transit data to NTD. Transit Asset Management Staff is working with the Public Transportation Provider Group to provide a Transit Asset Management Policy and Plan. The Transit Asset Management Policy will include the Scoring Criteria Policy. The Transit Asset Management Plan will be an instructional manual for staff and providers on how to score, what to score, when to score, etc. All Transportation Providers are completing the scoring assets. VRT has completed its scoring in mid-may. The outcome of the scoring is being used to set regional goals and targets which will reported to the FTA. This information will be presented at the July 2018 VRT Board of Directors Meeting for action. 700 NE 2nd Street, Suite 100 Meridian, ID p: f:

61 ITEM VII-C Increase ridership and revenue May in Motion Based on an initial review of ridership, the ride free and May in Motion promotions have had a positive impact on ridership, with more people riding in the month of May for 2018 then rode last year. These promotions included direct mailings, ride-free month, and outreach to businesses and social services along transit corridors in Nampa and Caldwell. We also marketed the Vista, Fairview, and State Street corridors in Ada County where current transit service levels are the highest. On-call Marketing Support No report at this time Service Changes VRT staff has presented concepts to the RCC and city staff in preparation to go public with the initial concepts. VRT will hold open houses in late June to solicit public feedback on the concepts. VRT staff anticipates bringing a finalized service proposal to the VRT Board in September. Goal 3 - Build institutional and regional capacity Regional Capital Enhancements Boise Operations Facility Upgrades HVAC/CNG project design has been submitted to the Boise Plan Review for permitting. Construction will be in late summer or fall of 2018, pending grant approvals. Waiting on grant funding. Happy Day Transit Center Interior Remodel and Site Improvements Second phase of improvements has been prioritized and approved by the VRT Board. Implementation of this project will be in FY18. Waiting on grant funding. College of Western Idaho Roundabout Staff is working on the Environmental Document Approval. Staff is working with CWI to prepare 30% drawings to submit to the FTA along with the NEPA according to FTA suggestions. CWI will fund the 30% design work necessary for the NEPA application completion. Waiting on grant funding for the design and construction portion of this project. Middleton Park & Ride VRT s construction efforts have wrapped up, and the City of Middleton has moved in to complete the park elements around the Park and Ride. The final product will include a farmers market, a skate park, a splash pad, an amphitheater, and restrooms. Final construction items are expected to be complete in late VRT has entered into an oversight and long term review role at this time. 61

62 ITEM VII-C Facilities and Infrastructure Maintenance Review Staff has been evaluating the maintenance and oversight of our existing facilities and infrastructure over the last three (3) years. Staff has researched past expenditures for all buildings and grounds expenses. Expenses have been analyzed and a revised Buildings and Grounds budget will be proposed for FY19 with a line item for a Maintenance Reserve. This will be discussed during the budget preparation for FY19 and an outcome will be determined. Nampa Transit Oriented Development Technical Resource Group is still in the site selection process. State Street Transit Oriented Development Study Consultant and agency staff continues to make progress on the TOD study, finalizing the existing conditions market analysis, Bus Rapid Transit white paper, and the Tier 1 Transit Oriented Development Station Area Evaluation and Prioritization documents. Staff and the consultant will continue to refine station area plans through the summer and re-engage the Community Advisory group this fall. The project is on track to be completed before the end of the year. Other Development Activities National Transit Data (NTD) Reporting FY17 year-end reporting was completed by January 31, VRT added Village Van data into the reporting according to the FTA. Responses from NTD have been received and staff responded to them. The data was re-certified on April 13, 2018 by VRT. Awaiting review and reply from NTD. Title VI No update to report Budget Budget items will be presented by divisions for discussion 62