REVISED Board of Directors Regular Meeting
May 9, 2011
MST Conference Room One Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey
10:00 a.m.
TRANSPORTATION: Ride Line 8 Ryan Ranch-Edgewater to MST Office
1. CALL TO ORDER
1-1. Roll call.
1-2. Pledge of Allegiance.
2. CLOSED SESSION
As permitted by Government Code §64956 et seq. of the State of California, The Board of Directors may adjourn to Closed Session to consider specific matters dealing with personnel and/or pending possible litigation and/or conferring with the Board's Meyers-Milias-Brown Act representative.
2-1. Conference with property negotiators. (APN 032 171 005; L.2.3, L.2.4.1, L.2.4.3, L.2.4.2, APN 031-011-056-000, L.5.1) (Carl Sedoryk) (No enclosure)
3. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
3-1. Report on Closed Session and possible action.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
4-1. Review highlights of Agenda. (Carl Sedoryk)
These items will be approved by a single motion. Anyone may request that an item be discussed and considered separately.
4-2. Adopt Resolution 2011-20 recognizing Steve Colburn, Coach Operator, as May Employee of the Month. (Robert Weber) (p. 1)
4-3. Minutes of the regular meeting of April 11, 2011. (Sonia Bannister) (p.3)
4-4. Disposal of property left aboard buses. (Sonia Bannister) (p. 9)
4-5. Financial Reports – March 2011. (Kathy Williams) (p. 11)
4-6. $130,000 Hastus (Giro, Inc.) multi-year maintenance and support contract agreement. (Mark Eccles) (p. 43)
4-7. South County Area Service Analysis adoption. (Hunter Harvath) (p. 45)
4-8. Adopt Resolution 2011-21 approving Homeland Security Grant Application authority. (Michelle Overmeyer) (p. 51)
4-9. Authorize vehicle donations for mini bus and passenger vans. (Michael Hernandez) (p. 55)
4-10. Appoint Nominating Committee. (Carl Sedoryk) (p. 57)
4-11. 2010 Community Stakeholder results. (Zoe Shoats) (p. 59)
End of Consent Agenda
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
5-1. Army Communities of Excellence 2011—US Army Garrison, Presidio of Monterey. (Mike Gallant)
5-2. May Employee of the Month- Steve Colburn, Coach Operator. (Robert Weber)
5-3. 20 years of Service- Michael Cargile, Communications Systems Specialist (Mike Hernandez)
5-4. Monterey Branch Line Light Rail Presentation – Transportation Agency for Monterey County (Debra Hale)
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the public may address the Board on any matter related to the jurisdiction of MST but not on the agenda. There is a time limit of not more than three minutes for each speaker. The Board will not take action or respond immediately to any public comments presented, but may choose to follow-up at a later time, either individually, through staff, or on a subsequent agenda.
7. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
No action required unless specifically noted.
7-1. Facilities Committee Meeting minutes – April 11, 2011. (Michael Hernandez) (p. 65)
7-2. Legislative Committee Meeting minutes – April 25, 2011. (Hunter Harvath) (p. 67)
8. BIDS/PROPOSALS
8-1. Award a $256,140.00 three-year contract to Silveira Building Services to provide janitorial services. (Carl Wulf) (p. 71)
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS
9-1. Conduct public hearing on FY 2011 Program of Projects. (Michelle Overmeyer) (p. 73)
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
10-1. South County update. (Hunter Harvath) (p. 75)
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. REPORTS, CORRESPONDENCE & INFORMATION ITEMS
The Board will receive and file these reports, which do not require any action by the Board.
12-1. General Manager/CEO Report. (p. 77)
12-2. TAMC Highlights – April 27, 2011. (p. 109)
12-3. Washington D.C. Lobbyist report –April 27, 2011. (p. 113)
12-4. State lobbyist report – April 29, 2011. (p. 115)
12-5. Staff trip reports. (p. 117)
12-6. Correspondence regarding Whispering Oaks. (p. 121)
13. COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS
13-1. Reports on meetings attended by Board members at MST expense (AB1234).
14. ANNOUNCEMENTS
15. ADJOURN
NEXT MEETING DATE: June 13, 2011 in MST Conference Room.
NEXT AGENDA DEADLINE: June 1, 2011
Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the Monterey-Salinas Transit Administration office at 1 Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey, CA during normal business hours.
Upon request, MST 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 at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to Sonia Bannister, MST, One Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey, CA 93940 or [email protected]
STEVEN COLBURN MAY 2011 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH
WHEREAS, each month Monterey-Salinas Transit recognizes an outstanding employee as Employee of the Month; and
WHEREAS, the Employee of the Month is recognized for their positive contribution to MST and to the entire community; and
WHEREAS, Steve Colburn began his career as a Coach Operator in September 1989. He has served as a Line Instructor and a Department of Transportation (DOT) certified Instructor since January of 2000. Last August, he was the recipient of an 18 Year Safe Driving Award; and
WHEREAS, Steve Colburn has previously been Employee of the Month three other times for his outstanding contribution during multiple projects, special events and substantial training efforts; and
WHEREAS, Steve Colburn provided valuable input and assistance during the development of the new fare structure, coordinated a major training effort of all MST’s Coach Operators, and worked long hours providing final testing and inspection of the new fareboxes prior to their deployment; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of Monterey-Salinas Transit recognizes Steve Colburn as Employee of the Month for May 2011; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Steve Colburn is to be congratulated for his excellent work at Monterey-Salinas Transit.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT PASSED AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2011-20 this 9th day of May 2011.
______Fernando Armenta Carl G. Sedoryk Chairman Secretary BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT April 11, 2011
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Armenta called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the MST Conference Room.
Present: Fernando Armenta County of Monterey Kristin Clark City of Del Rey Oaks Maria Orozco City of Gonzales John Huerta, Jr. City of Greenfield (10:15) Michael Powers (Alt) City of King Frank O’Connell City of Marina Libby Downey City of Monterey Alan Cohen City of Pacific Grove Sergio Sanchez City of Salinas David Pendergrass City of Sand City Alvin Edwards City of Seaside Patricia Stephens City of Soledad
Absent: Karen Sharp City of Carmel-By-The-Sea
Staff: Sonia Bannister Office Administrator Mike Gallant Planning Manager Kelly Halcon Director of Human Resources Hunter Harvath Asst. General Manager/Finance & Administration Michael Hernandez Asst. General Manager/COO Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO Zoe Shoats Marketing Analyst Robert Weber Director of Transportation Services Kathy Williams General Accounting Manager Tom Hicks CTSA Manager
Others: Artie Fields Salinas City Manager Jim Fink Citizen Alberto Villa Member of the public Ron Hughes KCPTA David C. Laredo De Lay & Laredo J. Scott Phillips Citizen Bob Parks ATU, Local 1225 Kay Cline Seaside resident Bill Weigle Seaside resident Honesto Costales, Jr. MST
Apology is made for any misspelling of a name. April 11, 2011 Minutes Page 2 of 5
2. CLOSED SESSION
The Board adjourned to Closed Session to meet with legal counsel regarding labor negotiations and general manager performance evaluation.
3. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
Upon returning to open session, Mr. Laredo reported that a status report was provided and no reportable action was taken.
4. CONSENT AGENDA
The consent agenda items consisted of the following:
4-2. Adopt Resolution 2011-19 recognizing Honesto Costales, Senior Utility Service Person, as Employee of the Month for April 2011.
4-3. Minutes of the regular meeting of March 7, 2011.
4-4. Disposal of property left aboard buses.
4-5. Financial Reports – February 2011.
4-6. Monterey County 2-1-1 contract extension.
4-7. Authorization to purchase one facilities truck.
4-8. Authorization to purchase nine passenger shelters for South County.
4-9. Authorization to purchase one trolley engine.
4-10. Authorization to award contract in the amount of $33,250 with Wellman Advertising & Design for Bus Rapid Transit graphic design services.
4-11. Claim rejection – Guillermo Ramos.
4-12. Ratify the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Amalgamted Transit Union Local 1225 (ATU) and Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST).
4-13. FY 2012 draft budget.
4-14. Award Brinks, Inc. one-year contract for armored car services and cash handling functions.
4-15. Authorization to award design/construction of BRT shelter.
April 11, 2011 Minutes Page 3 of 5
4-16. Authorize General Manager/CEO to execute Memorandum of Understanding regarding regional vanpool programs.
Chairman Armenta recognized Mr. Artie Fields, City of Salinas; Bob Parks, President, ATU Local 1225; and Ron Hughes, Kings County Transit.
Director Sanchez asked staff to track the number of bilingual employees and report back to the Board at the next meeting.
Director Clark moved to approve items on the consent agenda. Director Edward seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
Mr. Hernandez, Assistant General Manager / Chief Operating Officer presented Honesto “Jun” Costales, Jr., Senior Utility Service Person, as the April Employee of the Month. Jun is an exceptional employee who during the past year worked to take the lead on several projects within the Facilities Department. Most recently he led the team in completing the installation of the outside employee patio at CJW. He also helped with site preparations for the soon to be installed Diesel Particulate Trap cleaning equipment and the Parts Washer at CJW. Honesto has taken on additional responsibility to make sure items listed on the “Graffiti report” are cleaned in a timely manner. When he isn’t working on special projects, Jun’s regular duties also include the pressure washing of MST’s shelters.
Kelly Halcon, Director of Human Resources, gave a Transit 101 presentation concerning Human Resources.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Jim Fink dedicated his remarks in the memory of the late Frank J. Lichtanski. He commended Mike Gallant, Planner, on riding the buses to see how the service can be improved. He requested that late night service be continued on weeknights. Regarding the timepoints on line 55 from San Jose, Mr. Fink commented that the bus was held up in Morgan Hill and Prunedale due timepoint restrictions. He recoomended to add the following statement with regards to time points for line 55: “All times are subject to traffic conditions. The bus may arrive earlier/later than listed.”
Bill Weigel, Seaside resident, attended the last meeting of the Monterey County Planning Commission opposing the Frank J. Lichtanski project. The proposed location contains 4,400 Coastal Live Oak trees that would need to be cut down for this project. He wants MST to find an alternate location and suggested the Marina Airport. They support MST and public transit.
April 11, 2011 Minutes Page 4 of 5
Kay Kline, Seaside resident, discussed the location o the Frank J. Lichtanski facility. She lives near lines 9 & 10. She is concerned about the like oak woodland. She supports MST finding another location for their project and recommended the Marina Airport.
7. COMMITTEE REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS
7-1. The Board accepted and filed the Human Resources committee minutes – March 7, 2011.
8. BIDS/PROPOSALS
None.
9-1. MST RIDES PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Armenta opened the public hearing at 11:13 a.m. to receive public comments on revisions to the MST RIDES fare structure.
Alberto Villa, Marina resident, wanted to keep the fares the way they are currently now, if possible.
Jim Fink asked if the MST RIDES program had a pass program.
Seeing no one else wishing to comment, Chairman Armenta closed the public hearing at 11:16 a.m.
Director Sanchez would like to see the MST RIDES program subsidized so that people who really need and rely on the program aren’t affected too heavily financially with the new fare structure. He would like a report back to the Board in three months after staff tracks the RIDES revenue. He said MST has a moral obligation to take care of seniors and the disabled.
Director Edwards moved to: 1) adopt the new MST RIDES fare structure effective April 25, 2011; and 2) report back to the Board in 90 days indicating how many people are riding within each fare range. Director Huerta, Jr. seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
11. NEW BUSINESS
None.
April 11, 2011 Minutes Page 5 of 5
12. REPORTS & INFORMATION ITEMS
The reports consisted of the General Manager/CEO Report; TAMC Highlights – March 23, 2011; Washington DC Lobbyist Report – March 31, 2011; Sacramento Lobbyist report – March 29, 2011, Clipper Card update; staff trip reports; and update on activities related to the Big Sur Highway 1 road closures.
Mr. Sedoryk stated MST ridership continues to increase. He also reported that MST and the Presidio of Monterey won a partnership award for military bus service.
13. COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS
Director Edward commented on a job well done by MST staff on the Fort Hunter Liggett ribbon cutting ceremony.
Director Downey commented on the taxi meeting held by the City of Monterey.
14. ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
15. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chairman Armenta adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m.
Prepared by: ______Sonia AR Bannister Agenda # 4-4 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: Sonia Bannister, Office Administrator
Subject: Disposal of unclaimed property left on bus
Goodwill (Seaside)
2 pairs of gloves 3 pairs of eyeglasses 1 fur hat 5 umbrellas 1 Bible 1 jacket 1 baby shirt 1 bike helmet 4 pairs of sunglasses 1 apron 1 game 1 make-up bag 2 hats 2 cell phones
To be disposed
1 Rx 2 backpacks 2 ID’s 1 lunch bag 2 wallets 1 sweater 2 water bottles
MST makes an attempt to contact the owners of Lost and Found items. If the items are unclaimed after 30 days, they are added to the above list.
PREPARED BY: ______REVIEWED BY: ______Sonia Bannister Carl Sedoryk
Agenda # 4-5 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: H. Harvath, Assistant General Manager for Finance & Administration
Subject: Financial Reports – March 2011
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Accept report of March 2011 cash flow presented in Attachment #1
2. Approve March 2011 disbursements listed in Attachment #2
3. Accept report of March 2011 treasury transactions listed in Attachment #3
4. Accept March 2011 financial statements presented as Attachment #4
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cash flow for March is summarized below and is detailed in Attachment #1.
Beginning balance March 1, 2011 $ 4,495,367.79
Revenues 2,003,918.37
Disbursements <2,735,001.08>
Ending balance March 31, 2011 $ 3,764,285.08
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Disbursements are approved by your Board each month and are shown in Attachment #2. Treasury transactions are reported to your Board each month, and are shown in Attachment #3.
Agenda # 4-6 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: M. Eccles, Director of Information Technology
Subject: Hastus (Giro Inc.) Maintenance and Support Contract Agreement
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Authorize the General Manager/CEO to execute a contract with Giro Inc. for one year of service maintenance with an option for two additional years at a cost not to exceed $130,000.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Hastus Runcutting software of $21,354 and Hastus DDAM software of $20,224, for a total of $41,578 in current fiscal year. This figure is available in the current Fiscal Year approved budget. Subsequent year expenses will be included in the annual budget processes.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Your Board approves transactions greater than $25,000.
DISCUSSION:
In October 2004 MST implemented the Hastus Runcutting software system. The system is used to assign MST drivers efficiently to the MST bus schedules. In September 2007 MST implemented the additional functionality of Hastus-DDAM software which integrates with the Hastus Runcutting software and the MST FAMIS payroll system.
Due to the complex and proprietary nature of the system software, MST does not have the ability to retain the services of another vendor for this service, nor does it have the internal staffing levels to fully maintain the software.
Annual costs quoted by Hastus (Giro Inc.) for software maintenance and support are as follows:
Hastus Runcutting February 15, 2011 - February 14, 2012 $ 21,354 February 15, 2012 - February 14, 2013 $ 22,208 February 15, 2013 - February 14, 2014 $ 23,096
Hastus-DDAM February 15, 2011 - February 14, 2012 $ 20,224 February 15, 2012 - February 14, 2013 $ 21,033 February 15, 2013 - February 14, 2014 $ 21,874
Total $129,790
Approval of this item will allow staff to contract with Hastus (Giro Inc.) for maintenance and support of the Hastus system for a fixed price for three years. Also, MST will continue to negotiate with the vendor to ensure the best value for the second and third years is received.
PREPARED BY: ______REVIEWED BY: ______Mark Eccles Carl Sedoryk
Agenda # 4-7 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: H. Harvath, Assistant General Manager-Finance & Administration
Subject: South County Area Service Analysis (SoCASA)
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the South County Area Service Analysis (SoCASA) prepared by Moore & Associates.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
A condition of the grant funding for the study requires that your Board consider adoption of this document.
DISCUSSION:
MST received a grant from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (Air District) in 2010 to prepare a South Monterey County Transit Plan. Moore & Associates was hired and completed the plan in December 2010.
Staff from Moore & Associates presented results of the SoCASA at the January 10, 2011, meeting of your Board. The SoCASA was designed to evaluate transit demand in the south Monterey County cities of Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, King City, and the neighboring unincorporated areas, including Chualar. The SoCASA report profiles existing conditions of the study area, analyzes demand for transit services and describes public input solicitations conducted for the study. In addition, it provides potential service alternatives as well as an implementation plan (Attachment).
MST staff subsequently is presenting the results of this study to each of the city councils of Gonzales, Greenfield, King City and Soledad.
The grant agreement between the Air District and MST requires that your Board consider adopting the SoCASA.
Attachment: South County Area Service Alternatives
MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICT – SOUTH COUNTY AREA SERVICE ANALYSIS
Monterey-Salinas Transit District South County Area Service Analysis
FINAL REPORT December 14, 2010
Monterey-Salinas Transit RFP #10-05 South County Area Service Analysis (SoCASA)
Prepared for the Monterey-Salinas Transit District One Ryan Ranch Road Monterey, CA 93940
Prepared by Moore & Associates, Inc. 28159 Avenue Stanford, Suite 110 Valencia, CA 91355 661.253.1277
Project Staff Theodore Kosub, Assistant to General Manager/CEO, Monterey-Salinas Transit Hunter Harvath, Assistant General Manager - Finance & Administration, Monterey-Salinas Transit Jim Moore, Project Manager, Moore & Associates Michael Eshleman, Senior Planner, Moore & Associates Jose Perez, Market Research Coordinator, Moore & Associates Amber Colson, Associate Planner, Moore & Associates
MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICT – SOUTH COUNTY AREA SERVICE ANALYSIS
4. SOUTH COUNTY AREA SERVICE ALTERNATIVES
Based on the key findings identified through the public involvement process and discussions with MST staff, an array of service improvements/enhancements for both intra- and inter-city services have been identified. These alternatives aim to improve mobility, enhance the efficiency of transit service delivery, and increase transit ridership within the South County Area. The service alternatives are presented in three sections: Monterey-Salinas Transit Line 23, South County Intercity Service, and intra-community service.
MST Line 23 Through the public input process, and specifically from the onboard customer surveys conducted onboard MST Line 23, respondents indicated the service meets the basic need for inter-city travel between the southern Monterey County cities and Salinas, providing connections for northbound and westbound travel. Although the service meets this need, we have identified improvements/enhancements which would result in increased efficiency and effectiveness while also increasing ridership.
1. Extend Service Hours. Adjustment of MST Line 23 weekday service schedule to coordinate with Hartnell College evening classes. Alternatively, coordinate vanpool formation via the District’s Consolidated Transportation Services Agency (CTSA). According to attendees at the Soledad community workshop, a former vanpool allowed residents to attend Hartnell College. When MST began service to the College, funding for the vanpool was eliminated.
Based on the current Line 23 service schedule, the last weekday southbound trip departs Hartnell College at 6:10 p.m. while the last northbound trip arrives at the College at 8:47 p.m. This precludes South County residents from using MST Line 23 to attend evening classes. This recommendation proposes MST extend weekday Line 23 service to/from Hartnell College and King City until 10:00 p.m. We found the most frequent users of MST Line 23 are those who ride for work and school purposes. Therefore, enhancing access to Hartnell College would translate to increased ridership.
2. Infrastructure Improvements - Initiate bus stop enhancement efforts to coincide with MST Line 23 alignment throughout the four southern cities. This could include improved/increased signage (i.e., info post), benches, shelters, and lighting.
Through the community roundtables, it was revealed the southern communities lack adequate transit customer amenities. In addition, information regarding transit services is not readily available at community or government centers. An increase in signage and service information brochures would increase awareness of transit service.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 60 MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICT – SOUTH COUNTY AREA SERVICE ANALYSIS
3. Operational Changes - Investigate opportunity for stationing bus and driver(s) for MST Line 23 in King City. Doing so would reduce the amount of “deadhead” mileage and vehicle hours in both morning and evening.
Currently, bus drivers begin and end their shifts in Salinas, yet service begins in King City in the morning. Buses “deadhead” in the morning from Salinas to King City to begin revenue service. To eliminate deadheading, we suggest an arrangement be investigated with King City to provide storage for buses to start and end service in the morning and evening of each service day. This would also supplement Service Recommendation 1: where the two evening buses, which end at 8:47 p.m. and 9:42 p.m. in Salinas, would instead continue service back to King City where they end the service and park for the night. This would also allow later service to be offered from Hartnell College to the southern communities.
South County Inter-City Service The following service alternatives are specific to inter-city service between King City, Greenfield, Gonzales, and Soledad. This is concurrent with, and supplemental to, MST Line 23 service.
4. Monterey-South County Connection. To enhance services for commuters, it is suggested MST Line 20 extend its service hours so the last trip leaving Monterey more closely reflects traditional work hours.
Through discussions with stakeholders and community members at the South County community workshops, several requests were made for later Monterey-South County travel options. In reviewing existing services, the last MST Line 20 trip departs Monterey offering a down-line connection to the South County Area at 4:45 p.m. (allowing 6:15 p.m. southbound connection in Salinas). For those who are looking to utilize MST services for commuting, the existing service hours may pose a barrier in traveling back to the South County Area from Monterey.
5. Inter-City Circulator. To enhance inter-city travel within and between the four South County cities (and potentially reduce MST Line 23 operating costs) consider truncating MST Line 23 weekday off-peak service at Gonzales. Replace Line 23 service between Gonzales and King City with a deviated fixed-route circulator linking King City with Gonzales (with “flag” stops in Greenfield and Soledad). The proposed service would circulate between the four cities during the non-peak hours (e.g., 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.) and allow time-transfer with Line 23 in Gonzales. The proposed service would replace the local demand-response programs in King City, Greenfield, and Soledad with a deviated fixed-route service; still meeting the complimentary ADA paratransit service. The deviated fixed-route is designed with fixed stops and a schedule which accommodates deviation requests within a three-
MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 61 MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICT – SOUTH COUNTY AREA SERVICE ANALYSIS
quarter mile radius of the fixed-route alignment. Doing so would eliminate the need for two separate services and combine them into one flexible service.
Findings from the MST Line 23 onboard customer survey indicated a high incidence of trip activity among riders utilizing Line 23 for travel between King City, Soledad, and Greenfield. Given the service frequency of Line 23 is approximately once an hour, and the fact that Line 23 only stops at a few select locations in each community, it could be beneficial to offer service with stops in each community. The proposed inter-city circulator service would feature additional stops within each community at locations identified during the community workshops.
Local Service 6. Extension of Service Hours. Undertake six-month demonstration project expanding service hours for each of the three City-provided local DAR programs. Doing so could increase transfer activity amongst the local programs and MST Line 23. Undertake targeted marketing to support the change. (Note: Potential funding may be available via FTA “New Freedom” program.)
7. Transfer Coordination. Undertake six-month demonstration project providing reduced-cost inter-service transfers (MST Line 23 to/from local community demand- response services). Examples could include a discounted fare for those patrons transferring to/from each service (transfer pass); an electronic transit pass, or “smart card”, applicable to all services wherein fare revenue is divided amongst the services. Undertake targeted marketing to support the change.
The results of the community and customer survey analyses reveal minimal or no transfer activity occurs between the local community transit programs and MST Line 23. This suggests improvements should be made to mitigate perceived/actual barriers.
Service Recommendations and Next Steps Based on discussions with MST staff and community stakeholders, several of the listed service alternatives were identified as priority projects, and are presented below in order of importance: 1. Inter-city circulator, 2. Monterey-South County connection, and 3. Extend MST Line 23 service hours.
Each alternative represents additional capital and operating costs for MST, of which funding has yet to be identified. Therefore, timeframe for implementation of the recommendations is unknown at this time. Of the prioritized projects, we recommend MST first secure funding and then formulate implementation timeframe.
MOORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. PAGE 62 Agenda # 4-8 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: Michelle Overmeyer, Grants & Compliance Analyst
Subject: Resolution 2011-21 Homeland Security Grant Application Authority
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution 2011-21 authorizing the filing of a grant application with the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$402,615 in Proposition 1B Transit Security funds to pay for MST’s safety and security capital projects.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Your Board must authorize the filing of the grant application in order to secure the funding from the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security.
DISCUSSION:
In November of 2006, the voters of the state of California approved a series of bond measures that are now providing capital funds for several categories of projects, including public transit projects. MST received Homeland Security bond funds in the amount of $402,362 in 2008 and $402,615 in 2009 and 2010, respectively. This year, MST is again eligible for Homeland Security bond funds in the amount of $402,615. To receive these funds, the attached resolution authorizing for the filing of a grant application with the California Department of Homeland Security must be approved by your Board. MST would use these bond funds for safety and security projects at the new Monterey Bay Operations and Maintenance Facility planned for property on the former Fort Ord.
PREPARED BY: ______REVIEWED BY: ______Michelle Overmeyer Carl G. Sedoryk
Attachment: Resolution 2011-21 FY 10/11 transit system safety, security and disaster response account program
WHEREAS, the Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, and Port Security Bond Act of 2006 was approved by the voters as California State Proposition 1B on November 7, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security (OHS) is the State Administrative Agency (SSA) for the California Transit Security Grant Program – California Transit Assistance Fund (CTSGP-CTAF) funded under Proposition 1B with general obligation bonds for transit system safety, security and disaster response projects; and
WHEREAS, Monterey-Salinas Transit is an eligible transit operator in California; and
WHEREAS, these funds are necessary to purchase equipment and build structures which enhance the safety, security, and emergency response capability of Monterey-Salinas Transit’s facilities and infrastructure;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of Monterey-Salinas Transit that the General Manager/CEO is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the named applicant, a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, any actions necessary for the purpose of obtaining financial assistance provided by the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT PASSED AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2011-21 this 9th day of May 2011.
______Fernando Armenta Carl G. Sedoryk Chairman Secretary
Certification
I, Fernando Armenta, duly appointed and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Monterey- Salinas Transit do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and approved by the Board of Directors of Monterey-Salinas Transit on the 9th day of May 2011.
_Fernando Armenta______Chairman – MST Board of Directors
______Signature
_May 9, 2011______Date Agenda # 4-9 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: M. Hernandez, Assistant General Manager/Chief Operating Officer
Subject: Authorize the Donation of Mini Buses and Passenger Vans
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Authorize the donation of three passenger vans and three mini vans to the UFW Foundation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Auction prices for these vehicles are estimated at $500 to $1000 depending on market conditions and vehicle condition.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Your Board approves the sale of vehicles.
DISCUSSION:
The UFW Foundation contacted MST requesting the donation of three passenger vans and three mini vans. The UFW Foundation will use the vehicles for outreach and to provide services to farm workers and low-income immigrants in remote parts of the county (see attachment).
MST’s has 6 retired Dodge vans and 3 Chevy mini-vans. The mileage range on these model year 1999 through 2002 vehicles is between 92,059 and 249,849 miles. The Dodge vans were used as “relief units” or for facilities support and the 3 mini-vans were used in the RIDES program. Several of these Dodge vans were replaced in 2009 with hybrid Prius’. Vehicles transferred to charitable organizations are donated “as is” and are not repaired by MST. All of these vehicles will require some level of repair.
MST’s vehicle retirement policy is based on FTA and Caltrans guidelines. Buses are eligible for retirement at 12 years/500,000 miles; mini buses at 5 years/150,000 miles; light duty vehicles/sedans at 7 years/125,000 miles and heavy duty trucks at 10 Years. Vehicles are retired earlier based on condition, operating costs, or failure to meet California Air Resources Board emission requirements. Previous attempts to sell vans through First Capital Auction were suspended because transportation costs are approximately $400 each. These costs can generally be off-set with the sale of mini buses and large buses, however, auctions have not been cost effective for the sale of other vehicles. Staff recommends approving the donation.
PREPARED BY: ______REVIEWED BY:______Michael Hernandez Carl G. Sedoryk
Agenda # 4-10 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: C. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO
Subject: Ad hoc Nominating Committee
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chair to appoint an adhoc Nominating Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
None.
DISCUSSION:
Election of officers is conducted each July. In the past, your Board has authorized the Chair to appoint an ad hoc Nominating Committee to develop a slate of officers. A list of the current officers and appointments is attached.
Attachment: 1. MST Officers and Appointments Attachment 1
Recommended MST District Officers and Appointments As of April 12, 2010
Officers elected by the Board:
Chair Fernando Armenta Vice-Chair Kristin Clark
Non-elected officers and appointments:
Secretary to the Board Carl G. Sedoryk Deputy Secretary to the Board Deanna Smith
Treasurer Carl G. Sedoryk Deputy Treasurer Hunter Harvath
General Counsel David C. Laredo
Representative to TAMC Carl G. Sedoryk Alternate to TAMC Hunter Harvath Alternate to TAMC Michael Gallant
Representative to FORA Hunter Harvath Alternate to FORA Michael Gallant
Representative to California Transit Insurance Pool (CalTIP) Carl G. Sedoryk Alternate to CalTIP Ben Newman
May 2011 Board Meeting
Agenda # 4-11 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: Zoé Shoats, Marketing Analyst
Subject: 2010 Community Stakeholder Survey
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive report on the 2010 Community Stakeholder Survey.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
MST surveys stakeholders annually in its service area to gauge knowledge of and opinions regarding this agency.
DISCUSSION:
In February of 2011, approximately 463 surveys were distributed to community stakeholders including elected officials, governmental agencies, social service organizations, private citizens, and representatives from private industries such as hospitality, agriculture and construction. A total of eight surveys were returned and yielded the following highlights:
• Familiarity with MST’s services: Respondents were most familiar with MST’s regular fixed route service and Line 24 Carmel Valley Grapevine Express with the MST Trolleys in Carmel-by-the- Sea and Monterey tying for third and fourth most familiar. Of MST’s special event services, respondents were equally most familiar with service to First Night Monterey, Laguna Seca and Monterey Jazz Festival and San City’s West End Celebration.
• When rating MST’s attributes from “excellent” to “very poor,” the following areas were rated on a scale of one to five (with one as very poor and five as excellent) as follows: Safety of service 4.8 Staff knowledge 4.4 Staff professionalism 4.4 Overall impression of MST’s administration 4.4 Overall impression of MST’s services 4.3 Helpfulness of staff 4.3 MST’s representation of itself in the community 4.3 Quality of service 4.1 Value of service 4.0 Perceived value of transit in the community 3.4 Convenience of service 3.4
• When ranking MST’s priorities “adding frequency to existing routes” ranked highest. “Adding new routes” and “improve public image of MST” tied for second.
• When asked how to meet local transportation needs, the following alternatives were rated on a scale of one to five (with one as “least effective” and five as “most effective”) as follows: More vanpools/carpool incentives 4.6 Rail 4.2 More dedicated bike lanes 4.0 Buses 3.5 Bus rapid transit 3.5 Improved roads 3.2 New roads 2.4
• When asked if respondents would support a “new local sales tax dedicated to funding public transit and transportation services,” 50% of respondents said they would support it while 50% said they would not. As a follow-up question, individuals who would support the new tax were asked what percentage would be appropriate. Thirty eight percent of respondents would support a ¼ percent increase, 0% would support a 1/8 percentage increase and 13% would support a 1/10 percent increase.
Attachment: 2010 Community Stakeholder Survey
PREPARED BY: ______REVIEWED BY: ______Zoe Shoats Carl Sedoryk
2010 COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RESULTS (8 Responses)
1. Which of MST’s services are you familiar with?
( 6 ) Regular fixed-route buses ( 1 ) Line 12 & 14 Naval Postgraduate School ( 2 ) Line 23 Salinas King City ( 6 ) Line 24 Carmel Valley Grapevine Express ( 2 ) Line 55 Monterey - San Jose Express Special Event Service: ( 0 ) Lines 68 - 79 Presidio of Monterey ( 2 ) Laguna Seca ( 0 ) Lines 82 & 83 Fort Hunter Liggett ( 1 ) California International Airshow Salinas ( 2 ) MST On Call Marina ( 2 ) First Night Monterey ( 0 ) MST On Call South County ( Gonzales ) ( 2 ) Monterey Jazz Festival ( 3 ) MST RIDES ADA Paratransit ( 1 ) Monterey Bay Blues Festival ( 1 ) Monterey County Fair MST Trolley: ( 0 ) Salinas Holiday Parade of Lights ( 4 ) Carmel-by-the-Sea Trolley ( 2 ) Sand City West End Celebration ( 4 ) Monterey Trolley ( 1 ) Salinas Trolley ( 2 ) Line 25 CSUMB Otter Trolley
2. What do you believe to be MST’s annual ridership?
( 1 ) Less than 1 million ( 2 ) 1 million - 2 million ( 0 ) 2 million – 3 million ( 0 ) 3 million – 4 million ( 5 ) 4 million – 5 million ( 0 ) Over 5 million
3. Please rate the following:
Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Average 5 4 3 2 Poor 1
Overall impression of MST’s services 2 6 0 0 0 4.3 Convenience of service 1 2 4 1 0 3.4 Quality of service 2 5 1 0 0 4.1 Safety of service 3 4 1 0 0 4.8 Value of service 1 6 1 0 0 4.0 Overall impression of MST’s administration 3 5 0 0 0 4.4 Helpfulness of staff 3 4 1 0 0 4.3 Staff knowledge 3 4 0 0 0 4.4 Staff professionalism 3 5 0 0 0 4.4 MST’s representation of itself in the community 3 4 1 0 0 4.3 Perceived value of transit in the community 0 5 2 0 1 3.4
4. Do you or your employees use MST? Yes ( 6 ) No ( 2 )
5. Are you aware of the tax incentives provided to employers who provide transit passes to their employees? Yes ( 4 ) No ( 3 )
If you would like to learn more, please provide your contact information.
Mary Ann Carbone e-mail ([email protected])
6. What do you believe should be MST’s highest priorities? (Please rank in order of importance)
( 3 ) Add new routes* ( 2 ) More special event shuttles ( 5 ) Add frequency to existing routes* ( 2 ) Upgrade vehicles ( 1 ) Add capacity to existing routes* ( 0 ) Improve customer service ( 0 ) Cut routes* ( 3 ) Improve public image of MST ( 1 ) Other
*Where? - Main business area routes (to jobs centers and shopping areas) - South Salinas to Monterey/Ryan Ranch - 1 = Line 16, Big Sur - Faster round trips from King City to Salinas
7. In order to meet local transportation needs in Monterey County, please rate the following alternatives:
Most Least Average Effective Effective Score 5 4 3 2 1
Rail 2 2 1 0 0 4.2 Buses 1 4 1 2 0 3.5 New roads 0 1 3 1 2 2.4 Improved roads 1 2 1 1 1 3.2 More dedicated bike lanes 3 2 3 0 0 4.0 More vanpools/incentive for carpoolers 3 2 0 0 0 4.6 Bus Rapid Transit (Road and traffic signal 1 3 1 0 1 3.5 improvements that provide faster bus service)
Comments:
8. Community sector that you represent:
( 4 ) Private Citizen ( 1 ) Private industry ( 0 ) Agribusiness ( 4 ) Government ( 1 ) Elected official ( 1 ) Education ( 0 ) Hospitality ( 0 ) Health / Social services ( 0 ) Construction/Developer
Organization (optional):
9. While Monterey County does not currently have local sales taxes for transit/transportation, nearly 90% of the population of the state of California lives in counties that do have such local sales taxes. In that regard, would you support a new local sales tax for Monterey County that would be dedicated to funding public transit for the community at large including transportation services for the elderly and disabled? Yes ( 4) No ( 4 )
If yes, what percentage of sales tax would be appropriate? 1/4 percent ( 3 ) 1/8 percent ( 0 ) 1/10 percent ( 1 )
Comments:
Agenda # 7-1 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______Facilities Committee April 11, 2011 Minutes
Present: Director Libby Downey; Director Alvin Edwards; Director Frank O’Connell; Board Chair Fernando Armenta; Carl Sedoryk, GM/CEO; Hunter Harvath, Assistant General Manager for Finance and Administration; Dave Laredo, General Counsel, Michael Hernandez, Assistant General Manager/COO
Absent: Director Sanchez, Director Huerta, Jr.
1. Call to order
Director Downey called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m.
2. Public Comments – None
3. Closed Session: Conference with property negotiators
The Facilities Committee returned to open session. MST staff was directed to conduct an appraisal of MST owned properties and to appeal to the Monterey County Board of Supervisors the recent Monterey County Planning Commission’s decision to reject MST’s proposed new maintenance and operations facility at Whispering Oaks.
4. Facility status and current projects.
Mr. Hernandez provided an update on recent Facilities projects which have included driveway and bus yard repairs at TDA, final preparations for the installation of a new emissions filter cleaning device at CJW and the recent completion of the GFI farebox project. Future projects at TDA may require repairs to the heating/ventilation unit (HVAC), roof and carpeting repairs. Additionally, the in-ground hoist at CJW is 25 years old and may need to be repaired or replaced. While the extent of repair is not known at this time, it is estimated repairs or replacement may cost $50,000 to $150,000.
Mr. Hernandez also reported that MST will be conducting a visit to the City of Soledad to determine if there is a suitable location for parking mini buses overnight with accommodations for washing and fueling. Mr. Cliff Price, Director of Public Works for the City of Soledad reported to the Facilities Committee that there are several locations MST can consider for bus parking.
5. Shelter project update: Rural and Bus Rapid Transit Shelters.
Mr. Hernandez provided an overview of two shelter procurements listed on the April 11th Board of Directors Consent Agenda. The first is the purchase of 9 shelters through the CalAct/Morongo Basin Transit Authority purchasing cooperative for installation in South County and the second is a Request for Proposal for the design, construction and installation of one proto-type shelter for MST’s BRT program. MST conducted a price analysis for the BRT proto-type shelter and determined it was reasonable given similar custom shelter projects.
6. Director Downey adjourned the meeting at 10:00 a.m.
SUBMITTED BY: ______Michael Hernandez
MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING April 25, 2011
9:00 am One Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey
Present: Libby Downey City of Monterey Sergio Sanchez City of Salinas David Pendergrass City of Sand City Fernando Armenta Monterey County
Staff: Hunter Harvath Asst. General Manager/Finance & Administration Michael Hernandez Asst. General Manager/COO David Laredo MST Chief Legal Counsel Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO
Public: Don Gilchrest MST Federal Lobbyist (via telephone) John Arriaga MST State Lobbyist (via telephone)
Director Armenta called the meeting to order at 9:03 am. There were no public comments on matters not on the agenda. Carl Sedoryk introduced Don Gilchrest, MST’s federal lobbyist. Mr. Gilchrest gave a brief update on the legislative situation in Washington, D.C. Currently the House is looking to create jobs, increase oil production and repeal the Health Care law passed last year by the previous Congress. The biggest issues though are the budget and the deficit. The FY 2011 budget negotiations were characterized by brinksmanship and confrontation. For transit, high speed rail was zeroed out, the New Starts capital program was reduced by 20%, but the formula programs, which fund MST’s bus operations, were held steady at FY 2010 levels. Capital programs for bus and bus facilities will not be handled through earmarks – rather, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will be running discretionary grant programs with special emphasis areas, which have not yet been announced. The debt limit issue probably will not be solved until the very last minute and may either force a comprehensive budget deal, or if they cannot agree on a deal, then possible another continuing resolution would be passed for next year. Transportation Authorization has been extended with a continuing resolution through September 30, 2011. No bills have been released yet, as only hearings and listening sessions have been conducted to date. Chairman Mica of the House Transportation Subcommittee has stated that any Transportation Authorization bill should be scaled back to be funded only by what is collected through the gasoline tax. Normally a six-year bill, the Transportation Authorization may be passed as a shorter two- to three-year bill given funding uncertainties.
Mr. Sedoryk highlighted the federal funding chart handed out at the meeting, stating that the gas tax currently funds approximately 65% of all federal transportation spending. He stated that that since earmarks were on hold for now, MST would be applying for capital funds through the FTA discretionary programs when they are announced.
Director Downey inquired as to whether the findings of the last federal deficit committee headed by Erskine Bowles were being considered in the current negotiations. Mr. Gilchrest responded that parts of the task force findings are being considered, but a number of the proposals are controversial. Currently, members of Congress are staking out positions on the issues and the Speaker of the House John Boehner is being pushed to be even more conservative by the newly elected House members. Director Downey asked whether the cuts mean that High Speed Rail is dead nationwide, and were TAMC’s rail programs part of these cuts. Mr. Gilchrest responded that there was still money in the pipeline from the federal stimulus program for High Speed Rail, and that the New Starts capital programs will continue, but not at a healthy level of funding. Chairman Armenta suggested that staff check with TAMC to see the status of their rail projects in the New Starts program. Mr. Sedoryk stated that in California the first segment of High Speed Rail is likely to be built between Bakersfield and Fresno, but that funding is largely dependent on the state’s ability to sell bonds. Director Downey asked for more information about California’s bond rating, and Mr. Arriaga responded that this state’s bond rating is so low that they may not sell any more bonds this year at all. Director Armenta echoed that statement by saying the state has had similar difficulty selling new prison/re-entry facility construction bonds.
Mr. Arriaga continued with a state legislative update, indicating that significant deadlines are looming in early May for legislation and budget matters. Fortunately, the gas tax swap has already been enacted, which ensures continued flow of some state transit funding to MST, but an all-cuts budget would jeopardize a portion of those funds. The Governor is expected to release the “May Revise” of the FY 2012 budget on May 13th. Early information indicates that tax receipts are up, but by how much is not yet clear. The transportation subcommittee will be meeting later in the week, and the bond situation may be discussed since construction projects around the state are stopping dead in their tracks. Mr. Sedoryk explained the details of the gas tax swap in relation to State Transit Assistance funding. Mr. Arriaga reminded the committee of the May 17-18 California Transit Association (CTA) legislative conference in Sacramento.
Director Downey asked about the chances of extending the temporary sales taxes without a vote of the people. Mr. Arriaga responded that there are five Republicans in the state assembly and senate who have not signed the no taxes pledge that the rest of the Republicans have signed. They had attempted to secure concessions from the Democrats in exchange for their support for the sales tax vote, but negotiations fell apart. Director Downey inquired about pension reform, and Mr. Arriaga responded that the governor has proposed some significant reforms in his budget proposal for this year.
Mr. Arriaga then began to present the list of significant transportation-related bills being watched during this session. Director Pendergrass asked about SB468 Kehoe, particularly with regards to changing the rural designation of Highway 1 between Castroville and the Santa Cruz County Line from rural to non-rural, thereby enabling expansion of this dangerous two-lane highway to four lanes. Mr. Sedoryk stated that the CTA has a “watch” position on SB468, but that TAMC has an “oppose” position. Discussion continued on the rural designation of Highway 1 and the oversight of the Coastal Commission on any changes to that roadway as well as to portions of Highway 156. Mr. Arriaga indicated that several agencies and jurisdictions are on record opposing SB468. Director Sanchez recommended that MST oppose this bill to support local agencies and that a letter be sent to Caltrans opposing the rural designation of Highway 1. Mr. Sedoryk then turned to the other items of legislation, including AB 426 Lowenthal/Bonnie, which would enable transit agencies to collect fines directly from fare evaders instead of having the funds go through a local jurisdiction first. Mr. Arriaga added to the list AB 464 Alejo, which is being put forth by TAMC. AB 464 would allow mitigation funding for construction projects to go directly to local non-profits without first being funneled though the Department of Fish and Game, which has caused significant delays in the past with this process. Director Pendergrass made a motion to recommend to the Board the positions as stated on the list of bills, with a change on SB 468 from “watch” to “oppose,” a “support” position on AB 464 Alejo, and that a letter be sent to Caltrans opposing the rural designation of two-lane Highway 1 between Castroville and the Santa Cruz County Line. Director Sanchez seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Director Armenta adjourned the meeting at 9:59 a.m.
Prepared by: ______Hunter Harvath Assistant General Manager – Finance & Administration Agenda # 8-1 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: Carl Wulf, Facilities & Capital Projects Manager
Subject: Award Contract for Janitorial Services
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Award a three-year contract to Silveira Building Services, to provide janitorial services to all of MST facilities. With the option to extend for one, two-year renewal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$256,140.00 Funding is available in the current operating budget, and in future fiscal years.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Your Board approves all purchases that exceed $25,000.
DISCUSSION:
Invitations for bids were sent to twenty-four firms. MST received six proposals. Two bids were initially excluded from continuing in the process due to the poor quality of bids, and failing to include a company narrative as required. For the four remaining bidders, MST issued a Best and Final Offer request (BAFO).
The lowest responsive and responsible bidder with an acceptable overall score is Silveira Building Services, LLC. The proposed cost represents a $150,807.00 or 37% reduction over three years from MST’s current janitorial service provider, Snow White.
MST will closely monitor this new contractor to ensure that current service levels are maintained over the three years of the contract.
Therefore it is the staff recommendation that a three-year contract, with up to an additional two year contract extension, be awarded to Silveira Building Services, LLC. Base Price BAFO Supplier Overall Score $189,214.00 No Lalo's Janitorial 53 $256,140.00 No Silveira Building Services, LLC. 94 $296,772.00 $262,620.00 Smitty's Janitorial Service, Inc. 89 $320,030.00 No Hope Services, Inc. 74 $331,788.00 $311,621.00 Snow White Janitorial 96 $333,802.00 $324,129.00 ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. 92
PREPARED BY: ______REVIEWED BY: ______Carl Wulf Carl Sedoryk Agenda # 9-1 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: Michelle Overmeyer, Grants and Compliance Analyst
Subject: FY 2011 Program of Projects & Public Hearing
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Conduct public hearing for FY 2011 Program of Projects
2. Adopt the FY 2011 Program of Projects; and
3. Authorize the filing of the appropriate grant applications with the Federal Transit Administration and Caltrans.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
Your Board must conduct a public hearing for and approve MST’s Program of Projects to comply with federal regulations.
DISCUSSION:
The Program of Projects (POP) allocates federal funds to specific projects each fiscal year. The POP becomes part of MST’s application for federal grant funding that is submitted to the Federal Transit Administration via Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG). According to federal regulations, MST is required to develop, publish and afford an opportunity for a public hearing on and submit for approval a POP. In addition, the projects listed in the POP are submitted to AMBAG for inclusion in the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP).
It is appropriate for your Board to conduct a public hearing to receive comments on the POP and then consider its adoption. Hearing notices were published in the Herald and the Californian on Friday, April 29th and in El Sol on Saturday, April 30th. A copy of the notice is attached.
PREPARED BY: ______REVIEWED BY: ______Michelle Overmeyer Carl G. Sedoryk
ATTACHMENT: Public Hearing Notice
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) will hold a public hearing on MST’s proposed program of Section 5307 federally funded projects on May 9, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. at Monterey-Salinas Transit, One Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey.
Sources of funding are Section 5307 of the Federal Transit Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The proposed program of federally funded 5307 projects is shown below and depicts the level of federal funding for the previous fiscal years and that planned for Fiscal Year 2011.
Interested businesses, persons, or private operators wishing to comment but who are unable to attend the public hearing may submit written comments to: Carl Sedoryk, General Manager / CEO, Monterey-Salinas Transit, One Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey, CA 93940. The Program of Projects may be examined at MST at Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey. The deadline to receive written comments is May 5, 2011.
If there are no comments on this proposed Program of Projects as a result of soliciting public comments, then this publication will serve as the final Program of Projects.
Monterey-Salinas Transit Final Program of Section 5307 Federally Funded Projects
Project FY 2011 Fixed-Route Bus Planning & Operations $6,690,706 TOTAL $6,690,706
Sonia R. Bannister Deputy Secretary to the Board
Publish: The Herald – April 29, 2011 Salinas Californian – April 29, 2011 El Sol – April 30, 2011
Agenda # 10-1 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: H. Harvath, Assistant General Manager-Finance & Administration
Subject: South County Update
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive update on South County municipal transit operations
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
As a part of the formation by your Board of the Monterey-Salinas Transit District on July 1, 2010, MST has committed to assume responsibility for the operations of the municipal dial-a-ride operations in the South County cities.
DISCUSSION:
For many years, the cities of Greenfield, Soledad and King City have operated individual municipally-based “general public dial-a-ride” systems. A similar municipally- based system was introduced by MST in Gonzales during the summer of 2010. AB 644 Caballero, which established the Monterey-Salinas Transit District effective July 1, 2010, provided Gonzales, Greenfield, King City, and Soledad with full voting representation on the MST Board of Directors. As part of the negotiations leading up to the adoption of AB 644, MST committed to assuming responsibility for the operation and funding of these municipal dial-a-rides, pending city council approvals.
MST already operates the Gonzales dial-a-ride system, which has been given the brand name of “MST OnCall.” Staff is currently making presentations to the respective city councils of each of the other South County cities to secure final approvals to begin operating the dial-a-ride systems and integrating them into MST’s overall route and fare structure.
To date, MST has received approval from Greenfield to begin operating its dial-a- ride as soon as a vehicle is available – perhaps by July 1, 2011. MST staff inspected Greenfield’s minibus on April 27, 2011, and negotiations are beginning to transfer ownership of the vehicle to MST. MST staff is scheduled to make similar presentations to the Soledad City Council on May 4th and to the King City Council on May 10th. Pending council approvals as well as vehicle availability and operability, staff looks to assume operations of the Greenfield, Soledad, and King City in the beginning of FY 2012. Subsequently, staff will be using the results and recommendations of the South County Area Study Analysis (SoCASA) to assess the possibility of better integration of the four South County OnCall systems into MST’s overall route network. Any proposed significant changes to transit services in the South County area would be presented to your Board for consideration and approval.
PREPARED BY: ______REVIEWED BY: ______Hunter Harvath Carl Sedoryk
Agenda # 12-1 May 9, 2011 Meeting ______
To: Board of Directors
From: C. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO
Subject: March 2011 Monthly Report
Attached are the most recent monthly statistics and the reports from the Administration and Operations/Maintenance Departments.
Passenger boardings have increased approximately 4.5% over the last year. Unfortunately the increased passenger fares from new riders are not sufficient enough to offset the rapidly rising costs of fuel. Staff is monitoring our costs closely to ensure that we stay within budgeted expenses for the remainder of the fiscal year.
On March 2nd I provided a public transit update to the Soledad City Council.
I attended the American Public Transit Association (APTA) annual legislative conference on March 12 – 15 in Washington D.C with Board-chair Armenta, Vice-chair Clark and Assistant General Manager, Hunter Harvath. At the conference I participated in the Annual Board of Directors meetings to conduct business of the association. I also participated in committee meetings targeting the interests of small transit operators, recipients of the Small-Transit-Intensive-Cities federal funds, and overall legislative activities of the association. I also attended sessions regarding the future of federal public transit funding featuring senior staff from the President’s administration, members of Congress, and key congressional and administrative staff members responsible for developing transportation funding policy for the next several years. At these sessions I was able to advocate and promote issues important to MST and the communities we serve. I also had the opportunity to meet with Congressman Sam Farr and his staff to discuss current and planned projects at MST
On March 24th I attended a meeting of the Board of the California Transit Insurance Pool in Sacramento to attend to the business of the insurance pool as vice-chair of the board. On March 25th I attended the ribbon cutting for MST’s new services at Fort Hunter-Liggett where I was able to meet with a wide variety of officials from Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties.
On March 26th, I hosted Assemblymember Luis Alejo and his staff at the MST offices in Monterey and provided a presentation on MST current projects and financial needs.
On March 29 – 30, I attended the California Transit Association Transit Lobby Day with MST Assistant General Manager, Hunter Harvath and participated in activities which included a meeting of the Executive Committee as well as visits to our local legislative delegation including Assemblymembers Bill Monning, and Luis Alejo, and State Senators Sam Blakeslee and Anthony Canella. MST staff also participated in a meeting with staff of State Senator Joe Simitian with the staff from public transit operators from Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, and San Mateo counties. In addition to the monthly operating statistics you will find an updated matrix on progress made to date on the MST FY 2011 action plan that your Board adopted in July 2010.
.
Attachment #1 – Operations Department Report March 2011 Attachment #2 – Facilities & Maintenance Department Report March 2011 Attachment #3 – Administration Department Report March 2011 Attachment#4 - FY 2011 Action Plan Update, March 31, 2011
PREPARED BY: ______Carl G. Sedoryk March 31, 2011
To: M. Hernandez, Assistant General Manager / C.O.O.
From: R. Weber, Director of Transportation Services
Cc: MST Board of Directors
Subject: Transportation Department Monthly Report February 2011
FIXED ROUTE BUS OPERATIONS:
System Wide Service: (Fixed Route & DART Services):
Preliminary boarding statistics indicate that ridership increased by 5.84% in February 2011, (321,023), as compared to February 2010, (303,307). Year to date, passenger boardings have increased by 4.76% as compared to the same period last year.
Productivity decreased slightly from 16.8 passengers per hour (February 2010), to 16.5 PPH in February of this year.
Trolley Services:
MST Salinas Trolley: carried 1,114 passengers in February, which represents a 7.55% decrease from February of 2010 (1,205). Year to date, passenger boardings have decreased by 17.71% for this service as compared to the same period last year.
Supplemental / Special Services:
None to report.
System Wide Statistics:
. Ridership: 321,023 . Vehicle Revenue Hours: 19,446 . Vehicle Revenue Miles: 315,750 . System Productivity: 16.5 Passengers Per Vehicle Revenue Hour . Scheduled One-Way Trips: 29,046
Time Point Adherence: Of 113,269 total time-point crossings sampled for the month of February, the TransitMaster system recorded 13,472 delayed arrivals to MST’s published time-points system-wide. This denotes that 88.11% of all scheduled arrivals at published time- points were on time. (See MST Fixed-Route Bus ~~ On Time Compliance Chart FY 2011.)
Service arriving later than 5 minutes beyond the published time point is considered late. The on- time compliance chart (attached) reflects system wide “on-time performance” as a percentage to the total number of reported time-point crossings.
Trips With 10 or More Standees: There were thirty (30) reported trips with 10 or more standees for the month of February. (See Operations Summary report for further information) Page 1 of 3
Cancelled Trips: There were a total of nine (9) cancelled trips for the month of February for both directly operated and contracted services.
Reason MST MV Transportation % Of All Missed Collision 2 0 22.2% Mechanical 7 0 77.8% Totals 9 0 100.00%
Documented Occurrences: MST Coach Operators are required to complete an occurrence report for any unusual incident that occurs during their work day. The information provided within theses reports is used to identify trends, which often drive changes in policy or standard operating procedures. The following is a comparative summary of reported incidents for the month(s) of February 2010 and 2011:
February- February- Occurrence Type 10 11 Collision: MST Involved 4 5 Medical Emergency 1 0 Object Hits Coach 0 1 Passenger Conflict 2 4 Passenger Fall 7 1 Passenger Injury 0 0 Employee Injury 0 Other 5 4 Near Miss 0 1 Unreported Damage 1 0 Fuel / Fluid Spill 0 2 Total Occurrences 20 19
Other:
In February, Frank Betancourt assumed his role as full time Communications System Specialist.
CONTRACTED SERVICES:
MST RIDES ADA / ST Paratransit Program:
Preliminary boarding statistics for the MST RIDES program reflect that for the month of February there were 8,155 passenger boardings. This represents a 0.53% increase in passenger boardings from February of 2010, (8,112). Year to date, passenger boardings for this program have increased by 2.60% as compared to the same period last year.
. For the month of February, 86.30 % of all scheduled trips for the MST RIDES Program arrived on time, decreasing slightly from 87.41 % in February of 2010. (See MST RIDES ~~ On Time Compliance Chart FY 2011.)
. Productivity for February of this year was at 1.89 passengers per hour, decreasing from 1.9 in February of 2010.
Page 2 of 3
Paratransit Certification Statistics:
. For the month of February, 45 applications were reviewed, resulting in 42 approvals and 3 denials. Of the approvals, 26 were new program participants, and 16 were recertifications. 47 participants were deactivated in the database.
. Fifty One (51) applications were received – 6 did not complete the application process.
. As of February 2010, there are 3,392 registered / active program participants.
Other:
02/05/11: 5403 (MST RIDES) was traveling NW on W. Blanco Rd with three passengers aboard. After entering the intersection of W. Blanco and S. Davis, a mid-sized pickup truck traveling SW on S. Davis Rd collided with the front passenger side of the mini bus at a high rate of speed. The driver of the pickup truck was killed instantly, and all four occupants (3 passengers & 1 driver) of the Mini Bus sustained minor to moderate injuries - each were transported by EMS to local hospitals for treatment. Damage to the coach = $46,000. Note: The California Highway Patrol’s final report found that the MST RIDES Operator was not at fault for this collision.
02/14/11: Coach 926 was involved in a minor non-preventable collision resulting in $54.00 in damage to the coach. There were no reported injuries.
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER:
In February, the Communications Center summoned public safety agencies on six (6) separate occasions to MST’s transit vehicles and facilities:
Agency Type Incident Type Number Of Responses Police Passenger Incident / Other 3 Emergency Medical Services Medical Emergency 3
Robert Weber
ATTACHMENTS: MST Fixed-Route Bus ~~ On Time Compliance FY 2011. MST Fixed-Route Bus ~~ Boarding Statistics FY 2011. MST Trolley Service ~~ Boarding Statistics FY 2011 MST RIDES ~~ On Time Compliance FY 2011 MST RIDES ~~ Boarding Statistics FY 2011
Page 3 of 3 MST FIXED ROUTE March 2011 Data Sampled: 91.0% ON-TIME COMPLIANCE FY 2011
FY 10 FY11 FY11 FY11 ON-TIME TIME POINT DELAYED ARRIVALS ON-TIME MONTH PERFORMANCE COUNT 5 + MINUTES PERFORMANCE Jul 85.79% 124,003 18,776 84.86% Aug 82.92% 125,989 21,103 83.25% Sept 83.89% 119,335 19,915 83.31% Oct 84.90% 125,235 16,858 86.54% Nov 86.53% 117,500 15,719 86.62% Dec 87.86% 122,570 14,584 88.10% Jan 90.69% 121,168 12,971 89.30% Feb 88.15% 113,269 13,472 88.11% March 88.11% 127,207 12,993 89.79% April 87.43% May 86.78% June 86.81% Total N/A 1,096,276 146,391 N/A YTD Average 86.54% 121,808 16,266 86.65%
Goal On-Time Compliance FY 2011 87% 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30% On-Time Compliance
20%
10%
0% Sept Jan March Aug April Jul Oct Nov Dec Feb May June
FY10 FY11
H:\Sbannister\agenda\May\Fixed Route On Time compliance FY 09 - FY 11 .xls Page 1 MST FIXED ROUTE BOARDINGS FY 2011 Monthly Boardings
MONTH FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 % CHANGE July 467,427 385,052 406,623 5.60% Aug 489,290 420,751 429,204 2.01% Sep 425,085 394,189 418,155 6.08% Oct 425,723 376,171 386,961 2.87% Nov 354,699 333,974 343,922 2.98% Dec 332,080 308,937 311,123 0.71% Jan 297,095 280,327 319,097 13.83% Feb 282,949 303,307 321,023 5.84% Mar 320,001 350,500 358,403 2.25% April 313,695 350,469 May 333,371 363,614 June 358,296 382,331 TOTAL 4,399,711 4,249,622 3,294,511 YTD Avg. 377,150 350,356 366,057 4.48% YTD Comparison 3,394,349 3,153,208 3,294,511 4.48%
Boardings are inclusive of all On Call, Trolley, & Fixed Route Services
MONTHLY RIDERSHIP 550,000
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0 July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June
FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
5/2/2011 2:59 PM Attachment 2 MST FIXED ROUTE BUS Program Comparative Statistics FY 2010 - FY 2011
INPUT of Resources OUTPUT END PRODUCT VEHICLE VEHICLE TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE REVENUE BOARDINGS EMPLOYEES OPERATING COST MILES HOURS (UNLINKED TRIPS) MONTH FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 JUL 236.5 240.0 $2,095,312 $1,927,614 343,272 341,909 21,546 21,949 385,052 406,623 AUG 232.5 237.0 $2,310,378 $2,093,268 348,846 338,511 21,135 21,764 420,751 429,204 SEP 237.5 234.0 $2,317,568 $2,545,265 323,338 334,253 20,048 20,981 394,189 418,155 OCT 236.5 235.0 $1,847,892 $2,105,961 335,317 341,855 20,626 21,322 376,171 386,961 NOV 238.0 238.0 $1,637,415 $2,177,880 304,685 320,533 18,743 19,991 333,974 343,922 DEC 239.0 238.0 $1,813,976 $2,848,523 317,664 336,441 19,589 20,880 308,937 311,123 SUBTOTAL $12,022,541 $13,698,511 1,973,122 2,013,502 121,687 126,887 2,219,074 2,295,988 JAN 239.0 241.0 $2,142,829 $2,243,787 313,866 333,567 19,277 20,638 280,327 319,097 FEB 237.0 245.0 $2,075,656 $2,160,033 287,780 315,750 17,983 19,446 303,307 321,023 MAR 238.0 253.0 $2,065,078 $2,460,010 328,351 361,376 20,509 22,211 350,500 358,403 APR 240.0 $2,041,626 316,362 19,782 350,469 MAY 240.0 $2,034,354 316,163 19,880 363,614 *JUN 240.0 $2,865,966 329,172 20,971 382,331 TOTAL - - $25,248,050 $20,562,341 3,864,816 3,024,195 240,089 189,182 4,249,622 3,294,511 AVERAGE 237.8 240.1 $2,104,004 $2,284,705 322,068 336,022 20,007 21,020 354,135 366,057
Service Efficiency Cost Efficiency Service Effectiveness Measures Cost Effectiveness VEHICLE COST/ COST/ REVENUE HRS/ REVENUE BOARDINGS/ BOARDINGS/ UNLINKED EMPLOYEE HOUR REVENUE MILE REVENUE HOUR TRIP MONTH FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 JUL 91.1 91.5 $97.25 $87.82 1.12 1.19 17.9 18.5 $5.44 $4.74 AUG 90.9 91.8 $109.32 $96.18 1.21 1.27 19.9 19.7 $5.49 $4.88 SEP 84.4 89.7 $115.60 $121.31 1.22 1.25 19.7 19.9 $5.88 $6.09 OCT 87.2 90.7 $89.59 $98.77 1.12 1.13 18.2 18.1 $4.91 $5.44 NOV 78.8 84.0 $87.36 $108.94 1.10 1.07 17.8 17.2 $4.90 $6.33 DEC 82.0 87.7 $92.60 $136.42 0.97 0.92 15.8 14.9 $5.87 $9.16 SUBTOTAL 85.7 $98.62 1.12 18.2 $5.42 JAN 80.7 85.6 $111.16 $108.72 0.89 0.96 14.5 15.5 $7.64 $7.03 FEB 75.9 79.4 $115.42 $111.08 1.05 1.02 16.9 16.5 $6.84 $6.73 MAR 86.2 87.8 $100.69 $110.76 1.07 0.99 17.1 16.1 $5.89 $6.86 APR 82.4 $103.21 1.11 17.7 $5.83 MAY 82.8 $102.33 1.15 18.3 $5.59 *JUN 87.4 $136.66 1.16 18.2 $7.50 TOTAL AVERAGE 84.1 87.5 $105.16 $108.69 1.10 1.09 17.7 17.4 $5.94 $6.24 Note - All statistics include contracted-out service. * - Preliminary data for current year.
5/2/2011 MST TROLLEY - SALINAS FY 2011 Monthly Boardings Did Not Operate
MONTH FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 % CHANGE Jul Aug Sep 1,394 966 993 2.80% Oct 1,774 1,642 1,143 -30.39% Nov 1,414 1,258 1,016 -19.24% Dec 1,178 922 589 -36.12% Jan 781 648 610 -5.86% Feb 1,318 1,205 1,114 -7.55% Mar 1,523 1,523 1,334 -12.41% Apr 1,610 1,425 May 1,233 1,227 Jun Total Ridership 12,225 10,816 6,799 YTD Average 1,340 1,166 971 -16.72% YTD Comparison 9,382 8,164 6,799 -16.72%
SALINAS TROLLEY MONTHLY RIDERSHIP 5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 MST TROLLEY - MONTEREY FY 2011 Monthly Boardings Did Not Operate
MONTH FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 % CHANGE Jul 43,030 46,544 48,540 4.29% Aug 45,115 45,228 43,263 -4.34% Sep 811 10,164 9,346 -8.05% Oct Nov 683 Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May 9,115 4,511 Jun 34,019 29,444
Total Ridership 132,773 135,891 101,149 YTD Average 29,652 33,979 33,716 -0.77% YTD Comparison 88,956 101,936 101,149 -0.77%
MONTEREY TROLLEY MONTHLY RIDERSHIP 60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 MST TROLLEY - CARMEL FY 2011 Monthly Boardings Did Not Operate
MONTH FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 % CHANGE Jul 871 3,020 246.73% Aug 1,109 2,503 125.70% Sep 537 454 -15.46% Oct Nov Dec 340 216 -57.41% Jan 143 54 -164.81% Feb Mar Apr May 191 Jun 2,373 Total Ridership 5,564 6,247 YTD Average 600 1,249 108.23% YTD Comparison 3,000 6,247 108.23%
CARMEL TROLLEY MONTHLY RIDERSHIP 5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 MST RIDES ON TIME COMPLIANCE FY - 2011
MONTH FY10 FY11 Jul 89.49% 85.85% Aug 87.67% 85.44% Sept 86.36% 86.06% Oct 87.03% 86.56% Nov 89.67% 86.56% Dec 87.48% 87.47% Jan 87.53% 86.34% Feb 87.41% 86.30% March 83.60% 86.27% April 83.35% May 84.01% June 85.94% YTD Average 87.36% 86.32%
Goal MST RIDES On-Time Compliance FY - 2011 90% 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
On-Time Compliance 30%
20%
10%
0% Aug April Jul Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March May June
FY10 FY11
H:\Sbannister\agenda\May\MST RIDES On Time compliance.xls Page 1 MST RIDES Program Monthly Boardings MONTH FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 % CHANGE Jul 9,681 8,939 8,663 -3.09% Aug 9,636 8,514 8,794 3.29% Sep 10,203 9,386 9,354 -0.34% Oct 10,793 9,335 9,189 -1.56% Nov 9,100 8,275 8,900 7.55% Dec 9,231 8,147 8,626 5.88% Jan 8988,798 7,44454 828,253 3 10.72% 2% Feb 8,827 8,112 8,155 0.53% Mar 9,875 9,406 9,266 -1.49% Apr 9,528 9,219 May 9,175 9,263 Jun 8,983 8,837
Total Ridership 113,830 104,887 79,200 YTD Average 9,572 8,619 8,800 2.10% YTD Comparison 86,144 77,568 79,200 2.10%
MST RIDES MONTHLY RIDERSHIP 11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Attachment 4 MST RIDES Program Comparative Statistics FY 2010 - FY 2011
INPUT of Resources OUTPUT END PRODUCT VEHICLE VEHICLE TOTAL TOTAL REVENUE REVENUE BOARDINGS EMPLOYEES OPERATING COST MILES HOURS (UNLINKED TRIPS) MONTH FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 JUL 43.5 41.0 $189,986 $237,015 81,667 80,427 4,677 4,544 8,939 8,663 AUG 43.5 42.0 $189,076 $238,374 80,118 80,569 4,475 4,616 8,514 8,794 SEP 43.5 44.0 $200,916 $264,418 84,380 85,883 4,950 4,992 9,386 9,653 OCT 43.5 45.0 $211,433 $257,503 85,037 87,487 4,931 5,052 9,335 9,189 NOV 39.0 45.0 $191,324 $242,626 77,545 82,945 4,432 4,639 8,275 8,900 DEC 42.0 45.0 $190,558 $240,625 77,628 85,293 4,532 4,673 8,147 8,626 SUBTOTAL $1,173,293 $1,480,561 486,375 502,604 27,997 28,516 52,596 53,825 JAN 39.0 45.0 $203,430 $232,814 70,921 81,593 4,062 4,257 7,454 8,253 FEB 38.0 45.0 $220,193 $233,818 75,280 81,036 4,218 4,310 8,112 8,155 MAR 41.0 46.0 $236,480 $262,661 86,547 91,823 4,896 4,828 9,406 9,266 APR 41.0 $252,147 86,096 4,874 9,219 MAY 41.0 $253,445 86,357 4,820 9,263 JUN 41.0 $241,563 80,625 4,565 8,837 TOTAL - - $2,580,551 $2,209,854 972,201 757,056 55,432 41,911 104,887 79,499 AVERAGE 41.3 44.2 $215,046 $245,539 81,017 84,117 4,619 4,657 8,741 8,833
Service Efficiency Cost Efficiency Service Effectiveness Measures Cost Effectiveness VEHICLE COST/ COST/ REVENUE HR/ REVENUE BOARDINGS/ BOARDINGS/ UNLINKED EMPLOYEE HOUR REVENUE MILE REVENUE HOUR TRIP MONTH FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2010 FY 2011 *JUL 107.5 110.8 $40.62 $52.16 0.11 0.11 1.9 1.9 $21.25 $27.36 *AUG 102.9 109.9 $42.25 $51.64 0.11 0.11 1.9 1.9 $22.21 $27.11 SEP 113.8 113.5 $40.59 $52.97 0.11 0.11 1.9 1.9 $21.41 $27.39 OCT 113.4 112.3 $42.88 $50.97 0.11 0.11 1.9 1.8 $22.65 $28.02 NOV 113.6 103.1 $43.17 $52.31 0.11 0.11 1.9 1.9 $23.12 $27.26 DEC 107.9 103.8 $42.05 $51.49 0.10 0.10 1.8 1.8 $23.39 $27.90 SUBTOTAL 109.8 $41.93 0.11 1.9 $22.34 JAN 104.2 94.6 $50.08 $54.69 0.11 0.10 1.8 1.9 $27.29 $28.21 FEB 111.0 95.8 $52.20 $54.25 0.11 0.10 1.9 1.9 $27.14 $28.67 MAR 119.4 105.0 $48.30 $54.40 0.11 0.10 1.9 1.9 $25.14 $28.35 APR 118.9 $51.73 0.11 1.9 $27.35 MAY 117.6 $52.58 0.11 1.9 $27.36 JUN 111.3 $52.92 0.11 1.9 $27.34 TOTAL ------AVERAGE 111.8 105.3 $46.55 $52.73 0.11 0.11 1.9 1.9 $24.60 $27.80
Note - All statistics include contracted-out service. * - Preliminary Data
Comparison2011 5/2/2011 3:06 PM
Monterey-Salinas Transit
Operations Summary Report
Fixed Route Services
March 2011
Fixed Route Operations Summary Report March 2011 Service Delivered Service Quality Ridership 358,403 On-time Time Points 114,214 Passengers / Vehicle Revenue Hour 16.1 Delayed Time Points 12,993 Revenue Miles 361,376.4 On-time Passenger Boardings 321,602 One-way Trips Scheduled 33,271 Percent On-time Boardings 90%
Systemwide Service: Ridership for March 2011 was 2.3% greater than March 2010. Revenue hours operated increased by 8.3% over the same timeframe, resulting in a 5.6% decrease in productivity, measured in Passengers Per Hour (PPH).
Fiscal year-to-date comparisons show ridership has increased 4.5% compared to last year, with revenue hours increasing by 5.2%, causing a decrease of 0.7% in productivity.
Seasonal Service: Line 22-Big Sur carried 105 passengers this month, compared to 149 to last March, however service was disrupted in the latter half of the month, due to road closures, with partial service being operated between Monterey and Rocky Point.
The MST Trolley Salinas carried 1,334 passengers this month, compared to 1,446 last March.
Supplemental Service: None.
Systemwide Ridership On Time Passenger BoardingsOn-time 114214 5,000,000 Target 87% 100% Delayed 12993 90% 4,000,000 80% 70% 3,000,000 3,394,349 3,153,208 3,294,511 60% 50% 2,000,000 40% 30% 1,000,000 20% 10% 85% 84% 84% 86% 86% 88% 90% 89% 90% - 0% FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 YTD Jul Apr Oct Jan Jun Mar Feb Nov Aug Sep Dec Jul-Mar Jul - Jun May
Systemwide Pax / Revenue Hour 25.00
20.00 19.55 15.00 17.67 17.41 No supplemental service was operated this month.
10.00
5.00
- FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 YTD Fixed Route Operations Summary Report March 2011
Cancelled Trips by Month - FY11 YTD
25
20
15 13
11 11
10 9 9 8 7
5 5 3
000 0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Cancelled Trips by Reason - FY11 YTD
Traffic - 5 Trips Other - 5 Trips 7% 7% Employee Error - 4 Trips Non-MST Accident - 8 5% Trips 10%
Mechanical Failure - 42 MST Accident - 12 Trips Trips 16% 55% Ridership by Line - March 2011 Total Passengers
20-Monterey-Salinas 48,180 41-East Alisal-Northridge 36,905 10-Fremont-Ord Grove 31,087 9-Fremont-Hilby 27,202 42-East Alisal-Westridge 22,806 11-Edgewater-Carmel 15,536 23-Salinas-King City 14,809 29-Watsonville-Salinas 14,760 16-Monterey-Marina 13,916 2-Monterey-Pacific Grove 12,234 1-Monterey-Pacific Grove 12,061 49-Northridge 9,442 43-Memorial Hospital 9,120 28-Watsonville-Salinas 9,081 5-Monterey-Carmel 7,311 45-East Market-Creekbridge 6,911 24-Carmel Valley-Grapevine Express 5,901 76-Presidio-Stilwell Park Express 5,757 75-Presidio-Marshall Park Express 4,648 74-Presidio-Preston Park Express 4,156 46-Natividad 4,122 44-Northridge 4,055 69-Cannery Row-Del Monte Center 3,797 55-Monterey-San Jose Express 2,558 77-Presidio-Seaside 2,239 7-Monterey-Carmel 2,137 4-Carmel-Carmel Rancho 2,118 79-Presidio-San Jose Express 2,090 71-Presidio-Marina Express 2,010 MST On Call-Marina 1,871 27-Watsonville-Marina 1,635 8-Ryan Ranch-Edgewater 1,628 25-CSUMB Trolley 1,606 72-Presidio-N Salinas Express 1,360 21-Monterey-Salinas 1,334 26-Watsonville-Aromas 1,334 MST Trolley Salinas 1,334 78-Presidio-Pacific Grove 1,234 14 NPS-Monterey 1,021 83-Ft Hunter Liggett-Salinas Express 931 70-Presidio-La Mesa 908 48-East Salinas-Airport Business Center 886 68-Presidio-Salinas Express 834 12-Monterey-Dunes 804 13-Ryan Ranch-Monterey 698 82-Ft Hunter Liggett-Paso Robles Express 686 73-Presidio-Prunedale Exrpess 681 3-Ryan Ranch-Monterey 548 22-Big Sur 105 MST On Call-South County 16
- 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Productivity by Line - March 2011 Passengers Per Hour 10-Fremont-Ord Grove 28.5 43-Memorial Hospital 28.2 9-Fremont-Hilby 27.8 76-Presidio-Stilwell Park Express 26.9 71-Presidio-Marina Express 26.8 20-Monterey-Salinas 25.6 11-Edgewater-Carmel 24.8 77-Presidio-Seaside 24.6 72-Presidio-N Salinas Express 23.2 41-East Alisal-Northridge 23.2 69-Cannery Row-Del Monte Center 23.1 74-Presidio-Preston Park Express 22.9 46-Natividad 22.3 49-Northridge 21.2 5-Monterey-Carmel 19.8 42-East Alisal-Westridge 17.6 1-Monterey-Pacific Grove 16.2 75-Presidio-Marshall Park Express 16.0 45-East Market-Creekbridge 15.8 29-Watsonville-Salinas 15.4 2-Monterey-Pacific Grove 14.6 16-Monterey-Marina 14.3 23-Salinas-King City 12.8 78-Presidio-Pacific Grove 12.8 28-Watsonville-Salinas 12.3 14 NPS-Monterey 12.0 70-Presidio-La Mesa 12.0 68-Presidio-Salinas Express 11.9 73-Presidio-Prunedale Exrpess 11.5 7-Monterey-Carmel 11.4 44-Northridge 11.4 21-Monterey-Salinas 10.4 79-Presidio-San Jose Express 9.4 83-Ft Hunter Liggett-Salinas Express 8.4 24-Carmel Valley-Grapevine Express 8.0 MST Trolley Salinas 7.9 12-Monterey-Dunes 6.0 MST On Call-Marina 5.5 55-Monterey-San Jose Express 5.3 4-Carmel-Carmel Rancho 5.3 27-Watsonville-Marina 5.1 82-Ft Hunter Liggett-Paso Robles Express 5.0 22-Big Sur 4.6 8-Ryan Ranch-Edgewater 4.6 26-Watsonville-Aromas 3.8 3-Ryan Ranch-Monterey 3.5 48-East Salinas-Airport Business Center 3.4 13-Ryan Ranch-Monterey 3.2 25-CSUMB Trolley 2.2 MST On Call-South County 0.1
- 5 10 15 20 25 30 Schedule Adherence by Line - March 2011 Percent On-time Timepoints
83-Ft Hunter Liggett-Salinas Express 100.0% 8-Ryan Ranch-Edgewater 98.3% MST Trolley Salinas 98.3% 69-Cannery Row-Del Monte Center 97.9% 12-Monterey-Dunes 97.0% 71-Presidio-Marina Express 96.9% 74-Presidio-Preston Park Express 96.6% 5-Monterey-Carmel 96.5% 76-Presidio-Stilwell Park Express 96.3% 14 NPS-Monterey 96.2% 44-Northridge 96.0% 3-Ryan Ranch-Monterey 95.5% 42-East Alisal-Westridge 94.9% 78-Presidio-Pacific Grove 94.9% 13-Ryan Ranch-Monterey 94.5% 72-Presidio-N Salinas Express 93.9% 20-Monterey-Salinas 93.8% 11-Edgewater-Carmel 93.8% 75-Presidio-Marshall Park Express 93.7% 10-Fremont-Ord Grove 93.4% 25-CSUMB Trolley 93.3% 68-Presidio-Salinas Express 93.3% 70-Presidio-La Mesa 92.7% 41-East Alisal-Northridge 92.7% 82-Ft Hunter Liggett-Paso Robles Express 92.6% 26-Watsonville-Aromas 90.9% 22-Big Sur 90.8% 2-Monterey-Pacific Grove 90.7% 1-Monterey-Pacific Grove 90.3% 79-Presidio-San Jose Express 89.3% 28-Watsonville-Salinas 88.5% 16-Monterey-Marina 88.4% 21-Monterey-Salinas 88.3% 43-Memorial Hospital 88.2% 9-Fremont-Hilby 87.8% 73-Presidio-Prunedale Exrpess 87.6% 24-Carmel Valley-Grapevine Express 87.1% 46-Natividad 85.6% 29-Watsonville-Salinas 85.3% 23-Salinas-King City 82.7% 7-Monterey-Carmel 82.2% 77-Presidio-Seaside 81.2% 48-East Salinas-Airport Business Center 79.6% 49-Northridge 79.2% 45-East Market-Creekbridge 76.1% 4-Carmel-Carmel Rancho 75.9% 55-Monterey-San Jose Express 71.0% 27-Watsonville-Marina 68.7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 87% adherence standard March 2011 Systemwide Ridership: 358,403 Systemwide Revenue Hours: 22211:24 Systemwide Revenue Miles: 361,376.4
Primary Routes Line Ridership VRHrs VRMi Pax/Hr % Riders % Hrs 1-Monterey-Pacific Grove 12,061 745:29 7,259.7 16.18 3.4% 3.4% 9-Fremont-Hilby 27,202 978:06 10,561.5 27.81 7.6% 4.4% 10-Fremont-Ord Grove 31,087 1089:43 11,734.0 28.53 8.7% 4.9% 41-East Alisal-Northridge 36,905 1593:23 17,023.0 23.16 10.3% 7.2% 42-East Alisal-Westridge 22,806 1295:07 14,044.8 17.61 6.4% 5.8% Total 130,061 5701:48 60,623.0 22.8 36.3% 25.7%
Local Routes Line Ridership VRHrs VRMi Pax/Hr % Riders % Hrs 2-Monterey-Pacific Grove 12,234 837:39 11,198.6 14.61 3.4% 3.8% 3-Ryan Ranch-Monterey 548 155:44 1,885.8 3.52 0.2% 0.7% 4-Carmel-Carmel Rancho 2,118 399:55 4,072.7 5.30 0.6% 1.8% 5-Monterey-Carmel 7,311 368:39 4,399.6 19.83 2.0% 1.7% 7-Monterey-Carmel 2,137 187:04 2,187.3 11.42 0.6% 0.8% 8-Ryan Ranch-Edgewater 1,628 354:57 5,446.7 4.59 0.5% 1.6% 11-Edgewater-Carmel 15,536 625:47 9,261.6 24.83 4.3% 2.8% 13-Ryan Ranch-Monterey 698 220:06 3,577.6 3.17 0.2% 1.0% 16-Monterey-Marina 13,916 974:46 17,166.6 14.28 3.9% 4.4% 43-Memorial Hospital 9,120 323:39 3,889.6 28.18 2.5% 1.5% 44-Northridge 4,055 355:39 4,171.9 11.40 1.1% 1.6% 45-East Market-Creekbridge 6,911 437:36 6,592.5 15.79 1.9% 2.0% 46-Natividad 4,122 185:00 2,005.6 22.28 1.2% 0.8% 48-East Salinas-Airport Business Center 886 263:44 5,069.2 3.36 0.2% 1.2% 49-Northridge 9,442 446:01 3,112.6 21.17 2.6% 2.0% MST On Call-Marina 1,871 341:15 4,600.0 5.48 0.5% 1.5% MST On Call-South County 16 299:00 1,725.0 0.05 0.0% 1.3% Total 92,549 6776:31 90,362.9 13.7 25.8% 30.5%
Regional Routes Line Ridership VRHrs VRMi Pax/Hr % Riders % Hrs 20-Monterey-Salinas 48,180 1880:09 36,177.9 25.63 13.4% 8.5% 21-Monterey-Salinas 1,334 128:25 2,346.0 10.39 0.4% 0.6% 23-Salinas-King City 14,809 1158:40 33,603.4 12.78 4.1% 5.2% 24-Carmel Valley-Grapevine Express 5,901 741:24 15,057.1 7.96 1.6% 3.3% 25-CSUMB Trolley 1,606 716:04 13,457.3 2.24 0.4% 3.2% 26-Watsonville-Aromas 1,334 350:06 6,520.5 3.81 0.4% 1.6% 27-Watsonville-Marina 1,635 321:37 8,473.2 5.08 0.5% 1.4% 28-Watsonville-Salinas 9,081 737:51 20,177.2 12.31 2.5% 3.3% 29-Watsonville-Salinas 14,760 960:25 16,014.3 15.37 4.1% 4.3% 55-Monterey-San Jose Express 2,558 479:57 14,353.0 5.33 0.7% 2.2% Total 101,198 7474:38 166,179.9 13.5 28.2% 33.7% Military Express Routes Line Ridership VRHrs VRMi Pax/Hr % Riders % Hrs 12-Monterey-Dunes 804 134:33 2,398.9 5.98 0.2% 0.6% 14 NPS-Monterey 1,021 85:06 906.2 12.00 0.3% 0.4% 68-Presidio-Salinas Express 834 70:09 1,290.3 11.89 0.2% 0.3% 69-Cannery Row-Del Monte Center 3,797 164:28 2,311.6 23.09 1.1% 0.7% 70-Presidio-La Mesa 908 75:54 844.1 11.96 0.3% 0.3% 71-Presidio-Marina Express 2,010 75:08 1,248.9 26.75 0.6% 0.3% 72-Presidio-N Salinas Express 1,360 58:39 1,237.4 23.19 0.4% 0.3% 73-Presidio-Prunedale Exrpess 681 59:25 1,311.0 11.46 0.2% 0.3% 74-Presidio-Preston Park Express 4,156 181:42 3,167.1 22.87 1.2% 0.8% 75-Presidio-Marshall Park Express 4,648 290:21 4,670.2 16.01 1.3% 1.3% 76-Presidio-Stilwell Park Express 5,757 214:17 2,969.3 26.87 1.6% 1.0% 77-Presidio-Seaside 2,239 90:51 1,175.3 24.65 0.6% 0.4% 78-Presidio-Pacific Grove 1,234 96:36 1,214.4 12.77 0.3% 0.4% 79-Presidio-San Jose Express 2,090 221:57 7,498.0 9.42 0.6% 1.0% 82-Ft Hunter Liggett-Paso Robles Express 686 138:00 5,591.3 4.97 0.2% 0.6% 83-Ft Hunter Liggett-Salinas Express 931 110:47 4,669.0 8.40 0.3% 0.5% Total 33,156 2067:53 42,503.0 16.0 9.3% 9.3%
Seasonal / Supplemental Service Line Ridership VRHrs VRMi Pax/Hr % Riders % Hrs 22-Big Sur 105 22:40 566.8 4.63 0.0% 0.1% MST Trolley Salinas 1,334 167:54 1,140.8 7.95 0.4% 0.8% MST Trolley Carmel 0 0:00 0.0 0.00 0.0% 0.0% Total 1,439 190:34 1,707.6 7.6 0.4% 0.9%
April 27, 2011
To: Carl G. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO
From: Michael Hernandez, Assistant General Manger/COO
Subject: Monthly Maintenance Report for March 2011
This monthly report summarizes details about fuel prices and the activities of the Maintenance/Facilities Departments during the month of March 2011. Detailed statistical information is also attached.
Fuel Prices:
March March Feb. March % Low High Average Average Change Diesel $3.52 $3.70 $3.20 $3.61 12.8% Gasoline $3.66 $4.02 $3.37 $3.89 15.4%
Fleet Status:
Road Call Rate Miles Goal: 7,000 Miles or Between More Road Calls: Operating Cost Per Mile: March 11,890 March $1.13 Past 12 Months: 13,461 FY11 Year To Date $1.02
Comments: In March there were a total of 31 road calls of which 26 were maintenance related. The fleet had 12 road calls for exhaust issues, which was the highest individual road call category. Staff determined that a shipment of automatic transmission fluid (ATF) received in March at CJW was contaminated. Eight buses had to have the contaminated ATF fluid flushed.
Preventative maintenance (PM) inspections for the fleet dropped to a low of 60% for the month of March. Timely PM completion was partially impacted by the departure of two mechanics in March. FTA and MST requirements call for 80% or more of all inspections to be completed on time. Staff is working to correct the high incidents of delayed inspections.
Final site preparations were underway at both operating divisions to begin installation of the GFI farebox project and the “go-live” date of April 2nd. Installation of all 104 fareboxes, including the MV minibus fleet, took place during the evening and night of March 28 – April 1.
Michael Hernandez March 2011 MST Operated Fixed Route Bus Fleet - Summary Information
Average Life Active Fleet Manufacturer To Date Series Model/Year Quantity Engine Fuel Type MPG Miles Cummins ISM 1101 - 1121 Gillig - 2000 21 280 HP Diesel 4.61 487,287 Detroit DC 1122 - 1129 Gillig - 2003 8 Series 50 ERG Diesel 4.27 310,788 Gillig Low-floor Cummins ISM 1701 - 1712 2002 12 280 HP Diesel 4.53 340,993
Gillig Low-floor Detroit DC 1713 - 1724 2003 12 Series 50 ERG Diesel 4.24 270,612
Gillig Low-floor Cummins ISM 1725 - 1729 2007 5 280 HP Diesel 4.41 111,746 Gillig Suburban Cummins ISM 1801 - 1804 2002 4 280 HP Diesel 5.02 524,943 Gillig Suburban Detroit DC 1805 -1808 2003 4 Series 50 ERG Diesel 4.88 449,490 Gillig Low-floor Cummins ISM 2001 - 2010 2007 10 280 HP Diesel 4.59 140,382 MCI D4500 Cummins ISM 4501 - 4503 2009/10 3 480 HP Diesel 5.85 72,854
Average Life Historical To Date Fleet Manufacturer Model Quantity Fuel Type Miles Fageol Twin Coach 80 1948 #80 1 Gasoline N/A
GMC TGH3102 93 1957 #93 1 Gasoline 335,000
Revenue Non-Revenue Fuel Used Diesel Fleet Fleet Inventory Value Miles Traveled 309,152 34,689
*Gallons/ Fuel, Coolant, 67,368 1,579 $124,651.23 Equivalent Lubricants
Average Parts/ 4.59 21.97 $271,721.13 Miles/Gallon Supplies Engine Oil Used 2,457 Total Value $396,372.36 (Quarts) Average 126 Miles/Quart
Repeat Road Calls 3
1 MILES BETWEEN MECHANICAL ROAD CALLS March 2011 - Miles: 309,152
36,000 33,000 30,000 27,000 24,000 21,000 18,000
MILES 15,000 12,000 9,000 Goal 6,000 7000 3,000 0 Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011
Fleet Wide Miles Between Roadcalls FY10 vs. FY11 Year to Date Comparison 40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
Miles 20,000
15,000
10,000 Goal 7,000 Miles 5,000
0 Aver. Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun YTD FY11 14,527 10,368 10,898 10,557 17,006 15,330 10,697 7,904 11,890 12,131 FY10 15,068 9,884 10,679 19,935 9,195 8,714 9,263 9,453 9,707 12,790 15,227 24,334 12,854
March 2011 2 All ROAD CALLS - BY CATEGORY FY 2010 & 2011 110 CUMULATIVE YEAR-TO-DATE
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 OCCURENCES OCCURENCES
20
10
0 Other Radio/ Air Sys. Brakes Exhaust Cooling Doors Electrical Engine Trans Fare box Pass/Sick Tire Vandal W/C Lift Total Mech. ACS FY10 17 17 77 11 15 52 53 13 13 25 12 2 19 1 6 333 FY11- YTD 15 7 78 11 1 50 47 4 11 8 6 3 9 2 9 261 Mar-11 1 0120 0 6 7 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 031
* "Other" category includes: Fluid leaks, Lights, Windshield Wipers other items.
March 2011 3 PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS PAST TWELVE MONTHS
120 100%
90%
100 Goal 80% 80%
70% 80
60%
60 50% Time Time Total PMPMTotalTotalInspections Inspections
40%
40 30%
20% 20 of PM % Inspections On-
10%
0 0% Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Total PMIs 100 89 82 88 87 94 100 100 88 104 84 89 % On Time 92% 81% 85% 83% 75% 97% 98% 96% 100% 100% 96% 60%
March 2011 4 Diesel Fleet - Cost Per Mile Fleet Series, Year Cost Per and # of Vehicles Labor Parts Fuel Oil Total Cost Miles Mile
1100s (2000 - 21) $10,024.28 $19,317.22 $53,748.10 $1,532.67 $84,622.27 71,577 $1.18
1100s (2003 - 8) $5,328.14 $10,725.39 $21,713.46 $832.35 $38,599.34 29,135 $1.32
1700s (2002 - 12) $6,198.78 $5,100.84 $36,382.06 $861.84 $48,543.52 47,611 $1.02
1700s (2003 - 12) $5,920.02 $13,368.04 $32,671.12 $825.16 $52,784.34 40,212 $1.31
1700s (2007 - 5) $2,856.74 $3,476.33 $14,317.05 $384.08 $21,034.20 18,139 $1.16
1800s (2002 - 4) $2,218.39 $2,931.21 $16,773.24 $296.48 $22,219.32 24,077 $0.92
1800s (2003 - 4) $4,278.90 $3,865.56 $17,583.97 $488.12 $26,216.55 24,767 $1.06
2000s (2007 - 10) $4,317.06 $3,408.07 $30,710.59 $816.03 $39,251.75 35,746 $1.10 4500s (2009/10 - 3) $4,376.36 $1,080.86 $10,680.23 $447.18 $16,584.63 17,888 $0.93 Total March 2011: $45,518.67 $63,273.52 $234,579.82 $6,483.91 $349,855.92 309,152 $1.13
Labor Parts Fuel Oil Cost Per Mile March Fleet Average: $0.15 $0.20 $0.76 $0.02 $1.13
FY11 Cost Per Mile: $0.17 $0.21 $0.61 $0.02 $1.02
Fleet Cost Per Mile March 2011 Fleet Miles: 309,152 Average Fleet Cost Per Mile: $ 1.13
1.8% 2.2% 1.8% 1.6% 1.8% 1.3% 1.9% 2.1% 2.7% 100% 8.7% 6.5% 10.5% 13.2% 16.5% 14.7% 22.8% 25.3% 27.8% 11.0% 12.8% 10.0% 26.4% 75% 13.6% 16.3% Oil 11.8% 11.2% 13.8% Parts 50%
74.9% 75.5% 78.2% Labor 68.1% 67.1% 63.5% 61.9% 64.4% 56.3% 25% Fuel
0% Cost Per Mile: $1.18 $1.32 $1.02 $1.31 $1.16 $0.92 $1.06 $1.10 $0.93 1100s 1100s 1700s 1700s 1700s 1800s 1800s 2000s 4500s Fleet Series & (2000) (2003) (2002) (2003) (2007) (2002) (2003) (2007) (2009/2010) Model Year
March 2011 5 MECHANICAL ROAD CALLS BY BUS SERIES March 2011 Total Diesel Miles: 309,152 Roadcalls: 26
20
18
16
14
12
10 Road Calls Road Road Road Calls
8 7
6 5 5
4 3 3 3
2
0 0 0 0
Bus Series & Model Year
6 VANDALISM COSTS - PAST 12 MONTHS
$2,500.00
$2,000.00
$1,500.00
$1,000.00
$500.00
$0.00 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Buses $138.25 $6.80 $229.25 $367.94 $17.35 $24.41 $632.83 $2.71 $479.10 $32.00 $467.32 $48.27 Bus Stops $725.50 $379.40 $1,633.5 $779.50 $1,160.0 $2,372.5 $1,050.0 $1,126.5 $1,920.5 $1,537.0 $594.00 $250.00 STC $48.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12.00 $48.00 $0.00 $0.00 MTX $0.00 $1.20 $24.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 MTP $0.00 $2.40 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
March2011 7 12 Month Rolling Inventory, Fuel & Fluids Value - March 2011 Total Inventory: $271,721 ; Value Per Bus: $3,440 ; 12 Month Average: $3403 $350,000 $5,000
$4,800 $300,000 $4,600
$250,000 $4,400
$4,200 $200,000 $4,000 $150,000 $3,800
$100,000 $3,600 $3,400
$50,000 PerPerBus Bus Value Value $$ InventoryInventory Total Inventory & Fuel Value Value Fuel Fuel && InventoryInventory TotalTotal $3,200
$0 $3,000 Inventory Value Fuel Value Inventory Value/Bus
8 12 Month Rolling Fuel Cost - As of March 31, 2011 DIESEL GASOLINE $5.25
$5.00
$4.75
$4.50
$4.25
$4.00
$3.75
$3.50
$3.25
$3.00
$2.75
$2.50
$2.25
$2.00
52 Week Review: Diesel: High $3.70, Low $2.29, Average $2.79 FY 2011 Fuel Budget: Gasoline: High $4.02, Low $2.70, Average $3.15 B20 use: Aug 15, 2008 - Dec 18, 2008 Diesel 3.15 Gallon 9 Gasoline $3.40 Gallon Date: April 29, 2011
To: C. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO
From: Hunter Harvath, Assistant General Manager Finance & Administration; Mark Eccles, Director Information Technology; Kathy Williams, General Accounting Manager; Kelly Halcon, Director of Human Resources/Risk Management; Tom Hicks, CTSA Manager; Sonia Bannister, Office Administrator; Zoe Shoats, Marketing Analyst
Subject: Administration Department Monthly Report March 2011
The following significant events occurred in Administration work groups for the month of March 2011:
Human Resources
A total employment level for March 2011 is summarized as follows:
Positions Budget FY10 Actual Difference Coach Operators / Trainees 127 143 16 C/O on Long Term Leave * 1 0 -1 Coach Operators Limited Duty 10 10 0 Operations Staff 24 24 0 Maintenance & Facilities 44 45 1 Administration (Interns 2 PT) 22.5 22.5 0 Total 228.5 244.5 16
February Worker’s Compensation Costs Indemnity (paid to employees) $10,906.16 Other (includes Legal) $9,340.86 Medical includes Case Mgmt,UR, Rx & PT $21,037.00 TPA Administration Fee $4,000.00 Excess Insurance $3,493.58 Total Expenses $41,284.02 Reserves $956,113.62 Excess Reserved ($453,478.63) # Ending Open Claims 44
Training
Description Attendees Coach Operator Annual Training 5 Harassment Prevention Training 5 Bloodborne Pathogens Training 3 Ethics in Public Service Training 1 Brown Act Training 4
Risk Management Update March 2011 March 2010 Preventable Preventable Description Yes No Yes No Bus hits object 1 0 1 0 Vehicle hits Bus 0 0 0 2 TOTAL 1 0 1 2
Our accident frequency rate for March 2011 continues on a low trend with 1 preventable accident during this period..
Accident Statistics non-preventable preventable 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Number ofAccidents Number 1 0
Miles Traveled Between Preventable Collisions
400,000
350,000 MBPC
300,000 Standard YTD Average 250,000 MBPC = Miles 200,000 Between Preventable Collisions 150,000 Standard = Not
Miles Traveled Miles more than 1 100,000 preventable collision per 100,000 miles 50,000
0
Liability Claims Paid/Recovered – Property and Personal Injury
There were no claims paid and $7,690.96 in recoveries during this period.
Marketing and Sales Update
Published news stories include: “VNA merges adult day care centers in Monterey” (Monterey County Herald, 3/3/11); “Seaside Log: Public Intoxication” (Contra Costa Times, 3/9/11); “Monterey County Regional Taxi Authority to issue interim permits” (The Californian, 3/13/11); “Monterey County Regional Taxi Authority to issue interim taxi permits” (Monterey County Herald, 3/14/11); “Landslide shuts down bus service” (The Gilroy Dispatch, 3/17/11); “Big Sur closure a nightmare in the making” (The Californian, 3/17/11); “Special Report: Monterey County Regional Taxi Authority to issue interim permits today” (Monterey County Business Council’s Friday Facts, 3/18/11); “Slide closes Highway 1 in Big Sur for a month” (Monterey County Herald, 3/18/11); “Fort Hunter Liggett: Bus Service to be announced” (Monterey County Herald, 3/23/11); “Your Town: MST to base fares on distance” (Monterey County Herald, 3/24/11); “Log Jammed: Planning Commish blocks MST expansion plan in defense of the trees” (Monterey County Weekly, 3/24/11); “Your Town: MST to base fares on distance” (Monterey County Herald, 3/24/11); “Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) (BCM) implements new fare structure” (Monterey County Business Council’s Friday’s Facts, 3/25/11); “Teen killed in Marina shooting” (Monterey County Herald, 3/28/11); “Board of Supervisors says Big Sur still in state of emergency” (KION, 3/29/11)
Press releases sent include: “Highway 1 landslide north of Big Sur shuts down Line 22 bus service” (3/17/11); “MST fare structure changes go into effect Saturday, April 2” (3/21/11); “MST public hearing on proposed RIDES ADA paratransit fare structure” (3/28/11); “MST provides interim daily Line 22 bus service to Big Sur” (3/31/11)
Marketing activities: Attended APTA’s annual Marketing and Communications Workshop; created new fare media, new fare marketing materials, and public information; distributed brochures and posed internal car card notices about new fare media; updated website with new fare information; ordered farebox decals for new fare information; updated Rider’s Guide with new fare structure and service changes; planned and attended ribbon cutting ceremony at Fort Hunter Liggett for lines 82 and 83; met with city leaders, chamber president and aquarium representative to discuss Pacific Grove Trolley marketing; met with representatives from the Monterey Bay Blues Festival to plan bus service for their event; scheduled Rider’s Guide distribution; managed website content; created group discount and vendor policies with new fare media; managed group discount and vendor programs.
Customer Service Update
Service Report Type Mar '11 Valid % Mar '10 %
Employee Compliment 2 4.3% 3 6.1% Service Compliment 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Improper Employee Conduct 13 3 27.7% 14 28.6% Improper Driving 8 4 17.0% 5 10.2% Request To Add Service 6 5 12.8% 4 8.2% Passed By 5 2 10.6% 1 2.0% Fare / Transfer Dispute 4 2 8.5% 3 6.1% No Show 3 0 6.4% 4 8.2% Service Schedule 2 2 4.3% 1 2.0% Inaccurate Public Information 1 1 2.1% 1 2.0% Agency Policy 1 0 2.1% 0 0.0% Off Route 1 1 2.1% 0 0.0% Unsafe Conditions 1 1 2.1% 0 0.0% Late Arrival 0 0.0% 4 8.2% Bus Stop Amenities 0 0.0% 3 6.1% Early Departure 0 0.0% 2 4.1% Passenger Injury 0 0.0% 1 2.0% Vehicle Maintenance 0 0.0% 1 2.0% Employee Other 0 0.0% 1 2.0% Passenger Conduct 0 0.0% 1 2.0%
Total 47 100.0% 49 100.0%
All customer service reports are investigated and those deemed to be valid are tallied above in the second column. Of the 47 reports received 21 were valid.
“Improper Driving” reports (8) represented 17.00% of overall service reports for March ’11. “Improper Employee Conduct” (13) represented 27.07% of overall service reports for March ’11.
MST received two “Employee Compliment” reports in March ’11. Of the two “Employee Compliment” reports, one involved MST contracted service as follows:
Passenger Mr. David Lang, Complimented Coach Operator D. Vohl, “Driver has an approachable personality, and is very professional.”
Passenger Mr. Ken Goodman, Complimented MV Coach Operators Roland, Daniel, Devina & Adam, and Management Lorie, for being very helpful, and went out of their way to assist him in his travels.
Planning Update
During the month of March, staff continued working on preparing for the April 2, 2011, schedule change, which significantly expanded late night/weekend services on many MST bus routes, including more evening service on Line 23 Salinas-King City. In concurrence with the schedule change, MST’s fare structure was completely revamped, and staff continued efforts to revise the RIDES fare structure to keep compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act by holding public hearings in Salinas and on the Peninsula. Staff continued planning efforts on the Fremont/Lighthouse JAZZ Bus Rapid Transit Line as well as the new Senior Shuttle program connecting Carmel Valley, Carmel, and medical/shopping facilities in Monterey. Staff presented the results of the South County Transit Study to the Gonzales City Council and participated in the ribbon cutting ceremony for MST’s new services to Fort Hunter Liggett in southern Monterey County. Staff continued to fine tune its services in consultation with military partners at the Presidio and Naval Postgraduate School.
Staff attended the American Public Transportation Association’s Spring Legislative Conference in Washington, DC, as well as the California Transit Association’s Lobby Day in Sacramento. Staff met with Supervisor Lou Calcagno to discuss transit services in the Castroville/North County area. Additionally, staff attended various meetings with TAMC, AMBAG, the Monterey County Hospitality Association, the Monterey County Business Association, and the Work Force Investment Board.
Accounting Update
During the month of March, staff continued working towards the implementation of the new GFI Farebox system. In addition, staff continued working on the system upgrades of Navision and Assetworks which are progressing as planned.
Staff began working on the FY12 budgeting process with the intention of having a draft budget for the April meeting. This was accomplished and the draft budget was referred to the Finance Committee.
Accounts payable and payroll continue to meet their weekly deadlines.
CTSA Update
The CTSA Manager, along with MST Director of Transportation Robert Weber, made a presentation to the Monterey County Commission on Disabilities regarding the MST ADA Paratransit Program (RIDES). Commission members received answers to many questions regarding services, fares and proposed changes.
ADA Paratransit (RIDES) ticket books were redesigned in anticipation of fare changes to comply with FTA regulations. The new RIDES tickets will be in $1.00 denominations, replacing the $3.00 tickets, which will allow customers to use both old and new tickets in various combinations to pay exact fares.
The 211 Monterey County project continued to offer transportation assistance along with referrals to social service agencies and programs. The CTSA Manager participated in the quarterly 211 Steering Committee meeting to make recommendations to 211 staff about funding options for the coming year. The CTSA Manager, along with Ronn Rygg, director of 211 Monterey County, also participated in a meeting of the Veteran Services Collaborative to gather information about the transportation needs of veterans with disabilities and other travel challenges. Samples of a proposed MST bus tail display featuring veterans reentering civilian life and using 211 for assistance were previewed, and suggestions were solicited from Collaborative members.
Also during March, the CTSA Manager participated in planning activities of the upcoming Statewide CalACT Conference in April. The CTSA Manager will again be directing the Mobility Management track dealing with a variety of topics of interest to agencies planning and providing rural transportation, especially as those services pertain to transportation for seniors and persons with disabilities.
The CTSA Manager, along with MST Planning Manager Mike Gallant, established routes for the Senior Shuttle, expected to begin in May 2011. The routes, based on requests by seniors at the Pacific Meadows Senior Residential Facility and the Carmel Foundation, will provide transportation to the most commonly requested medical and shopping locations.
The Mobility Trainer attended the S.C.O.R.E (South County Outreach Efforts) meeting in Soledad, the P.A.R.T.S (Preventing Alcohol Related Trauma in South County) meeting in Greenfield, gave one presentation to the Soledad YMCA seniors group where 30 seniors attended, made a presentation to the MST new-hire class of 6 new coach operators, attended the South County Resource fair hosted by McKinney-Vento Homeless Consortium where the Mobility Trainer staffed a resource table, attended the Community Pedestrian Safety Workshop in Watsonville, and attended the new MST Fare Box training. In addition, the Mobility Trainer completed 54 ADA Paratransit field assessments, 4 travel training assessments, and a total of 4 travel training sessions.
Information Technology Update
Staff monitored the TrapezeITS Transitmaster system configuration. Staff continued to monitor and configure software and hardware for the Assetworks Maintenance system. Staff continued to support and monitor the FAMIS Payroll system. Staff continued to monitor ongoing implementation of the GIRO DDAM Timekeeping system. Staff updated software components of MST workstations. Staff continued developing functionality of the Payroll and Customer Service databases. Staff kept the MST web page updated and made the appropriate changes as required. Staff continued to support MST staff as needed, proactively ensuring MST staff were supported fully with their IT needs.
Staff attended the APTA TransiTech conference.
MST FY 2011 Action Plan Update Effective 3/31/2011 Revised Goal/Action Plan Responsible Due Date Current Status
1. Develop Adequate and Stable Long Term Revenues
Objectives/Outcomes: Pursue public/private and public/public partnerships, fare-pricing strategies and revenue generation from the use of MST assets as the means to generate the funds required to construct needed capital facilities, purchase vehicles, sustain current and future transit services and reduce the overall subsidy per passenger.
Encourage policymakers and the general public, through education and advocacy, to enact legislation at local, state and federal levels to provide sustained funding sources that will support the future growth of Monterey County’s public transportation system.
Indicators of Success:
• Reduced subsidy per passenger.
• Public/private funding agreements executed.
• Adequate funding in place to support operating and capital needs.
• Increased local funding support through partnerships, fees, sales tax and other initiatives.
FY 2011 Action Plan Items: a. Adopt and execute annual state and federal legislative 2011 Legislation program adopted by Board. Staff to execute programs. Harvath Ongoing throughout year. b. Identify and apply for federal, state, and local funding opportunities that support MST programs and projects. Harvath Ongoing Staff continues to apply for funding where available.
1 MST FY 2011 Action Plan Update Effective 3/31/2011 Revised Goal/Action Plan Responsible Due Date Current Status c. Participate in community outreach and provide public Staff participated in educational outreach related to passage of information regarding measures to provide dedicated funding for Prop 22 and successfully lobbied for continuation of Federal improved public transportation. Sedoryk Complete Mass Transit Benefit
Staff has identified potential public and private funding partners. d. Identify public and private funding partners for development Lack of state bond sales has put financing of project on hold until of the Frank J. Lichtanski Monterey Bay Operations Center. Harvath Delayed Fall 2012.
2. Provide Quality Transit and Mobility Management Services
Objectives/Outcomes: Develop and implement services, infrastructure and technologies to meet and exceed the expectations of customers, reduce subsidies and improve the image of MST in the community; continue to explore and implement new technologies and practices that enhance the overall customer experience, improve safety, reduce costs, attract new customers, retain existing customers, motivate employees, and improve the value of MST in the community.
Indicators of Success:
• Passenger boarding growth rate that exceeds board adopted standards.
• Increased customer and stakeholder satisfaction.
• Business conducted within approved budget and board adopted performance standards for safety, efficiency, effectiveness, on-time performance, employee and stakeholder satisfaction.
2 MST FY 2011 Action Plan Update Effective 3/31/2011 Revised Goal/Action Plan Responsible Due Date Current Status
FY 2011 Action Plan: a. Continue programs that reward safe behavior. Halcon Ongoing Safety recognition programs continue . b. Fine tune existing service to improve convenience and on- Implemented Service improvements in December 2010 and April time performance. Harvath Complete 2011. c. Implement MST On-Call, Gonzales service and other new MST On-Call Service in Gonzales implemented. MST poised to services based on the results of the South County Transit Study take over other South County Dial A Ride operations but still as funding allows. Harvath Complete awaiting decsions by respecive jurisdictions.
Continuing negotiaions with County of Monterey and other d. Begin construction of Monterey Bay Operations and stakeholders. Construction start at it's earlies by January 2012 if Maintenance Facility. Hernandez Jan-12 financing arranged. e. Complete Design and Begin Construction of Design 60% completed with construction scheduled to begin Sep Fremont/Lighthouse Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service. , Harvath Jun-11 2011. f. Continue planning a comprehensive regional BRT plan and Planning activities have begun on BRT for Del Monte Blvd in apply for funding, as appropriate. , Harvath Ongoing. Monterey.
Equipment installation is ontime and scheduled to be completed g. Install new automated fare collection equipment. Eccles/HernandezComplete March 2011 h. Develop new fare policies to attract additional riders, improve Simplified fare structure adopted in Dec 2010 and scheduled for customer convenience and increase fare revenues. Harvath Completed March 2011 implementation. i. Implement new services including Pacific Grove Trolley, CSUMB – Salinas, and increased frequency on Line 20 Monterey- PG Trolley Demo in place 8/2010, CSUMB - Salinas Trolley Salinas. Harvath Complete 9/2010, and Line 19 in 4/2011. j. Implement measures to reduce and control Workers’ Compensation costs including finalization of a Medical Provider Staff turnover has resulted in some delays. Plan is currently Network (MPN). Halcon Jun-10 being finalized.
3 MST FY 2011 Action Plan Update Effective 3/31/2011 Revised Goal/Action Plan Responsible Due Date Current Status k. Apply for funding for Salinas Area Service Analysis., Harvath Complete Recevied AB2766 grant to conduct study. l. Implement New Freedoms and Jobs Access Reverse Hired Mobility Trainer, Carmel-Pacific Meadows Senior Shuttle, Commute Mobility Management funded projects. Harvath Complete Funding Lines 48 and Lines 55. m. Implement Serenic/Navision Human Resources software module. Eccles, Oct-10 n. Upgrade Trapeze ITS Hardware and Software as funding Identified funding for project was eliminated from federal budget. allows. Eccles Delayed Staff attempting to identify new funding sources. o. Complete audit of maintenance and inventory policies and Audit completed and staff has begun implementation of practices. Hernandez, Complete recommended practices.
3. Implement New Transit District Governance
Objectives/Outcomes: Complete the transition to the transit district governance model in a manner that maximizes full participation and satisfaction of the jurisdictions represented on the MST Board.
Indicators of Success:
• A satisfied, involved, active, and fully-integrated Board of Directors.
• Residents of member jurisdictions feeling well represented
4 MST FY 2011 Action Plan Update Effective 3/31/2011 Revised Goal/Action Plan Responsible Due Date Current Status
Action Plan: a. Develop and implement Board member training and Board members continue to receive training through Transit 101 orientation programs. . Sedoryk, Ongoing sessions and opportunities to attend industry conferences. b. Adopt all necessary resolutions and take actions required to comply with the requirements of AB644 (Caballero). Sedoryk Complete Completed with formation of new board. c. Adopt bylaws for governance of new transit district. Sedoryk Complete Completed with formation of new board. d. Implement revised Board committee structures to support decision making. Sedoryk Complete Completed with formation of new board. e. Effect dissolution of Monterey-Salinas Transit Joint Powers agency and transfer all rights and obligations to the Monterey- Salinas Transit District. Sedoryk Complete Completed with formation of new board. f. Conduct Board and member satisfaction surveys. Sedoryk Jun-11 On schedule for completion in June.
4. Research, Implement and Promote Policies and Practices that Encourage Environmental Sustainability and Resource Conservation
Objective: Implement economically sound and environmentally- friendly resource conservation policies that reduce MST dependence on scarce natural resources and the potential for negative environmental impact without compromising levels or quality of service.
5 MST FY 2011 Action Plan Update Effective 3/31/2011 Revised Goal/Action Plan Responsible Due Date Current Status
Indicators of Success:
• Compliance with EPA and California Air Resources Board mandates
• Reduced consumption of fossil fuels and related costs of utilities including water, natural gas and electricity.
• Increased use of alternative fuels and emerging green technologies.
• Green initiatives funded without compromising service levels or quality.
FY 2011 Action Plan: a. Participate in national, state and regional transit conferences, meetings and groups alternative fuel forums, user groups, etc., that identify and outline changes to federal and California Air Staff continues to participate in regional, state, and national Resources Board (CARB) emission requirements. Hernandez ongoing consortiums. b. Maintain a dialogue with CARB staff regarding emission requirements and emission reduction strategies. Hernandez ongoing c. Adopt Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) principles as appropriate in the design and construction Final design of the facility is substantially complete and qualifies of MST facilities. Hernandez Completed for LEED Silver designation. d. Identify opportunities for energy, water, gas and other Staff regularly seek opportunities to pursue resource resource conservation programs. Hernandez Ongoing conservation activities.
Hybird support vehicles continue to be acquired. Alternative fuel e. Acquire diesel/electric hybrid buses as funding allows. Hernandez Ongoing buses continue to be cost prohibitive.
6 MST FY 2011 Action Plan Update Effective 3/31/2011 Revised Goal/Action Plan Responsible Due Date Current Status
Conducted 5 week demonstration of plug-in electric hybrid staff f. Monitor emerging technologies and determine cost-effective vehicle. Staff is pursuing funding for advanced technlogy electric sustainable technologies and implement as appropriate. Hernandez Complete trolley vehicle.
5. Educate and Inform our Community and Stakeholders on the Value of MST Services through Promotion, Communication, and Advocacy
Attract new riders and improve support for MST by utilizing effective marketing, promotion, communication and advocacy techniques meeting individual community and stakeholder needs.
Indicators of Success:
Increased awareness of MST transportation and mobility services and the value they provide.
Increased patronage and usage of MST website and tools provided.
Increased number of positive media stories regarding MST and public transit.
FY 2011 Action Plan: a. Implement and develop coordinated, multi-media, bilingual media communications and advertising programs as funding New website features powerful multilingual translation and all allows. Harvath Completed promotional materials are bilingual. b. Complete redesign of MST Online website. Harvath Complete Competed Dec 2010.
Began use of Twitter and Facebook accounts to communicate c. Implement new and emerging technologies to communicate with public. Real time passenger info signs implemented at Del with customers. Eccles Completed Monte Center.
7 MST FY 2011 Action Plan Update Effective 3/31/2011 Revised Goal/Action Plan Responsible Due Date Current Status d. Encourage transit-friendly land-use planning through the MST staff continues to comment on proposed developments and update and dissemination of the Designing for Transit manual. Harvath Ongoing encourages use of Designing For Transit Manual. e. Conduct travel training and participate in local community events that provide opportunities for MST staff to educate and MST staff have atttended numerous community events and have inform. Harvath Ongoing begun a program of personal travel training. f. Implement targeted marketing and promotional efforts Conducted extensive outreach to both Cal State University designed towards major employers, schools, senior groups, Monterey Bay, Fort Hunter Liggett, Hartnell College, Del Monte hospitality industry and non-traditional customers. Harvath Complete Center, and Hyatt Monterey.
6. Actively Promote Organizational Values to Maintain High Quality Relationships with MST Employees, Customers, Contractors, Vendors, and Community Stakeholders
Act in manner in all we do to promote individual and organizational safety, efficiency and effectiveness and enhance the satisfaction of those who interact with MST including our customers, employees and other key stakeholders and partners.
Indicators of Success:
1. High levels of employee, customer and stakeholder satisfaction.
2. Continue to improve relationships with represented labor workforce.
3. Increased utilization of employee development programs.
4. Improved safety performance and reductions in injuries.
8 MST FY 2011 Action Plan Update Effective 3/31/2011 Revised Goal/Action Plan Responsible Due Date Current Status
FY 2011 Action Plan: a. Recognize and celebrate individual and group achievements Continued Empoyee of the Month, Coach Operator Excellence, in support of MST’s mission, vision, values, goals and objectives. Sedoryk Ongoing Safety Awards, GM Excelllence and Safety Barbeque programs. b. Conduct attitude and opinion surveys to gauge satisfaction of riders, non-riders, employees and stakeholders as appropriate. Harvath/HalconCompleted c. Improve communication with all employees and the Amalgamated Transit Union and Monterey- Salinas Transit Employee Association leadership. Sedoryk/HalconOngoing Meeting with all employees conducted d. Complete contract negotiations of the Amalgamated Transit Union labor agreement. Halcon/Laredo Feb-11 Negotitations are ongoing and productive. e. Complete negotiations of agreement with Monterey-Salinas Transit Employee Association. Halcon/Laredo Jun-11 Salary survey being conducted in preparation for negotiations. f. Develop and implement targeted marketing and promotional efforts designed towards major employers, schools, senior groups, hospitality industry and non-traditional riders to assist in growing ridership. , Harvath Ongoing.
Organizational changes implemented effecting areas of g. Ensure a proper staff structure is in place that understands Maintenance, Accounting, Customer Service, and Administration. and supports the mission, vision and values to meet strategic Additional changes may occur upon completion of labor goals and objectives. ,. Sedoryk Apr-11 negotiations h. Provide support and advocacy for programs and projects that Continue to participate and advocate with local partner are important to key MST stakeholders and partners. Sedoryk Ongoing organizations including MCHA, OEDC, TAMC, and AMBAG.
9 MST FY 2011 Action Plan Update Effective 3/31/2011 Revised Goal/Action Plan Responsible Due Date Current Status
7. To attain industry leadership for like-sized agencies within California and the United States.
Continue developing and implementing programs and practices that continue to distinguish Monterey-Salinas Transit as a leader with the public transit industry.
Indicators of Success:
1. Participate in a leadership role in industry trade associations.
2. Receive recognition and acknowledgement for innovative programs and practices.
FY 2011 Action Plan:
GM/CEO Elected to APTA Board of Directors in October 2010. Elected to California Transit Association Executive Commitee, and Vice-Chair of CalTIP. AGM/CFO is chair of MCHA Government Affairs committee, Chair of OEDC, and a. Seek appointment to leadership positions within appropriate Boardmember of MCHA,and MCBC. AGM/COO is member of national, state, and local trade, business and community CTA Maintenance Committee, and Hartnell Advanced Diesel associations and committees. Sedoryk Complete Technology Program. b. Develop and implement innovative programs that enhance the overall customer experience, improve safety and sustainability, reduce costs, attract new customers, retain MST military partnership received Secretary of Army Quality of existing customers, motivate employees, and reflect well on Life award. Ridership continues to rise and customer satisfaction Monterey-Salinas Transit and the public transit industry. Sedoryk Ongoing remains high.
Have solicited transit related conferences and region is being looked at to host California Transit Insurance Pool workshop in c. Seek to host state and national conferences at local hotels Aug 2011, California Transit Association annual conference and and conference centers. APTA Board members Conference in 2013.
10 TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY www.tamcmonterey.org
HIGHLIGHTS
April 27, 2011 Meeting
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REDUCTIONS TO BE EVALUATED
The Transportation Agency Board provided conceptual approval of reduced Regional Development Impact Fees for development in in-fill areas, and directed staff to develop a refined definition of in-fill areas including maps. The Regional Development Impact Fee, approved by the County and all the cities in the county in 2008, provides for new development to pay their share of transportation improvements as mitigation for impacts of traffic generated by their projects. It was determined that development in built up areas promotes more use of alternatives to private automobiles. Fees would be reduced by 10 to 20 percent depending on the type of development.
The evaluation of development fees in in-fill areas was the result of a request by the City of Salinas to reduce fees for development in its downtown in order to assist in attracting new development. The City proposes to also initiate a deferred payment plan for buildings in its downtown and redevelopment areas.
The next steps will be to prepare the infill definition and maps that will designate areas in the region that are eligible for reductions. Once completed, draft maps would be presented to the Technical Advisory Committee and Board for comment and approval.
GOLDEN HELMET AWARDED
The second annual Golden Helmet Award was presented to Devian Gilbert for his dedication to bicycling for all his transportation needs. The silver Helmet went to Diego Liberczuk for using bicycle transportation for commuting, and encouraging his co-workers to try it as well.
The aim of this award is to highlight the benefits of bicycle commuting and inspire others to utilize alternative transportation modes. The Agency received a total of 69 nomination forms for five different award nominees. The Transportation Agency Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee appointed a subcommittee to review, rank and recommend a winner to the Transportation Agency Board. The winner was determined base on dedication to bicycling as an alternative form of transportation, as well as, frequency and length of travel, history of bicycle commuting, persistence in inclement weather or other materially adverse conditions, adoption of best practice such as courteous riding habits, bicycle advocacy, and inspiration to others.
SALINAS ROAD – HIGHWAY 1 INTERCHANGE PROJECT CONSTRUCTION UPDATE
Currently under construction, the Salinas Road Interchange project that started in April 2010 will soon be moving to the next phase of construction and will be implementing a detour to traffic traveling along Highway 1 at Salinas Road. During the next phase of construction, traffic will be detoured along a newly constructed frontage road just west of Highway 1 (from Jensen Road to just north of Salinas Road). The detour will also include a temporary intersection with Salinas Road, almost identical to the existing one, but about 100 yards south. The detour is expected to occur in late May or June. Once implemented the detour is expected to last about eight months. During the first two weeks of the detour any traffic turning at Salinas Road will be redirected on Hwy 129 through Watsonville. Further information regarding the detour will be provided as details become available.
The Salinas Road Interchange project will reduce traffic congestion and improve travel north of Moss Landing near the Santa Cruz County line. It also adds vital safety improvements to a high accident intersection, reduces delays on Highway 1, supports interregional travel between Highways 1 and 101, improves access for local businesses and residents.
The project will construct a new interchange at Salinas Road and Highway 1, north of Moss Landing near the Santa Cruz county line. The new interchange will include construction of a 3- lane structure (Salinas Road) over Highway 1 with 3 diamond-type ramps and one southbound loop on-ramp. A frontage road will be constructed from Jensen Road to Salinas Road west of Highway 1 and connect with the southbound off-ramp. A frontage road will also be constructed east of Highway 1 to provide access to local businesses.
MONTEREY COUNTY FREIGHT RAIL STUDY
The Transportation Agency elected to provide conceptual support for a freight rail facility feasibility study with the intention of developing an agricultural truck to rail intermodal facility in the Salinas Valley. Monterey County is currently collaborating with the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments and agricultural industry stakeholders to apply for a grant to complete this feasibility study for the facility.
The truck to rail facility is intended to expand the options for transporting goods from the Salinas Valley to domestic markets and provide potential cost savings. In addition, with over 2,500 refrigerated trucks per day leaving the Salinas Valley, there is a significant impact on roadways, air quality and quality of life of the residents of Monterey County. The truck to rail facility and operation could significantly reduce these impacts.
NEW BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEMBER
The Transportation Agency approved Tim Meehan to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee representing the City of Monterey. Mr. Meehan commutes frequently on his bicycle, often times with his children riding in a trailer at the back of the bicycle. He served on the City of Monterey’s ad-hoc Bicycle Committee in 2009 and was instrumental in the development of the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan. Mr. Meehan is passionate about bicycling and helping to shape the future direction for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the County.
Monterey-Salinas Transit Washington, D.C. Office
DATE: April 27, 2011
TO: Carl Sedoryk
FROM: Thomas P. Walters
The following report summarizes recent actions taken on behalf of Monterey-Salinas Transit:
Participated in MST Legislative Committee meeting to advise on lobbying strategies and MST Federal agenda and priorities.
Contacted Senate Appropriations Committee regarding National Endowment for the Arts funding for the Our Town program.
Discussed Monterey Jazz Festival NEA application with local Congressional Delegation to request support.
Began logistical support for future Washington, D.C. advocacy meetings.
Provided updates to MST on transportation and appropriations legislation.
TPW:dwg
MEMO
DATE: April 29, 2011
TO: Carl Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO Monterey-Salinas Transit
FROM: John E. Arriaga, President
SUBJ: April 2011 Activity Report
Week of April 4, 2011 Monitored legislative hearings Prepared Capitol Weekly Report on key events and activities in Sacramento/the Capitol Monitored gubernatorial appointments Monitored Senate Transportation & Housing committee hearing Monitored Assembly Transportation committee hearing
Week of April 11 2011 Prepared Capitol Weekly Report on key events and activities in Sacramento/the Capitol Monitored gubernatorial appointments Monitored legislative hearings Monitored Senate Transportation & Housing committee hearing Monitored Assembly Transportation committee hearing
Week of April 18, 2011 Legislative Recess Email conversations to discuss legislative track changes
Week of April 25, 2011 Monitored legislative hearings Prepared Capitol Weekly Report on key events and activities in Sacramento/the Capitol Monitored gubernatorial appointments Monitored Senate Transportation & Housing committee hearing Monitored Assembly Transportation committee hearing Monitored the meetings of the Assembly and Senate Transportation Budget Subcommittees as to the issue of timing and issuance of Prop 1B and 1A bonds for 2011 Participated via conference call on MST’s Legislative Committee meeting
Please feel free to contact me at (916) 669-1340 with any questions or concerns you may have regarding information contained in this report.
April 25, 2011
To: Carl Sedoryk
From: Mark Eccles, Director of Information Technology
Subject: TRIP REPORT
I travelled to Miami, FL on March 28th through April 1st, 2011, to attend the annual American Public Transportation Association Transit TransitTech conference. During the seminar, I attended the majority of the sessions, ranging from Implementing Electronic Fare Payment Systems to Wireless Broadband and Narrowbanding.
In addition to the sessions, I attended the onsite Expo and discussed current and future innovations aimed at the Transit industry. The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) components field has continued to grow and improve.
It was very useful for me to meet other IT professionals from Transit agencies within North America and Europe as I was able to ascertain where agencies are tending to allocate very scarce resources at this economically difficult time.
Overall it was a very useful trip to undertake.
Mark Eccles
April 27, 2011
To: Carl Sedoryk
From: Hunter Harvath, Assistant General Manager – Finance & Admin.
Subject: TRIP REPORTS
On March 12th through 14th, 2011, I traveled to Washington, DC to participate in the American Public Transportation Association’s 2011 Legislative Conference. During the seminar, I participated in the following sessions:
Welcome to Washington – Political commentary and insight regarding the new Congress. Transit Policy Briefing – Tommy Thompson, former Health & Human Services Secretary and 4-term governor of Wisconsin. New Opportunities for Transit in 2011 – profiling transportation priorities of the Obama Administration – John Porcari, US Deputy Secretary of Transportation.
In addition to these sessions, I met with Dwayne Weeks, Federal Transit Administration New Starts staff, to update him on MST’s JAZZ Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project on the Fremont/Lighthouse Corridor and to discuss the potential for federal funding of additional BRT corridors in Monterey County.
On March 29th through 30th, 2011, I traveled to Sacramento to participate in the California Transit Association’s Lobby Day. While in Sacramento, we met with Senators Sam Blakeslee and Anthony Cannella as well as Assemblymembers Luis Alejo and Bill Monning. During these meetings, we discussed statewide transit funding issues as well as specific MST transit projects and priorities.
Hunter Harvath
April 28, 2011
To: Hunter Harvath
From: Zoé Shoats, Marketing Analyst
Subject: TRIP REPORTS
On February 28 through March 2, 2011, I traveled to San Diego, CA to participate in the American Public Transportation Association’s 2011 Marketing and Communications Conference. During the seminar, I participated in the following sessions:
Opening Session - Introduced a personality profiling called Emergenetics which helps marketers know how to best reach their audience. Targeted Marketing - Reviewed cases where transit agencies targeted a specific audience to increase ridership. Mobile Apps & Marketing - Pros, cons and challenges of reaching your ridership through various mobile applications, texting and web pages. Marketing Roundtables – Brainstormed with industry peers on topics including Attracting Non-Riders, Service Cuts, Multicultural Marketing and Justifying your Marketing Budget. Crisis Communications – Learned strategies to communicate and control the media’s message in a time of crisis. Generating Grassroots Support for Agencies in the new Political Reality – Discussed how to motivate your community, ridership and political leaders to support public transportation. Big Ideas, Small Budgets – Small agencies presented ideas that had a big impact with a little budget. Thinking Outside the Farebox – Review of advertising options to generate revenue. Motivating Riders & Advocates and Building Loyalty – Behavioral economics
While in San Diego, I met with Christina Spencer, public relations specialist for MV Transportation, to discuss how MV can help promote MST’s service through public relations.
Zoé Shoats
Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Friday, April 29, 2011 8:20 AM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Please consider alternative site to Whispering Oaks
From: Henrietta Stern [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Thursday, April 28, 2011 11:13 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Please consider alternative site to Whispering Oaks Subject: Fw: Please consider alternative site to Whispering Oaks
Resent to correct e-mail address Thank you for your consideration
----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Henrietta Stern
Dear MST Board members,
Please do not appeal the Monterey County Planning Commission's unanimous decision to deny the Whispering Oaks project. Instead, carefully read why the project was denied. How ironic that a project with such a lovely name would destroy 4,400 oaks. Such action would be unconscionable. Certainly, with all the blight in the former Fort Ord, you can find a better place for your bus center than beautiful open space. You would also destroy a well-used historic trail that honors the cavalrymen of Fort Ord.
As an avid cyclist and recreational trail user, I and hundreds of like-minded folks would naturally want to support increased public transportation and bus-bike commuting. However, if MST shows such a callous disregard for the natural environment, it would be hard to support your agency or its endeavors in the future.
Please do the right thing-- do not eradicate this beautiful forest when there are blighted areas nearby that are a much more appropriate "reuse" of the former Fort Ord. I understand that there is also an alternative site at the Marina airport. Please take the time to find a suitable alternative location that will engender substantial public support and appreciation for your responsiveness to the public you serve.
1 Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Henrietta Stern 412 7th Street Pacific Grove, Ca 93950
2 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 4:28 PM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Proposed locations for Transit Facility
From: Jan Shriner [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 3:51 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Proposed locations for Transit Facility Subject: Proposed locations for Transit Facility
Please discontinue destruction of habitat along Inter Garrison in favor of location already blighted.
Marina has a former stockade in the vicinity that might be of interest. I believe it is currently privately-owned but the owner is interested in some of the area near the airport. Perhaps there could be a discussion with the owner and the City of Marina General Manager about how to make a facility possible in an already blighted area.
Some people are also suggesting a location at the Marina Airport or in the commercial "sphere of influence" of the City of Marina.
The Transit Facility is a good idea and mass-transit is greatly needed now and essential for planning.
The location currently proposed is simply too valuable of a habitat and too disruptive for eco-tourism potential of the area near the Equestrian Center. Jan Shriner Marina Resident
1 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:08 PM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Please REJECT the destruction of 4,000 Oak Trees for MST Hub!
From: Deborah Carol [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 1:00 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Please REJECT the destruction of 4,000 Oak Trees for MST Hub! Subject: Please REJECT the destruction of 4,000 Oak Trees for MST Hub!
Dear Sirs and Madames:
I support MST and public transit, which helps preserve our environment. I appreciate the board members for their service to the community. However this plan shows a shocking lack of environmental planning and sensitivity to habitat viability of our entire region! Pristine oak habitat is simply not the place to destroy to provide mass transit. Board members please have your staff cost this out and provide figures on money spent so far.The Planning Commission rightly rejected the proposal and suggested the Marina Airport as a more viable site. Of course they are correct! I will be calling shortly to meet with members, and plan to bring a contigent of interested individuals. Please reject and redo your proposal for a more workable site, one that does not destroy such a healthy, viable resource 4,400 oak trees represent!
Additionally, consider these points in your decision:
• The Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject this proposal because of egregious tree removal and habitat devastation. The site is very dense, coastal live oak forest. Preservation of oak trees is part of California and local policies. • The replanting of oaks elsewhere proposed in the EIR is meaningless; the sites named are already mature forest and grassland and will not benefit.
• It’s regrettable that the County of Monterey talked MST staff into pursuing this site for the purpose of facilitating their business park. MST will pay heavily to bring in utilities, hoping to recoup costs from future developers of the parcel next door—which may never happen. With tree eradication, replanting, and utilities, the cost of a bus yard at this site probably exceeds that at the Marina Airport, which has infrastructure.
• No private developer in Monterey County would dream of proposing this kind of destruction. Legal battles erupt in Carmel Valley and other parts of the county over one or two trees. The County should be held to the same standards it applies to others.
Respectfully,
1 Deborah Carol, Coordinator of the Hacienda Heights Neighborhood Association
2 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 4:41 PM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Regarding relocating the proposed bus hub and Whispering Oaks project
From: Gary Karnes [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 3:53 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Regarding relocating the proposed bus hub and Whispering Oaks project Subject: Regarding relocating the proposed bus hub and Whispering Oaks project
Chairman Fernando Armenta Monterey Salinas Transit Board
April 26, 2011
Dear Chairman Armenta,
I am a long time walker/hiker on Fort Ord Trails. I am a bicyclist, a bus rider and a train user. Philosophically, I support mass transit and support increased funding for clean efficient modes of transportation to get all of us out of our automobiles and into busses, trains and on bikes.
Thank you for your lifelong dedication to public service. Today, I am writing to you in your role as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the MST transportation system. I write to urge you and other directors of MST to reconsider the placement of the MST regional bus hub and repair yard in the “Whispering Oaks” forest greenway along Inter- Garrison Road near the CSUMB campus.
This location is an inappropriate site for commercial development and a bus terminal for two reasons. Mainly, I oppose the MST hub and repair facility at this location because it would require the elimination of 4,400 mature coastal live oak trees. This is contrary to
1 state and local forest protection policies. The trails and open space of Fort Ord are a regional resource used by the entire community and must be protected.
Secondly, it is my understanding that the City of Marina has offered a site similar in size at the Marina Airport complex. This alternate location should be explored in detail. It would likely be far less expensive to prepare and bring in needed utilities and have lower operational costs over time. Please consider relocating this MST bus hub and the rest of the “Whispering Oaks” commercial project. Ask staff to cost out the savings of construction and operations by locating at the Marina Airport.
Please let me know your thoughts on this item. I and others who are avid hikers/bikers/and horse riders would be more than glad to meet with you and tour both sites and discuss this further. Please share my comments with other MST board members if you would please.
Best regards,
Gary Karnes 402-9106 7 Attlebury Circle, Salinas, CA 93906 831 402-9106
April 26, 2011
Page 2
2 Deanna Smith
From: Carl Sedoryk Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:58 PM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Whispering Oaks MST project
Not sure if you have this one.
From: 100-District 1 (831) 647-7991 [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 2:14 PM To: Carl Sedoryk Subject: FW: Whispering Oaks MST project
From: Michael Do Couto [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:19 PM To: 100-District 1 (831) 647-7991; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Whispering Oaks MST project
MST Board Representatives, I support MST and public transit, which helps preserve our environment. I appreciate the Board members for their service to the community. Below are some concerns I have about Whispering Oaks MST project. • The loss of greenway surrounding the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail is a senseless and irreparable blow to a recreational thoroughfare from beach to federal trails. • The trails and open space of Fort Ord are a regional resource, used by the ENTIRE County of Monterey. • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject this proposal because of egregious tree removal and habitat destruction. The site is very dense, coastal live oak forest. Preservation of oak trees is part of California and local policies. • The replanting of oaks elsewhere proposed in the EIR is meaningless; the sites named are already mature forest and grassland and will not benefit. • It’s regrettable that the County of Monterey talked MST staff into pursuing this site for the purpose of facilitating their business park. MST will pay heavily to bring in utilities, hoping to recoup costs from future developers of the parcel next door—which may never happen. With tree eradication, replanting, and utilities, the cost of a bus yard at this site probably exceeds that at the Marina Airport, which has infrastructure. Ask Board members to have staff cost this out and provide figures on money spent so far. • No private developer in Monterey County would dream of proposing this kind of destruction. Legal battles erupt in Carmel Valley and other parts of the county over one or two trees. The County should be held to the same standards it applies to others.
Michael Do Couto
1 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 11:02 AM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Please find another location for the new MST Facility
From: Kay Cline [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:48 AM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Please find another location for the new MST Facility Subject: Please find another location for the new MST Facility
Please make sure that each of the MST Directors receive the following forwarded email. Thank you , Kay Cline ----- Original Message ----- From: Sheila Clark To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2011 8:16 PM Subject: Fwd: [Sustainable Seaside]: Fw: Success last week--but grave new threat requires your immediate action
From: Barbara Mossberg
Dear Board Members and Neighbors:
I am a local professor, Poet in Residence for Pacific Grove, and supporter of programs for the arts, the environment, and citizen engagement supporting our communities. I teach in the Osher Institute for Lifelong Learning, adults "fifty and better," at CSUMB for students who wish to be leaders in our communities, including President of the U.S., and doctoral students in leadership across sectors. I have served on the boards of various organizations in our area, including as President of the Forest Theater Guild, the Forest Theater Foundation, Bach Festival, Rising Leaf, Cherry Center, Stevenson Pirate Parent Board, and others. I lecture at Yosemite National Park in the summers, and I host a weekly hour radio show on KRXA 540AM, on topics in the news, and the role that expressive arts play in legislation and civic policy.
My students in the Osher Institute, who are professionals from education, medicine, law, government, agriculture, business, and arts, have come to me with urgent concern about this issue you will be taking up Mary 9.
I appreciate tree-mendously all you can do in support of our citizens Planning Commission rejection of the idea of using Fort Ord instead of the Marina airport for a repair yard. So much depends on this decision, with stakes that we can't even predict now, including economic and political as well as environmental outcomes.
Please vote to support the prohibition of the destruction of trees which will harm our climate, soil (for flooding and draught) and area's beauty for ourselves and visitors, and in the name of all the creatures who live there. We love the Sgt. Allan MacDonald Calvary Trail. We cannot stand by and see 4,400 trees felled. It will be a
1 national disgrace and catastrophe for our community. There are viable other options, and your support will be so meaningful and appreciated. I will be happy to speak with you and provide you information of use to you in your support for this democratic decision. If a decision is made to overturn the citizen Planning Commission and destroy the trees and habitat, it will not only be a disgrace but will destabilize our community for any political progress. Our students especially are looking to you for moral leadership and courage. Thank you each. I will be writing poetry about this, as it was John Muir's poetic writings which saved an area similar to this case, from total destruction--Yosemite National Park. If you can believe it, it once too was threatened by commercial interests with the trees being cut down and habitat destroyed. Today he is on the California quarter, and last night PBS did a special on him as the hero for our country. It is my belief that words do matter, and that is why I am writing you most earnestly to ask for your support.
I have given lectures on this topic internationally and for universities, conferences, and fundraisers for area hospitals and hospice programs (the importance of trees and habitat for citizen health, morale, and democracy). I would be happy to speak to the Board.
Thank you. Please feel free to contact me, and I appreciate everything you are doing to make our community more healthy and beautiful and a joy to live in.
You will be heroes giving encouragement to so many students who are passionately learning how and why to care for our environment, now that we know better and what is at stake in preserving our wild lands!
Sincerely, Barbara Mossberg
-- Dr. Barbara Mossberg President Emerita Goddard College Director and Professor, Integrated Studies California State University Monterey Bay Founder and Host, The Poetry Slow Down with Professor Barbara Mossberg www.krxa540.com, KRXA 540 AM (Monterey/Santa Cruz/Salinas) Poet in Residence, City of Pacific Grove Affiliated Faculty, Union Institute and University (831) 236-6662 www.BarbaraMossberg.com
2 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 11:02 AM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Trees
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: john hutcherson [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 10:29 AM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Trees Subject: Trees
Please make an effort to move your facility to the Marina airport and not cut down thousands of trees John Hutcherson 480 San Bernabe Dr Monterey [email protected]
1 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 11:01 AM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: [Sustainable Seaside]: Fw: Thank you for actions and please resend to corrected email address
From: john hutcherson [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 10:34 AM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: [Sustainable Seaside]: Fw: Thank you for actions and please resend to corrected email address Subject: Fwd: [Sustainable Seaside]: Fw: Thank you for actions and please resend to corrected email address
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Kay Cline"
----- Original Message ----- From: Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse To: Margaret Davis Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 10:35 AM Subject: Thank you for actions and please resend to corrected email address
Dear Friends,
IF YOU SENT AN EMAIL TO ALL the Monterey-Salinas Transit board of directors, you may have encountered an error message. PLEASE RESEND using [email protected].
Even if you didn't get an error message after sending your email, PLEASE RESEND using [email protected]. We don't want a single email to be lost.
Your communications with Monterey-Salinas Transit are absolutely critical. We are asking you to contact the MST directors TODAY and speak out Monday, May 9th at the MST board of directors meeting.
TALKING POINTS------
1 Note: In communicating with MST directors, know that they are not familiar with the project and are not to blame. They have only recently gotten more involved in the details because the Planning Commission rejected the proposal.
• We support MST and public transit, which helps preserve our environment. We appreciate the board members for their service to the community. • The loss of greenway surrounding the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail is a senseless and irreparable blow to a recreational thoroughfare from beach to federal trails. • The trails and open space of Fort Ord are a regional resource, used by the ENTIRE County of Monterey. • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject this proposal because of egregious tree removal and habitat devastation. The site is very dense, coastal live oak forest. Preservation of oak trees is part of California and local policies. • The replanting of oaks elsewhere proposed in the EIR is meaningless; the sites named are already mature forest and grassland and will not benefit. • It’s regrettable that the County of Monterey talked MST staff into pursuing this site for the purpose of facilitating their business park. MST will pay heavily to bring in utilities, hoping to recoup costs from future developers of the parcel next door—which may never happen. With tree eradication, replanting, and utilities, the cost of a bus yard at this site probably exceeds that at the Marina Airport, which has infrastructure. Ask Board members to have staff cost this out and provide figures on money spent so far. • No private developer in Monterey County would dream of proposing this kind of destruction. Legal battles erupt in Carmel Valley and other parts of the county over one or two trees. The County should be held to the same standards it applies to others. ------
Below is contact info for your MST Board representative. Directors can be emailed as a group at [email protected].
County of Monterey, Fernando Armenta, 831-755-5011, [email protected] Carmel, Karen Sharp, 620-2000 (city), 831-624-5727 Home, [email protected] Del Rey Oaks, Jerry Edelen. 831-647-3726, [email protected] Gonzales, Maria Orozco, 831-675-5000, [email protected] Greenfield, John Huerta, Jr., 831-674-5591, [email protected] King City, Susan Kleber, 831-385-3281 ext 5932, [email protected] Marina, Frank O'Connell, [email protected] Monterey, Libby Downey, [email protected] Pacific Grove, Alan Cohen, [email protected] Salinas, Sergio Sanchez, [email protected] Sand City, David Pendergrass, 831-394-3054, [email protected] Seaside, Alvin Edwards, 831-899-6700, [email protected] Soledad, Patricia Stephens, 831-223-5014
MST Director's Meeting:
2 MONDAY, MAY 9th: Attend the MST board meeting at 10am and SPEAK OUT Directions: Monday, May 9, 10am • MST Conference Room • One Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey 93940. From Hwy 1: take exit 403 (Seaside/Del Rey Oaks), L on Canyon Del Rey Blvd, L on Ryan Ranch Rd, Make a U-turn - One Ryan Ranch Road will be on right. From Hwy 68: north on Canyon Del Rey Blvd, R on Ryan Ranch Road, make a U-turn - One Ryan Ranch Road will be on right. MST phone number: 1-888-678-2871
Thank you,
Margaret Davis Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse 831-224-4534
PS. Thanks to photographer Sandra Gray for her pictures along the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail (attached).
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sustainable Seaside" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sustainable- [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sustainable- seaside?hl=en.
3 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:37 AM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Whispering Oaks forest greenway
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Sharon Heckert [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 8:03 AM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Whispering Oaks forest greenway Subject: Whispering Oaks forest greenway
Dear Directors, Please, please seek alternative sites for the regional transit yard. The Marina airport would be so much more cost efficient and geographically advantageous. It would be a travesty to destroy the "Whispering Oaks" forest greenway!! We hikers, bikers, walkers, horseback riders ,nature lovers and community members want and need that space to remain as it is Thank you! Sharon Heckert
1 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:36 AM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Preserve the open spaces, habitats and federal trails
From: Katherine Wolff [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 12:42 AM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Preserve the open spaces, habitats and federal trails Subject: Fwd: Preserve the open spaces, habitats and federal trails
Begin forwarded message:
From: Katherine Wolff
To whom it may concern, I and my family and friends wish to oppose any bulldozing and use of heavy commercial equipment in the Fort Ord Open spaces, habitats and federal trails. Development must not happen because the destruction of these sensitive areas. The natural beauty of the 4000+ Old oak trees and habitats must be preserved. Sincerely, Katherine Wolff
1 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:35 AM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Voice for preservation
From: john-bonnie [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Monday, April 25, 2011 1:18 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Voice for preservation Subject: Voice for preservation
Dear Directors,
I am writing to let you know that I am strongly opposed to the destruction of the habitat and Oak forest surrounding the Sgt. MacDonald Cavalry Trail. Is that the only alternative? I urge you not to allow another destruction of a Oak woodland in our county.
Sincerely, Bonnie Whisler Seaside
1 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:35 AM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: MST
From: JIM SELBY [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Monday, April 25, 2011 3:41 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: MST Subject: MST
----- Forwarded Message ---- From: Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse
TALKING POINTS------
Note: In communicating with MST directors, know that they are not familiar with the project and are not to blame. They have only recently gotten more involved in the details because the Planning Commission rejected the proposal.
• We support MST and public transit, which helps preserve our environment. We appreciate the board members for their service to the community. • The loss of greenway surrounding the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail is a senseless and irreparable blow to a recreational thoroughfare from beach to federal trails. • The trails and open space of Fort Ord are a regional resource, used by the ENTIRE County of Monterey. • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject this proposal because of egregious tree removal and habitat devastation. The site is very dense, coastal live oak forest. Preservation of oak trees is part of California and local policies. • The replanting of oaks elsewhere proposed in the EIR is meaningless; the sites named are already mature forest and grassland and will not benefit. • It’s regrettable that the County of Monterey talked MST staff into pursuing this site for the purpose of facilitating their business park. MST will pay heavily to bring in utilities, hoping to recoup costs from future developers of the parcel next door—which may never happen. With tree eradication, replanting, and utilities, the cost of a bus yard at this site probably exceeds that at the Marina Airport, which has infrastructure. Ask Board members to have staff cost this out and provide figures on money spent so far. • No private developer in Monterey County would dream of proposing this kind of destruction. Legal battles erupt in Carmel Valley and other parts of the county over one or two trees. The County should be held to the same standards it applies to others. ------
1 Below is contact info for your MST Board representative. Directors can be emailed as a group at [email protected].
County of Monterey, Fernando Armenta, 831-755-5011, [email protected] Carmel, Karen Sharp, 620-2000 (city), 831-624-5727 Home, [email protected] Del Rey Oaks, Jerry Edelen. 831-647-3726, [email protected] Gonzales, Maria Orozco, 831-675-5000, [email protected] Greenfield, John Huerta, Jr., 831-674-5591, [email protected] King City, Susan Kleber, 831-385-3281 ext 5932, [email protected] Marina, Frank O'Connell, [email protected] Monterey, Libby Downey, [email protected] Pacific Grove, Alan Cohen, [email protected] Salinas, Sergio Sanchez, [email protected] Sand City, David Pendergrass, 831-394-3054, [email protected] Seaside, Alvin Edwards, 831-899-6700, [email protected] Soledad, Patricia Stephens, 831-223-5014
MST Director's Meeting:
MONDAY, MAY 9th: Attend the MST board meeting at 10am and SPEAK OUT Directions: Monday, May 9, 10am • MST Conference Room • One Ryan Ranch Road, Monterey 93940. From Hwy 1: take exit 403 (Seaside/Del Rey Oaks), L on Canyon Del Rey Blvd, L on Ryan Ranch Rd, Make a U-turn - One Ryan Ranch Road will be on right. From Hwy 68: north on Canyon Del Rey Blvd, R on Ryan Ranch Road, make a U-turn - One Ryan Ranch Road will be on right. MST phone number: 1-888-678-2871
Thank you,
Margaret Davis Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse 831-224-4534
PS. Thanks to photographer Sandra Gray for her pictures along the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail (attached).
2 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:34 AM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Do not destroy the Whispering oaks forest greenway Attachments: pastedGraphic.pdf; ATT4895650.htm
From: Claudia Goodman [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Monday, April 25, 2011 9:04 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Do not destroy the Whispering oaks forest greenway Subject: Do not destroy the Whispering oaks forest greenway
Members of the Monterey-Salinas Transit,
I’m writing to urge you to choose an alternate location for your planned regional bus hub and repair yard, rather than seeking to secure a location on the "Whispering Oaks" forest greenway. As an environmentalist and conservationist, I am a strong supporter of mass transit as it provides the most practical way to reduce numbers of cars on the road and vehicle emissions, and also provides transportation to those who cannot afford the ever higher cost of owning and fueling an automobile. I do, however, strongly object to locating a regional bus hub on the site of what is now a lovely, mature forest that is also an important recreational greenway and wildlife habitat. The dire biological and ecological implications of clear cutting this coast oak forest to replace it with a heavily used, commercial development are untenable. When at least one extremely suitable alternative site exists for the MST regional bus hub, what is the purpose of such a plan? Preserving this area’s green corridor is not only critical to the survival of area wildlife, but very important to humans who traverse the Sgt. Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail as a recreational thoroughfare from beach to federal trails in the Fort Ord Open Space lands. The importance and value of preserving it for wildlife and people cannot be overstated. The trails through this corridor are used by Monterey County residents, and also by residents of neighboring counties, who head here to hike, bike, ride horses, and enjoy this wonderful open space. They all contribute to the financial strength of the surrounding communities. All of this is strong impetus to protect, rather than destroy, this land in its natural state. I am aware that the the Monterey Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject this proposal because of radical tree removal and habitat destruction. Dense with coastal live oak forest, removing several thousand mature trees from this greenway runs counter to state and regional environmental policies. And clearly, this kind of forest destruction cannot be mitigated by replanting oaks elsewhere as proposed in the EIR; this is a mature forest and grassland that cannot be “replaced” by replanting. Bulldozing, forever removing such a lovely and natural landscape would be a tragedy. It is truly regrettable that the County of Monterey persuaded MST staff into pursuing this site. It seems to have been motivated by a questionable agenda on County’s part. I would ask you to analyze the cost of a bus yard at the Marina Airport, which already has infrastructure, and is far more practical insofar as providing access to air travel via mass transit. I do not believe any private developer in Monterey County would try to propose a development where this kind of full scale environmental destruction would be an outcome. It would seem somewhat tyrannical if the County were not held to the same, reasonable standards. I wholeheartedly encourage you to reconsider the location of your new site in view of the indefensible destruction of the "Whispering Oaks" forest greenway.
Claudia Goodman President, Santa Cruz County Horsemen’s Association
1 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 9:33 AM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Regional Transit Yard
From: Brown Family [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Monday, April 25, 2011 6:46 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Regional Transit Yard Subject: Regional Transit Yard
Dear Directors of MST,
We are writing to you to urge you to reconsider your plans for the regional transit yard, and thank you in advance for taking into consideration the following:
We heartily support MST and public transit, which helps preserve our environment and we appreciate the Board members for their service to the community!
Yet, the loss of greenway surrounding the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail is a senseless and irreparable blow to a recreational thoroughfare from beach to federal trails. The trails and open space of Fort Ord are a regional resource, used by the ENTIRE County of Monterey. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject this proposal because of egregious tree removal and habitat destruction. The site is a very dense, coastal live oak forest. Preservation of oak trees is part of California and local policies, so the replanting of oaks elsewhere proposed in the EIR is meaningless; the sites named are already mature forest and grassland and will not benefit. It's regrettable that the County of Monterey talked MST staff into pursuing this site for the purpose of facilitating their business park, because MST will pay heavily to bring in utilities, hoping to recoup costs from future developers of the parcel next door-which may never happen.
With tree eradication, replanting, and utilities, the cost of a bus yard at this site probably exceeds that at the Marina Airport, which has infrastructure. Please ask Board members to have staff cost this out and provide figures on money spent so far.
No private developer in Monterey County would dream of proposing this kind of destruction. Legal battles erupt in Carmel Valley and other parts of the county over one or two trees. The County should be held to the same standards it applies to others.
Respectfully, Scott & Peggy Brown 1655 Military Ave Seaside, CA
1 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 1:15 PM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: MST opposing project on the greenway Sgt Allan MacDonald
-----Original Message----- From: Lisa Deas [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:33 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: MST opposing project on the greenway Sgt Allan MacDonald Subject: MST opposing project on the greenway Sgt Allan MacDonald
• We support MST and public transit, which helps preserve our environment. We appreciate the board members for their service to the community. • The loss of greenway surrounding the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail is a senseless and irreparable blow to a recreational thoroughfare from beach to federal trails. • The trails and open space of Fort Ord are a regional resource, used by the ENTIRE County of Monterey. • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject this proposal because of egregious tree removal and habitat devastation. The site is very dense, coastal live oak forest. Preservation of oak trees is part of California and local policies. • The replanting of oaks elsewhere proposed in the EIR is meaningless; the sites named are already mature forest and grassland and will not benefit. • It’s regrettable that the County of Monterey talked MST staff into pursuing this site for the purpose of facilitating their business park. MST will pay heavily to bring in utilities, hoping to recoup costs from future developers of the parcel next door—which may never happen. With tree eradication, replanting, and utilities, the cost of a bus yard at this site probably exceeds that at the Marina Airport, which has infrastructure. Ask Board members to have staff cost this out and provide figures on money spent so far. • No private developer in Monterey County would dream of proposing this kind of destruction. Legal battles erupt in Carmel Valley and other parts of the county over one or two trees. The County should be held to the same standards it applies to others.
Lisa Deas 3116 Lake Dr #32 Marina CA 93933 831-402-7482
http://www.bchcalifornia.org
3 Paper = trees. Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
1 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 1:14 PM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Bertrand Deprez [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Monday, April 25, 2011 1:13 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail Subject: Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail
Dear MST directors,
I am a seaside resident who uses the trails of Ford Ord on a regular basis for hiking and biking. I am writing to urge you to reconsider using another location for the MST project. I support the use of public transit which helps preserve the environment but I am opposed to the destruction of greenway surrounding the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. These recreational trails and open space of Ford Ord are a regional resource and used by the Entire county of Monterey. The Planning Commision has rejected unanimously rejected this project because of egregious tree removal and habitat devastion. Also the replanting of oaks elsewhere propsed in the EIR is meaningless since the sites proposed are already mature forest and grassland. It's regrettable that the county of Monterey talked MST staff into pursuing this site for the purpose of facilitating their business park. With tree eradication, replanting and utilities, the cost of a bus yard at this site probably exceeds that at the Marina Airport, which has infrastructure. I am confident that you will make the right choice by letting this beautiful greenway be accessible for all nature lovers and generations to come. I would like to thank you in advance for your consideration.
Best regards,
Bertrand Deprez
1 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 1:13 PM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: [Sustainable Seaside]: Fw: Thank you for actions and please resend to corrected email address Attachments: Ft . Ord Hike (45).JPG
-----Original Message----- From: Sandra Gray [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:35 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: [Sustainable Seaside]: Fw: Thank you for actions and please resend to corrected email address Subject: Fw: [Sustainable Seaside]: Fw: Thank you for actions and please resend to corrected email address
I support the vote of the Planning commission against your proposal to build on the site of the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail. There are other options that should be explored for sites that have less of an impact on invaluable habit that would be destroyed by this development.
For example: there are extensive motor pool areas undeveloped on Ft. Ord which would in my opinion cost less to serve this use because they are already covered with concrete.
I agree with points made by the Save the Ft. Ord Warhorse, Sustainable Seaside, and other groups:
• We support MST and public transit, which helps preserve our environment. We appreciate the board members for their service to the community. • The loss of greenway surrounding the Sgt Allan MacDonald Cavalry Trail is a senseless and irreparable blow to a recreational thoroughfare from beach to federal trails. • The trails and open space of Fort Ord are a regional resource, used by the ENTIRE County of Monterey. • The Planning Commission voted unanimously to reject this proposal because of egregious tree removal and habitat devastation. The site is very dense, coastal live oak forest. Preservation of oak trees is part of California and local policies. • The replanting of oaks elsewhere proposed in the EIR is meaningless; the sites named are already mature forest and grassland and will not benefit. • It’s regrettable that the County of Monterey talked MST staff into pursuing this site for the purpose of facilitating their business park. MST will pay heavily to bring in utilities, hoping to recoup costs from future developers of the parcel next door—which may never happen. With tree eradication, replanting, and utilities, the cost of a bus yard at this site probably exceeds that at the Marina Airport, which has infrastructure. Ask Board members to have staff cost this out and provide figures on money spent so far. • No private developer in Monterey County would dream of proposing this kind of destruction. Legal battles erupt in Carmel Valley and other parts of the county over one or two trees. The County should be held to the same standards it applies to others.
The attachment shows some of the beautiful habitat that would be clear cut and destroyed by your proposal to develop along the trail. It was taken Saturday April 23, 2011 on a hike organized by Sustainable Seaside.
1
Sandra Gray
2 Deanna Smith
From: Gretchen Faus Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 7:53 AM To: Sonia Bannister Subject: FW: Letter for the Board of Directors Attachments: Whispering Oaks Letter.pdf
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Tom Moore [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:06 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Letter for the Board of Directors Subject: Letter for the Board of Directors
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Tom Moore [mailto:[email protected]] Posted At: Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:06 PM Posted To: Customer Service Conversation: Letter for the Board of Directors Subject: Letter for the Board of Directors
Dear Sir or Madame;
Please distribute the attached letter to the members of the MST Board of Directors with their next board packet. Thank you for the assistance with this request.
Sincerely yours, Tom Moore 3235 Isla del Sol Way Marina, CA 93933
1
Thomas P. Moore, Ph.D., C.P.L 3235 Isla del Sol Way Marina, CA 93933-4321
April 20, 2011
Board of Directors Monterey Salinas Transit One Ryan Ranch Road Monterey, CA 93940
Dear Directors;
Although it was no doubt a disappointment to your staff, I strongly agree with the recent denial of the MST/Whispering Oaks Business Park by the County Planning Commission. There simply is no rational justification for the removal of more than 4,000 coast live oaks from that site, especially when a suitable substitute site exists at the Marina Airport. I am convinced that the City of Marina would welcome both the MST and the business park component of the proposal over at the airport – they would be crazy not to welcome it.
Furthermore, on September 22, 2009, the Monterey County Board of Supervisors approved the Oak Woodland Stewardship Guidelines for the express purpose, in part, of preserving the mere 10% of county land still covered by coast live oak woodland.
Most of the major projects on the former Fort Ord are at a standstill that’s likely to continue for several more years. So it makes no sense whatsoever to clear cut a coast live oak woodland in order to start another new project that will compete with projects that have already been started. Land is available at Marina Municipal Airport and land is clearly available at the UCMBEST project. In both cases, this available land has already been clear cut.
So I’m sorry that your proposed project got so far down the line before being denied, but I strongly urge you to change course and begin negotiations with the City of Marina for space to meet your needs. It may be simpler and less expensive for MST in the end.
Sincerely yours,
Thomas P. Moore