NEW TIME AND NEW LOCATION

Transcription

1 ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, January 8, :30 a.m. Candace Andersen's Office, 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Lafayette, CA NEW TIME AND NEW LOCATION The committee may take action on each item on the agenda. The action may consist of the recommended action, a related action or no action. Staff recommendations are subject to action and/or change by the committee. 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Public Communication 3. Approval of Minutes of December 4, 2018* 4. CCCTA Investment Policy-Quarterly Reporting Requirement* 5. Income Statements for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2018* 6. Independent Accountant s report on Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database Reports* (Staff will request that the committee approve the report and forward to the Board.) 7. Proposal for Financial Audit Services* (Staff will ask for direction to accept or reject the proposal from Brown Armstrong.) 8. Route 99X Promotion* (Information Only) 9. Contra Costa Transportation Authority s Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan* (Staff will requests the committee forward this item to the board for discussion, feedback and direction in responding to CCTA s request for feedback regarding the attached MOU prior to the end of January 2019.) *Enclosure **Enclosure for Committee Members ***To be mailed under separate cover ****To be available at the meeting. FY2018/2019 A&F Committee Don Tatzin Lafayette, Al Dessayer-Moraga, Kevin Wilk-Walnut Creek

2 10. Final Fare Restructure Proposal & Title VI Analysis* (Staff will present the final fare proposal and corresponding Title VI analysis. Staff will request the item be forwarded to Board for approval.) 11. February Board Workshop Reminder Verbal Report 12. Review of Vendor Bills, December 2018** 13. Approval of Legal Services Statement, October 2018 General and Labor** 14. Next Scheduled Meeting February 13, Adjournment

3 General Information Public Comment: Each person wishing to address the committee is requested to complete a Speakers Card for submittal to the Committee Chair before the meeting convenes or the applicable agenda item is discussed. Persons who address the Committee are also asked to furnish a copy of any written statement to the Committee Chair. Persons who wish to speak on matters set for Public Hearings will be heard when the Chair calls for comments from the public. After individuals have spoken, the Public Hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the Committee. A period of thirty (30) minutes has been allocated for public comments concerning items of interest within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Committee. Each individual will be allotted three minutes, which may be extended at the discretion of the Committee Chair. Consent Items: All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered by the committee to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless requested by a committee member or a member of the public prior to when the committee votes on the motion to adopt. Availability of Public Records: All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at 2477 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord, California, at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body. The agenda and enclosures for this meeting are posted also on our website at Accessible Public Meetings: Upon request, County Connection will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service so that it is received by County Connection at least 48 hours before the meeting convenes. Requests should be sent to the Assistant to the General Manager, Lathina Hill, at 2477 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord, CA or hill@countyconnection.com. Shuttle Service: With 24-hour notice, a County Connection LINK shuttle can be available at the BART station nearest the meeting location for individuals who want to attend the meeting. To arrange for the shuttle service, please call Katrina Lewis 925/ , no later than 24 hours prior to the start of the meeting. Currently Scheduled Board and Committee Meetings Board of Directors: Administration & Finance: Advisory Committee: Marketing, Planning & Legislative: Operations & Scheduling: January 17, 9:00 a.m., County Connection Board Room Tuesday, February 13, 9:30 a.m., Supervisor Andersen's Office, 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Lafayette, CA 9454 TBA. County Connection Board Room Thursday, January 10, 8:30 a.m., Supervisor Andersen's Office, 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Lafayette, CA 9454 Friday, January 4, 8:15 a.m. Supervisor Andersen's Office, 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd. Lafayette, CA 9454 The above meeting schedules are subject to change. Please check the County Connection Website ( or contact County Connection staff at 925/ to verify date, time and location prior to attending a meeting. This agenda is posted on County Connection s Website ( and at the County Connection Administrative Offices, 2477 Arnold Industrial Way, Concord, California

4 Administration and Finance Committee Summary Minutes December 4, 2018 The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m. at the Walnut Creek offices of Hanson Bridgett. Those in attendance were: Committee Members: Director Al Dessayer Director Don Tatzin Director Kevin Wilk Staff: Guests: General Manager Rick Ramacier Chief Financial Officer Erick Cheung Chief Operating Officer Scott Mitchell Accounting Manager Karol McCarty None 1. Approval of Agenda- Approved. 2. Public Communication- None. 3. Approval of Minutes of October 31, Approved. 4. Presentation of the Fiscal Year 2018 Audit Rosalva Flores, the Brown Armstrong partner in charge of the FY 2018 audit, reported by telephone on the audit. She reported that the audit report is unmodified, no findings, no material weaknesses nor deficiencies were identified and no material noncompliance issues were noted. She thanked County Connection s financial staff for working with her staff in completing the audit. Mr. Cheung thanked Ms. Flores and her team, he also thanked finance staff and all of the various County Connection departments involved in the audit. The Committee provided suggestion on the Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of the financial statements to modify the language of the ballot measure to repeal Senate Bill 1. Mr. Cheung stated that the draft MD&A was completed prior to the election date and was not known at that time the outcome of the proposition and will amend the current draft. The Committee recommended to the Board that the audit report be approved with that suggestion. 5. Issue Request for Proposal Financial Audit Services Mr. Cheung reported the Board extended Brown Armstrong earlier this year to complete the FY 2018 audit and was planning to release a Request for Proposal (RFP). The Committee was complimentary of the services provided by Brown Armstrong, which staff was in concurrence with. Director Dessayer and Director Tatzin discussed the staff time and costs associated with the RFP. The Committee requested that staff ask Brown Armstrong to provide a cost proposal for the next three years, and bring the item back to the Committee for consideration. Mr. Cheung needed to inquire with Ms. Flores of Brown Armstrong on the proposal and possible partner rotation due to State Law. The item is continued till the January meeting. 6. PERS Actuarial Valuation for June 30, 2017; Rate for FY Mr. Cheung reported that the employer rate for PERS retirement for FY 2018 will be 8.313% and unfunded liability payment of $349,903. County Connection s funded status is currently 91.5%, which is up from 88.9% in the previous year due to investment return of 11.2% for FY 2017 over the discount rate of 7.5%. The projections from CalPERS for future years reflects an increase in the unfunded liability payment due to the last couple of years returns of 2.4% for FY 2015 and 0.6% for FY 2016, which has been slightly offset by the 11.2% for FY The unfunded liability payments will be $350K in FY 2020, $548K in FY 2021, $762K in FY 2022, $928K in FY 2023, $980K in FY 2024 and $1.1M in FY This is a net decrease of $1.5 million over a six-year period on the unfunded liability payment in comparison to the previous year estimate. Staff will incorporate the revised payments and contribution rates in the FY 2020 Budget and Ten Year Forecast. Information only. 7. Emergency Procurement for Upgrade and Replacement of Existing Fire Alarm System- Mr. Mitchell reported that during October 2018, Johnson Controls informed County Connection that there are, Deficiencies/impairments in our fire alarm system can result in unintended operation or failure of the system to operate. They strongly recommended immediate correction and provided a quotation in the amount of $179,600 for upgrading and replacing the fire alarm system. County Connection is a member of NJPA (National Joint Powers Alliance) and we are able to utilize the

5 competitive bid of a Johnson Controls system to meet our needs. This project would include replacing all fire panels, horns, lights, pull stations, and wiring throughout the property. The funding for the fire system is from State Proposition 1B. The Committee approved that the Board of Directors authorize the General Manager to enter into a contract with Johnson Controls for the upgrade and replacement of the fire alarm system for consent on the Board agenda. 8. Review of Vendor Bills, November Reviewed. 9. Legal Services Statement, September 2018, General & Labor- Approved. 10. Adjournment- The meeting was adjourned. The next meeting is set for scheduled Tuesday January 8th, and Wednesday February 13 th at 9:30 am at 3338 Mt. Diablo Blvd, Lafayette, CA Erick Cheung, Chief Finance Officer

6 (:puzi[y(prmection TO: Administration & Finance Coinmittee DATE: January 2, 2019 FROM: Rick Ramacier General Manager SUBJECT: CCCTA Investment Policy - Quarterly Reporting Requirement Attached please find CCCTA's Quarterly Investment Policy Reporting Statement for tlie quarter ending September 30, This certifies that the portfolio complies with the CCCTA Investment Policy and that CCCTA has the ability to meet the pool's expenditure requirements (cash flow) for the next six (6) months.

7 CCCTA BANK CASH AND INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS (ROUNDED OFF TO NEAREST $) FINANCIAL INST ACCT # TYPE l PURPOSE FIXED ROUTE UNION BANK CHECKING AP GENERAL UNION BANK CHECKING PAYROLL UNION BANK CHECKING CAPIT AL PURCHASES UNION BANK CHECKING WORKERS' COMP - CORVEL UNION BANK CHECKING PASS SALES PAYPAL 27SAXUUFL9732 CHECKING PAYPAL-PASS SALES TOTAL PARATRANSIT UNION BANK CHECKING AP GENERAL TOTAL LAIF FUND LAIF ACCOUNT INT-INVEST OPERATING FUNDS LAIF ACCOUNT INT-INVEST Rolling Stock LAIF ACCOUNT INT-INVEST Lifeline Bus Stop Access LAIF ACCOUNT INT-INVEST Facility Rehab LAIF ACCOUNT INT-INVEST LCTOP - Martinez Shuttle Ill LAIF ACCOUNT INT-INVEST LCTOP - Martinez Amtrak to BART LAIF ACCOUNT INT-INVEST LCTOP - Electric Trolley I LAIF ACCOUNT INT-INVEST LCTOP - Electric Trolley II LAIF ACCOUNT INT-INVEST Pass-Through CA LAIF ACCOUNT INT-INVEST Safe Harbor Lease Reserve LAIF ACCOUNT FMV ADJ. Fair Market Value Adjustment for Year-End TOTAL CCCTA EMPLOYEE UNION BANK CHECKING EMPLOYEE FITNESS FUND UNION BANK CHECKING EMPLOYEE FUNCTION TOTAL PER BANK PER BANK PER BANK PER GL" MAR 2018 JUN 2018 SEP 2018 SEP 2018 $ 560,811 $ 2,243,592 $ 527,195 $ 543,272 $ 59,363 $ 77,157 $ 54,557 $ 40,460 $ 254,837 $ 248,665 $ 254,681 $ 250,000 $ 122,473 $ 103,721 $ 85,405 $ 48,512 $ 25,052 $ 9,444 $ 11,744 $ 11,744 $ 680 $ 399 $ 870 $ 870 $ 1,023,216 $ 2,682,978 $ 934,452 $ 894,858 $ 687,414 $ 246,831 $ 290,713 $ 293,572 $ 687,414 $ 246,831 $ 290,713 $ 293,572 $ 7,763,798 $ 3,809,256 $ 9,593,541 $ 9,593,541 $ 370,136 $ 371,313 $ 140,277 $ 140,277 $ 84,960 $ 82,197 $ 82,513 $ 82,513 $ 2,944,121 $ 2,930,448 $ 2,931,458 $ 2,931,458 $ 96,404 $ 25,360 $ $ $ $ $ 323,251 $ 323,251 $ 166,147 $ 149,736 $ $ $ $ $ 347,410 $ 347,410 $ $ $ 1,027,959 $ i,ozz,gsg $ 1,470,210 $ 1,475,680 $ 1,482,670 $ 1,482,670 $ $ $ $ $ 12,895,776 $ 8,843,990 $ 15,929,079 $ 15,929,079 $ 10,439 $ 9,878 $ 10,421 $ 10,421 $ 508 $ 508 $ 508 $ 508 $ 10,947 $ 10,386 $ 10,929 $ 10,929 GRAND TOT AL 12/11/2018 I i$ 14,617,353i$ 11,784,185i$ 17,165,173i i$ 17,128,438 KLM " GL balances reduced by oustanding checks and increased by deposits in transit, if any. This is to certify that the portfolio above complies with the CCCTA Investment Policy and that CCCTA has the ability to meet its expeditures (cash flow) for the next six months. Rick Ramacier General Manager

8 To: Administration &Finance Committee Date: January 8, 2019 From: Erick Cheung, Chief Finance Officer SUBJECT: Income Statements for the Three Months Ended September 30, 2018 The attached unaudited County Connection Income Statements for the first three months of FY 2019 are presented for your review. The combined expenses of $8,705,683 for Fixed Route and Paratransit, (Schedule 1), are 7.3% under the budget ($686,262). The expense categories with the most significant variances are: Wages $( 187,630) ( 5.5)% Other wages are lower by $165K due to the Manager of Planning/Community Liaison and Customer Service & Outreach Coordinator positions were vacant during the first quarter but are now filled. The Director of Innovation and Mobility position is vacant with duties reassigned to current planning staff. Fringe Benefits $( 133,146) ( 5.2)% Fringe Benefits are under budget due to vacancies and medical increases will occur on January 1, Services $( 57,978) ( 10.3)% Services are under mainly due to lower than budget for promotions expense ($28K), schedules/graphics expense ($27K), service repairs ($51K), legal ($48K) and various other accounts due to timing. This is offset by Clever Device annual maintenance service paid in September for $239K. Materials & Supplies $( 36,536) ( 5.1)% Materials and supplies are lower due to lower diesel fuel costs ($20K). Contingency $( 200,000) (100.0)% Not needed based on expenses being under budget. Fixed route and Paratransit revenues and expenses are presented on Schedules 2 and 3. Actual expenses are compared to the year-to-date approved budget. Fixed route expenses are -8.8% under budget and Paratransit expenses are 1.0% over budget. The combined revenues are also over/(under) budget. The most significant variances: Passenger fares/special fares $ 40, % Fixed route passenger fares/special fares are $46.0K higher than budget as staff assumed a decrease of 3.0% for fixed route based on past trends. Paratransit fares are ($5.3K) lower than budget. Compared to the same period in the prior year, fixed route is $10K or 1% higher due

9 to special fares agreements but lower than FY 2017 by $2K; Paratransit is $16.7K higher due to increased ridership but only higher than FY 2017 by $310. TDA revenue earned $( 769,432) ( 20.0)% TDA revenue is lower due to lower than expected expenses. Other revenue $ 100, % Received annual grant revenue for database tracking of $75K in September, prior year received in December. Other operating assistance $( 60,045) ( 13.3)% The difference is mainly due to timing, since State Transit Assistance Lifeline funds are normally received in December. Fixed Route Operator Wages (Schedule 4) Schedule 4 compares various components of operator wages with the budget. Platform (work time) is -2.1% under budget. Overtime is -4.3% under budget. Training is 35.3% over budget. Overall wages for operators are -1.2% under budget. Statistics (Schedule 6) Schedule 6 provides selected statistical information for the current year compared to the last two years: Fixed route: Passenger fares/special fares are 1.0% more than FY 2018 and -0.2% less than FY The farebox recovery ratio is lower compared to FY 2017 and FY The ratio is 14.6% in FY 2019; 15.6% in FY 2018 and 16.1% in FY Operating expenses are 7.7% more than in FY 2018 and 10.1% more than FY As mentioned earlier, Clever Device invoice payment of $239K paid in September and in past years was paid in October. Fixed route revenue hours are 1.1% more than FY 2018 and 0.1% more than FY The cost per revenue hour has increased 3.3% compared to FY 2017 and 1.4% compared to FY Passengers have decreased -2.2% compared to FY 2018 and -8.2% compared to FY The cost per passenger has increased 10.2% compared to FY 2018 and 19.9% compared to FY Passengers per revenue hour has decreased -3.3% compared to FY 2018 and -8.3% compared to FY 2017.

10 Paratransit: Passenger fares have increased 15.9% compared to FY 2018 and 0.3% compared to FY The farebox ratio is more than FY 2018 and less than FY The ratio is 8.2% in FY 2019; 7.6% in FY 2018; and 9.2% in FY Expenses have increased 7.3% compared to FY 2018 and 12.2% compared to FY Due to increase of 3% with First Transit for FY 2019 and revenue hours/passengers increasing as noted below. Revenue hours are 8.1% more than FY 2018 and 5.2% in FY Passengers have increased 1.4% compared to FY 2018 and -0.8% compared to FY The cost per passenger has increased 5.7% since FY 2018 and 13.1% compared to FY Paratransit passengers per revenue hour have decreased -6.6% compared to FY 2018 and -5.6% compared to FY 2017.

11 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY FY 2019 Year to Date Comparison of Actual vs Budget Combined Fixed Route and Paratransit Income Statement For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2018 Actual Budget Variance % Variance Revenues Passenger fares $ 781,868 $ 749,874 $ 31, % Special fares 390, ,573 8, % 1,172,128 1,131,447 40, % Advertising 147, ,635 (1,134) -0.8% Safe Harbor lease 8,076 4,413 3, % Other revenue 145,003 44, , % Federal operating 350, ,200 2, % TDA earned revenue 3,495,377 4,255,075 (759,698) -17.9% STA revenue 1,421,285 1,421, % Measure J 1,573,263 1,586,149 (12,886) -0.8% Other operating assistance 392, ,460 (60,045) -13.3% 7,533,555 8,260,499 (726,944) -8.8% Total Revenue $ 8,705,683 $ 9,391,945 $ (686,262) -7.3% Expenses Wages- Operators $ 1,891,197 $ 1,913,427 $ (22,230) -1.2% Wages-Other 1,338,981 1,504,381 (165,400) -11.0% 3,230,178 3,417,808 (187,630) -5.5% Fringe Benefits 2,429,452 2,562,598 (133,146) -5.2% Services 505, ,600 (57,978) -10.3% Materials & Supplies 681, ,738 (36,536) -5.1% Utilities 73,481 95,013 (21,532) -22.7% Insurance 222, ,138 (15,341) -6.4% Taxes 36,355 65,454 (29,099) -44.5% Leases and Rentals 13,395 13, % Miscellaneous 38,932 56,450 (17,518) -31.0% Special Trip Services 1,474,269 1,461,953 12, % Operations 8,705,683 9,191,945 (486,262) -5.3% Contingency Reserve - 200,000 (200,000) % Total Expenses $ 8,705,683 $ 9,391,945 $ (686,262) -7.3% Net Income (Loss) $ - $ - $ - Revenue Hours 75,032 73,054 1, % Cost per Rev Hr $ $ $ (12.53) -9.8% Passengers 859, ,707 (18,235) -2.1% Cost per Passenger $ $ $ (0.57) -5.3% Farebox ratio 13.5% 12.1% 1.4% 11.8% (fares,spec fares/oper exp-w/o contingency-leases) Schedule 1-Combined Fixed Route & Paratransit

12 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY FY 2019 Year to Date Comparison of Actual vs Budget Fixed Route Income Statement For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2018 Actual Budget Variance % Variance Revenues Passenger fares $ 660,323 $ 622,999 $ 37, % Special fares 390, ,573 8, % 1,050,583 1,004,572 46, % Advertising 147, ,635 (1,134) -0.8% Safe Harbor lease 8,076 4,413 3, % Other revenue 145,003 44, , % TDA earned revenue 3,084,038 3,853,470 (769,432) -20.0% STA revenue 1,264,098 1,264, % Measure J 1,170,891 1,183,777 (12,886) -1.1% Other operating assistance 350, ,960 (67,476) -16.1% 6,170,091 6,916,610 (746,519) -10.8% Total Revenue $ 7,220,674 $ 7,921,181 $ (700,507) -8.8% Expenses Wages- Operators $ 1,891,197 $ 1,913,427 $ (22,230) -1.2% Wages-Other 1,301,488 1,461,250 (159,762) -10.9% 3,192,685 3,374,677 (181,992) -5.4% Fringe Benefits 2,407,719 2,543,503 (135,784) -5.3% Services 486, ,950 (67,138) -12.1% Materials & Supplies 679, ,638 (36,924) -5.2% Utilities 68,420 88,138 (19,718) -22.4% Insurance 222, ,138 (15,341) -6.4% Taxes 36,355 65,379 (29,024) -44.4% Interest % Leases and Rentals 13,395 13, % Miscellaneous 38,932 56,237 (17,305) -30.8% Purchased Transportation 73,845 71,328 2, % Operations 7,220,674 7,721,181 (500,507) -6.5% Contingency Reserve - 200,000 (200,000) Total Expenses $ 7,220,674 $ 7,921,181 $ (700,507) -8.8% Net Income (Loss) $ - $ - $ - Revenue Hours 56,358 54,760 1, % Cost per Rev Hr $ $ $ (16.53) -11.4% Passengers 824, ,155 (18,732) -2.2% Cost per Passenger $ 8.76 $ 9.39 $ (0.64) -6.8% Passengers per Rev Hr (0.77) -5.0% Farebox recovery ratio 14.6% 13.0% 1.5% 11.8% (fares,spec fares/oper exp-w/o contingency-leases) Schedule 2-Fixed Route

13 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Paratransit Income Statement FY 2019 Year to Date Comparison of Actual vs Budget For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2018 Actual Budget Variance % Variance Revenues Passenger fares (a) $ 121,545 $ 126,875 $ (5,330) -4.2% 121, ,875 (5,330) -4.2% Other revenue 25 (25) % Federal operating 350, ,200 2, % TDA earned revenue 411, ,605 9, % STA revenue 157, , % Measure J 402, , % Other operating assistance 41,931 34,500 7, % 1,363,464 1,343,889 19, % Total Revenue $ 1,485,009 $ 1,470,764 $ 14, % Expenses Wages-Other 37,493 $ 43,131 $ (5,638) -13.1% 37,493 43,131 (5,638) -13.1% Fringe Benefits 21,733 19,095 2, % Services 18,810 9,650 9, % Materials & Supplies 1,488 1, % Utilities 5,061 6,875 (1,814) -26.4% Taxes - 75 (75) % Miscellaneous (213) % Special Trip Services 1,400,424 1,390,625 9, % Total Expenses $ 1,485,009 $ 1,470,764 $ 14, % Net Income (Loss) $ - $ - $ - Revenue Hours 18,674 18, % Cost per Rev Hr $ $ $ (0.87) -1.1% Passengers 35,049 34, % Cost per Passenger $ $ $ (0.20) -0.5% Passengers per Rev Hr (0.01) -0.6% Farebox ratio 8.2% 8.6% -0.4% -5.1% (fares,spec fares/oper exp-leases) Schedule 3- Paratransit

14 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Operator Wages For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2018 Actual Budget Variance % Variance Platform/report/turn in $ 1,511,615 $ 1,544,747 $ (33,133) -2.1% Guarantees 64,700 57,652 7, % Overtime 90,967 95,064 (4,096) -4.3% Spread 50,806 51,253 (447) -0.9% Protection 68,064 67, % Travel 52,544 55,091 (2,546) -4.6% Training 46,801 34,582 12, % Other Misc 5,699 7,435 (1,736) -23.3% $ 1,891,197 $ 1,913,427 $ (22,230) -1.2% Schedule 4- Operator Wages

15 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY Other Revenue; Other Operating Assistance; Miscellaneous Expenses For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2018 Other Revenue Investment income (interest) $ 31,385 ADA Database Management revenue 75,000 Paypal Shipping revenue 281 RTC card revenue 752 Various $ 37, ,003 Other Operating Assistance RM2 $ 36,335 BART feeder revenue 206,531 LCTOP 77,827 Homeland Security ITS $ 29, ,484 Miscellaneous Expenses Board Travel Expense $ - Staff Travel Expense 13,763 APTA Dues 8,874 Employee functions 9,554 Employee Awards/pins 1,162 Paypal fees 695 Training 661 Various other $ 4,223 38,932 Schedule 5- Other Revenues/Other Expenses

16 Fixed Route Actual Actual Variance Actual Variance Actual 2019 to Actual 2019 to FY2019 FY2018 Actual 2018 FY2017 Actual 2017 Fares $ 660,323 $ 661, % $ 707, % Special Fares 390, , % 345, % Total Fares $ 1,050,583 $ 1,040, % $ 1,052, % Fares box recovery ratio 14.6% 15.6% -6.3% 16.1% -9.3% Operating Exp (Less leases) $ 7,207,279 $ 6,690, % $ 6,548, % Revenue Hours 56,358 55, % 56, % Cost per Rev Hour $ $ % $ % Passengers 824, , % 898, % Cost per Passenger $ 8.74 $ % $ % Passengers per Rev Hr % % Paratransit CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY FY 2019 Year to Date Comparison of FY 2018 Actual & FY 2017 Actual Statistics For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2018 Fares $ 121,545 $ 104, % $ 121, % Fares box recovery ratio 8.2% 7.6% 8.0% 9.2% -10.7% Operating Exp (Less leases) $ 1,485,009 $ 1,384, % $ 1,323, % Revenue Hours 18,674 17, % 17, % Cost per Rev Hour $ $ % $ % Passengers 35,049 34, % 35, % Cost per Passenger $ $ % $ % Passengers per Rev Hr % % Schedule 6- Statistics

17 To: Administration and Finance Committee Date: January 8, 2019 From: Erick Cheung, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Proposal For Financial Audit Services Summary of Issues: The Board of Directors approved a one year extension for Brown Armstrong to provide audit services for June 30, Brown Armstrong s contract began in 2012 and has provided County Connection invaluable service over that period of time and has helped staff implement GASB 68 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions in FY 2014 and GASB 75 Accounting for Other Post-Employment Benefits Other Than Pensions in FY Based on the high quality of audit services provided by Brown Armstrong, the A&F Committee directed staff to request a proposal for an additional three fiscal years from FY 2019 through FY Rosalva Flores from Brown Armstrong has provided a proposal (see Attachment A) for the next 3 years with an annual increase of $1,000 or an average of 2.15% shown in the table below. The increases are less than the statewide consumer price index of 3.8% as of October Also, there is an option to change audit partners with the extension or retain Ms. Flores through FY After the FY 2019 audit, Brown Armstrong would be required to rotate partners due to Assembly Bill 1345 which requires lead audit partner rotation after 6 consecutive years. Fiscal Year Amount Increase 2019 $46,500 $1,000 or 2.20% 2020 $47,500 $1,000 or 2.15% 2021 $48,500 $1,000 or 2.11% Recommendation: Provide direction to staff to accept or reject proposal from Brown Armstrong. Options: 1. Accept proposal and recommend to the Board of Directors. 2. Decline proposal and begin Request for Proposal process. 3. Take other action as determined. Attachment A Brown Armstrong Proposal

18 Attachment A

19 Attachment A

20 Attachment A

21 Attachment A

22 Attachment A

23 Attachment A

24 Attachment A

25 To: Administration and Finance Committee Date: January 8, 2019 From: Erick Cheung Chief Finance Officer SUBJECT: Independent Accountant s report on Federal Transit Administration National Transit Database reports SUMMARY OF ISSUES: Annually our independent auditors, Brown Armstrong, CPA s, are required to review the data we report to FTA on Form FFA-10 which is included in the National Transit Database report (NTD). The form reports hours, miles, passengers, passenger miles and total operating expenses. Beginning in fiscal year 2018, the FTA requires a separate report to review appropriate accounting consistent with the NTD Uniform System of Accounts (USOA). We filed the NTD report in October and Brown Armstrong completed their review in December. Brown Armstrong reviewed the data and financial information and issued both reports without exceptions except for a typing error in the FFA-10 (see Item G) which was corrected and resubmitted. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None. ACTION REQUESTED: Staff requests that the committee approve the report and forward to the Board. ATTACHMENTS: A. Independent Accountant s Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures For Federal Funding Allocation Data Federal Transit Administration B. Independent Accountant s Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures For Financial Data Federal Transit Administration

26 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE REPORTING INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES FOR FEDERAL FUNDING ALLOCATION DATA FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 ATTACHMENT A

27 INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES To the Administrative and Finance Committee and Board of Directors of Central Contra Costa Transit Authority The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has established the following standards with regard to the data reported to it in the Federal Funding Allocation Statistics Form (FFA 10) of the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority s (the Authority) annual National Transit Database (NTD) report: A system is in place and maintained for recording data in accordance with NTD definitions. The correct data are being measured and no systematic errors exist. A system is in place to record data on a continuing basis, and the data gathering is an ongoing effort. Source documents are available to support the reported data and are maintained for FTA review and audit for a minimum of three years following FTA s receipt of the NTD report. The data are fully documented and securely stored. A system of internal controls is in place to ensure the data collection process is accurate and that the recording system and reported comments are not altered. Documents are reviewed and signed by a supervisor, as required. The data collection methods are those suggested by FTA or otherwise meet FTA requirements. The deadhead miles, computed as the difference between the reported total actual vehicle miles data and the reported total actual VRM data, appear to be accurate. Data are consistent with prior reporting periods and other facts known about transit agency operations. We have performed the procedures to the Federal Funding Allocation (FFA) 10 described in Attachment A. Such procedures, which were agreed to by Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (the Authority) and specified by the FTA in the Declarations section of the 2018 NTD Policy Manual, were applied solely to assist you in evaluating whether FAX complied with the standards described in the second paragraph of this report and that the information included in the NTD report and that the FFA-10 for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018 is presented in conformity with the requirements of the Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) and records and Reporting System; Final Rule, as specified in Section 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 630, Federal Register, dated January 15, 1993, and as presented in the 2018 NTD Policy Manual. The Authority s management is responsible for the compliance with those standards. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of those parties specified in the report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described in Attachment A either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. ATTACHMENT A

28 The procedures and associated findings are described in Attachment A. This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an audit or review, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion or conclusion, respectively, on the accounting records as of fiscal year ended June 30, Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion or conclusion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management of the Authoirty and the FTA and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than those specified parties. BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION Bakersfield, California, 2018 ATTACHMENT A

29 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE REPORTING ATTACHMENT A AGREED UPON PROCEDURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 The procedures described below, which are referenced in order to correspond to the 2017 National Transit Database (NTD) Policy Manual procedures, were applied separately to each of the information systems used to develop the reported actual vehicle revenue miles, passenger miles traveled, and operating expenses of the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (the Authority) for the year ended June 30, 2018, for the Motor Bus Service Directly Operated (MBDO) and Demand Response Purchased Transportation (DRPT). Our results and findings are as follows: A. Obtain and read a copy of written system procedures for reporting and maintaining data in accordance with NTD requirements and definitions set forth in 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 630, Federal Register, dated January 15, 1993, and as presented in the 2018 NTD Policy Manual. If there are no procedures available, discuss the procedures with the personnel assigned with the responsibility for supervising the NTD data preparation and maintenance. Result: We discussed procedures related to the system for reporting and maintaining data in accordance with the NTD requirements and definitions set forth in 49 CFR Part 630, Federal Register, dated January 15, 1993, and as presented in the 2018 NTD Policy Manual with the personnel assigned with the responsibility of supervising the preparation and maintenance of NTD data. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. B. Discuss the procedures (written or informal) with the personnel assigned with the responsibility for supervising the preparation and maintenance of NTD data to determine: The extent to which the Authority followed the procedures on a continuous basis, and Whether Authority personnel believe such procedures result in accumulation and reporting of data consistent with NTD definitions and requirements set forth in 49 CFR Part 630, Federal Register, dated January 15, 1993, and as presented in the 2018 NTD Policy Manual. Result: We discussed with various personnel the procedures noted in Procedure A above to determine whether the Authority continuously follows the procedures on an ongoing basis and that the procedures result in the accumulation and reporting of data consistent with the NTD requirements and definitions as set forth in the Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) and Records and Reporting System; Final Rule, and specified in the 49 CFR Part 630, Federal Register, dated January 15, 1993, and the most recent 2018 NTD Policy Manual. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. C. Ask these same personnel about the retention policy that the Authority follows as to source documents supporting NTD data reported on the Federal Funding Allocation Statistics Form (FFA 10). Result: We noted that the retention policy that is followed by the Authority regarding source documents supporting the FFA 10 data reported are retained for a minimum of three years by the Authority. In addition, we noted that the Authority maintains the computer files more than three years depending on the need of historical data. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. ATTACHMENT A

30 D. Based on a description of the Authority s procedures from Procedures A and B above, identify all the source documents that the Authority must retain for a minimum of three years. For each type of source document, select three months out of the year and determine whether the document exists for each of these periods. Result: We identified the source documents that are to be retained by the Authority for a minimum of three years. We randomly selected three months out of the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, September 2017, January 2018, and April 2018, and verified that each type of source document existed for each of these periods. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. E. Discuss the system of internal controls. Inquire whether separate individuals (independent of the individuals preparing source documents and posting data summaries) review the source documents and data summaries for completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness and how often these individuals perform such reviews. Result: We discussed the system of internal control with personnel responsible for supervising and maintaining the NTD data. The method is mostly automated with a few manual procedures. We determined that individuals preparing source documents were independent of individuals posting data summaries, reviewing the source documents, and summarizing data for completeness, accuracy, and reasonableness. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. F. Select a random sample of the source documents and determine whether supervisors signatures are present as required by the system of internal controls. If supervisors signatures are not required, inquire how personnel document supervisors reviews. Result: As noted above, the method is mostly automated. As such, there are no physical signatures documenting the supervisors review and approval of the source documents. The software utilized automatically accumulates the data from the Clever Devices Automatic Passenger Counter on each vehicle. Monthly reports are prepared for the Operating and Scheduling Committee and are reviewed by management electronically, as allowed by the 2018 NTD Policy Manual. Approval is given by authorizing the posting of the monthly data to NTD. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. G. Obtain the worksheets used to prepare the final data that the Authority transcribes onto the Federal Funding Allocation Statistics Form. Compare the periodic data included on the worksheets to the periodic summaries prepared by the transit agency. Test the arithmetical accuracy of the summaries. Result: We obtained from the Authority s year-end cumulative reports that are used to prepare the FFA 10. We compared the prior year data to the current year data and investigated any changes over 10%. We also compared the source documents to the year-end cumulative report (Form S-10). In addition, we recalculated summarizations of supporting documentation which were tested in (D) above. During our review of the Matrix in comparison to the FFA-10, we noted a difference between the Matrix and the FFA-10, the error was a result of a typing error. The Authority corrected the error and resubmitted the data. H. Discuss the procedure for accumulating and recording passenger miles traveled (PMT) data in accordance with NTD requirements with the Authority s staff. Inquire whether the procedure is one of the methods specifically approved in the 2018 NTD Policy Manual. Result: During fiscal year 2018, the Authority used the procedure of an estimate of passenger miles traveled (PMT) based on statistical sampling, meeting FTA s 95% confidence and +10% precision requirements based on a qualified statistician s determined procedure. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. ATTACHMENT A

31 I. Discuss with the Authority s staff (the auditor may wish to list the titles of the persons interviewed) the Authority s eligibility to conduct statistical sampling for PMT data every third year. Determine whether the Authority meets NTD criteria that allow transit agencies to conduct statistical samples for accumulating PMT data every third year rather than annually. Specifically: According to the 2010 Census, the public transit agency serves an urbanized area (UZA) with a population less than 500,000. The public transit agency directly operates fewer than 100 revenue vehicles in all modes in annual maximum revenue service (VOMS) (in any size UZA). Service purchased from a seller is included in the transit agency s NTD report. For transit agencies that meet one of the above criteria, review the NTD documentation for the most recent mandatory sampling year (2017) and determine that statistical sampling was conducted and meets the 95% confidence and ± 10% precision requirements. Determine how the transit agency estimated annual PMT for the current report year. Result: For MBDO, the Authority uses an alternative sampling technique, which is a statistically valid technique, other than 100 percent count, which was certified by a qualified statistician in 2009 when the Authority was testing the method to ensure it met the mandated accuracy and precision levels. We reviewed the certification of the statistician and determined that the individual was qualified and had the proper credentials. We also ensured that the statistician certified that the Authority s alternative technique used the minimal 95% confidence and +10 precision requirements for estimating boarding and passenger miles. We also obtained an understanding of how the Authority collects data, software utilized, and the estimation process. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. For DRPT, the Authority does not use estimates, but rather uses the information collected by LINK, the service purchase seller. This data is derived from driver counts and data generated from Trapeze. The information from the Purchase Services Seller is included on the NTD report. No exception noted. J. Obtain a description of the sampling procedure for estimation of PMT data used by the transit agency. Obtain a copy of the transit agency s working papers or methodology used to select the actual sample of runs for recording PMT data. If the transit agency used average trip length, determine that the universe of runs was the sampling frame. Determine that the methodology used to select specific runs from the universe resulted in a random selection of runs. If the transit agency missed a selected sample run, determine that a replacement sample run was random. Determine that the transit agency followed the stated sampling procedure. Result: We obtained a description of the sampling procedure for estimation of PMT data used by the Authority. We obtained a copy of the Authority s working papers and methodology used to select the actual sample of runs for recording PMT data. We determined that the Authority followed the stated sampling procedure. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. K. Select a random sample of the source documents for accumulating PMT data and determine that the data are complete (all required data are recorded) and that the computations are accurate. Select a random sample of the accumulation periods and recompute the accumulations for each of the selected periods. List the accumulations periods that were tested. Test the arithmetical accuracy of the summary. Result: We randomly selected three months, September 2017, January 2018, and April We obtained the source documents for accumulating PMT data, determined they were complete, and recomputed the accumulation periods. During our review of the Fixed Route Reports, we noted the data for the month of January 2018 was entered incorrectly on the MBDO report. Per discussion with the Authority, the discrepancy was due to a typing error and was corrected on the MBDO. In addition, we tested a sample of manual routes that are not tracked by the Ridecheck software. We randomly selected trip cards for the months of September 2017, January 2018, and April No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. ATTACHMENT A

32 L. Discuss the procedures for systematic exclusion of charter, school bus, and other ineligible vehicle miles from the calculation of actual vehicle revenue miles with transit agency staff and determine that they follow the stated procedures. Select a random sample of the source documents used to record charter and school bus mileage and test the arithmetical accuracy of the computations. Result: We discussed the procedures for systematic exclusion of charter, school bus, and other ineligible vehicle miles from the calculation of vehicle revenue miles with the Authority staff and determined that stated procedures were not applicable as the Authority does not provide a charter or school bus service. M. For actual vehicle revenue mile (VRM) data, document the collection and recording methodology and determine that deadhead miles are systematically excluded from the computation. This is accomplished as follows: If actual VRMs are calculated from schedules, document the procedures used to subtract missed trips. Select a random sample of the days that service is operated, and recompute the daily total of missed trips and missed VRMs. Test the arithmetical accuracy of the summary. If actual VRMs are calculated from hubodometers, document the procedures used to calculate and subtract deadhead mileage. Select a random sample of the hubodometer readings and determine that the stated procedures for hubodometer deadhead mileage adjustments are applied as prescribed. Test the arithmetical accuracy of the summary of intermediate accumulations. If actual VRMs are calculated from vehicle logs, select random samples of the vehicle logs and determine that the deadhead mileage has been correctly computed in accordance with FTA definitions. Result: We discussed with personnel the procedures for the collection and recording of VRM data and noted that VRMs are calculated upon inception of the route based on the distance between the first stop and last stop, including deadhead miles. We noted that the scheduled deadhead miles are systematically excluded to calculate VRMs. Furthermore, daily trip sheets are used to subtract missed trips and unscheduled deadhead miles. We also discussed the accumulation of VRMs for Demand Response Purchased Transportation (DRPT). We noted that VRMs for DRPT are accumulated and reported by the respective contractors through trip sheets and monthly ridership worksheets by route. These schedules are submitted by the contractors and are reviewed for clerical accuracy by Authority personnel. We recalculated the VRMs and agreed the total VRMs to the Authority s Month-End Ridership Summary report for a sample of trips in the months of September 2017, January 2018, and April No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. N. For rail modes, review the recording and accumulation sheets for actual VRMs and determine that locomotive miles are not included in the computation. Result: We inquired of personnel the procedures in which the Authority accumulates actual VRMs for rail modes. We noted that the Authority does not provide such service. Therefore, this procedure was not applicable. O. If fixed guideway or High Intensity Bus directional route miles (FG or HIB DRM) are reported, interview the person responsible for maintaining and reporting NTD data whether the operations meet the FTA definition of fixed guideway (FG) or High Intensity Bus (HIB) in that the service is: Rail, trolleybus (TB), ferryboat (FB), or aerial tramway (TR); or Bus (Mode: Bus (MB), Commuter Bus (CB), or Bus Rapid Transit (RB)) service operating over exclusive or controlled access rights-of-way (ROW); and Access is restricted; Legitimate need for restricted access is demonstrated by peak period level of service D or worse on a parallel adjacent highway; and ATTACHMENT A

33 Restricted access is enforced for freeways; priority lanes used by other high occupancy vehicles (HOV) (i.e., vanpools (VP), carpools) must demonstrate safe operation; Result: We inquired of personnel the procedures in which the Authority reports VRMs, passenger miles, and operating expenses for fixed guideways segments. We noted that the Authority does not provide such services. Therefore, this procedure was not applicable. P. Discuss the measurement of FG and HIB DRM with the person reporting NTD data and determine that the he or she computed mileage in accordance with the FTA definitions of FG/HIB and DRM. Inquire of any service changes during the year that resulted in an increase or decrease in DRMs. If a service change resulted in a change in overall DRMs, recompute the average monthly DRMs, and reconcile the total to the FG/HIB DRM reported on the Federal Funding Allocation Statistics Form. Result: We inquired of personnel the procedures in which the Authority measures fixed guideway direction route miles (DRMs). We noted that the Authority does not provide such services. Therefore, this procedure was not applicable. Q. Inquire if any temporary interruptions in transit service occurred during the report year. If these interruptions were due to maintenance or rehabilitation improvements to a FG segment(s), the following apply: Report DRMs for the segment(s) for the entire report year if the interruption is less than 12 months in duration. Report the months of operation on the FG/HIB segments form as 12. The transit agency should document the interruption. If the improvements cause a service interruption on the FG/HIB DRMs lasting more than 12 months, the transit agency should contact its NTD validation analyst to discuss. The FTA will make a determination on how to report the DRMs. Result: We inquired of personnel the procedures in which the Authority measures fixed guideway directional route miles through the use of maps or retracing routes. We noted that the Authority does not provide such services. Therefore, this procedure was not applicable. R. Measure FG/HIB DRM from maps or by retracing route. Result: We inquired of personnel whether other public transit agencies operate service over the same fixed guideway (FG) as the Authority. We noted that the Authority does not provide such service. Therefore, this procedure was not applicable. S. Discuss whether other public transit agencies operate service over the same FG/HIB as the transit agency. If yes, determine that the transit agency coordinated with the other transit agency (or agencies) such that the DRMs for the segment of FG/HIB are reported only once to the NTD on the Federal Funding Allocation Form. Each transit agency should report the actual VRM, PMT, and operating expense (OE) for the service operated over the same FG/HIB. Result: We inquired of personnel the procedures for revenue service for each fixed guideway segment. We noted that the Authority does not provide such service. Therefore, this procedure was not applicable. T. Review the FG/HIB segments form. Discuss the Agency Revenue Service Start Date for any segments added in the 2017 report year with the persons reporting NTD data. This is the commencement date of revenue service for each FG/HIB segment. Determine that the date reported is the date that the agency began revenue service. This may be later than the Original Date of Revenue Service if the transit agency is not the original operator. If a segment was added for the 2017 report year, the Agency Revenue Service Date must occur within the transit agency s 2017 fiscal year. Segments are grouped by like characteristics. Note that for apportionment purposes, under the State of Good Repair ( 5337) and Bus and Bus Facilities ( 5339) programs, the 7-year age requirement for fixed guideway/high Intensity Bus segments is based on the ATTACHMENT A

34 report year when the segment is first reported by any NTD transit agency. This pertains to segments reported for the first time in the current report year. Even if a transit agency can document an Agency Revenue Service Start Date prior to the current NTD report year, the FTA will only consider segments continuously reported to the NTD. Result: We inquired of personnel the procedures for revenue service for each fixed guideway segment. We noted that the Authority does not provide such service. Therefore, this procedure was not applicable. U. Compare operating expenses with audited financial data after reconciling items are removed. Result: We reconciled operating expenses presented to the audited financial statements. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. V. If the transit agency purchases transportation services, interview the personnel reporting the NTD data on the amount of purchased transportation (PT)-generated fare revenues. The PT fare revenues should equal the amount reported on the Contractual Relationship form (Form B-30). Result: We compared the data reported on the Form B-30 to the purchased transportation fare revenues. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. W. If the transit agency s report contains data for PT services and assurances of the data for those services are not included, obtain a copy of the Independent Auditor Statement (IAS-FFA) regarding data for the PT service. Attach a copy of the statement to the report. Note as an exception if the transit agency does not have an Independent Auditor Statement for the PT data. Result: This procedure is not applicable as assurances over the PT services data are included in Procedures A through V above. X. If the transit agency purchases transportation services, obtain a copy of the PT contract and determine that the contract specifies the public transportation services to be provided; the monetary consideration obligated by the transit agency or governmental unit contracting for the service; the period covered by the contract (and that this period overlaps the entire, or a portion of, the period covered by the transit agency s NTD report); and is signed by representatives of both parties to the contract. Interview the person responsible for retention of the executed contract, and determine that copies of the contracts are retained for three years. Result: We obtained copies of the purchased transportation contracts and noted that all contracts specified the specific mass transportation services to be provided; specified the monetary consideration obligated by the Authority; specified the period covered by the contract and that this period is the same as, or a portion of, the period covered by the Authority s NTD report; and signed by representatives of both parties to the contract. We determined that executed contracts are maintained for a minimum of three years. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. Y. If the transit agency provides service in more than one UZA, or between an UZA and a non-uza, inquire of the procedures for allocation of statistics between UZAs and non-uzas. Obtain and review the FG segment worksheets, route maps, and urbanized area boundaries used for allocating the statistics, and determine that the stated procedure is followed and that the computations are correct. Result: We inquired of personnel whether the Authority provides services in more than one UZA, or between a UZA and a non-urbanized area (non-uza). This procedure is not applicable as the Authority does not provide services in more than one UZA. ATTACHMENT A

35 Z. Compare the data reported on the Federal Funding Allocation Statistics Form to data from the prior report year and calculate the percentage change from the prior year to the current year. For actual VRM, PMT, or OE data that have increased or decreased by more than 10%, or FG DRM data that have increased or decreased, interview transit agency management regarding the specifics of operations that led to the increases or decreases in the data relative to the prior reporting period. Result: We compared the data reported on the FFA - 10 to comparable data for the prior report year and calculated the percentage change from the prior year to the current year. For VRM, passenger mile, or operating expense data that have increased or decreased by more than 10 percent, we inquired with the Authority management regarding the specifics of operations that led to the increases or decreases in the data relative to the prior reporting period. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. AA. The auditor should document the specific procedures followed, documents reviewed, and tests performed in the work papers. The work papers should be available for FTA review for a minimum of three years following the NTD report year. The auditor may perform additional procedures, which are agreed to by the auditor and the transit agency, if desired. The auditor should clearly identify the additional procedures performed in a separate attachment to the statement as procedures that were agreed to by the transit agency and the auditor but not by the FTA. Result: We have documented the specific procedures followed, documents reviewed, and tests performed in the work papers. The work papers are available for FTA review for a minimum of three years following the NTD report year. No exceptions were noted as a result of applying this procedure. ATTACHMENT A

36 CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA TRANSIT AUTHORITY NATIONAL TRANSIT DATABASE REPORTING INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES FOR FINANCIAL DATA FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2018 ATTACHMENT B

37 INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT S REPORT ON APPLYING AGREED-UPON PROCEDURES To the Administrative and Finance Committee and Board of Directors of Central Contra Costa Transit Authority and the Federal Transit Management We have performed the procedures enumerated below, on the application of the requirements of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) as set forth in its applicable National Transit Database (NTD) Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) by the Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (the Authority) for the fiscal year ended June 30, Such procedures, which were agreed to by the management of the Authority and the FTA, were performed to assist the Authority and the FTA in determining conformance with USOA requirements based on the following assertion by the Authority s management: The accounting system from which the NTD reports for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2018, were derived, uses the accrual basis of accounting and is directly translated, using a clear audit trail, to the accounting treatment and categories specified by the USOA. The Authority s management is responsible for conformance with the requirements described above. The sufficiency of these procedures is solely the responsibility of the parties specified in this report. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the sufficiency of the procedures described below either for the purpose for which this report has been requested or for any other purpose. This report describes our procedures and findings applied to the data reported to the FTA. Our procedures were applied to the information system used to develop the reported operating revenues and expenses for the Authority for the year ended June 30, 2018, for each of the following Modes: Motor Bus service directly operated (MBDO) Demand Response purchased transportation (DRPT) The agreed-upon procedures and associated findings are as follows: 1. Procedure: NTD Crosswalk a. Obtain the following NTD Reporting Forms prepared by management for the year ended June 30, 2018: NTD Form F-10, Sources of Funds Funds Expended and Funds Earned (USOA Section 2) NTD Form F-20, Uses of Capital (USOA Section 3) NTD Form F-30, Operating Expenses (USOA Section 4, 5, and 6 and Appendix A) NTD Form F-40, Operating Expenses Summary NTD Form F-60, Financial Statement ATTACHMENT B

38 b. Obtain the reconciliation documentation management prepares (referred to as the crosswalk throughout this report) to reconcile the chart of accounts, general ledger, and/or trial balance and other supporting documents such as Excel spreadsheets (collectively referred to as the accounting system) to the respective NTD Reporting Forms identified above. c. Inquire of management as to whether the crosswalk obtained in procedure 1.b is supported by the accounting system. d. For a transit agency that is part of a larger reporting entity, inquire of management as to whether the crosswalk includes the full cost of providing transit service, including costs incurred by the larger reporting entity to specifically support the agency s transit service. e. Inspect the crosswalk to determine that it incorporates NTD reporting using the applicable modes and types of service identified in the bulleted list below: Sources of Funds, Form F-10 Funding sources, passenger fares by mode and service type, passenger fares by passenger paid or by organization paid fares, revenue object class, and funds expended on operations and capital fund types Uses of Capital, Form F-20 - Type of use, asset classifications, and modes and service types Operating Expenses, Form F-30 - Modes, service types, object classes and functions Operating Expenses Summary, Form F-40 - Expense reconciling items Financial Statement, Form F-60 - Current assets, non-current assets, deferred outflows of resources, current liabilities, non-current liabilities, and deferred inflows of resources. Findings: No exceptions were found as a result of this procedure. 2. Procedure: Accrual Accounting a. Obtain the most recent audited financial statements that include the transit agency and inspect the notes to the financial statements to determine whether the accrual basis of accounting was used. b. Inquire of management as to whether the accrual basis of accounting has continued to be used since the last audited reporting period and that it is used for NTD reporting in the current period. c. If the notes to the financial statements indicate that an accrual basis of accounting is not being used, or the results of the inquiry to management in procedure 2.b indicate the accrual basis of accounting is not being used in the current period, inspect the crosswalk to determine that the transit agency made adjustments to convert to an accrual basis for NTD reporting. Findings: No exceptions were found as a result of this procedure. 3. Procedure: Sources of Funds (Form F-10) a. Trace and agree total sources of funds from Form F-10 to revenue reported in the accounting system using the crosswalk. b. Inspect the crosswalk for a written reconciliation between total revenues reported in the audited financial statements or the accounting system and the total revenues reported on Form F-10. c. Trace and agree the two largest directly generated fund passenger fare revenue modes (all service types) from Form F-10 to the accounting system. d. Trace and agree the largest revenue object class (other than passenger fares) in the following major categories of funds from Form F-10 to the accounting system: (1) Local Government; (2) State Government; (3) Federal Funds; and (4) Other Directly Generated Funds (i.e., 4100 and 4200 combined). ATTACHMENT B

39 e. Inspect the crosswalk to determine that it identifies, evaluates, and classifies financial transactions into categories of funds expended on operations and funds expended on capital (USOA Section 2) for the reporting year. Findings: No exceptions were found as a result of this procedure. 4. Procedure: Uses of Capital (Form F-20) a. Obtain accounting system documentation on capital asset additions for the reporting period. b. Trace and agree total uses of capital from Form F-20 to the crosswalk reconciliation of total capital asset additions. c. Trace and agree types of use (existing service and expansion of service) from Form F-20 to the crosswalk or other supporting documentation reflecting the nature of the uses of capital. d. Trace and agree asset classifications (guideway, revenue vehicles, etc.) from Form F-20 to the crosswalk or other documentation reflecting the assets classes of capital additions. e. For the largest mode/service type, trace and agree the type of use classification and asset classification from Form F-20 to the crosswalk or other documentation reflecting the uses of capital. f. If capital projects support multiple modes/types of services or and/or asset classifications, inquire of management as to whether management reported the use of capital considering the predominant use rules as described in the Predominant Use section of the 2018 NTD Policy Manual. g. If capital projects involve: 1) Rehabilitation/Reconstruction/Replacement/Improvement for Existing Service; and 2) Expansion of Service; inquire of management as to whether project costs were allocated between the two project purposes and whether such allocation was documented in the crosswalk or other supporting documentation. Findings: No exceptions were found as a result of this procedure. 5. Procedure: Operating Expenses (Form F-30) a. For the two largest modes/type of services, trace and agree functions (vehicle operations, vehicle maintenance, etc.) from Form F-30 to the crosswalk or other written documentation of functional expenses. b. For the two largest modes/type of services, trace and agree object classes (natural expenses) from Form F-30 to the crosswalk or other written documentation of object class categories. c. If management allocated shared operating expenses, inquire of management as to whether (1) the operating expenses are split between direct and shared costs; (2) shared costs were allocated across modes, services types and functions, (3) the allocation was documented in the crosswalk or other supporting documentation; and (4) the driving variables used are updated annually. Findings: No exceptions were found as a result of this procedure. 6. Procedure: Operating Expenses Summary (Form F-40) a. Obtain total expenses from the accounting system for the reporting period. Trace and agree total expenses from Form F-40 to the accounting system using the crosswalk. ATTACHMENT B

40 b. Trace and agree the reconciling items appearing on Form F-40 through the crosswalk to the accounting system. Findings: No exceptions were found as a result of this procedure. 7. Procedure: Financial Statement (Form F-60) a. Trace and agree (1) Current Assets; (2) Non-Current Assets; (3) Deferred Outflows of Resources; (4) Current Liabilities; (5) Non-Current Liabilities; and (6) Deferred Inflows of Resources appearing on Form F-60 to the crosswalk or other supporting documentation. Findings: No exceptions were found as a result of this procedure. Restriction on Use This agreed-upon procedures engagement was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. We were not engaged to, and did not, conduct an examination or review, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion or conclusion, respectively, on the Authority s conformance with the requirements described above, for the fiscal year ended June 30, Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion or conclusion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you. This report is intended solely for the information and use of management of the Authority and the FTA and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties. BROWN ARMSTRONG ACCOUNTANCY CORPORATION Bakersfield, California, 2018 ATTACHMENT B

41 To: Administration and Finance Committee Date: 12/19/2018 From: Ruby Horta, Director of Planning & Marketing Reviewed by: SUBJECT: Route 99X Promotion Background: Route 99X is a new route that began service in August The route connects the Martinez Amtrak station to North Concord BART via the Pacheco Transit Hub. The route was designed to serve three primary markets: passengers transferring from Capitol Corridor trains arriving from Solano, Yolo, and Sacramento counties; eastern Contra Costa county residents who work in Martinez, which has several county offices; and Martinez residents living in the medium density multifamily housing along Morello Ave and Arnold Dr. Promotion with 511 Contra Costa: During the first three months of operation, ridership on the route has averaged about 700 passengers per month. In an effort to increase ridership, staff is planning to partner with 511 Contra Costa to run a promotional campaign. As part of this promotion, rides on the route would be free for the month of February. 511 has agreed to reimburse County Connection for fares, and staff is working with legal counsel to develop a formal agreement. Recommendation: For information only. Financial Implications: None. Costs associated with lost fare revenue would be reimbursed by 511 Contra Costa.

42 To: A&F Committee Date: January 2, 2019 From: William Churchill, Assistant General Manager of Admn. Reviewed by: SUBJECT: Contra Costa Transportation Authority s Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan Background: Contra Costa Transit Authority (CCTA) was awarded a Caltrans Sustainable Communities Transportation Planning grant to study the potential for a coordinated transportation system for seniors and persons with disabilities. CCTA is calling the new study the Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan. The CCTA board authorized their staff at the September 19, 2018 board meeting to reach out to all county public transit operators, the four Regional Transportation Planning Committees (RTPC s) as well as a number of other stakeholders to participate in the study. Additionally, CCTA has requested that each participant in the study sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) prior to the commencement of the study. CCTA has requested each participant review the draft MOU and provide feedback prior to the end of January (Please see attached draft MOU) Staff Analyses of MOU: County Connection staff forwarded the draft MOU to legal for review and has conducted an initial evaluation of the document. Staff has a couple of concerns regarding the document that has the potential to significantly alter the way County Connection provides ADA paratransit services to Central County. Firstly, the document requires the Board to sign off on the final recommendations of the study prior to the study having been completed. Should the study recommend a new Authority be developed that provides ADA services for the whole County, then the MOU would require County Connection use the new entity to provide complimentary paratransit services relinquishing a role it has served since Another concern of significance is the apparent combining of senior s (ambulatory or not) into the definition of Accessible Transportation, significantly broadening the scope of the population transportation services would be provided for. Currently County Connection provides transportation for persons with disabilities as defined by the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA). By adding ambulatory seniors to the group of eligible riders the potential growth in passengers could quickly wipe out existing funding streams.

43 The MOU in its current form does not recognize that each of the groups to be studied (seniors, persons with disabilities and low income individuals) each have a specific set federal regulations that govern how transportation services are to be provided. Summary: While County Connection staff supports CCTA and Contra Costa County s efforts in the development of a centralized and consolidated transportation program for seniors and persons with disabilities, staff also maintains that it is imperative the Authority maintain autonomy and control over decisions of how to provide paratransit services to our community. It may make sense to contract out paratransit services with a potential consolidated transportation provider in the future, then again it may not be financially or operationally advantageous. County Connection should remain in control of decisions regarding how, when and where required paratransit services are to be provided. Staff would like to engage the board in a robust discussion and receive feedback and recommendations in the development of a letter of response to CCTA regarding the proposed MOU. Action Requested: Staff requests the committee forward this memo to the board for discussion, feedback and direction in responding to CCTA s request for feedback regarding the attached MOU prior to the end of January Financial Implications: In the short term the only financial implication will be the investment of County Connection staff time to participate in the study. Long term financial implications are unknown since it is impossible to anticipate the results of the study and the potential expenses associated with using a different entity to provide paratransit services. Attachments: Draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

44 DRAFT FOR REVIEW/COMMENT CCTA AGREEMENT ##.##.## MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Between THE CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND LOCAL AGENCIES & ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIC PLAN (Funded by Caltrans: Sustainable Communities - Transportation Planning Grant) 1. Introduction This MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (hereafter MOU ), effective as of ******** ##, 2018, is meant to establish a common understanding of: 1) the need for Contra Costa Accessible Transportation Strategic (ATS) Plan (hereafter ATS Plan ), 2) the procedures for the conduct of the ATS Plan, and 3) the collaborative intent of the ATS Plan and parties to this MOU. Parties to this MOU include the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (hereafter CCTA ), a local transportation authority, County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California (hereafter COUNTY ), and the following LOCAL AGENCY PARTNERS: [TBD] The ATS Plan: 1) is an assessment of transportation and transportation related services to seniors and persons with disabilities, 2) addresses a diverse array of impacted organizations, 3) implements local and regional plans and policies, 4) is necessary because services to this vulnerable population are being compromised by rising costs, demographic shifts/decreasing public health resulting in increased demand, 5) is intended to address a system that developed unsystematically over a long time frame, and 6) is an implementation action 1 in CCTA s adopted 2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan. The need for the ATS Plan and this MOU is further magnified by the intersection of public transit, public health, social service, civil rights interests and philosophies held by the entities and persons using and providing accessible transportation services. It is this complex intersection that results in diffused leadership and authority that further confirms the need for this MOU. The ATS Plan has three broad tasks: 1) Study of existing, individual programs with recommendations. 2) Study of alternative countywide system designs. 3) Development of a phased implementation plan. At every stage, the ATS Plan will include expansive outreach responsive to, and designed for, the subject population CCTA CTP: Table 5-1 Initiate the Accessible Transportation Service Strategic Plan To ensure that services are delivered in a coordinated system

45 2. Definitions A. Accessible Transportation: An umbrella term used to describe the broad range of transportation related services typically provided to seniors and persons with disabilities. For the purposes of this MOU and the ATS Plan, accessible transportation is defined as a range of transportation/transit and related supportive services such as; Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) mandated public paratransit service, city/community transportation programs, transportation provided by private non-profits, mobility management programs, volunteer based transportation programs, travel training, as well as funding and governance mechanisms associated with the preceding activities. B. Subject Population: The ATS Plan addresses services to the most acutely disadvantaged and fragile communities, seniors and persons with disabilities. These populations are typically also low income. 3. MOU Purpose A. Structure: The system of accessible transportation in Contra Costa County has been described as developed organically with a lack of a structural platform being a major impediment to action 2. Given these characteristics, this MOU (and Oversight Structure referenced herein) provides a temporary structure and forum to more effectively conduct the ATS Plan. The ATS Plan Scope of Work includes a task, Establishment or designation of an organization and/or structure to act as advocate and administrator for this transit transportation sector on an ongoing basis which is intended to address the lack of a structural platform issue once the ATS Plan is complete. B. Understanding: This MOU is intended to ensure consistent understanding of the need for, and the intent of, the ATS Plan. This understanding should be consistent across the range of impacted agencies and organizations as well as across responsible staff and elected decision makers. C. Commitment: In response to the three previous, similar efforts in the past 3, this MOU establishes a commitment of the parties to take formal action relative to the final recommendations of the study as further described in the Understanding section below. 4. Recitals A. During the development of the Measure X Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) CCTA conducted substantial outreach and convened the Expenditure Plan Advisory Committee (EPAC) which identified Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities as a high priority category 4 in the TEP. B. CCTA and all member agencies (nineteen Cities and the County) unanimously approved the Measure X Transportation Expenditure Plan in Recognizing the aforementioned EPAC prioritization and testimony from advocates, the TEP included a requirement to conduct an Accessible Transportation Service Strategic Plan to ensure services are delivered in a coordinated system that maximizes both service delivery and efficiency.... C. In 2017, with Measure X failing to gain voter approval but recognizing the standing need to improve accessible transportation, CCTA approved the Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan which included the following actions, ensure that services are delivered in a coordinated system and Initiate the Accessible Transportation Service Strategic Plan as an implementation activity Contra Costa County Mobility Management Plan Contra Costa County Paratransit Plan, 2004 Contra Costa County Paratransit Improvement Study, 2013 Contra Costa County Mobility Management Study 4 2

46 D. The 2018 Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) supports (from a regional perspective) the need to address accessible transportation issues Current senior-oriented mobility services do not have the capacity to handle the increase in people over 65 years of age the massive growth among the aging points to a lack of fiscal and organizational readiness will place heavy demands on an already deficient system. E. MTC, on February 28, 2018, passed Resolution 4321 which established that Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties must establish or enhance mobility management programs to help provide equitable and effective access to transportation. The ATS Plan will inform CCTA s response to this policy. F. Parties recognize that governance relative to accessible transportation services involves diverse industries, organizations, geographic responsibilities, regulatory requirements and varying organizational philosophies and goals. This diversity creates an environment characterized by diffused responsibility and authority. To address this situation, and building on lessons learned from previous, similar planning efforts, parties acknowledge they are taking steps to ensure progress in the accessible transportation sector. These steps include conducting the ATS Plan and authorizing this MOU. G. As described by the American Public Transportation Association 5, the parties recognize that the largest number of providers operating this type of service are non-profit organizations. As such, representative organizations who receive Measure J (2004) funding are included in this agreement and in the ATS Plan. H. Parties acknowledge the significant and increasing fiscal exposure to the public transit districts and nongovernmental transportation service providers due to increasing demand for service to the subject population. I. In 2018 CCTA, with assistance from the COUNTY, submitted a grant application to Caltrans under the Sustainable Communities Transportation Planning Grant Program to fund the Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan. The grant received conditional award status in May In July 2018 the CCTA Board adopted a resolution authorizing agreements with Caltrans. In September 2018 the CCTA Board approved, the ATS Plan Scope of Work, Release of a Request for Proposals, the ATS Plan Oversight Committee Structure, and the release of a DRAFT MOU for review and comment. J. Parties agree that, as a result of the ATS Plan, public transit operators shall not be encumbered with additional responsibilities without corresponding, concurrent increase in resources nor should revenue be reduced without corresponding, concurrent decrease in obligations. K. In the event that implementation activities proceed after the completion of the ATS Plan, Parties commit to insulate the paratransit client population from service degradation or disruption to the greatest extent possible. 5. Understanding A. Due to the acknowledged need for improvement in the accessible transportation sector in Contra Costa County, the extreme vulnerability of the subject population, and to mitigate the history of previous efforts, CCTA, COUNTY and LOCAL AGENCY PARTNERS hereby agree as follows: /2016 American Public Transportation Association Fact Book 3

47 i. To collaboratively, expeditiously, and in good faith support and participate in the conduct of the ATS Plan at all organizational levels and in all forums. ii. iii. To resolve technical, policy, operational and other matters considered by the ATS Plan at the lowest possible policy working level in the following order of hierarchy from low to high: lead staff 6, ATS Plan Technical Advisory Committee, ATS Plan Policy Advisory Committee, CCTA Planning Committee, CCTA Board of Directors. To consider the Final Recommendations of the study, once available, at a meeting of the Board of Directors (or equivalent body) and take action supported by a stated rationale. B. Responsibilities of CCTA, County and LOCAL AGENCY PARTNERS. i. CCTA agrees: a) To administer the ATS Plan using the established Oversight Structure and as described in the Scope of Work. b) To expeditiously take formal Board action on the ATS Plan final recommendations after LOCAL AGENCY PARTNERS have acted, and with consideration of those actions. c) Should the ATS Plan be approved, to expeditiously pursue any implementation steps assigned to CCTA. d) To proactively pursue resources to support implementation of the ATS Plan. ii. COUNTY agrees: a) To track and report staff hours consistent with Caltrans requirements for grant match funding. b) To continue to support CCTA staff in the administration of the ATS Plan. iii. LOCAL AGENCY PARTNERS and COUNTY agree: a) To participate in the ATS Plan by way of their respective roles in the established Oversight Structure. b) To expeditiously take formal Board action, accompanied by stated, well-supported rationale addressing the ATS Plan final recommendations. c) Should the ATS Plan be approved by CCTA, to expeditiously pursue any implementation steps assigned to the respective agencies/organizations. d) To support CCTA in seeking and securing resources to implement the ATS Plan. 6. MOU Modification. This MOU may be modified only by the written approval of the legislative bodies of all parties. 7. MOU Termination. Unless terminated earlier, this MOU will terminate immediately after all parties take action on the ATS Plan final recommendations. 8. Counterparts. The parties hereto recognize and agree that separate counterpart signature pages may be used to execute this MOU, but that all such pages constitute one and the same MOU. 9. Construction. The section headings and captions of this MOU are, and the arrangement of this instrument is, for the sole convenience of the parties to this MOU. The section headings, captions and arrangement of this instrument do not in any way affect, limit, amplify or modify the terms and provisions of this MOU. This MOU will not be construed as if it had been prepared by one of the parties, but rather as if both parties have prepared it. The parties to this MOU and their respective counsel have read and reviewed this MOU and agree that any rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against 6 Peter Engel, Director of Programs Contra Costa Transportation Authority, pengel@ccta.net, John Cunningham, Principal Planner Contra Costa County: john.cunningham@dcd.cccounty.us,

48 the drafting party will not apply to the interpretation of this MOU. The recitals of this MOU are, and will be enforceable as, a part of this MOU. Attachments: ATS Plan Scope of Work Signatures appear on following pages 5

49 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals the day and year first above written. CONTRA COSTA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY CONTRA COSTA COUNTY By: Federal D. Glover Chair By: Karen Mitchoff Chair Attest: Attest: By: Randell H. Iwasaki Executive Director Approved as to form: Best Best & Krieger LLP By: David Twa County Administrator Approved as to form: County Counsel By: Malathy Subramanian Authority Counsel By: Sharon L. Andersen County Counsel i:\board and committee meetings\a&f committee packet\2019\ \working copies\accessible transportation study mou attachment (draft) (1).docx

50 [insert Local Agency Partner Name] [insert Local Agency Partner Name] By: [name] Chair By: [name] Chair Attest: Attest: By: [name] Executive Director Approved as to form: Agency Counsel By: [name] Executive Director Approved as to form: Agency Counsel By: Malathy Subramanian Counsel By: [name] Counsel 7

51 (pu$r(:pmiection To: Administration and Finance Committee Date: December From: Bill Churchill, Asst. General Manager - Administration( Reviewed by: ErickCheung, Chief Financial Officer{"Z SUBJECT: Final Fare Structure Proposal and Title VI Fare Equity Analysis Background: Back in April 2018, staff presented a draft version of a proposal to modernize the County Connection fare structure, moving away from paper fare products in favor of promoting Clipper card use. Over the summer, staff conducted the required community outreach for the fare changes across our service area, which was presented to the Board in September In addition to the required outreach, staff has prepared a Title VI Fare Equity Analysis. If approved by the Board, staff anticipates making the fare changes in March of 2019, which coincides with the proposed implementation ofthe service restructure. This would allow for significant practical synergies as the fare changes will be represented on all new printed materials that would be updated simultaneously with new route and schedule information. In addition, staff could inform the public of both the new fare and service changes across our various mediums in advance of the restructure. Mitigation for known impacts, such as a proposal to retain free midday fares for Mt. Diablo School District's BRIDGE adult education program, is also included as part of this analysis. No other changes have occurred to the original April 2018 fare proposal. Details of the entire scope of the fare changes are summarized below, with a detailed proposal included as Attachment 1. Summary of Proposed Changes: The base cash fare is proposed to increase 50 cents to for adults and 25 cents for senior/disabled to S1.25. This is viewed as a cash surcharge, as the Clipper fares have no proposed increase. All paper products, including punch cards, paper monthly passes, and paper transfers are proposed to be eliminated. These fare products are intended to be replaced by Clipper products, such as the Clipper Monthly Pass, Clipper-only transfers, and Clipper-only Day Pass. This is following suit from the transitindustry as a whole, including our neighboring agencies Page 1 of II

52 such as AC Transit and SFMTA. In addition to moving away from paper products, staff proposes the elimination of the Midday 10am-2pm Free Fare program. A full table of changes is provided below. No changes are proposed to existing Clipper fare products. Review of Public Process: The initial proposal was presented to the Board in April 2018 and staff received authorization to conduct the public hearing process. Staff scheduled six (6) public hearings from June 25 th to July 25 th in the following cities: Martinez, Lafayette, Concord, Pleasant Hill, Walnut Creek and San Ramon. Additionally, comments were encouraged via mail, , phone, and on our website. The comments received were presented at the September Board meeting. In addition to the public hearing process, the fare proposal requires a Title VI review to ensure low income and minority communities are not disproportionately impacted. Legal counsel has reviewed the Page 2 of 11

53 public hearing process as well as the Title Vl analysis. A full summary of the public process is included as Attachment 2. Title Vl: Staff has completed the Title Vl analysis based on the final fare proposal. According to circular B, issued October 1, 2012 oftitle Vl ofthe 1964 Civic Rights act, fare changes are required to undergo a Fare Equity Analysis. As part of our board adopted Major Service Change Policy, fare or service changes must not have more than a 20% disparate impact to minorities or a disproportionate burden to minorities. As per the 2018 Title Vl program update adopted by the board, the County Connection service area average was 4.2% (150% federal poverty standard) and 41.6% minority (percent of census blocks with over 40% minorities). Staff used a ridership base to calculate impacts. The most recent ridership based data is derived from the 2018 Passenger Onboard Survey, which is used to analyze cross tabulations to establish low-income and minority use of each of our fare products to determine if there are any disparate impacts in the fare proposal. The attached Title Vl analysis did not find any disparate impacts to minorities or any disproportionate burdens to low-income populations, with only a 6.1% burden and 6.3% impact. The full Fare Equity Analysis is included as Attachment 3. Financial Implications: Estimated revenue generated by this fare proposal will depend on the level of ridership loss. Staff estimates that ridership may drop between 5-10%, which would equate to an annual increase of revenue between 5500,000 (at a 10% drop) and 9700,000 (at a 5% drop). Recommendation: Staff recommends that the A&F Committee forward this item to the Board for approval. Attachments: Attachment 1: Initial Fare Proposal Attachment 2: Public Outreach Summary Attachment 3: Title VI Fare Equity Analysis Page 3 of II

54 Attachment 1: Initial Fare Proposal Projections updated to reflect FY18 figures. April version used FY17 figures. Background: Current budget projections demonstrate that expenses are increasing more rapidly than known revenue streams resulting in an undesirable loss of reserves. In light of these upcoming budgetary challenges staff has begun the process of exploring potential solutions, one reasonable option is raising the current base fare and potentially restructure the current County Connection fare system. The last time fares were increased was in 2009, nearly ten years ago, as a response to the loss in revenue resulting from the economic crises of Although the Board approved a fare increase in 2009, it was really adopting a pre-planned fare increase scheduled to take place in 2010 but implemented one year early due to financial necessity. The last fare increase plan was a five year program with a series of pre-scheduled fare increases that was adopted in Moving forward staff would not recommend a multi-year plan as part of this work since future fare increases would be anticipated to the Clipper fare structure requiring a coordinated agreement with the other east bay operators. As a result, this body of work will focus solely on the non-clipper fares, i.e. cash, punch cards, monthly cards and transfers. Since 2009, many neighboring agencies have either increased cash fares, eliminated transfers, or introduced a cash surcharge to encourage Clipper usage. AC Transit, TriDelta Transit, SolTrans and San Joaquin Regional Transit (SJRTD) have all eliminated transfers and SJRTD have eliminated all paper products. As part of our ongoing review of operations and projected revenue, staff has prepared a detailed fare analyses with the goal of simplifying the fare structure and potentially optimizing revenue while mitigating ridership loss. By restructuring the existing fare system staff anticipates more customers will use the Clipper system resulting in faster boarding times with less disputes between operators and customers. Additionally this will streamline the administrative processes in purchasing, distributing and accounting for a myriad of paper fare products. Staff also expects a larger base of Clipper users will ease the transition to Clipper II. Finally, and most importantly, staff believes this will increase fare revenue bringing budgetary projections more in line with anticipated expenses as well as maintain the Authority's fare recovery ratio such that other revenue streams are not compromised such as new the STA Block Grant. Due to the complexities of modifying transit fares in the current environment this work represents a coordinated multi departmental effort including the Finance department, Planning Page 4 of II

55 department and the Marketing department. Staff will continue to use multiple disciplines in order to achieve a successful restructuring of the County Connection fare structure. Proposed Modification to the Existing Fare System: Cash Fares Adult cash fares are proposed to be raised to S2.50, with Senior/Disabled local and express rides increasing to S1.25. This is in contrast to Clipper single fares, which would remain unchanged (52 Adult/91 Senior). This is in part an effort to increase revenue as well as a cash surcharge to guide our customers to use Clipper, which speeds fare payment and is easier for the drivers as they can continue focusing on operating the vehicle instead of facilitating cash payments. For purposes of our revenue projection, we assume about half of current cash payers will switch to Clipper payment. Transfers While increasing the cash fare may seem to be the core element of the proposal, the elimination of paper transfers, will have a much bigger impact on our bottom line. Currently, County Connection has a generous paper transfer policy oftwo hours on weekdays and up to three hours on weekends. This paper transfer slip allows for unlimited rides during this period. Transfers are particularly vulnerability to fraud and result in the highest number of uncomfortable fare disputes between operators and passengers. Since transfers will still be available to customers through Clipper, the elimination of paper transfers should provide a significant incentive to shift to the use of the Clipper product. Additionally, as customers make the shift to Clipper and begin using the system staff anticipates more customers will realize the savings of the bargain day pass potentially resulting in increased ridership. In addition to the elimination of bus to bus paper transfers, staff proposes to eliminate the paper BART transfers, which reduces cash fares by S1.OO. This BART transfer discount will still be available automatically when using a Clipper Card from BART to a County Connection bus. As with other transit agencies, no reciprocal BART discount is offered when transferring to BART from a County Connection bus. Commuter Cards are a program to purchase 20 bus rides and 20 BART transfer rides, which is proposed for elimination to be replaced by Clipper. Paper Passes Before the launch of Clipper, County Connection introduced several paper pass products intended to provide a discount and convenience for frequent users. These products include senior and adult punch cards, a paper adult monthly pass, and commuter cards. For all proposals, Page 5 of II

56 these are proposed to be eliminated as we now have Clipper. This will reduce stafftime delivering the paper passes to various vendors and will incentivize the use of Clipper. Staff will promote the Clipper Day Pass to replace many of these paper products. Senior Midday Free In January 2014, the Senior Midday Free Fare from 10am to 2pm was introduced. Since then, we have heard anecdotally from operators that abuse such as getting a paper transfer from a 'free bus' for subsequent use, as well as other anecdotes that seniors have just shifted trips they already intended to make outside of the free midday. With Clipper, seniors can still ride for only S1.OO for a single fare, and S1.75 with Clipper Day Pass. Staff proposes to eliminate the Senior Midday Free Fare from 10am to 2pm. Express Fares All cash fare increases will subsequently eliminate the current higher fare surcharge for express routes. This will streamline our system and will allow for more seamless use of parallel routes for regular pass holders. Summer Youth Pass As part of this proposal, the Summer Youth Pass will be modified to become an unlimited pass for S60 for the whole summer. The previous Youth Pass was a punch card for 20 rides for S15. This change is proposed to be consistent with our neighboring transit agencies and may induce more ridership due to the unlimited nature of the pass as opposed to youth riders rationing their punch card trips. Clipper For current Clipper users, nothing will change except the possible elimination of the Senior Midday Free. One issue that will effect revenue is our agreement with the Clipperfare contractor, which charges a transaction fee of around 6% per fare. County Connection will work to promote Clipper use including the Clipper Only Day Pass, which is automatically loaded when two fares on County Connection, Wheels, Tri-Delta, or WestCat are purchased via your Clipper Card. This is commonly called an accumulator pass, which caps maximum fares. A day pass is S3.75 for Adults and S1.75 for Senior/Disabled. Day Passes are underutilized at this time as only about 70 or so day passes are sold per month on our buses. In contrast, nearby properties like SamTrans sell over 15,000 day passes per month. If one takes two buses a day or more per day outside of the transfer window, converting to a day pass from two cash fares will actually be a fare decrease as you save a quarter from current fares and when fares increase to S12.50, or S5 for two fares. In addition, the elimination of paper transfers will likely induce more Clipper use as that will be the only way to transfer for free. Page 6 of II

57 For a more simplified summary of the proposed modification please refer to the chart below: Page 7 of 11

58 JJ I e i t )ai! a *i r r I s I sa si I e a a s j )] i)f }!i ) i 6i i I i a i i I J i ai East Bay Day Pass Accumulator - Adult S 3.75 S 3.75 Adults/Youth: Fares on County Connection, TriDelta Transit, Wheels, and WestCAT routes are capped at tliis inaximuin daily fai-e with use of e-cash. East Bay Day PassAccumulator - Senior/Disabled!' 1.75 S 1.75 Senior/Disabled: Maximum daily fare Accepted for local bus service on County East Bay Regional 31-day pass - local i-outes S S East Bay Regional 31-day pass - express routes S S BART Clipper transfers - Adult S 1.00 S 1.00 BARTClipper transfei-s - Senior/Disabled S O.50 S O.50 Connectioi'i, TriDelta Ti-ansit, Wheels, and WestCAT (except Lyi'ix). Accepted foi- express bus service oi'i Cocinty Connection, TriDelta Trai'isit, Wlieels, and WestCAT (except Lynx). Clipper transfer credit automatically given coi'iiing from BART. Clipper transfer credit automatically given coming from BART. Clipper transfers (Internal) Free Free 2 liour transfer automatically given on Clipper. Although the proposed modification to the existing County Connection fare structure and rate is rather bold, it is in keeping with the direction that other transit agencies within the region are already moving to. Additionally it is important to keep in mind this is just an initial proposal that requires a public outreach process as well as a Title Vl analyses and a fare equity analyses. Staff will bring back to the committee the results from each of these processes which will also provide the opportunity to modify the proposal as the committee and the Board deems necessary. Public Outreach: Staff anticipates a high level of public interest and will conduct extensive public outreach. In addition to public meetings and a public hearing, the public will have the opportunity to comment via , calling customer service, and on all County Connection social media platforms. All information associated with the fare proposal will be readily available on our website. County Connection staff, with the support from legal counsel, will also complete Title Vl and a Fare Equity Analysis. Comments received during the public outreach process and all reports will be made available to the committee and the Board before a decision on fares or fare structure is finalized. Financial Implications: There are two significant factors that will have an impact on projected revenues from the proposed modification to the County Connection fare structure. The most difficult factor to estimate is the loss in ridership due to a fare increase. Fare elasticity has long been troublesome for the transit industry given the wide array of variables from income levels, car ownership, gas prices, trip frequency, among others. A frequently-used rule-of-thumb, known as the Simpson - Curtin rule, is that each 3% fare increase reduces ridership by 1%. Like most rules-of-thumb, this Page 8 of II

59 can be useful for rough analysis but it is too simplistic and outdated for detailed planning and modeling. Due to variability and uncertainty it is preferable to use ranges rather than point values for elasticity analysis. Based on the studies reviewed, it is suggested that any time a bus transit agency raises fares there should be an expected reduction of 10 to 25 percent in riders. County Connectaion has never experienced anything like this after a fare increase, following the fare increase in 2003 ridership fell by 1.3% and following the fare increase in 2006 ridership actually went up by 3.1%. Following the fare increase in 2009 ridership plunged by a large margin but staff links the drop in ridership to the 24% reduction in service provided and not the increase in fares. However, despite County Connection's historically low sensitivity to elasticity, staff does believe there will be a negative impact to raising fares. The current year to date data collected has demonstrated about a 3% drop in ridership without modifying the current fare structure, therefore staff estimates with current ridership erosion that and a fare increase will result in a loss of ridership ranging from 5% to 10%. 17,000 Historical Average Weekday Riderst'iip, Fare Increases 16,m0 I 24%Serv}ceCut i 15,000 FYO3: Fare Increase 14,000 Pf06: Fare Increase 13,000 12,000 II,000 10,000 P!03 FYO4 P105 FYO6 FYO7 P/08 FYO9 FYIO FVII P112 The second factor that is difficult to calculate is the rate at which customers will adopt the Clipper card as a result of both the increase of the fares and the elimination of the paper products. Since the Clipper card maintains the benefits of the paper products such as free transfers and has additional products discounting fares such as the day pass as well as the cost per transaction to County Connection for customers using the system, it is imperative for staff to estimate the number of non-clipper customers making the transition to Clipper. With the absence of significant data to make this calculation staff has estimated that 50% of the non-clipper passengers will make this transition. Page 9 of II

60 Using these two projections staff estimates projected increase in fare revenue of about S500,000 assuming a10% drop in ridership to about 5700,000 assuming ridership only decreases 5%. Since fare elasticity is so difficult to pin down staff believes it is more productive to provide a reasonable range for potential ridership decreases. The following chart provides more detail regarding projected revenue increases. The chart assumes 50 percent ofthe current non-clipper users will make the transition to the Clipper system. Additionally as staff conducts more public outreach and conducts a fare equity analyses these assumptions may change. Staff will bring updated financial analyses to the committee if changes are made. Page 20 of II

61 Attachment 2: Public Comments o Public Hearings: Although there were few formal comments made during each of the public hearings, all seniors and disabled attendants (15 total) were against the eliminations of the free midday fare. The only exception being attendees at the San Ramon meeting (3 total). o OnlineComments:TheonlinecommentsectionreceivedlOcommentsopposingtheelimination and 2 in favor. o BRIDGE: County Connection staff received letters from the teachers of the Mt. Diablo BRIDGE Program advocating for their students and their use of the free midday fare for field trips. County Connection will continue to offer the free midday fare to students in the BRIDGE program, with a valid ID card. Page II of 11

62 Fare Equity Analysis For County Connection s 2019 Service Restructure Plan Central Contra Costa Transit Authority January 2019 Submitted by Sean Hedgpeth, Manager of Planning

63 Table of Contents Background... 3 Title VI Requirements and CCCTA Title VI Policies... 4 Fare Equity Analysis Methodology... 5 Ridership Based Demographics (2018 Onboard Survey)... 7 Proposed Fare Changes... 8 Potential Adverse Impacts Increase in Paper Fare Elimination of Paper Transfers Elimination of Senior/Disabled Midday 10am 2pm Free Fare Clipper Fare Payment Mitigation Public Comment and Outreach

64 Background Current budget projections demonstrate that expenses are increasing more rapidly than known revenue streams resulting in an undesirable loss of reserves. In light of these upcoming budgetary challenges, staff has begun the process of raising the current base fare and restructuring the current County Connection fare system. The last time fares were increased was in 2009, nearly ten years ago, as a response to the loss in revenue resulting from the economic crises of Since 2009, many neighboring agencies have either increased cash fares, eliminated transfers, or introduced a cash surcharge to encourage usage of Clipper, our regional transit smartcard. AC Transit, TriDelta Transit, SolTrans and San Joaquin Regional Transit (SJRTD) have all eliminated transfers and SJRTD has eliminated all paper products. As part of our ongoing review of operations and projected revenue, staff has prepared a detailed fare analyses with the goal of simplifying the fare structure and potentially optimizing revenue while mitigating ridership loss. The proposed changes are as follows: 1) raise fares on all single ride cash fares; 2) eliminate all free transfers for cash fares; 3) eliminate all paper passes, consisting of the Regular Monthly East Bay Pass, Express Monthly East Bay Pass, Adult/Youth 12 Ride Passes, Adult/Youth 12 Ride Express Passes, Senior/RTC/Medicare 20 Ride Passes, and Commuter Card; and 4) elimination of free midday fares. No changes are proposed to fares on Clipper, except for the elimination of the free midday fares. Transfers and monthly passes will still be available through Clipper. By restructuring the existing fare system staff anticipates more customers will use the Clipper system resulting in faster boarding times with fewer disputes between operators and customers. Additionally, this will streamline the administrative processes in purchasing, distributing and accounting for a myriad of paper fare products. Finally, and most importantly, staff believes this will increase fare revenue bringing budgetary projections more in line with anticipated expenses as well as maintain the Authority s fare recovery ratio such that other revenue streams are not compromised. Prior to approving the fare changes, the Board must review and approve this equity analysis, which assess the impact of each fare change on low income and minority communities. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) prohibits discrimination by recipients of federal financial assistance. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) further requires that recipients of FTA financial assistance conduct an analysis on all fare changes, including elimination of fare products, to assess the impacts of those changes on low income and minority populations. This equity analysis indicates that transfers for cash fares and the passes proposed for elimination are used disproportionately by non minority and non low income riders. While cash fares and the Midday Free Fares are used disproportionately by both low income and minority riders, the disparity does not exceed the thresholds established in CCCTA's disproportionate burden and disparate impact policies. Despite the lack of disparate impact or disproportionate burden, CCCTA is undertaking a series of mitigation measures to offset the impacts of these fare changes on all riders, including low income and minority riders

65 Title VI Requirements and CCCTA Title VI Policies In October 2012, the Federal Transit Administration released Circular B, which provides guidelines for compliance with Title VI (Circular). Under the Circular, transit operators are required to study proposed fare changes and major service changes before the changes are adopted to ensure that they do not have a discriminatory effect based on race, ethnicity, national origin or socio economic status of affected populations. As a first step, public transit providers must adopt their own Major Service Change," Disparate Impact, and Disproportionate Burden, policies. The three policies, and County Connection's proposals, are described below. Disparate Impact Policy Description: The Disparate Impact Policy establishes a threshold for determining whether proposed fare or major service changes have a disproportionately adverse effect on minority populations relative to non minority populations on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin. The threshold is the difference between the burdens borne by, or benefits experienced by, minority populations compared to non minority populations. Exceeding the threshold means either that a fare or major service change negatively impacts minority populations more than non minority populations, or that the change benefits non minority populations more than minority populations. A change with disparate impacts that exceed the threshold can only be adopted (a) if there is substantial legitimate justification for the change, and (b) if no other alternatives exist that would serve the same legitimate objectives but with less disproportionate effects on the basis of race, color or national origin. Proposed Policy: County Connection establishes that a fare change, major service change or other policy has a disparate impact if minority populations will experience 20% more of the cumulative burden, or experience 20% less of the cumulative benefit, relative to non minority populations, unless (a) there is substantial legitimate justification for the change, and (b) no other alternatives exist that would serve the same legitimate objectives but with less disproportionate effects on the basis of race, color or national origin. Disproportionate Burden Policy Description: The Disproportionate Burden Policy establishes a threshold for determining whether proposed fare or major service changes have a disproportionately adverse effect on lowincome populations relative to non low income populations. The threshold is the difference between the burdens borne by, and benefits experienced by, low income populations compared to non low income populations. Exceeding the threshold means either that a fare or service change negatively impacts low income populations more than non low income populations, or that the change benefits non low income populations more than low income populations

66 If the threshold is exceeded, County Connection must avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts where practicable. Proposed Policy: County Connection establishes that a fare change, major service change or other policy has a disproportionate burden if low income populations will experience 20% more of the cumulative burden, or experience 20% less of the cumulative benefit, relative to non lowincome populations unless the disproportionate effects are mitigated. Public Outreach: In developing these policies, County Connection staff conducted public outreach (detailed below), including three public meetings with language services available, to provide information and get feedback on the draft policies. Staff incorporated public input gathered through this outreach into the policies proposed for Board approval. Meetings: March 28, 2013 Monument Corridor Transportation Action Team Comments: Include an annual review to ensure that major service change threshold has not been crossed April 15, 2013 Public Meeting at the San Ramon Community Center Comments: Consistent with prior comment to include an annual review for major service changes May 14, 2013 Public Meeting at the Walnut Creek Library Comments: None April 1 st June 1 st, 2013 Policies available for comments on County Connection Website June 20, 2013 Public Hearing and Proposed Adoption at the County Connection Board of Directors Meeting Comments: None Fare Equity Analysis Methodology Methodology The Circular requires County Connection to conduct a fare equity analysis for all fare changes, regardless of the amount of increase or decrease, to evaluate the effects of fare changes on low income populations in addition to Title VI protected populations, with a few enumerated exceptions. The exceptions are:

67 (i) Spare the air days or other instances when a local municipality or transit agency has declared that all passengers ride free. (ii) Temporary fare reductions that are mitigating measures for other actions. (iii) Promotional fare reductions. If a promotional or temporary fare reduction lasts longer than six months For proposed changes that would increase or decrease fares on the entire system, or on certain transit modes, or by fare payment type or fare media, the fare equity analysis must analyze available information generated from ridership surveys indicating whether minority and/or low income riders are disproportionately more likely to use the mode of service, payment type, or payment media that would be subject to the fare change. The analysis must do the following: (i) Determine the number and percent of users of each fare media being changed; (ii) Review fares before the change and after the change; (iii) Compare the differences for each particular fare media between minority users and overall users; and (iv) Compare the differences for each particular fare media between low income users and overall users. This analysis analyzes the impacts of the fare changes by comparing the percentage of the low income riders using each fare product against the percentage of all riders who use the fare product. This metric is the clearest way to identify fare products that are used disproportionately by low income and/or minority riders. For a fare product experiencing a price increase, if the difference in the usage percentage by minority riders is greater than the usage percentage by the ridership overall is 20% or greater, a prima facie case of a disparate impact exists. If the difference in the usage percentage by low income riders is greater than the usage percentage by the ridership overall, a prima facie case of a disproportionate burden exists. Where a prima facie case of a disparate impact exists, CCCTA will identify substantial legitimate justifications for the change and evaluate less discriminatory alternatives for accomplishing those objectives. Where a disproportionate burden exists, CCCTA will identify practical steps to mitigate the impacts and evaluate available alternatives that may have less of a burden on low income riders. Dataset The equity analysis uses data from County Connection's 2018 Onboard Survey, which was conducted recently in March and April County Connection retained the consulting firm Nelson Nygaard to conduct an onboard survey, which is required triennially by the Federal Transit Administration. County Connection received 907 responses, of which 783 had income information and 822 had minority status included. 703 responses came from respondents who paid a fare for that route or trip. This data was weighted with Fiscal Year 2018 annual ridership for each fare category. In some cases, there were fare categories that are recorded on the bus that were not specifically asked about in the onboard survey fare payment question, so those categories were combined when weighting the onboard survey responses to actual reported ridership via our fare category bus data terminals. For

68 example, the cash category included adult and senior categories as well as express and local. This had to be added together to be indexed to the onboard survey. Data was first sorted to only compare fare categories that were actually paid. Free bus routes (like Routes 4, 5 and 7) were not included in the analysis due to the fact that those fares did not have any proposed changes. Additional analysis of the elimination of paper transfers was also conducted. This analysis sorts fare payment and demographic information by number buses respondents took to complete their one way trip. Ridership Based Demographics (2018 Onboard Survey) The following graphs form a profile of our ridership that was used for the equity analysis. Figure 1, Household Income Less than $15,000 32% $15,000 to $34,999 26% $35,000 to $74,999 24% $75,000 to $99,999 7% $100,000 or more 11% The analysis defines low income populations as persons with a household income of under $35,000. This is based on the 150% of federal median poverty for a family of four, which is $36,450. The 2018 Onboard Survey asked riders to identify their income within a range. $35,000 was the closest threshold to the federal 150% median poverty amount of $36,450 used in the 2018 Onboard Survey. As shown in figure 1, about 58% of survey respondents who paid a fare are considered low income. Figure 2, Ethnicity and Race Latino 23% Not Latino 77% American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% Asian 17% Black/African American 19% Multiracial 8% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2% Other (please specify) 10% White 43%

69 This analysis defines minority as any survey respondent who was non white and/or self identified as a Latino. This includes Latinos who identify racially as "white." In figure 2, one can see that almost one quarter of the ridership who paid a fare self reported themselves as Latino. In addition to a Latino ethnicity question, survey respondents were asked what race they most identify with. About 63% of fare paying respondents met the criteria for minority status. Figure 3, Income by Ethnicity and Race Proposed Fare Changes There are five types of changes included in this proposal: 1) increase in cash fares; 2) elimination of transfers for cash fares; 3) elimination of six paper passes; 4) elimination of free midday rides; and 5) restructuring the Summer Youth Pass. There are no proposed changes to Clipper fares or transfers, except that the free midday fares will also affect both cash and Clipper fares. Each change is described in more detail below. Increase in Cash Fares Household Income by Ethnicity and Race Ethnicity Less than $15,000 $15,000 to $34,999 $35,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 or more Latino 37.8% 33.9% 17.3% 6.3% 4.7% Not Latino 28.6% 24.7% 27.0% 7.4% 12.3% Race American Indian/Alaskan Native 16.7% 50.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% Asian 23.3% 16.7% 27.8% 15.6% 16.7% Black/African American 29.9% 26.2% 27.1% 5.6% 11.2% Multiracial 28.3% 28.3% 21.7% 4.3% 17.4% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 8.3% 58.3% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% Other (please specify) 47.1% 27.5% 9.8% 7.8% 7.8% White 33.2% 26.6% 25.4% 5.3% 9.4% Adult cash fares on regular routes are proposed to be raised from $2.00 to $2.50, with express routes increasing from $2.25 to $2.50. Senior/Disabled local and express rides increasing from $1.00 to $1.25. This is in contrast to Clipper single fares, which would remain unchanged ($2 Adult/$1 Senior). Clipper cards are available for purchase for $3, and are widely available, as further discussed below. Additionally, an increase to the base fixed route cash fare will trigger raising the ADA paratransit fare from the current $4.00 per ride to $5.00 per ride, or double the cost of the base fixed route fare. Elimination of Transfers for Cash Fares Currently, County Connection has a generous transfer policy. Riders who pay cash receive a paper transfer slip (paper transfer) that allows for unlimited rides on County Connection for two hours on weekdays and three hours on weekends. Riders who pay by Clipper are able to transfer with their

70 Clipper cards and do not require a paper transfer slip. This proposal would eliminate paper transfers, but not Clipper transfers. Since transfers will still be available to customers through Clipper, the elimination of paper transfers should provide a significant incentive to shift to the use of the Clipper product. Additionally, as customers make the shift to Clipper and begin using the system, staff anticipates more customers will realize the savings of the bargain day pass, which is only $3.75 for Adults and $1.75 for Senior/Disabled for unlimited daily rides, potentially resulting in increased ridership. In addition to the elimination of bus to bus paper transfers, staff proposes to eliminate the paper BART transfers, which reduces cash fares by $1.00 coming from a BART train. This BART transfer discount will still be available automatically when using a Clipper Card from BART to a County Connection bus. As with other Bay Area transit agencies, no reciprocal BART discount is offered when transferring to BART from a County Connection bus. Paper Passes Before the launch of Clipper, County Connection introduced several paper pass products intended to provide a discount and convenience for frequent users. These products are senior and adult punch cards, a paper adult monthly pass, and commuter cards. These passes are proposed to be eliminated as we now have Clipper. This will reduce staff time delivering the paper passes to various vendors and will incentivize the use of Clipper. Staff will promote the Clipper Day Pass to replace many of these paper products. Regular Monthly East Bay Pass: This $60.00 pass allows for unlimited rides for one calendar month on all regular routes on County Connection TriDelta Transit, Wheels, and WestCAT. Express Monthly East Bay Pass: This $70.00 pass allows for unlimited rides for one calendar month on all regular routes on County Connection TriDelta Transit, Wheels, and WestCAT. Adult/Youth 12 Ride Pass: This $20.00 pass provides a discount to riders on regular County Connection routes ($24 value). Adult/Youth 12 Ride Express Pass: This $23.00 pass provides a discount to riders on regular County Connection routes ($27 value). Senior RTC/Medicare 20 Ride Pass: This $15.00 pass provides a discount to riders on regular or express County Connection routes ($20 value). Commuter Card: This $40.00 pass provides riders with 20 rides on regular routes and 20 transfers from BART ($60.00 value). The Regular Monthly East Bay Pass and Express Monthly East Bay Pass have near equivalent passes available through Clipper, the East Bay Regional 31 Day Pass (local routes) and the East Bay Regional 31 day pass (express routes). Senior/Disabled Midday Free

71 Introduced in January 2014, the Senior/Disabled Midday Free Fare Staff proposes to eliminate the Senior Midday Free Fare from 10am to 2pm. Seniors and persons with disabilities can still ride for only $1.00 for a single fare, and $1.75 with Clipper Day Pass. Clipper For current Clipper users, nothing will change except the possible elimination of the Senior/Disabled Midday Free. One issue that will affect revenue is our agreement with the Clipper fare contractor, which charges a transaction fee of around 6% per fare. County Connection will work to promote Clipper use including the Clipper Only Day Pass, which is automatically loaded when two fares on County Connection, Wheels, Tri Delta, or WestCat are purchased via a Clipper Card. This is commonly called an accumulator pass, which caps maximum daily fares. A day pass is $3.75 for Adults and $1.75 for Senior/Disabled. Day Passes are underutilized at this time as only about 70 day passes are sold per month on our buses. In contrast, SamTrans sell over 15,000 day passes per month. If one takes two buses a day or more per day outside of the transfer window, converting to a day pass from two cash fares will actually be a fare decrease as you save a quarter from current fares and $1.75 when fares increase to $2.50, or $5 for two fares. In addition, the elimination of paper transfers will likely induce more Clipper use as that will be the only way to transfer for free. For a more simplified summary of the proposed modification please refer to figure 4 below:

72 Figure 4, Fare Modification Change Table

73 Potential Adverse Impacts Each of the proposed changes constitutes an adverse impact, either in the form of a fare increase or the elimination of a discount. In figure 5, the proposed fare changes were compared to the system wide impacts, which include the fare types that are not proposed to change. The proposed fare changes affect 21% of riders. However, the fare changes affect 28% of minority riders and 27% of low income riders. Figure 5, Disparate Impact and Disproportionate Burden Analysis Fare Changes Borne Impact/Burden System wide Average Impact/Burden Delta Minority Burden 27.7% 21.4% +6.3% Low Income Impact 26.6% 20.5% +6.1% In figure 6 on the following page, this analysis was further broken down by fare type. None of the proposed changes impose a disparate impact or disproportionate burden in any fare type. In fact, lowincome and minorities use Clipper 9% and 15% more often than the system wide numbers for the entire body of ridership. In figure 7, the fare changes are compared with absolute and percentage changes

74 Figure 6, Burden and Impact of Fare Changes by Fare Type Fare Types 12 Ride Local/Express Punch card 20 Ride Senior/Medicare Punch card Total Ridership % of total Low Income % Low Income Total Disproportionate Burden Minority % Minority Total Disproportionate Impact 226, % 1.2% 9,139 7% 1.1% 8,853 7% 46, % 0.5% 4,176 1% 0.3% 2,149 1% Cash 1 858, % 38.4% 294,510 6% 36.0% 282,312 4% Clipper Card 2 801, % 39.2% 300,351 9% 44.6% 350,171 15% Commuter Card 20, % 0.1% 520 1% 0.1% 830 1% Monthly Pass 3 91, % 0.6% 4,461 3% 0.6% 4,605 3% Transfer 4 371, % 3.8% 28,904 10% 2.7% 21,349 11% Midday Free 5 248, % 16.2% 124,150 7% 14.6% 114,591 5% Grand Total 2,664, , ,858 1 Includes Adult and Senior Local/Express Cash (not asked separately), BART transfers (paper discount slip where the difference is made up with cash) 2 Includes all Clipper products including local/express adult/senior single fares, day pass, monthly pass, Clipper transfers and Bishop Ranch Clipper cards 3 Paper Monthly Passes only (local and express). Likely smaller due to Clipper Monthly passes being included in the Clipper fare demographic 4 County Connection Paper Transfers, Select East Bay transfers from outside agencies (Soltrans, Tri Delta, WestCat, Wheels, FAST) 5 Midday Free demographic profile obtained from filtering free fare routes and Route 6 St Mary's free fare respondents

75 Figure 7 Count Cost Change Usage by Group Fare Type Existing Proposed Absolute Percentage Low Minority Overall Income Cash Fare 1 $2.00 $2.50 $ % 294, , ,782 Paper $0 $2.00 $ ,904 21, ,467 Transfer 2 12 Ride $20/$23 $24/$27 $3 15%/13% 9,139 8, ,520 Pass 3 20 Ride $15.00 $20 $5 33% 4,176 2,149 46,748 Pass Commuter $40.00 $60 $20 50% ,050 Card Monthly $60.00/ 4,461 4,605 91,047 Pass 4 $70.00 Midday Fare 5 124, , ,300 $0 $1.25 ($1.00 with Clipper) Clipper 6 Various No change $1.25 ($1.00 with Clipper) 300, , , , ,858 2,664,622 Percentage Cost Change Usage by Group Fare Type Existing Proposed Absolute Percentage Low Minority Overall Income Cash Fare $2.00 $2.50 $ % 38.4% 36.0% 32.2% Paper $0 $2.00 $ % 2.7% 13.9% Transfer 12 Ride Pass $20/$23 $24/$27 $3 15%/13% 1.2% 1.1% 8.5% 20 Ride Pass $15.00 $20 $5 33% 0.5% 0.3% 1.8% Commuter $40.00 $60 $20 50% 0.1% 0.1% 0.8% Card Monthly Pass $60.00/ $ % 0.6% 3.4% 1 The 2018 Onboard Survey did not collect separate statistics for adult and senior cash fares. These figures also include BART transfers. 2 This figure includes transfers 3 The 2018 Onboard Survey did not collect separate statistics for express and regular 12 ride passes. 4 The 2018 Onboard Survey did not collect separate statistics for express and regular monthly passes. 5 For this equity analysis, onboard survey responses from completely fare free routes 4, 5, and 7 and routes that do not operate during the midday were omitted from the analysis. 6 Combines all Clipper fares, including single ride, passes, and transfers

76 Senior/ Disabled Midday Fare $0 $1.25 ($1.00 with Clipper) $1.25 ($1.00 with Clipper) 16.2% % Clipper Various No change 39.2% 44.6% 33.2% 100% 100% 100% The paper transfer increase, and elimination of the 12 ride and 20 ride passes, Commuter Card, and Monthly Passes do not have disparate impacts or disproportionate burdens because they are disproportionately used by non low income and non minority riders. The increase in the cash fare and the elimination of the senior/disabled midday fare disproportionately affect both low income and minority riders. In neither case, however, does the difference in usage by low income riders as compared to the ridership as whole, and minority riders as compared to the ridership as a whole does not exceed the threshold of 20% set forth in CCCTA's disparate impact policy or disproportionate burden policy. Further analysis of CCCTA's justification for the increases to the cash fare and midday fare, as well as the elimination of the paper transfer, and of mitigation measures to offset the impacts of these changes is set forth below. Increase in Paper Fare There are several substantial legitimate justifications underlying the increase in the paper fare. It is a preferred policy of County Connection to move more transactions to Clipper, which reduces the possibly for fraud and speeds up fare payment and therefore dwell time on buses. A reduction in paper fares will also speed up fare payment, allow drivers to continue focusing on operating the vehicle instead of facilitating cash payments, and reduce administrative burdens on CCCTA such as having to collect the cash from fare boxes. All cash fare increases will eliminate the current higher fare surcharge for express routes. This will streamline our system and will allow for more seamless use of parallel routes for regular pass holders. An increase in Clipper fares will also allow for more accurate data collection. CCCTA has not identified any feasible alternatives to accomplish these legitimate justifications. There will also be an incidental increase in revenue, though staff projects that a substantial number of riders will switch to Clipper single ride and day passes, avoiding the impact of the fare increase. In order to mitigate the financial effects of the increase in the paper fare on riders, including low income and minority riders, CCCTA will engage in a series of promotions to encourage riders to obtain and use Clipper Cards. Further discussion of these efforts are detailed below. Elimination of Paper Transfers The users of paper transfers are disproportionately non minority and non low income as compared to the ridership as a whole. About 54% of riders only need one bus to complete a one way trip, so the

77 elimination of paper transfers will not affect them. Non white riders actually take less transfers than their white counterparts according to the onboard survey. However, low income riders are about twice as likely to need two or more transfers. Paper transfer riders taking two or more transfers constitute only 18% of all paper transfer riders, and paper transfers make up less than 4% of low income riders and less than 3% of minority riders, so this affects a very small number of riders. Figure 8, System wide Need for Paper Transfers on a One Way Trip # of Transfers % None 54% One 28% Two 14% Three or more 4% Figure 9, Number of Paper Transfers by Race/Ethnicity Number of Transfers Required for One Way Trip Race None Total American Indian/Alaskan Native 1% 1% 1% 0% 1% Asian 16% 17% 14% 22% 16% Black/African American 18% 22% 18% 11% 19% Multiracial 10% 5% 9% 7% 8% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 2% 0% 2% 11% 2% Other (please specify) 9% 10% 11% 26% 10% White 45% 44% 45% 22% 44% Ethnicity Latino 22% 20% 30% 28% 23% Not Latino 78% 80% 70% 72% 77% Figure 10, Number of Paper Transfers by Income Number of Transfers Required for One Way Trip Income None Total Less than $15,000 29% 30% 43% 39% 32% $15,000 to $34,999 24% 28% 31% 35% 27% $35,000 to $74,999 25% 27% 16% 17% 24% $75,000 to $99,999 10% 5% 0% 9% 7% $100,000 or more 12% 10% 10% 0% 11% There are several substantial legitimate justifications for the eliminating the paper transfer. Paper transfers are particularly vulnerable to fraud and result in the highest number of uncomfortable fare disputes between operators and passengers. The elimination of paper transfers, while retaining Clipper

78 transfers, will further encourage the usage of Clipper. There will also be incidental increases in revenue. CCCTA has not identified any feasible alternatives to accomplish these legitimate justifications. In order to mitigate the financial effects of the elimination of paper transfers on riders, including lowincome and minority riders, CCCTA will engage in a series of promotions to encourage riders to obtain and use Clipper Cards. Further discussion of these efforts are detailed below. Elimination of Senior/Disabled Midday 10am 2pm Free Fare Comparing the percentage of low income and minority riders using the Midday Free Fare to the ridership as a whole indicates that the Midday Free Fare is used about 50% more frequently by lowincome and minority riders. However, when comparing the percentage of low income riders to nonlow income riders, and the percentage of minority riders to non minority riders, the usage percentages are quite similar. Figure 11, Midday Free Impacts Low income 50.0% Not Low Income 50.0% Delta 0.0% Minority 46.2% Non Minority 53.8% Delta 7.7% There are several substantial legitimate justifications for eliminating the Midday Free Fare. Staff has heard anecdotally from operators that abuse is occurring through this program, such as getting a paper transfer from a free bus for subsequent use. CCCTA is the only transit agency in Contra Costa County offering a similar free fare, so elimination of the fare will promote consistency with other agencies. There will also be an increase in revenue generated by the additional fares. As a mitigation measure, certain populations will be able to continue riding County Connection buses for free under the same terms as the Midday Free program. These free fares will require ID and participation in particular programs, instead of being generally applicable. Currently, the only group participating in this program is the Concord s Bridge Program for disabled adult education, though it may be expanded in the future This was an issue that was addressed to County Connection as part of our outreach efforts. As the continued midday free fares for certain groups constitute the continuation of an existing fare product, no separate analysis is necessary

79 Clipper Fare Payment Mitigation Riders should be able to avoid the impacts of the new fare changes by switching to Clipper. Clipper is accessible to all riders, including low income and minority riders. Cash fare users can add value to their Clipper Cards using cash at a number of Clipper locations. Clipper Since County Connection s adoption of Clipper in 2015, Clipper locations have steadily expanded across the service area. In January 2018, BART introduced a paper ticket surcharge. As part of this new policy, they have provided Clipper Card machines at all of their stations, including all of the stations in our service area. This creates a very convenient way for cash based passengers to load up a Clipper card with cash at some of our busiest stops. In addition to BART stations, all County Connection member jurisdictions have a Clipper outlet available via a Walgreens or Wholefoods location with the exception of Moraga (pop. 16,016) and Clayton (pop. 10,978), which have all day bus service to a Clipper location. Figure 12, Map of Clipper Card locations