Boards of Directors

MEETINGS OF THE Boards of Directors

Joint Meeting of Valley Metro Valley Metro RPTA Valley Metro Rail RPTA and Valley Metro Rail

MEETING DATE MEETING DATE MEETING DATE Thursday, Thursday, Thursday, June 16, 2016 June 16, 2016 June 16, 2016

TIME TIME TIME 12:15 p.m. 12:30 p.m. 12:45 p.m.

LOCATION Valley Metro RPTA Lake Powell Conference Room

101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor Phoenix

If you require assistance accessing the meeting on the 10th Floor, please go to the 13th floor for assistance to call 602-262-7433.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

June 9, 2016

Board of Directors Thursday, June 16, 2016 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 12:15 p.m.

Action Recommended

1. Items from Citizens Present (yellow card) 1. For information

An opportunity will be provided to members of the public at the beginning of the meeting to address the Board on non-agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker or a total of 15 minutes for all speakers.

2. Minutes 2. For action

Minutes from the May 19, 2016 Board meeting are presented for approval.

3. Public Comment on Agenda Action Items (blue card) 3. For information

The public will be provided with an opportunity at this time to address the Board on all action agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker to address all agenda items unless the Chair allows more at his/her discretion. A total of 15 minutes for all speakers will be provided.

CONSENT AGENDA 4A. Purchase of Diesel and Unleaded Fuel 4A. For action

Staff will request that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a cooperative agreement purchase order with Senergy Petroleum LLC under Arizona State Contract #ADSPO14-052198 for diesel and unleaded fuel for a not-to- exceed amount of $5,500,000 over a five-year period.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

4B. Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Contract Change Orders 4B. For action

Staff will request that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute contract change orders in order to extend the period of performance and/or provide budget authority for FY17 projects under contract tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget.

4C. Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Intergovernmental Agreements 4C. For action (IGA)

Staff will request that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute FY17 IGAs and IGA amendments for projects tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget.

4D. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Change Orders with 4D. For action the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass- Through Grants

Staff will request that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute change orders for IGAs with the City of Phoenix to allow Valley Metro to be reimbursed for eligible activities.

4E. Contract Award for the Manufacture and Delivery of 30’ 4E. For action Heavy Duty Transit Buses

Staff will request that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a contract with ElDorado National Inc. for the manufacture and delivery of eight heavy duty 30’ transit buses over a two-year period at an estimated base cost of $3,985,530 plus $320,000 for optional components and Producer Price Index (PPI) increases.

REGULAR AGENDA 5. Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Election of RPTA Board Officers 5. For action and Subcommittee Positions

The Board will vote to elect Board officer and Board subcommittee positions for FY 2017.

6. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current 6. For information Events and discussion

Chair McDonald will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events.

7. Next Meeting 7. For information

The next meeting of the Board is scheduled for Thursday, August 18, August 3, 2016 at 12:15 p.m.

Qualified sign language interpreters are available with 72 hours notice. Materials in alternative formats (large print, audiocassette, or computer diskette) are available upon request. For further information, please call Valley Metro at 602-262-7433 or TTY at 602-251-2039. To attend this meeting via teleconference, contact the receptionist at 602-262-7433 for the dial-in-information. The supporting information for this agenda can be found on our web site at www.valleymetro.org.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Items from Citizens Present

PURPOSE An opportunity will be provided to members of the public at the beginning of the meeting to address the Board on non-agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker or a total of 15 minutes for all speakers.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 2 June 9, 2016 Minutes of the Valley Metro RPTA Board of Directors Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:15 p.m.

Meeting Participants Councilmember Jim McDonald, City of Avondale, Chair Councilmember Thelda Williams, City of Phoenix, Vice Chair Councilmember Suzanne Klapp, City of Scottsdale, Treasurer Vice Mayor Eric Orsborn, City of Buckeye Councilmember Kevin Hartke, City of Chandler Councilmember Jack Palladino, City of El Mirage (via phone) Councilmember Jenn Daniels, Town of Gilbert (via phone) Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff, City of Glendale Councilmember Sharolyn Hohman, City of Goodyear Vice Mayor Dennis Kavanaugh, City of Mesa Vice Mayor Jon Edwards, City of Peoria Councilmember Skip Hall, City of Surprise Mayor Mark Mitchell, City of Tempe Councilmember Everett Sickles, Town of Wickenburg

Members Not Present Supervisor Steve Gallardo, Maricopa County Councilmember Kathie Farr, City of Tolleson

Chair McDonald called the meeting to order at 12:15 p.m. and the pledge of allegiance was recited.

1. Public Comment

Mr. Crowley said to start with, I got a document from my favorite other transportation activist. It's from MAG. And it's for consulting selection for the Interstate 10 Papago Freeway Tunnel Operations Study. And it's dealing with the express terminal that's in there and my favorite part in here is it says: public input. None has been received at this time.

Now this is for their meeting, this last week, you guys will be at the one coming up, and I just find it fascinating they say there's been no public input and they're calling it the freeway traffic operations study.

Well, the City of Phoenix, there's an intergovernmental agreement there for you to be building a facility. And I love that, like the letter I got from the City of Phoenix that says: The idea for the express station under Mayor Hance park was conceived in the mid-

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

eighties, and then significantly developed -- and was under construction at the time, a 114-story building was proposed on the southwest side of the core park and a high-rise was built.

BS. I was at the funding hearing to fund the bridge over the Deck Park and it was a lottery and federally mandated hearing and the reason that there is a transit facility underneath that is because they had to tie that in to putting the rail -- over the freeway. And that it had to meet some test of strength that are ten times that of any other bridge.

So when I get this from the City of Phoenix saying the reason that we didn't complete that project and it says mid-eighties, you want to know the date exact that that funding hearing was. It was May 29, 1986. And that's the first day I got involved with this.

So I got an anniversary coming up this next week, y'all, but that funding hearing -- and I asked then, where the lottery funds were going and where they've gone to. And Mr. Thomas lied to me at that time or he was totally confused, because he said he didn't know. And the hearing was to get those funds to match the federal funds to build the damn bridge and transit facility within it.

And if you'll recall, Wulf, when you guys were putting in the stations along that, and you did Sweet Acacia, do you remember, Thelda? I came up and said, how is this blended with the rail station and with the bus station so that you're getting an interchange of passengers.

So when it's you guys's job to do the infrastructure, and I wish I could of got around to the short range transit plan, but having taken all of my time, I'll just have to see you at another time and explain that the short range plan is all of your cities and bus stops are a part of what you're supposed to be doing.

2. Minutes

Mintues from the April 21, 2016 Board meeting were presented for approval.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS, SECONDED BY VICE MAYOR HARTKE AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 21, 2016 BOARD MEETING MINUTES.

Chair McDonald said we are going to go ahead and start into the actionable items or the agenda items in this. As a reminder, you have an opportunity at this point to have three minutes to speak on any actionable items.

We will not be pulling them out individually and speaking on individual items, so this will be the opportunity to speak on any item that you would like to speak at that time.

Ms. Barker said thank you, sir. I'm Dianne Barker, and I'm a transit advocate, and a passionate person in this regard. You know, and I think that most of the people -- all of the people here have some interest in bettering the transit system, whether you're paid, 2

you're an elected official, or we the public, and we all want to be recorded.

So the efforts that I'm hoping that you will take it, even if you may construe it as criticism that you'll take it an honorable and receptive manner.

Now when I saw the minutes, I noticed that it seemed that -- I noticed on Mr. Crowley's input and mine -- when we ask a question, there wasn't a question mark, but our elected officials had that, and I construe that possibly you don't want to respond if it's a question.

So I'm asking that the minutes will not be a run-on sentence, because as we speak, now I don't know for sure, I tried to find out, I tried to call here before and find if you use the transcript or it's your own interpretation of what we're saying.

If that's the case, there are some things that were reported that I think are inaccurate in the minutes, and I'll go for that. Just, first of all, I've been coming here for a long time, my name is a little different than most people. And it's another -- my legal name is D-i- a-n-n-e. That's how I always put it in on the public request. And it would be nice if it was brought back in detail, then we know that our elected and our appointed officials care. Okay.

Then, in regards to, I said the questions. And as far as the statements, many times MAG's an expert at their public minutes and they succinctly put down -- well, I think they have a transcript, maybe a tape, and then they listen to it, but they don't put the run-on sentences, which you can't understand what the public is saying.

I think our person of disabilities and people that come here on two legs, I came with my assistant, my folding bicycle's here, one thing we do have in common, we have an ability to speak. And so let's put the public in the rightful place.

And finally, I'd like to have you strike -- you already approved it, but that last statement, I think was unfair to Mr. Santana, the way it was pointed. It was real negative towards -- I don't remember pointing his name out and saying he specifically said things about the 50th Street, you know, determined light rail.

I was not in acceptance of that. I gave you information. I believe it came from the City of Phoenix meeting, but it was not pointing out to that particular gentleman.

So, you know, City of Phoenix has great standards for customer service. I think Scott Smith mentioned we've got a new time now to go forward past the events of the past that were negative.

And so customer service, and it's courteous, it's friendly, it's collaborative, complete, timely service in person by phone consistent. And fair applications of codes, ordinances, and policies. Complete, accurate, reliable information and feedback at each step of the developmental process.

Second, opinions and timely responses for the formal appeals. And you communicate experiences about the staff department policies, procedures, and requirements, and you ask questions to clarify the code requirements and the communications. It would be good that, you know, for some of us that want to be reported properly, if you have a question like Ms. Fields was trying to tell you that her biggest complaint was the bus system that was going to the multi-general station, but it came out in the minutes inaudible on what route she was speaking about.

Mesa's going through a thing now where you're wanting to put in fixed routes to get rid of the LINK and trying to -- you're always trying to improve. You use the words "improve." So let's know where these buses go and the numbers.

And I came back from California. They have some great transit there, three trains, six buses, and it was under $100 round trip on an airfare. I wish I had my folding bike.

Chair McDonald said thank you, Ms. Barker.

Mr. Crowley said how are you putting it on the document, because I'm going to be talking on three different ones, and how am I supposed to speak on your executive session and what you're going to be doing on that until after you got done with it.

Starting with the change of contract with First Transit over here, that it was pointed out of the five things that they're supposed to be meeting. They're meeting how many of them. They're not. And we're doing a readjustment on a contract. Can somebody write stupid if I thought that this was a good idea on my forehead.

I know that the wiggle room in that is such, but at management it was brought to the attention that nobody said anything. I believe I said something. I believe the union said something. And I believe that Veolia said something that they didn't have the personnel, experience, or the willfulness to do the job correctly. So we found that they haven't been doing the job correctly. And you want to readjust the contract. That was on that one.

On the paratransit for the area, I don't see where the Southwest Valley -- I know, Avondale, you've gotten it because Phoenix was so generous and Tolleson being near there, you get part of that, but where is it for the area. Where is it in actuality.

And the 10-year contract with -- oh, yeah, it's First Transit. What happens if they're doing like they did on the last one.

And then No. 7. The capital and operations. Park-and-rides, love it to death. I see that you're doing that. It's also on the short range plan, but where in the hell are the bus stops. It's $10,000 for each one of the spaces you're gonna make for a new car to park in, when 70 percent of the routes don't have a covered shelter.

Now, not that it's important to air quality that who's responsibility is it to be working and addressing this. Can y'all put a mirror in front of your faces? Because how many days 4

this month alone have we had violations. It's the 19th and I believe there's ten. That means over 50 percent. So on the budget, we need to be doing things better and right. So put that in there.

On what you're going to be having to dispute with Mr. Banta about, 57 trips to Portland to get moved. Were they doing it one knickknack at a time -- and the other moneys? But then you want how much public input, sir? Thank you.

3. Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Operation of the East Valley, Northwest Valley and Regional Paratransit Services

Chair McDonald said the next item on our agenda is Item No. 3. The authorization to issue a request for proposal. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith said thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Board, we currently operate both our Northwest and our East Valley Dial-A-Ride and paratransit through two separate contracts with -- not with First Transit, with Total Transit. It's the same company, but different contracts.

For a variety of reasons -- these contracts were negotiated separately. They have different terms. With the advent of an inner city type of a -- type of a service that we're having, this creates some inconsistencies and some complications.

We've talked with Total Transit and we believe that consolidating these two contracts would be in the best term, long-term interest for us if we have the same terms. And that way, when we do inner city trips and everything, it's handled under one contract, not figuring out which one we put it under for accounting purposes and just for management purposes.

So even though these contracts have different terms, we're going to -- we are proposing that we terminate early the Northwest contract and issue a request for proposal that will go out this next month to consolidate these two contracts with service -- the new contract term to begin in July of '17. And that's the recommendation, Mr. Chair.

Councilmember Williams said Scott, included in that RFP, I know in our materials that we received talked about strategic plan alignment and especially the increase in customer focus. Are you going to put some standards in there and some measurements that we can hold people accountable?

Mr. Smith said customer satisfaction is a high priority. And I think as we'll, through today, we'll find out that there are different opinions as to how well we've accomplished that. The fact of the matter is that going forward, I think that everybody who does business with Valley Metro knows that one of the resets that we're going through -- and we'll use that word. You'll hear that word several times today -- is that we're refocused. And that means that if you're going to want to do service you will want to contract with us, if you're going to want to provide service, you're going to be coming to an 5

organization that has standards. And those standards will be spelled out in our contract. And the request for proposal will have measurable benchmarks that will focus on customer service, customer satisfaction, complaints, levels of service, timing of service, consistency of service, and those kinds of things.

So, yes, Councilmember Williams, we will include those.

Mayor Mitchell said Mr. Smith, also can -- I think it's also important to have all those measurements, but it's also, what is the protocol on getting the information to the Board, as well as just the measurements so that we have a full understanding of what's happening?

Mr. Smith said that's important, because right now and when I first came into this, I got a lot of data thrown at me. Lot -- some of it was very meaningful -- all of it was meaningful, but to me it was gibberish. And I said, listen, I want something that I can read and I can get a snapshot and a picture.

As part of the reset, we are also going to change the way that we report the operations to the Board. You will be -- we haven't finished it yet. It will be a graphical report. We'll focus on a maximum of five benchmarks that gauge the performance level under the contract. And every month you will be getting a graphical report color coded, those kind of things, so I can look at it, you can look at it and say are we doing well, are we not doing so well, are we just holding steady.

And that reporting package will be made available to the Boards on a monthly basis so we can track these. So we don't, six months later, all of a sudden wake up and say, gee, what happened. Our goal is to have as close to real-time information as we possibly can to the Board and in a format and a way that is easily understood and that points out the major items of focus.

And so that will also be -- you'll start receiving that within the next few months. And it will apply to all the major contracts that we have that you might have interest in like the paratransit, certainly the new First Transit contract that we have and the others.

And that will be a work in progress. So we'll give it to you. If it fits your needs, great. If it doesn't, we'll improve it. You need to let us know what information you need and in what format and we'll make that happen.

Chair McDonald said are there any other questions for Mr. Smith? Okay. Seeing none, I will entertain a motion.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORSBORN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO AUTHORIZE THE INTERIM CEO TO ISSUE A FEDERALLY COMPLIANT RFP FOR A TOTAL TERM OF 10 YEARS (FIVE-YEAR BASE CONTRACT PLUS FIVE ONE-YEAR RENEWAL OPTIONS) TO OPERATE EAST VALLEY, NORTHWEST VALLEY AND REGIONAL PARATRANSIT. 6

4. Contract Change Order with First Transit, Inc. for Fixed Route Bus Service

Chair McDonald said the next item on the agenda, Item No. 4. The contract change order with First Transit. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith said thank you, Mr. Chair. I was trying to figure out how best to present this to this Board. I sort of came in mid-stream, so I am -- and then I was here in a different capacity, as a mayor at the beginning of this, and I very well understand the issues and the challenges we have had with this contract.

In fact, the first thing I was asked to deal with was a dispute over a change -- a major change order, a $1 million plus change order that actually didn't relate to the issue we are here for, but certainly related to the relationship we have with First Transit.

I understand the consternation of members of the Board during the term of this contract. And I certainly can empathize and understand the real consternation that we are sitting here today less than 60 days from the termination of this contract asking for an approval of a contract.

I get that. I'm not going to try and sugar coat or say why things happen or didn't happen. We are where we are. We are dealt the hand we were dealt and we tried -- when I got here in February -- and we've tried to absolutely make the best we could. And that's the one thing.

As we looked at, and as I looked at the information and the data that described our relationship with First Transit, it was disappointing, to say the least.

But it was also confusing because, for example, we have two contracts with First Transit: one to provide West Valley service, the other to provide East Valley service. And the number of boardings of those two contracts are about the same, even though we run much more -- a lot more, about twice the number of routes in the East Valley, the number of boardings -- total boardings are about the same.

And yet in the East Valley we have -- in the West Valley we have 35 complaints per 100,000 boardings. And in the East Valley we have 59. Well, that tells me one thing -- or two things actually. The first thing it tells me it confirms that we have a problem.

By the way, in relation to that with our Transdev, which runs about the same number of routes as First Transit, their number is 40 complaints per 100,000 boardings.

So you know the East Valley is out of kilter. It's out of whack. But it also shows me that this company can deliver because they are delivering on our other contract. So we have to look at what do we have.

When I was first faced with this in February, we looked at solving that problem on the contract dispute and the change order first, and then we went into what our different 7

options were.

And believe me, we looked at a variety of options to what would happen on June 30th. Do we continue with First Transit under the terms of the existing contract, which called for a ten-year term, three-year initial term and a seven-year extension? Do we completely change and not pursue an extension? And then you have a couple of options. Do you sign a short-term contract for First Transit? Do you bring somebody else in? Do you throw everybody out and try and handle the service ourselves? What do you do?

It became obvious to us that all the options were not optimal. There was no way that we could get through this without some kind of serious risk, either a service disruption or in continuing on with the contract, which in the minds of many was failing.

After much discussion and study with many of you, with your staff, we made the decision to go forward and try to, once again, reset a relationship with First Transit. We've had success. We want to have the same kind of success in the East Valley.

So we approached them and we talked about how we could change our relationship in a way that would take care of our customers and obviously our cities, which are our primary customer -- which are our riding customers are primary, our city customers are the secondary, but they're all customers -- how we could do that. And that was the basis upon which we approached these negotiations.

We -- what we have today is to present to you a proposal to extend the contract we have, but not by seven years. We have a proposal to extend it by three years. There was much debate as to whether we go one year or three years.

In discussions with First Transit we decided that the three year would be in the best interest of Valley Metro. It would allow us and them a time to accurately measure.

But also there are -- there are certain incentives. There are certain benchmarks. We redefined how we measure those service benchmarks. And there's certain punishments including early termination. The idea being is that we could not -- we would not have to put up with poor service for the entire three-year period. We could address that earlier if needed. I am convinced that after going through this, this is a contract that is in the best interest of Valley Metro. It's not one that everyone is happy with.

But on the other hand I believe it gives us the chance to make an undesirable or an unacceptable situation good. We've had many discussions with First Transit. You're going to hear from Mr. Promponas in a second where you'll have a chance to talk to him specifically and directly about their commitments.

We have included in our budget an increase of personnel to better manage this contract. We have rewritten the contract as much as we could within the guidelines of FTA conditions, which means we couldn't completely rewrite it since it is under an existing contract. But we put as much as we could in. 8

There is for those who are wondering about resources, working with your staff and with First Transit, we have included additional costs, but these costs are still much lower than the original competing bids were, which there were finance constraints in this.

This is not a perfect situation by any stretch of the imagination. As I've said, I understand that. My staff is certainly aware of that. We know that this is going to be -- this contract is going to be under the magnifying glass. It should be, because it's been underperforming.

And we are committed to doing whatever we can to not only make this work to the benefit of our riding customers, the riding public, but also to provide you the information so you can have, as I explained to Mayor Mitchell and the rest of you, you can have the information on as current of a basis as you possibly can so that we will not encounter the same situation we did today where we wake up and realize that we're two, three years down the road and people aren't really happy.

So that's the -- that is the basics. I had a slide show, but I think I've explained to you, and in your packet you have the details of the terms of the contract.

It is, once again, a three-year contract, $187,500,000 with a $9,500,000 contingency or a $197 million total approval of this contract. And I will now open it up for any questions we have or any questions any of our staff. We have Ray Abraham over there, Director of Operations. And in a minute I'll have Mr. Nick Promponas come up and address the Boards.

Councilmember Williams said I would like to make some comments on this, because I, first of all, I'm not pleased that you're bringing it to us at this late date. I do not understand why staff couldn't get their act together and issue an RFP in a timely basis.

But here we are today, and it doesn't seem like we have any options except to upgrade the contract and to ensure that customer service becomes the number one priority that the standards that we expect are included in that contract that there are penalties attached if the standard is not met clear up to termination of the contract.

And further, I think you need to hold staff accountable that this is done in a very timely manner. I would hope that we would begin measuring -- you get monthly reports, I believe, that we know where we are today. It better improve immediately.

And further, I will support this if you have staff go ahead and prepare an RFP that we have in hand that if they fail to meet those standards, we will issue immediately an RFP to go out for new service.

Mr. Smith said noted. And I think -- and I see staff over there shaking their heads also.

Vice Mayor Kavanaugh said thank you. I'd like to echo Councilmember Williams' concerns. A year ago at this time I started getting phone calls from people on buses 9

while they were in the buses while they were having the challenges and that indicated to me that there was something significantly going wrong or at least a higher number of complaints in the East Valley. And so I share some of the frustrations in terms of the delay in bringing this forward, but I understand there are a lot of reasons for that certainly beyond your control, Mr. Smith, but I think we are here now.

I think the recommendation that you're presenting to us is a reasonable one at this point in time. I think it's something certainly that this Board is going to monitor very, very, very closely. Because, as said, when passengers discover and get my cell phone number and call me with problems on buses, you know it's a reached a kind of a critical level. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mayor Mitchell said Mr. Chair. I agree with comments by Vice Mayor Kavanaugh and Councilmember Williams. And I just think it's also important that not only do we get the information timely from First Transit, but I think also it's important that our staff here at Valley Metro is what I was referring to really earlier, in my earlier comment -- make sure that we get the information necessary so that we can be proactive regarding the customer service levels.

I mean, that's -- we're in a business of delivering service, whether it's in our own cities, especially here at Valley Metro, so I think it's important that -- it's incumbent upon us to make sure we have all the information we can to address any concerns moving forward and be proactive.

Chair McDonald said do we have any other comments or questions? Okay. I would entertain motion at this point.

Mr. Smith said Mr. Nick Promponas who is the Senior Vice President of Operations for the Western U.S. and Alberta Canada for First Transit. We've had several conversations and he can now address to you what this company's commitment is to this.

Mr. Promponas said thank you, Mr. Smith. Chairman McDonald, members of the Board, I had prepared a written statement, but I'm not going to read it. I'm actually going to speak directly to you all about just a couple of things.

One is we hear you and we hear the community loud and clear. You're disappointed with the quality of the service that we've been delivering and we take ownership of that. I'd like to think in there we've had, quite frankly, many successes, but that doesn't matter at this point.

What matters are the things that are hanging out there that the community is concerned with. And those are things that we're paying very close attention to. We spent significant time with RPTA staff going through what the issues are and developing a solid plan to be able to execute to ultimately meet the community's needs. I'll tell you that although First Transit does business all over North America and I'm responsible for our Western U.S. and Canadian business, I live here in Phoenix. My 10

office is in Tempe. I've lived here for twelve years. This is my home. This is my community. We've raised our daughter here. We're active in the community.

And I care very much about the service we provide here. So you have my commitment. You have First Transit's commitment that your concerns are being heard loud and clear and we will address them. And we hope that you will vote in favor for this three-year extension period. And we're not going to let you down. Thank you.

Councilmember Hall said how do you plan on monitoring service, you as First Transit?

Mr. Promponas said we have a management dashboard that tracks our performance on a daily basis. We'll evaluate it at the region level on a daily basis. We'll have evaluation calls weekly to make sure that we're progressing against our targets.

Councilmember Hall said but when there's a phone call to a councilmember, how are you going to know about that?

Mr. Promponas said assuming that it comes through RPTA staff we'll hear it from staff.

Councilmember Hall said well, I'm coming in kind of late to Valley Metro, but I've heard a lot of complaints about your company since I've been on the Board. And I think it's very incumbent upon you to make sure you own this like you say you own it. And you need to find mechanisms to monitor service. And it sounds like you got a morale problem.

It sounds like you have a morale problem. Okay. And you got turnover, and I don't know how -- what are you going to do about retaining good employees and keeping them?

Mr. Promponas said we are actually in negotiations right now with the ATU, and we're addressing many of those concerns actually in our collective bargaining agreement.

Councilmember Hall said so that will improve, too, the morale will improve.

Mr. Promponas said there are certain mechanisms that we are looking to work with the ATU on in order to help facilitate that improvement, the morale that you're talking about.

Chair McDonald said are there any other questions for Nick? Okay. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORSBORN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE THREE-YEAR EXTENSION NOTING THAT ACCOUNTABILITY WILL BE INCLUDED, THAT PERFORMANCE MEASURES WILL BE ESTABLISHED AND MONITORED ON A MONTHLY BASIS, AND THAT STAFF PREPARES AND IS ABLE TO ISSUE AN RFP PRIOR TO THE END OF THE SECOND YEAR.

5. Potential for Executive Session

Mr. Smith said Items 5 and 6, because of the vote that was just taken, Mr. Chair, are now moot points, so we can move right on to Item No. 7.

7. Valley Metro Fiscal Year 2017 Operating and Capital Budget and Five-Year Operating Forecast

Chair McDonald said Item No. 7 is the Valley Metro Fiscal Year 2017 Operating and Capital Budget and Five-Year Operating Forecast.

Mr. Smith said you received a formal presentation. You have in your packet the budget information. There have been no material changes since the last presentation, so, Mr. Chair, unless there's questions that we have for Mr. McCormack or Paul, we'll dispense with the presentation.

Chair McDonald said are there any objections to that? Any questions that have come up since the last meeting? Okay. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE FISCAL YEAR 2017 PRELIMINARY OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET AND THE FIVE-YEAR OPERATING FORECAST AND CAPITAL PROGRAM.

8. FY17-21 Short Range Transit Program

Mr. Smith said Mr. Chair, members of the Board, I'd like to introduce Jorge Luna, our Service Planning Manager, who will give a report on one of the two components that we have that goes into the planning of our total transit services. We have both a short range transit program and then a long range. And Jorge's going to explain the difference of those two, and then he will concentrate on the short range plan that we were in the process of finalizing for the current year. Jorge.

Mr. Luna said thank you. Chair, members of the Board, my name is Jorge Luna. Again, I'll be presenting the information item of fiscal '17 through '21 short range transit program.

The main difference between the SRTP, the short range transit program, and the TLCP, the TLCP is a 20-year funding document, 20-year funding program. The SRTP is a five- year short range plan that gives us an idea of future improvements, proposed improvements, proposed enhancements regionwide regardless of funding source.

The SRTP helped us plan, look into the future, helps us understand collectively as a region how many vehicles we may need, future services that may be extended, how can we best work together, regionally, collectively with all the member agencies to get service out in the next five years.

Again, and on the other side, the TLCP, is the 20-year funding program to complete the regional transportation plan.

So the overview of the short range transit program, the purpose of the SRTP is to identify all regional potential transit improvements regardless of funding source. The SRTP builds on adopted TLCP policies as well as Board-adopted transit standards and performance measures, and also the SRTP effort is to be updated on a continuous basis. We update it every year with input, a lot of input from your staff, which I just want to thank everyone for participating in this process on an annual basis.

The objective of the SRTP is to get an understanding of all potential service improvements in the region and provide input to the different processes you see on the screen such as the TLCP, the fleet management plan, including the MAG TIP programming process.

So what is the process for putting together the SRTP. We put together the SRTP in coordination with all member agencies. We help prioritize the different improvements by production and development years, which I'll get into the next slide, and at the end we also provide an input to the TLCP through the list of recommendations for regional funding.

The main idea of this effort is to always be a step ahead of the game and ensure that we're ready and synchronized for future service requests across the region.

As noted in the previous slide, we have two periods in the five-year short range transit program. We have the short term or production periods and the long term or development periods. The, pretty much, the short term are items that are ready to go, have the analysis, have the funding commitment and are ready to move through the rest of the process, planning process, for implementation.

And the development years are those items that still need additional analysis, additional conversation regionwide to make the service happen.

So the list of proposed changes in Appendix 1 of your attachment there, of your memo, includes a wide range of proposed service changes. It's service change concepts and a general summary of these are noted on the screen here.

Again, please note that this is a list of proposed service change concepts. Staff will bring back all of those elements that are ready for public outreach and Board approval through the regular biannual service change process.

This concludes my presentation and I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Chair McDonald said any questions for Jorge? Seeing none, thank you. This item was for information only.

9. Transit Life Cycle Program Update

Chair McDonald said the next item, Item No. 9. The Transit Life Cycle Program. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith said Mr. Chair, I'd introduce Paul Hodgins, Manager of Revenue Generation, Financial Planning, who will now discuss the transit life cycle program or TLCP. Paul. There's a couple of graphs in this that I want you to pay special attention to.

Mr. Hodgins said thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Chair, members of the Board, I have a short presentation on the transit life cycle program. I will note it's a condensed version of what was in your packet. Some of the detailed slides I won't address, but I'd be happy to answer questions on them if you have any.

To start off, we look at the bus program that the first slide is a chart of our revenue forecast. There are three lines. The bottom line, the green line, is the revenue forecast from last year that we used to create the life cycle. The purple line is this year's revenue forecast. You can see for fiscal year '17 and beyond we have a little increase, a little bump up in our revenue forecast, so we do have some additional revenues to make some incremental changes.

For perspective, the blue line at the top is the forecast that was used to develop the regional plan, so you can see that even though we have a little more money today, or we think we do based on the forecast, we're still about 1.1 billion dollars below where we thought we'd be. So we can't put everything out that we want to, but we can certainly make some incremental changes.

Mr. Smith said I'd like you to pause on that just a bit, because I think a lot of our discussions -- and I hear a lot. And when I was in office I heard a lot about many of the frustrations and things, both with the Prop 400 process, but also with where we are.

And, once again, remember this starts in 2005. This is basically the Prop 400 -- I know this is overstating -- oversimplifying it, but the Prop 400 transit life cycle plan. It relied upon the sales tax that comes in and, once again, we're 1.1 billion dollars short of the projections, which has obviously impacted this region's ability to meet the, not only the goals, but the aspirations with transit. So, Paul.

Mr. Hodgins said thank you. There's a couple of key areas or key sources for the changes that we're recommending. One is the short range transit program that Mr. Luna just talked about. We looked at the kind of the five years of improvements, what are the changes that are -- which projects are eligible for regional funding which are on the Prop 400 match -- map, which ones help us to meet our transit standards and performance measures, and where there is funding available for those.

The second one is through the ADA paratransit plan, the recently adopted new nontransfer service, if you will. Several cities have asked for some additional funding to help pay for some of those regional service. 14

So what we're recommending, there are some changes in improved service, some later nights, some additional weekend service, a little bit of frequency improvements.

There's some, what I'll call, swapping of funds. Some of the regional routes are currently funded with local funds, so we're proposing to swap some of those to be regionally funded to get them back into the life cycle.

And then, as I mentioned, some increases in the ADA funding for those regional nontransfer trips and then some associated fleet changes to the fleet plan. And those changes are primarily just tweaking the fleet replacement plan.

But one of the big changes, really, is to add a lot of expansion fleet. I think there's 68 expansion buses that we've included based on some of the work from the short range transit program. Even though they're not tied to specific improvements that are part of the development years, we want to get some expansion buses in the plan so we can get it in the TIP over at MAG, the transportation improvement program, so that we have funding available to buy those expansion fleet when we're ready to make those improvements.

Just at a high level, our cash flow summary this slide, I wanted to highlight, it demonstrates that we're meeting our statutory requirement to balance revenues and expenditures. We have overall about 3 billion dollars in program revenues. There's no additional financing required for the bus program. It's essentially pay-as-you-go moving forward with about a $43 million balance at the end of the program in 2026 or end of 2025.

The jurisdictional equity summary, is intended to show there's a Board policy to maintain jurisdictional equity. It's based -- it's on a subregional basis. What we do is we look at the revenue forecast for our sales tax and then take off some of those regionally funded off the top programs, such as our call center, the mobility center. Those don't go into the jurisdictional equity, so they come off the top.

So in this year we have about $1.4 billion over the 20 years that's available. We distribute that based on the policy that the Board adopted. And then we look at what's actually programmed, you know, based on the projects in the plan and how that compares to the policy allocation.

And the policy is to get within two and a half percent either way of the policy amount. And the east and west in this year or in this version are within that. City of Phoenix, the central, is a little bit outside of that, but we are working with Phoenix staff to look at ways to program some additional funds.

The last slide is a quick timeline. This is for information. We've been through the committee process. So far we've talked to the Management Committees, the Audit and Finance Subcommittee, we had a good discussion last week. We will be coming back next month for approval.

That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions Mr. Chair.

Councilmember Hall said thanks, Paul. Hey, this report you put out monthly you send to us called "Public Transportation Fund Revenues." The cumulative amount it shows from 2000 -- January 2006 to March 2016 was projected to be a $685 million. And we're at a $1,187,000,000. So that's not a billion short. That's a half a billion short.

Mr. Hodgins said right. And that's to date, so we're about ten years through the plan. We have an additional ten years of forecast so.

Councilmember Hall said okay. I just want to make that clear. It isn't a billion. It's a half a billion we're short.

Mr. Hodgins said but we're right here -- about here now, so that's the half a billion. The other billion is - that's projected.

Mr. Smith said when we talk the plan, we talk the 20-year time period.

Councilmember Hall said projected a billion.

Mr. Hodgins said yes.

Councilmember Hall said oh okay. But that line is moving -- you're projecting that line to just stay at a steady low, kind of hardly moving. We've come out of the worst recession we've ever been in since The Depression, so I don't know. I just -- okay. I just wanted to clarify that.

Mr. Smith said and just so you know, we don't make it -- these numbers up. Most are projections for revenue under the -- come from ADOT. And that was agreed upon early to get somebody that was outside the program that wasn't -- that wasn't dependent upon the numbers working.

You know, hopefully in our wildest dreams we would have the same kind of upswing, in reality, that we did on the downswing.

I think that even as we've come out of this recession, I think if you talked to most of your cities and the County and the State, we have not seen a gigantic spike in revenues. It's been a steady flow up. We were at the city managers and I think we were talking 3, 4 percent increase.

That's hardly the kind of growth that we need and that's to make up the difference. Because I think if you look at it, you can say that the projections early on might have been a little bit aggressive, but, once again, I can tell you I was in the home building business, and we went through ten years of boom in this Valley. And those projections in 2003 were probably considered to be conservative at the time.

Mr. Hodgins said Mr. Chair, Councilmember Hall, I think if you look at that report also it 16

will show, kind of, the actual this year versus our budget. The budget number is based on the forecast. And we're close. I mean, we're just slightly under, less than a percent under.

If we were 4 or 5 percent over budget, over the forecast, then, you know, we might want to look at the forecast and say, yeah, maybe it's not really realistic, but because we've -- the last few years we've been pretty much trending on the forecast number. You know, we think that this is fairly realistic.

Councilmember Orsborn said may I just clarify one other thing or maybe drive the point -- and I really appreciate you putting this up and then pausing on that a little bit and having the conversation.

But what the graph is telling us is that the plan for delivering transit to the entire metro Phoenix area or the Maricopa County area was based on the blue line that said revenues at this time would be in the $1.2 billion range. Am I reading that correctly, plus or minus? Somewhere between $1.2 and $1.4 billion.

Mr. Hodgins said well, the original forecast, if we looked at, say, fiscal 2016 was for about looks like $130 million just for that fiscal year.

Councilmember Orsborn said just for this fiscal year. And where we sit currently, what we're actually seeing is in the eighty --

Mr. Hodgins said just under $80 million.

Councilmember Orsborn said so it's a drastic difference. And if, I know we hear comments from public and we hear it from our own constituents that we wish we had bus service to go to this location or that location and really tie stuff together, and had we had the revenues based on that blue line, certainly we would see additional bus service out into these outlying communities, out into -- or more robust in the central more populated areas. But the funding is a reality that we have to deal with.

Mr. Hodgins said yes.

Chair McDonald said are there any other questions or comments? Okay. Seeing none, this is also an item just for information.

10. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

We go to Item 10, which is future agenda items. Is there anyone who would like to add something to a future agenda? Okay. Seeing none, our next meeting is going to be June 16 at 12:15. And the RPTA Board meeting is adjourned.

With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 1:09 p.m.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Public Comment on Agenda Action Items

PURPOSE The public will be provided with an opportunity at this time to address the Board on all action agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker to address all agenda items unless the Chair allows more at his/her discretion. A total of 15 minutes for all speakers will be provided.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4A June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Purchase of Diesel and Unleaded Fuel

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a cooperative agreement purchase order with Senergy Petroleum LLC under Arizona State Contract #ADSPO14-052198 for diesel and unleaded fuel for a not-to-exceed amount of $5,500,000 over a five-year period.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Cooperative Agreements are contracts that are solicited and awarded by other public entities and whose cooperative language allows RPTA to utilize these contracts for goods and services it requires. This cooperative contract for diesel and unleaded fuel was procured via the State of Arizona Procurement Office of the Department of Administration and is currently awarded to, Synergy Petroleum LLC. Valley Metro uses this contract to fulfill its diesel and unleaded fuel purchase needs. Valley Metro is looking for approval of a five-year term.

In FY16, Valley Metro’s contract with Senergy Petroleum LLC totaled $936,000. The increase for FY17 over the previous year is due to an increase in revenue service miles.

COST AND BUDGET The diesel and unleaded fuel usage over five years has a total estimated value of $5,500,000. The five year forecast for diesel and unleaded fuel for Mesa and the West Valley is in the chart below.

FY 17 FY 18 FY 19 FY 20 FY 21 Total Mesa $ 500,000 $ 520,000 $ 540,000 $ 550,000 $ 570,000 $ 2,680,000 Diesel West Valley $ 510,000 $ 532,500 $ 552,500 $ 562,500 $ 582,500 $ 2,740,000 Diesel West Valley $ 15,000 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 $ 17,000 $ 80,000 Unleaded Total $1,025,000 $1,068,500 $1,108,500 $1,128,500 $ 1,169,500 $ 5,500,000

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

For FY17 the Valley Metro Mesa Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility needs are estimated to be $500,000 and the West Valley Bus Operation and Maintenance Facility needs are estimated to be $525,000. The total FY17 contract obligation is estimated to be $1,025,000 and is included in the RPTA Adopted FY17 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract obligations beyond FY17 are incorporated into the Adopted RPTA Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY2017 thru FY2021).

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

 Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic A: Operate an effective, reliable, high performing transit system o Tactic E: Maintain strong fiscal controls to support Valley Metro’s long- term sustainability.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information TMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a cooperative agreement purchase order under Arizona State Contract #ADSPO14- 052198 for diesel and unleaded fuel for a not-to-exceed amount of $5,500,000 over a five-year period.

CONTACT Michael Minnaugh General Counsel (602) 744-5599 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4B June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Contract Change Orders

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute contract change orders in order to extend the period of performance and/or provide budget authority for FY17 projects under contract tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION There are a number of contract change orders that require Board approval prior to the start of FY17. This memo and its attachment summarize RPTA required FY17 contract change orders. These change orders when executed will align both the budget and contract authority for multiyear contracts awarded by the Agency.

COST AND BUDGET Please see the attached spreadsheet.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

 Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic E: Maintain strong fiscal controls to support Valley Metro’s long- term sustainability.

COMMITTEE ACTION RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information TMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute contract change orders that provide contract budget authority for FY17 projects currently under contract and tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

CONTACT Michael Minnaugh General Counsel 602-744-5599 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT List of FY17 RPTA Contract Change Orders

Fiscal Year 2017 Contract Change Orders

Change FY 2016 FY 2017 from Change Change Contractor Brief Description FY 2016 to Term of Contract Order Order 2017 Amount Amount (Difference)

3-year base period with two one Planning Support Services. HDR year options. Term: November 16, HDR Engineering, Inc. awarded contract in 2011 for 2011 to November 15, 2016. The Contract #12-175- consulting services. RPTA Board $1,280,000 $270,000 ($1,010,000) option years were exercised by PSS approved utilization of this contract the VMR Board in November in August 2013. 2014.

Northwest Valley Paratransit (Dial $2,926,900 $2,415,847 ($511,053) a Ride) Services 10-year base with no options. Total Transit Term: November 1, 2010 to Enterprises, LLC. October 31, 2020 (Formerly Total Transit Inc.) Contract This contract will end early. The #1040014S Regional Paratransit (Dial a Ride) new RFP (for combined NW and NA $2,403,857 $2,403,857 EV services) is to be issued in Services June 2016.

Total $2,926,900 $4,819,704 $1,892,804

LogicTree, Inc. Contract #14006-IVR Short Message Service (SMS) fees 5-year base Term: July 1, 2013 to $60,000 $52,000 ($8,000) (Previously for the NextRide Program. June 30, 2018 #0540002S)

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4C June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA)

PURPOSE To authorize the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute FY17 IGAs and IGA amendments for projects tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION There are a number of IGAs and IGA amendments that require Board approval prior to the start of FY17. This memo and its attachment summarize the FY17 RPTA required IGAs and renewals.

The IGAs are based on the latest estimates of costs and services funded by each member. IGA changes that are required as a result of service changes in October 2016 or April 2017 will be brought to the Board for approval after the final list of service changes is determined.

COST AND BUDGET Please see the attached spreadsheet.

COMMITTEE ACTION RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information TMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute FY17 IGAs and IGA amendments for projects tied to the approved Valley Metro RPTA FY17 Operating and Capital Budget as listed in the attachment for the period of performance and in the amount indicated for each agreement.

CONTACT Michael Minnaugh General Counsel 602-744-5599 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT Attachment 1 - List of FY17 IGAs

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

Member Agency/Jurisdiction Intergovernmental * FY 2017 Change from FY 2016 Expense/ Revenue Brief Description FY 2016 Amount Agreement No. Amount to FY 2017

PTF Reimbursement City of Avondale 106-75-2017 ADA Allocations $211,920 $207,727 ($4,193) Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement City of Avondale 106-75-2017 $737,852 $735,414 ($2,438) Services PTF Reimbursement City of Avondale 106-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $9,873 $9,873 Fixed Route Transit Revenue City of Avondale 106-75-2017 $579,737 $594,157 $14,420.00 Services Fixed Route Transit Revenue City of Buckeye 166-75-2017 $33,000 $32,340 ($660) Services PTF Reimbursement City of Chandler 118-75-2017 East Valley DAR $1,215,400 $1,210,828 ($4,572) Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement City of Chandler 118-75-2017 $4,176,707 $4,487,535 $310,828 Services PTF Reimbursement City of Chandler 118-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $199,172 $199,172

Revenue City of Chandler 118-75-2017 East Valley DAR $124,064 $353,602 $229,538 Fixed Route Transit Revenue City of Chandler 118-75-2017 $325,179 $375,689 $50,510 Services Revenue City of Chandler 118-75-2017 RideChoice $45,813 $73,979 $28,166

PTF Reimbursement City of El Mirage 121-48-2017 ADA Allocations $24,100 $0 ($24,100)

PTF Reimbursement City of El Mirage 121-48-2017 Regional DAR $0 $24,800 $24,800

Revenue City of El Mirage 121-48-2017 Northwest Valley DAR $63,430 $42,196 ($21,234)

Revenue City of El Mirage 121-48-2017 Regional DAR $0 $8,634 $8,634

PTF Reimbursement City of Glendale 133-75-2017 ADA Allocations $710,785 $729,059 $18,274

PTF Reimbursement City of Glendale 133-75-2017 Capital Projects $2,784,380 $2,557,571 ($226,809) Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement City of Glendale 133-75-2017 $3,496,690 $3,375,884 ($120,806) Services Pilot Supplemental ADA Revenue City of Glendale 133-75-2017 $6,210 $0 ($6,210) Taxi Program Revenue City of Glendale 133-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $213,000 $213,000

PTF Reimbursement City of Goodyear 136-75-2017 ADA Allocations $23,372 $19,067 ($4,305)

PTF Reimbursement City of Goodyear 136-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $4,889 $4,889 Fixed Route Transit Revenue City of Goodyear 136-75-2017 $66,248 $144,857 $78,609 Services

1 of 4 Member Agency/Jurisdiction Intergovernmental * FY 2017 Change from FY 2016 Expense/ Revenue Brief Description FY 2016 Amount Agreement No. Amount to FY 2017

PTF Reimbursement City of Mesa 145-75-2017 East Valley DAR $2,948,543 $2,806,047 ($142,496) Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement City of Mesa 145-75-2017 $7,633,489 $8,297,319 $663,830 Services PTF Reimbursement City of Mesa 145-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $408,253 $408,253

Revenue City of Mesa 145-75-2017 East Valley DAR $712,461 $875,862 $163,401 Fixed Route Transit Revenue City of Mesa 145-75-2017 $3,645,817 $3,779,881 $134,064 Services Revenue City of Mesa 145-75-2017 RideChoice $406,462 $517,109 $110,647

PTF Reimbursement City of Peoria 151-75-2017 ADA Allocations $222,100 $228,100 $6,000

PTF Reimbursement City of Peoria 151-75-2017 Capital Projects $24,595 $0 ($24,595) Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement City of Peoria 151-75-2017 $0 $244,017 $244,017 Services Revenue City of Peoria 151-75-2017 Northwest Valley DAR $200,000 $226,374 $26,374

Revenue City of Peoria 151-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $49,947 $49,947 Fixed Route Transit Expense City of Phoenix 127858 $9,794,093 $8,415,024 ($1,379,069) Services - RPTA Buys PTF Reimbursement City of Phoenix 127858 ADA Allocations $16,951,089 $17,448,559 $497,470 Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement City of Phoenix 131568 $1,003,211 $867,526 ($135,685) Services PTF Reimbursement City of Phoenix 131568 Regional DAR $0 $489,341 $489,341 Fixed Route Transit Revenue City of Phoenix 131568 $4,255,380 $4,444,109 $188,729 Services - Phx Buys PTF Reimbursement City of Scottsdale 160-75-2017 ADA Allocations $329,842 $364,317 $34,475

PTF Reimbursement City of Scottsdale 160-75-2017 Capital Projects $722,388 $809,346 $86,958

PTF Reimbursement City of Scottsdale 160-75-2017 East Valley DAR $1,110,828 $879,759 ($231,069) Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement City of Scottsdale 160-75-2017 $5,015,186 $6,081,523 $1,066,337 Services PTF Reimbursement City of Scottsdale 160-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $235,524 $235,524

Revenue City of Scottsdale 160-75-2017 East Valley DAR $125,275 $72,409 ($52,866) Fixed Route Transit Revenue City of Scottsdale 160-75-2017 $286,985 $265,296 ($21,689) Services

2 of 4 Member Agency/Jurisdiction Intergovernmental * FY 2017 Change from FY 2016 Expense/ Revenue Brief Description FY 2016 Amount Agreement No. Amount to FY 2017

PTF Reimbursement City of Surprise 166-75-2017 ADA Allocations $23,847 $48,300 $24,453

PTF Reimbursement City of Surprise 166-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $24,500 $24,500 Fixed Route Transit Revenue City of Surprise 166-75-2017 $83,897 $109,959 $26,062 Services Revenue City of Surprise 166-75-2017 Northwest Valley DAR $646,100 $504,013 ($142,087)

Revenue City of Surprise 166-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $39,684 $39,684 Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement City of Tempe 169-31-2017 $3,495,968 $3,983,669 $487,701 Services Fixed Route Transit Revenue City of Tempe 169-31-2017 $14,349,394 $14,612,568 $263,174 Services PTF Reimbursement City of Tempe 169-75-2017 East Valley DAR $1,025,813 $1,041,370 $15,557

PTF Reimbursement City of Tempe 169-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $12,120 $12,120

Revenue City of Tempe 169-75-2017 East Valley DAR $61,002 $35,774 ($25,228)

Revenue City of Tempe 169-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $102,509 $102,509

Revenue City of Tempe 169-75-2017 RideChoice $75,402 $103,315 $27,913

PTF Reimbursement City of Tolleson 172-75-2017 ADA Allocations $22,400 $23,000 $600 Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement City of Tolleson 172-75-2017 $376,909 $200,616 ($176,293) Services PTF Reimbursement City of Tolleson 172-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $12,120 $12,120 Fixed Route Transit Revenue City of Tolleson 172-75-2017 $214,144 $322,409 $108,265 Services Fixed Route Transit Revenue Gila River Indian Community 128-75-2017 $1,051,652 $932,847 ($118,805) Services Transit Planning Revenue Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) #1 $224,720 $224,720 $0 Services Regional Revenue Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) #2 $594,000 $594,000 $0 Rideshare/Telework PTF Reimbursement Maricopa County Regional DAR $0 $17,543 $17,543

Revenue Maricopa County 1 Northwest Valley DAR $1,098,647 $835,186 ($263,461)

Revenue Maricopa County 2 Regional DAR $0 $231,028 $231,028

PTF Reimbursement Maricopa County 3 ADA Allocations $128,700 $132,200 $3,500

3 of 4 Member Agency/Jurisdiction Intergovernmental * FY 2017 Change from FY 2016 Expense/ Revenue Brief Description FY 2016 Amount Agreement No. Amount to FY 2017

Trip Reduction Revenue Maricopa County 4 $370,000 $370,000 $0 Expansion Revenue Maricopa County 5 Trip Reduction $260,000 $260,000 $0 Fixed Route Transit Revenue Salt River Pima Indian Community 162-75-2017 $0 $58,453 $58,453 Services PTF Reimbursement Town of Fountain Hills 124-75-2017 ADA Allocations $37,400 $38,400 $1,000 Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement Town of Fountain Hills 124-75-2017 $25,897 $27,042 $1,145 Services PTF Reimbursement Town of Gilbert 130-75-2017 East Valley DAR $1,030,584 $1,006,202 ($24,382) Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement Town of Gilbert 130-75-2017 $3,125,590 $3,220,506 $94,916 Services PTF Reimbursement Town of Gilbert 130-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $200,298 $200,298

Revenue Town of Gilbert 130-75-2017 East Valley DAR $367,627 $506,643 $139,016

Revenue Town of Gilbert 130-75-2017 RideChoice $50,591 $71,973 $21,382

PTF Reimbursement Town of Guadalupe 139-75-2017 ADA Allocations $5,000 $5,000 $0 Fixed Route Transit PTF Reimbursement Town of Guadalupe 139-75-2017 $171,710 $172,036 $326 Services PTF Reimbursement Town of Youngtown 172-75-2017 Northwest Valley DAR $1,600 $1,600 $0

PTF Reimbursement Town of Youngtown 172-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $4,889 $4,889

Revenue Town of Youngtown 172-75-2017 Northwest Valley DAR $24,326 $29,323 $4,997

Revenue Town of Youngtown 172-75-2017 Regional DAR $0 $10,681 $10,681

4 of 4

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4D June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Change Orders with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grants

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute change orders for IGAs with the City of Phoenix to allow Valley Metro to be reimbursed for eligible activities.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Valley Metro has requested extensions to the pass-through IGAs for five existing grants. The extensions are needed to allow additional time to complete the projects identified in the grants. The table below summarizes the requested changes:

Grant Source Extension AZ-05-0202 5309 – FG Modernization December 31, 2016 AZ-37-X017 5316 – JARC October 31, 2016 AZ-57-X016 5310 – New Freedom December 31, 2016 AZ-90-X114 5307 – Formula June 30, 2016 AZ-95-X023 STP Flex December 31, 2017

 Grant AZ-05-0202 includes funding for an expansion bus which City of Phoenix has reprogrammed from other projects. This new funding for Valley Metro requires an extension to the existing IGA to allow time for the bus to be acquired.  Grant AZ-37-X017 includes funds from the Job Access Reverse Commute program to support operations on several Valley Metro routes. The extension is required to allow additional time to draw the funds.  Grant AZ-57-X016 includes additional funding which City of Phoenix has reprogrammed from other projects. This new funding for Valley Metro requires an extension to the existing IGA to allow time to draw the funds.  Grant AZ-90-X114 includes funds awarded through the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program for operating assistance on several routes in the Southwest Valley. The extension is required to allow additional time to draw the funds.  Grant AZ-95-X023 include funds from the Surface Transportation Program flexed from the Federal Highways Administration for replacement and expansion fleet for the vanpool program. The extension is required to allow additional time to purchase vans and draw the funds.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

The City of Phoenix is the designated recipient for all FTA grant funds for the region. Valley Metro undertakes projects approved for FTA grant funding, then submits requests to Phoenix for reimbursement of actual expenses incurred. Phoenix then executes a drawdown of funds from FTA to pass-through the reimbursement to Valley Metro. The pass-through IGAs are required in order for Phoenix to reimburse Valley Metro for eligible expenses.

COST AND BUDGET All expenses are in the approved budget for FY17 and 5-Year Capital and Operating Forecast. The grant funds will offset expenses, reducing the net cost to the Public Transportation Fund and member agency budgets.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

o Goal 2: Advance performance based operation  Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget  Tactic E: Maintain strong fiscal controls to support Valley Metro’s long- term sustainability

o Goal 4: Focus on economic development, regional competitiveness and financial resources  Tactic B: Pursue all available funding opportunities for transit projects and services  Tactic C: Seek opportunities to increase revenue generation

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute change orders to the intergovernmental agreements with the City of Phoenix for the listed grants.

CONTACT Paul Hodgins Manager, Revenue Generation and Financial Planning 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None 2

Fiscal Bus Fuel Qty. Length Mfg. Base Price Total Year Type Type FY 17 7 30 ft. Std. (E) CNG ElDorado $497,880 $3,485,160 FY 18 1 30 ft. Std. (E) CNG ElDorado $500,370 $500,370

Total 8 $3,985,530 * Std. – Standard, CNG – Compressed Natural Gas

The above chart is based on the current schedule and may change based on future requirements. Any cost increases for each year of the contract, from the base price quoted, will be determined by increases in the Producer Price Index (PPI) and optional equipment including any on-board equipment required to place the vehicle into service.

All vehicles will be funded with 85% Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds and 15% Regional Proposition 400 funds. All costs are fully funded within the RPTA Adopted FY 2017 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract Obligations beyond FY 2017 are incorporated into the Adopted RPTA Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY2016 thru FY2020).

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

 Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic A: Operate an effective, reliable, high performing transit system

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information TMC: June 1, 2016 for action Board of Directors: June 16, 2015 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a contract with ElDorado National Inc. for the manufacture and delivery of eight (8) heavy duty 30’ transit buses over a two-year period at an estimated base cost of $3,985,530 plus $320,000 for optional components and Producer Price Index (PPI) increases.

CONTACT Ray Abraham Chief Operating Officer 602-652-5054 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4E June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Contract Award for the Manufacture and Delivery of 30’ Heavy Duty Transit Buses

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract with ElDorado National Inc. for the manufacture and delivery of eight (8) heavy duty 30’ transit buses over a two-year period at an estimated base cost of $3,985,530 plus $320,000 for optional components and Producer Price Index (PPI) increases.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION In October 2013, the Board of Directors authorized the CEO to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the purchase of heavy duty transit buses and in January 2014, the City of Phoenix and Valley Metro issued the first joint regional RFP for the Greater Phoenix area. The City of Phoenix and Valley Metro combined resources for this joint procurement to award a five-year contract for the purchase of 30’, 40’, 60’ and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) transit buses, and spare parts.

This joint procurement resulted in a recommendation to award contracts to ElDorado National Inc. for 30’ buses, Gillig for 40’ buses, and New Flyer for the 40-45’ BRT and 60’ buses. During the initial Board action that was taken on November 13, 2014, Valley Metro did not have any plans to purchase 30’ buses, so staff did not include a contract award to ElDorado National Inc. at that time. However, the City of Phoenix did enter into an agreement with ElDorado National Inc. to purchase a base quantity of four 30’ buses and four optional buses. Since that time, the City of Phoenix has altered their plans and decided not to purchase these vehicles from ElDorado National Inc. The City of Phoenix has notified Valley Metro these buses are available for purchase and have assigned these quantities to Valley Metro through the original cooperative procurement.

Recently, the City of Tempe has decided to add one additional route to their Orbit neighborhood circulator service. The addition of this route will require seven additional buses to operate this service starting in October 2017. Tempe also has plans to replace a significant portion of their existing Orbit fleet with new heavy duty buses. As a result, staff recommends purchasing the full allotment of eight 30’ heavy duty buses from ElDorado National Inc. to fulfill the service request for the city of Tempe.

COST AND BUDGET The estimated two-year cost for Valley Metro is as follows:

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

Fiscal Bus Fuel Qty. Length Mfg. Base Price Total Year Type Type FY 17 7 30 ft. Std. (E) CNG ElDorado $497,880 $3,485,160 FY 18 1 30 ft. Std. (E) CNG ElDorado $500,370 $500,370

Total 8 $3,985,530 * Std. – Standard, CNG – Compressed Natural Gas

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

 Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic A: Operate an effective, reliable, high performing transit system

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information TMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2015 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a contract with ElDorado National Inc. for the manufacture and delivery of eight (8) heavy duty 30’ transit buses over a two-year period at an estimated base cost of $3,985,530 plus $320,000 for optional components and Producer Price Index (PPI) increases.

CONTACT Ray Abraham Chief Operating Officer 602-652-5054 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 5 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Election of RPTA Board Officers and Subcommittee Positions

PURPOSE The Board will vote to elect Board officer and Board subcommittee positions for FY17.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Board officer and Board subcommittee elections are scheduled for June of each year. At the May 2016 Board meeting, the Board Chairman announced that election of officers and subcommittee appointments would be brought forward at the June meeting for the following positions:

 Chair of the Board of Directors:  Vice Chair of the Board of Directors;  Treasurer of the Board of Directors;  Audit and Finance Subcommittee member; and  RPTA/Valley Metro Rail Board (VMR) Subcommittee members.

Following the May 2016 Board meeting, the Chairman distributed a memorandum requesting letters of interest from Board members interested in filling those positions for FY17. The letters were to be submitted by June 3, 2016. As of the due date, one letter of interest was received for each of the open positions and are attached for your information.

The Chair of the FY17 Audit and Finance Committee will be designated by the Chairs of the RPTA and VMR Boards after taking office.

COST AND BUDGET There is no fiscal impact.

COMMITTEE PROCESS Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of Directors elect officers and subcommittee members to serve from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 for the following positions based on letters of interest received:

 RPTA Board Chair – Councilmember Thelda Williams, City of Phoenix  RPTA Board Vice Chair – Councilmember Suzanne Klapp, City of Scottsdale  RPTA Board Treasurer – Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff, City of Glendale

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

 Audit and Finance Subcommittee – Councilmember Eric Orsborn, City of Buckeye

 RPTA members of the Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail Board Member Subcommittee o Vice Mayor Dennis Kavanaugh, City of Mesa o Councilmember Kathie Farr, City of Tolleson

CONTACT PERSON Chairman Jim McDonald, Councilman, City of Avondale

ATTACHMENT None

Letters of Interest are available upon request.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 6 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

PURPOSE Chair McDonald will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT Pending Items Request

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

Pending Items Request

Item Requested Date Requested Planned Follow-up Date

June 9, 2016 Joint Meeting Agenda

Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail Thursday, June 16, 2016 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 12:30 p.m.

Action Recommended

1. Chief Executive Officer’s (CEO) Report 1. For information

Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will brief the Boards on current issues.

2. Minutes 2. For action

Minutes from the May 19, 2016 Joint Board meeting are presented for approval.

3. Public Comment on Agenda Action Items (blue card) 3. For information

4. Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III 4. For action

Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Jorge Luna, Service Planning Manager, who will request that the Boards of Directors approve the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III Report.

5. Transit Life Cycle Program Update 5. For action

Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Paul Hodgins, Interim Chief Financial Officer, who will request that the Boards of Directors approve the Transit Life Cycle Program Update for bus and rail.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

6. Chief Executive Officer Recruitment Update 6. For information

Scott, Smith, Interim CEO, will provide an update on the CEO recruitment process.

7. For information 7. Possible Executive Session and possible

action The Board may vote to enter Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A.3) (Legal Advice), §38-431.03 (A)(4) (Litigation, Contract Negotiations, and Settlement Discussions).

Discussion and consultation with attorney(s) in order to receive legal advice, related to issues outlined in the recent audit of Valley Metro and to inform and discuss with its attorney(s) regarding its position concerning contract(s) and notice of claim from the former CEO that are the subject of negotiations, in pending or contemplated litigation or in settlement discussions conducted in order to avoid or resolve litigation.

8. Executive Session Action Items 8. For information and possible The Board may take action related to items discussed as part of action the Agenda Item 7.

The Boards of Directors may instruct its attorney(s) in accordance with matters discussed in executive session concerning Agenda item 7.

9. Travel and Expenditures 9. For information

The monthly travel and expenditures for Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail are presented for information.

10. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current 10. For information Events

Chairs McDonald and Williams will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Interim Chief Executive Officer’s Report

PURPOSE Scott Smith, Interim Chief Executive Officer, will brief the Boards on current issues.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 2 June 9, 2016 Minutes of a Joint Meeting of Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail Boards of Directors Thursday, May 19, 2016 12:30 p.m.

Valley Metro RPTA Participants Councilmember Jim McDonald, City of Avondale, Chair Councilmember Thelda Williams, City of Phoenix, Vice Chair Councilmember Suzanne Klapp, City of Scottsdale, Treasurer Vice Mayor Eric Orsborn, City of Buckeye Councilmember Kevin Hartke, City of Chandler Councilmember Jack Palladino, City of El Mirage (via phone) Councilmember Jenn Daniels, Town of Gilbert (via phone) Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff, City of Glendale Councilmember Sharolyn Hohman, City of Goodyear Vice Mayor Dennis Kavanaugh, City of Mesa Vice Mayor Jon Edwards, City of Peoria Councilmember Skip Hall, City of Surprise Mayor Mark Mitchell, City of Tempe Councilmember Everett Sickles, Town of Wickenburg

Members Not Present Supervisor Steve Gallardo, Maricopa County Councilmember Kathie Farr, City of Tolleson

Valley Metro Rail Participants Thelda Williams, City of Phoenix, Chair Mayor Mark Mitchell, City of Tempe, Vice Chair Vice Mayor Kevin Hartke for Councilmember Rick Heumann, City of Chandler Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff, City of Glendale Vice Mayor Dennis Kavanaugh, City of Mesa

Chairs McDonald and Williams called the joint meeting of Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail to order at 1:09 p.m.

Chair we're going to go ahead -- before we go into the agenda items, we're going to take this as the opportunity to speak. If you would like to speak in general on any actionable items, you will have one opportunity for three minutes to speak. First up, I do have Blue Crowley. Okay. Ms. Barker.

Ms. Barker said thank you so much, Chairman McDonald and joint meeting. I'm getting

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

into your processes.

Basically, I've gathered information, and my statement is: If we don't watch out where we're going, we could end up there. I've been using transit in the Valley through, what, I've lived through six cities, and probably been to every single one of the cities you representatives are from. And I've gotten there to and from by transit. And then later on I got a bicycle.

But I wanted to share briefly, you know, some of the things -- I'm sure maybe some of you are more traveled than I am in transportation systems and transit systems, but what I found in California, and it's kind of the same thing here, is that you learn more about use of the transit from the people that are using it, although there was, you know, the people that were driving the buses or, you know, even at the Amtrak they were friendly.

They didn't know what they connected into. I went from LAX to Simi Valley. As I stated, I took six trains -- three trains and six buses and used shuttles. And I did all of this for under a hundred dollars. I happened to get good airfare, but I learned how to use, you know, the fact from where I came from one transit and to use it into another, you know, I ask a lot of questions. I got online and found out how to get discounts.

But what I'm saying is we can be better than even California. They have some great transit systems that the people obviously, when you look out on the freeway and you see all the cars, they obviously don't know it's a better ride.

For example, going onto the orange line -- a fast bus at grade. What they did is they took about six lanes and they gave cars three lanes and the buses the other three, and they made limited stop platforms. And it was beautiful and fast and affordable -- nice clean buses.

I got off of Amtrak and said to the bus driver, can I use this ticket to ride on you, and he said, yes.

And I was expecting an underground like what I ended up after that going on the red line underground, but this was above ground fast bus through a vegetated area and limited stops. It was on a Sunday, so there wasn't as much traffic, but I would imagine that they would use several buses running lickety-split at peak hours on the other days.

And, you know, I just wanted to share that. I really believe the resources we have, even you've got a lot vanpools. Phoenix used to have, you know, all those reserve-a-rides. I don't know what they did with those vans.

But I've often thought, you know, when you see one person going in, you know, a vehicle that carries twelve or sixteen people how it could be used in a general system as circulators or connectors and get people around and do some things during the day. So I wanted to share that.

I think that is a joint item to make everything connect and get going faster.

Chair McDonald said thank you. Mr. Crowley.

Mr. Crowley said hey, joint committee, how you doing today? I discussed the Wi-Fi part of it, because that's the information item, but I'm trying to figure out why you're putting it in there that it's going to cost $60 a month, you know, just like a phone, but what you're doing when it's on the bus is you're piggybacking on your own existing service so that there's communication between the drivers and the system, so when it's already going to be there, why are you saying that we got to be the ones to pay for it.

As to the quarterly report, when I'm looking at it, I come across to customer service center. Now, isn't it nice that in that last short range transit plan it showed that the City of Phoenix is going to be expanding 4 o'clock in the morning until midnight. Wouldn't it be nice that the call center would work at the same times, because as you know, it doesn't work past 8 o'clock. So, when they're talking about how good they're doing and how much time it takes to answer a phone call, well, if you call after 8:00, it's going to take, how many hours.

When it gets to the quarterly report on the different projects coming up, the one of the transit planning, there's the park-and-ride out there in Peoria in the short range plan. Well, on the short range plan, 70 percent of your stops don't have anything. And how many of your cities, Avondale, have nothing at all. And then when you look in the quarterly report, it says you're going to get a bus on Indian School and Thomas in five years.

We had 10 violations on air quality. And in five years Avondale is going to get a bus. That's not the way we put it in, big guy. You should've had one five years ago.

And when you're also explaining to the different members, I believe it was either Surprise or Buckeye that I asked what it is that when you participating within the system. And none of them told you that you also got to give all your lottery funds. So if you're willing to give your lottery funds, you're going to get some bus routes. And obviously, Avondale, you don't plan on doing that for whenever.

So as the joint of this committee and its working together, you need to be more multimodal.

And I would discuss the actions that you're going to have to do on discussing that gentleman's contract and such, but with only 15 seconds back, rather than do it not effectively, I'll just not say anything.

Chair McDonald said okay. Thank you. There was an information item from the last meeting, but it applies now as well, so I'll let everyone know. There's going to be elections for Board officers and members on the Audit and Finance Subcommittee and the Joint Board Subcommittee. You all will be receiving information on that probably 3

later this week, early next week, so if you would like to consider being on one of these Boards or take a position, please let us know.

On that note, our Item No. 1 is the Chief Executive Officer's Report. Mr. Smith.

1. Chief Executive Officer Report

Mr. Smith said thank you. Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, Members of the Boards, you know, we like to celebrate some of our successes here. All too often in these meetings we talk a lot about what's wrong and what we're challenged with and what we try to do better. It's good sometimes to sit back and celebrate some of our successes.

One of them is that the American Public Transit Association recently had its conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, and I was privileged to attend that. Also with me were a couple three of our operators and mechanics from our bus: Jason Allison from First Transit Mesa Division, participated in the National Bus Roadeo. Brent Kentalon and Alan Kolchecky -- sorry about that, Alan, from Total Transit Maintenance Technicians, participated in the national competition for maintenance workers. And we appreciate their efforts. They won the local competition, were able to go back and represent Valley Metro, and they did it well.

Upcoming in June is the APTA Rail Conference, which will be here in Phoenix. We're very honored and privileged to have that. And right before, during, concurrent, I guess, with the rail conference is the rail rodeo on Sunday May 1 at the rail Operation Maintenance Center. We had our own rail rodeo, and we had operators Rose Ortiz who won that competition, Bob Reynolds second, Susanna Judd third. And in maintenance we had Luke Ahbud, who was first, John Dillard and Alex Karen who came in third. They will represent Valley Metro in the International Train Rodeo that will take place right here in Phoenix at our OMC. And so we're very, very grateful for them and congratulate them on their efforts.

We also this month had the opportunity to, for the 16th year, to designate a winning design by a high school student. And this year's winner was a student Cami Lentz, a senior at Marcos de Niza High School.

As a matter of fact, Marcos de Niza had both the first place and the second place winners in our competition. And the bus wrap and the train wrap that you see behind us will be on one of our buses and one of our trains for the next year.

As I said, this is the 16th year we've done this. It has a lot of incredibly talented high school students competing. And there were some great entries this year. And as you can see, Cami's was -- just really shines. And as I told her and her parents -- you know, the great thing is as I drive around, and I'm much more cognizant, I notice buses and trains a lot more than I used to. And, I said, one thing that struck me is that being on this for a year, Cami, your design will not only be seen by a few hundred or even a few thousand, but literally by millions of people. So this a great advertisement for our 4

students and for their talents that they have and we congratulate them.

We also want to let you know that we have submitted a regional application to U.S. Department of Transportation for a TIGER grant for fiscal year '16, '17. And what we presented was the I-10/I-17 bus ramp project, which we'll find out in a short while whether we'll get that.

That's one of those popular programs that is way oversubscribed. We've been fortunate here in this State, even in this region to receive TIGER grants. We hope this is one of them.

Just a quick update, for April ridership, we continue with the trend that we've seen recently, although we are at somewhat higher numbers. Our bus, our average weekday bus boardings are down almost 11 percent. And this is a trend we've been seeing. I think there's a -- and this was a major part of the discussion back in Charlotte. Everybody seems to be experiencing either flat, maybe a small increase, but most systems around the country are seeing reductions in bus ridership.

There's a lot of factors that go into that. Believe it or not, an improving economy actually pushes people out of the bus and into their car, which they now can afford to have. We don't have as many community college students, we don't have -- there's a lot of different factors. And then, of course, when you're talking about $2- plus gallon gas that continues to be very, very low, it makes driving much more affordable.

So we will continue to do whatever we can to improve our riders experience. We've had a lot of discussion today. That's part of it of bringing people back to the bus.

We recognize that many times you only have one -- we only have one chance to keep people with our services and we take that seriously.

On the other hand, our rail ridership is up almost 20 percent, which is a significant increase. This is the first full month that we had the Northwest extension completed, so now we're looking year over year where we have both the Central Mesa and the Northwest extension that have been now online and that's a significant increase.

We continue to break all projections. I wish the revenue would be as positive as our train ridership has been. We're now carrying almost 55,000 people a day on our light rail system, which is significantly higher than we had projected seven and a half, eight years ago when we started that.

And lastly, I want to make you aware, the Audit and Finance Subcommittee met last week. They have -- they gave approval for us to post the jobs of Chief Financial Officer and Internal Audit Manager. And those have been posted. We are accepting applications. And in the interim, Mr. Paul Hodgins, who you're all familiar with, has been appointed to be the Interim Chief Financial Officer until we bring someone full-time on. 5

So, Paul, congratulations. Do you want to wave, so everyone remembers who you are? And we're in the process of transitioning all of the responsibilities to Paul as we speak.

That's my report, Mr. and Madam Chair.

Chair McDonald said are there any questions for Mr. Smith? Okay. Seeing none, next item is the minutes.

2. Minutes

Chair McDonald said is there anyone who would like to comment on or change something in the minutes?

(VMR Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY VICE MAYOR KAVANAUGH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KAVANAUGH AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 21, 2016 JOINT BOARD MEETING MINUTES.

(RPTA Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORSBORN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 21, 2016 JOINT BOARD MEETING MINUTES.

3. Financial Services Contract Award

Chair McDonald said Item 3 is the Financial Audit Services Contract Award. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith said thank you, Mr. McDonald. We are presenting to you an award of a contract for our external auditor. This is the accounting firm which reviews our financial statements that we present to the public and also to the federal government, commonly known as our CAFR. They also do overall reviews of our control system.

Every five years we rotate out auditors. This is part of the normal rotation. So this will be -- it actually is in a five-year contract, but simply because the State procurement cycle is less than that, so we assume -- we anticipate that what you're asking to approve is a shorter period, which then when we get to the end of that period, we will finalize.

One difference between this year, as we've been telling you for the last couple months, is that in this proposal and in this contract we have an additional services component which asks our external auditor to conduct significant work as designated, additional work in compliance areas such as travel and entertainment such as our internal controls, so they go beyond their normal scope to do some specific compliance work as needed.

We anticipate that over the term they will work closely with our newly established Internal Audit Department to coordinate those compliance audits, and I think that we 6

can safely say that the situation where we had a system that really went without detailed audit, detailed compliance audits, for many years will no longer happen. This will be reviewed. And if need be, additional work would be done on an annual basis with a specific purpose of reporting back to you as to the status and the functioning of our internal control system.

So we present for you for your consideration approving of this contract.

(VMR Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY VICE MAYOR KAVANAUGH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TOLMACHOFF AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO AUTHORIZE THE INTERIM CEO TO PROCURE THE REQUIRED FINANCIAL AUDIT SERVICES FOR VALLEY METRO FROM CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP UTILIZING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THROUGH THE STATE OF ARIZONA CONTRACT ADSP013-046756 FOR $181,650 WITH A 10% CONTRACT CONTINGENCY OF $18,165.

(RPTA Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORSBORN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KLAPP AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO AUTHORIZE THE INTERIM CEO TO PROCURE THE REQUIRED FINANCIAL AUDIT SERVICES FOR VALLEY METRO FROM CLIFTONLARSONALLEN LLP UTILIZING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THROUGH THE STATE OF ARIZONA CONTRACT ADSP013-046756 FOR $181,650 WITH A 10% CONTRACT CONTINGENCY OF $18,165.

4. Chief Executive Officer Recruitment Update and Selection of An Executive Search Firm

Chair McDonald said Item No. 4. Chief Executive Officer Recruitment Update. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith said Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, Members of the Boards, prior to this meeting the Ad Hoc Recruitment Committee, which these Boards approved at its last meeting, met to hear a report Andy Mesquita, Deputy Director of Human Resources of Maricopa County, and to take certain action. They also elected a chair.

And I would like to now turn the time over to Vice Mayor Dennis Kavanaugh, who is the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee, to present to you the findings or the actions taken by this and the recommendations of this subcommittee. Vice Mayor.

Vice Mayor Kavanaugh said thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, Madam Chair, our committee did meet. We reviewed the posting that we're going to be doing for the new CEO and approve moving forward with that.

We also reviewed a report from Maricopa County and METRO on the executive search firms that responded to our inquiry. And our committee is unanimously recommending Waters & Company to be the executive firm that will work with Maricopa County as part of the search process.

There were six companies who applied for this position. This company was the highest rated proposer and the best value. We also felt that they understood the agency approach to completing our scope of work. The proposal was for $27,500 plus there could be optional services. And so, Mr. Chair, Madam Chair, on behalf of the committee I will make a motion to approve that recommendation for Waters & Company.

(VMR Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY VICE MAYOR KAVANAUGH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TOLMACHOFF AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THAT RECOMMENDATION FOR WATERS & COMPANY FOR $27,500 PLUS THERE COULD BE OPTIONAL SERVICES.

(RPTA Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORSBORN, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KLAPP AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THAT RECOMMENDATION FOR WATERS & COMPANY FOR $27,500 PLUS THERE COULD BE OPTIONAL SERVICES.

5. Possible Executive Session

Mr. Smith said Mr. and Madam Chair, we propose that we move into executive session to discuss some items, legal issues, and advice and counsel from for our legal issues.

(VMR Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY VICE MAYOR KAVANAUGH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TOLMACHOFF AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

(RPTA Motion) IT WAS MOVED BY VICE MAYOR HARTKE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER ORSBORN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION.

(Meeting adjourned to Executive Session.) 1:30 p.m.

(Meeting reconvened.) 3:27 p.m.

Chair McDonald said I'm going to call the Joint Board Meeting for the RPTA back to order.

Chair Williams said and the METRO Board.

Chair McDonald said for the Valley Metro Board, if there is no objection, Items 7, 8, and 9 are for information only. If you have any questions or concerns with that, please reach out to Mr. Smith.

Seeing no objections, that does complete the agenda. Are there any future agenda items for the Joint Meeting you would like to see? Seeing none, we are adjourned.

With no further discussion the joint meeting adjourned at 3:28 p.m.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Public Comment on Agenda Action Items

PURPOSE The public will be provided with an opportunity at this time to address the Boards on all action agenda items. Up to three minutes will be provided per speaker to address all agenda items unless the Chair allows more at his/her discretion. A total of 15 minutes for all speakers will be provided.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Transit Standards & Performance Measures Phase III

PURPOSE To request approval of the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III Report.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION The importance of a performance based transportation system is emphasized and required as part of the federal government’s Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and in the subsequent Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act). In addition, the Arizona State Legislature, in its legislation leading to Proposition 400 in 2004, stressed performance based transportation planning and programming and required audits every five years to verify operational performance and address potential changes to the plan to improve performance.

In October 2012, Valley Metro initiated an effort to establish a baseline for transit service delivery across the Valley. Supporting actions included the following:

 Develop service standards and performance measures  Develop a prioritization process for service requests and to identify service needs

Phase I of the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures (TSPM) was approved by the Board of Directors on November 21, 2013. Phase I included the establishment of service delivery goals, definition of service types and associated service standards (days of operation, span, frequency), passenger stop spacing standards, and modifications to the regional transit service change process.

Phase II of the regional TSPM effort was approved by the Board of Directors on December 18, 2014. Phase II included the identification of regional transit performance measures and associated planning tools, transit service performance thresholds, standards for implementing and prioritizing new transit services, and principles for the application of regional transit standards and performance measures.

Phase III of the TSPM effort was initiated after the adoption of Phase II with the purpose of developing service design standards and to identify a process for prioritizing the assignment and programming of regional transit fleet. Consistent with the process undertaken to complete earlier phases, the TSPM Technical Advisory Group (TAG), comprised of representatives from Valley Metro member agencies, was retained to assist with the development of the Phase III recommendations. The TAG met regularly throughout the Phase III process and developed the recommendations summarized below (additional detail is provided in the attached Executive Summary):

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

 Service Design Standards for Local and Key Local Bus Routes – Route planning criteria were identified for regionally funded or operated routes to establish the maximum number and length of deviations from the primary operating corridor of a route, minimize route duplications, and provide routing parameters for revenue service end-of-line vehicle turnarounds.  Regional Fleet Prioritization Process – The proposed process establishes separate methods for prioritizing available regional fixed route bus fleet and expansion fleet needs for the entire region. The fleet prioritization process will be conducted annually as part of the regional Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) with involvement from member agencies.

A Phase III final report has been prepared to document the recommendations and is available upon request. The TSPM Phase III Executive Summary is attached and defines the recommendations for Board consideration. The full report will be available on the Valley Metro webpage once the Board has approved it.

Valley Metro staff recommend the following actions subsequent to Board approval of the TSPM Phase III recommendations:

 Valley Metro will update the TSPM procedures guide to incorporate Phase III recommendations.  In collaboration with member agencies, Valley Metro will review and update, if needed, the TSPM policies and procedures every two years.

COST AND BUDGET No cost at this time. The cost to conduct the annual performance analysis defined in Phase III can be accomplished with the level of Planning and Accessible Transit Division staff currently budgeted.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2106 - for information TMC/RMC: June 1, 2016 - approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 - for action

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

Goal 2: Advance performance based operation  Tactic A: Operate an effective reliable high performing transit system.  Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on budget.

Goal 3: Grow transit ridership  Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets  Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Boards of Directors approve the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III Report.

CONTACT Wulf Grote, P.E. Director of Planning and Development 602-322-4420 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT Executive Summary

3 6/8/2016

Transit Standards and Performance Measures – Phase III June 2016

Purpose • To request the TMC and RMC recommend the Board approve the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III Report

1 6/8/2016

Background • Performance based transportation system emphasized and required by law – MAP-21 − FAST Act − Prop 400 audits • October 2012 TSPM initiated

Phase I Phase II Phase III (Adopted November 2013) (Adopted December 2014) (Current Phase 2016) - Service delivery goals - Performance measures - Service design standards (route - Service types - Planning tools deviations, route duplication, end-of-line - Service standards - Performance thresholds turnarounds) (span, frequency, etc.) - Standards for implementing and - Fleet prioritization process - Passenger stop spacing prioritizing new transit services - TSPM application principles

Reports are posted on the VM website 3

TSPM Phase III Recommendations • Service design standards

Route Deviations Route Duplications End‐of‐line Vehicle Turnarounds

2 6/8/2016

TSPM Phase III Recommendations

• Regional SRTP fleet prioritization – Production years (existing fleet) – Development years (expansion fleet)

Development Years Prioritization Outcome

• Single list of region-wide un-programmed fleet expansion needs to Valley Metro Board

• List forwarded to MAG for Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) consideration

3 6/8/2016

Recommendation • To request the Boards of Directors approve the regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures Phase III Report

Executive Summary

Valley Metro’s Transit Standards and Performance Measures (TSPM) process was initiated for multiple purposes, including the necessity of developing a performance-based public transportation system consistent with federal and state (including Transit Life Cycle Program) requirements. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act furthers several important goals, including safety, state of good repair, performance and program efficiency. The act establishes performance-based planning requirements that align federal funding with key goals and tracks progress towards these goals. From the state perspective, the application of performance-based planning and programming was emphasized in the Arizona Auditor General’s 2011 performance audit. The auditor’s recommendation stated that “it does not appear that performance data is considered nor is a methodical, disciplined approach using set criteria in place to guide project priority decisions and changes to projects.”

In coordination with representatives from member agencies, Valley Metro initiated a process to establish agency transit service and capital standards and performance measures. In addition to the collaborative participation of member cities, Valley Metro also received input from a panel of peer agencies with experience in the formation and implementation of transit service standards and performance measures.

The scope of Valley Metro’s transit service standards and performance measures effort required the completion of the process through multiple phases. The initial phase, adopted by the Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) Board of Directors and Valley Metro Rail Board of Directors in November 2013, considered elements critical to the establishment of transit service standards including the identification of service provision goals, service types (including minimum operating standards for each), preliminary performance measures and the process for evaluating and recommending service changes. The second phase, adopted by the RTPA and Valley Metro Board of Directors in December 2014, focused on the development of transit service performance measures, transit service thresholds, application principles and implementation standards for new service. The third phase, which is documented in this summary, focused on defining the process for the development of performance thresholds, the establishment of service design standards, and the development of a regional fleet prioritization process for existing and expansion fleet needs.

Adopted Service Provision Goals Valley Metro adopted five service provision goals in 2013 as the first step in developing regional transit service standards and performance measures. The goals, outlined below, also

Phase III Executive Summary ES-1 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

serve as a means to guide the operation and development of Valley Metro-funded and operated public transportation services.

1. Implement services identified in the RTP in consideration of a performance-based system. 2. Give high priority to services that focus on the transit-dependent population. 3. Provide transit service that is desirable as an alternate mode to automobile travel. 4. Improve Valley Metro’s overall performance and promote the long-term financial stability of the agency. 5. Promote expansion that builds existing services to meet standards and focuses new services in key areas, including the following:  Higher population density  Limited auto availability  Low income  Major activity centers

Performance Thresholds

Transit service thresholds serve as a tool for comparing and measuring the relative performance of individual services/operations by transit service type. In Phase II of Valley Metro’s TSPM efforts, a methodology was developed where routes were numerically ranked for each performance measure (by service type) and quartile breakpoints were established to identify the top 25% and bottom 25% performers. As a part of Phase III, Valley Metro conducted research to determine whether performance targets should be established to replace the performance thresholds. After a comprehensive peer city analysis and through discussions with the TSPM Technical Advisory Group (TAG), it was determined that the current performance threshold methodology was most appropriate for Valley Metro services and would therefore be retained. Figure ES-1 illustrates the quartile-based performance threshold concept that was adopted in Phase II of Valley Metro’s TSPM efforts.

Phase III Executive Summary ES-2 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

Figure ES-1. Transit Service Performance Thresholds

Service Design Standards

Service design standards have been developed for regionally funded or operated routes to establish the maximum number and length of deviations from the primary operating corridor of a route, minimize route duplications, and provide routing parameters for revenue service end-of-line vehicle turnarounds. The proposed service standards are discussed below.

Route Deviation Standards Route deviations typically occur between a route’s termini using one of the following methods: 1) depart from and return to the primary corridor at the same location or 2) depart from and return to the primary corridor at a different location (Figure ES-2). To maintain the integrity of the regional transit system’s grid architecture and optimize route and system-level performance, new deviations on any existing regionally funded route or any new regionally funded route (local, key local, limited stop peak, and limited stop all- day) shall be avoided; however, a route deviation may be warranted if it is no greater than 1-mile or 5-minutes one-way (2-mile or 10-minutes round trip), results in no more than a total of two deviations per route, does not require additional fleet (unless additional fleet has been prioritized for the service), and one or more of the following conditions are met:

 connects to a light rail station;  connects to a regional transit center;  connects to an inter-modal transportation facility (i.e. passenger airport, greyhound terminal, etc.);  connects to another transit service at the route’s end-of-line location;  projected performance of deviation does not negatively impact the overall performance of the route under consideration.

Phase III Executive Summary ES-3 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

Additional considerations for route deviations are discussed in detail in the Valley Metro TSPM Phase III Final Report.

Figure ES-2: Example of Typical Route Deviations

Route Duplication Standards Route duplication is defined as the operation of two or more routes or services along the same street segment or on closely parallel streets (within one-quarter mile of each other) (Figure ES-3). Regionally funded transit services shall avoid route duplication; however, under the following conditions, route duplication may be warranted:

 availability of a designated transit corridor (high occupancy vehicle [HOV] lane, bus and right-turn only [BAT] lane, transit guideway, etc.);  access and egress to park-and-ride facilities, transit centers, rail stations, or intermodal transportation facility;  if duplicative routes provide enhanced frequency in a corridor or corridor segment where the performance of the individual routes can be maintained at a performing level; and

Phase III Executive Summary ES-4 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

 if duplicative routes have different stop spacing characteristics (for example, local bus and light rail operating within the same corridor provide access and egress at different intervals, which may be necessary to conveniently transport passengers to and from their desired origin/destination).

Figure ES-3: Route Duplication

Revenue Service End-of-Line Vehicle Turnaround Standards

Revenue-service vehicle turnarounds should avoid excessive circulation to maintain the transit system’s grid architecture and minimize operating costs. However, without a facility to accommodate turnarounds at a route’s terminus, excessive circulation may be necessary to maneuver vehicles into the proper position/location for return trips (Figure ES-4). The following considerations are applied for the design of revenue-service end-of- line vehicle turnarounds on new regionally funded transit services or existing regionally funded transit services where the end-of-line location is being modified:

 If there is a dedicated transit facility (e.g. park-and-ride or transit center) within one mile of the designated route terminus that can accommodate off-street transit vehicle circulation and has the capacity to stage the quantity of vehicles being planned for the new service or service modification, the route shall be extended to the transit facility.  If no dedicated transit facility exists to accommodate the end-of-line layover, the following considerations should be utilized to define a route’s revenue-service end- of-line turnaround(s).

Phase III Executive Summary ES-5 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

o operate on arterial and collector streets with sufficient lane width to accommodate a full-size transit bus travelling in each direction at the posted speed; o avoid circulating through areas with potentially non-compatible land uses such as single-family residential areas; o avoid circulating through private property unless other options are inefficient (excess circulation) or undesirable (incompatible land uses); o avoid left turns at un-signalized intersections; and o consider routing that provides opportunities to accommodate interlining between transit routes where possible to reduce non-revenue miles (and turnaround segments).

Figure ES-4: End-of-Line Turnaround

Phase III Executive Summary ES-6 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

Regional Bus Fleet Prioritization Process

Given the finite quantity of vehicles available in the region and the length of time required to procure expansion vehicles, not all service adjustments or expansion needs submitted through the Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) may be accommodated with available fleet in a particular year. Thus, separate processes have been developed for prioritizing existing and expansion fleet should requests for vehicles exceed the quantity available. The proposed fleet prioritization process is based on the following key elements:

 The process will be administered through the SRTP for bus mode fleet needs within the short-range planning horizon (present to 5 years);  The process only applies to fleet that is regionally funded (capital match or operating) and/or operated by Valley Metro;  Service adjustments in the production years (1-2) of the SRTP will be ranked using the 12-level fleet prioritization process. The process is only applied if fleet requests exceed available vehicles; and  Service adjustments in the development years (3-5) of the SRTP that require expansion fleet will be ranked using the expansion fleet prioritization process. The rankings will be submitted to the Valley Metro Board of Directors for final review and potential recommendation to MAG for consideration as part of the regional federal funds programming process.

Figure ES-5 summarizes the need and applicability of the fleet prioritization process. The process for identifying and prioritizing service adjustments and associated fleet requirements through the SRTP is depicted in Figure ES-6. For additional details on the prioritization processes described herein, refer to the Valley Metro TSPM Phase III Final Report.

Phase III Executive Summary ES-7 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

Figure ES-5: Fleet Prioritization Need and Applicability

Figure ES-6: SRTP Fleet Prioritization Process

Phase III Executive Summary ES-8 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

Existing Fleet Prioritization Process For service adjustments in the production years of the SRTP, a fleet prioritization process (referred to as the 12-level existing fleet prioritization process) has been developed. The 12-levels, which serve as a ranking mechanism, were developed by applying priorities to elements such as funding source, type of service adjustment and purpose of the service adjustment. If multiple service requests receive the same rank level in the same planning year, the transit propensity tool that was developed during Phase II is used as a tiebreaker. The proposed 12-level existing fleet prioritization process is summarized in Figure ES-7.

Figure ES-7: 12-Level Existing Fleet Prioritization Process

Note: If multiple adjustment requests have same rank, the Transit Propensity Tool is applied. The service adjustment with the highest Transit Propensity Index will receive priority. Expansion Fleet Prioritization Process For service adjustments in the development years of the SRTP with expansion fleet requirements, a process has been developed that evaluates the service adjustments and assigns points based on their funding characteristics, compliance with established TSPM standards, and regional connectivity. The more points a service earns, the higher it is prioritized in the list of fleet requests submitted to the Board for their consideration and

Phase III Executive Summary ES-9 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

possible recommendation to MAG. The proposed expansion fleet prioritization process is summarized in Figure ES-8.

Figure ES-8. Expansion Fleet Prioritization Process

In the event of a tie, each service improvement is further evaluated using the metrics summarized in Figure ES-9. If the service improvements remain tied after the tie breaker assessment has been completed and the available funds for the number of vehicles required does not allow for implementation of both, Valley Metro will work with affected member cities to mutually determine if other options, such as advancing or delaying one or more of the services or adjusting the service characteristics may allow for the affected service requests to be advanced for implementation.

Phase III Executive Summary ES-10 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

Figure ES-9. Expansion Fleet Prioritization Ranking Process Tie Break Methodology

Conclusion

The process for developing Valley Metro’s Regional Transit Service Standards and Performance Measures was divided into multiple phases. Board approval of the elements discussed and recommended in this executive summary and the Phase III Final Report will conclude the third and final phase of the process. The transit service standards and performance measures will be reviewed every two years and updated regularly as appropriate to ensure they are consistent with Valley Metro’s evolving goals.

Phase III Executive Summary ES-11 May 2016 Regional Transit Standards and Performance Measures

DATE AGENDA ITEM 5 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) Update

PURPOSE To present the draft 2016 TLCP Update for action.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION The TLCP was developed in 2005 to provide guidance for the implementation of the transit component of the Regional Transportation Plan. The TLCP includes Guiding Principles, policies, procedures and financial forecasts to ensure that the program can be balanced.

The most recent update to the TLCP was in June 2015. Since that time, the official forecast has projected a modest increase in revenues for the Transportation Excise Tax. Some adjustments are being proposed to the bus program to take advantage of the higher revenue forecast.

Bus Program The current Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP) has identified some service and/or funding changes that are recommended to be incorporated into the bus program within the TLCP, along with some associated fleet expansion needs.

The SRTP was developed cooperatively with member city transit staff and includes service improvements that are ready to be implemented in the next two years. It also includes many potential improvements that are not quite ready for implementation. These improvements will continue to be analyzed and developed and could be recommended for regional funding in a future TLCP Update.

Capital Program In the 2016 TLCP update, there are some minor adjustments to the replacement fleet and facilities projects related to timing and federal funding. In addition, the SRTP has identified some expansion buses that may be required for planned service enhancements. Although some of these enhancements are still in the development phase, a number of expansion buses have been included in this TLCP update as placeholders to be ordered once the service enhancements have been finalized. There is a total of 68 expansion buses programmed in the next 5 fiscal years.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

TLCP Fleet Acquisition

2016 Update 2015 Update Change % Change

Fixed route buses 1,503 1,423 80 5.6% Paratransit buses 603 580 23 4.0% Rural route buses 23 23 0 0.0% Vanpools 1,541 1,500 41 2.7% Total Fleet 3,670 3,526 144 4.1%

Operating Program Valley Metro planning staff developed the SRTP to guide the implementation of new service improvements, including those funded with PTF. The current SRTP includes some service enhancements which are eligible for TLCP funding. Some of these proposed enhancements are included in this update for regional funding. The proposed changes to TLCP funded service are listed below along with the estimated annualized cost impact for the fiscal year in which the improvement is implemented.

Annualized Impact to Scheduled Jurisdictional Route Date Equity Jurisdictions Other Project Information

Increase frequency on weekdays, 40 Main Street Oct 2016 $680,000 Mesa Saturday and Sundays

Replaced with increased service on LINK Main Street Oct 2016 -$980,000 Mesa Route 40

Scottsdale, Increase frequency on Saturdays 81 Hayden/McClintock Oct 2016 $250,000 Tempe and Sundays

Country Club/ Chandler, Increase frequency on weekdays, 112 Arizona Avenue Oct 2016 $875,000 Gilbert, Mesa Saturday and Sundays

Country Club/ Chandler, Replaced with increased service on LINK Arizona Avenue Oct 2016 -$975,000 Gilbert, Mesa Route 112

Increase frequency on Saturdays, 45 Broadway Road Oct 2017 $380,000 Mesa add Sunday service

Chandler, Increase frequency on weekdays 136 Gilbert Road Oct 2018 $870,000 Gilbert, Mesa and Saturdays, add Sunday service

Increase peak frequency on 156 Chandler Blvd Apr 2021 $390,000 Chandler weekdays

Replace local funding, existing 45 Broadway Road Jul 2021 $1,100,000 Mesa service levels

Replace local funding, existing 83 83rd Avenue Jul 2024 $1,175,000 Peoria service levels

In 2016, the Valley Metro Board of Directors authorized the implementation of a new regional ADA paratransit overlay service which eliminates the need for transfers among current paratransit providers. The new service will be implemented in FY2017. The incremental cost for the service has been budgeted as a local cost. However, some 2

cities have asked that their ADA PTF allocations be increased to pay for the incremental costs. The 2016 update includes an additional $14.3 million ADA PTF funds to accommodate the requests.

The fund balance at the end of the program is anticipated to be about $43.2 million, up from $35.2 million in the 2015 update. The following table summarizes the changes in fund balance.

Comparison of Net Revenues 2016 2015 Update Update Change Operations Revenue $2,076.6 $2,035.2 $41.4 Capital Revenue $1,039.4 $1,004.9 $34.5 Total Revenue $3,116.0 $3,040.1 $75.9

Operations Expenditures $1,754.4 $1,726.3 $28.1 Capital Expenditures $1,319.5 $1,278.6 $40.9 Total Expenditures $3,073.9 $3,004.9 $69.0

Net Revenues less Expenditures $42.2 $35.2 $6.9

The TLCP Guiding Principles require that jurisdictional equity be maintained for the bus program. The policy allows that each sub-region can be within 2.5 percent above or below their policy allocation. In the current model, the East and West sub-regions are within this policy allowance, but the Central sub-region is not. Additionally, the policy allows that regardless of sub-regional percentages, no jurisdiction can be under- allocated by $7.5 million or more. In the current model one jurisdiction, Phoenix, meets that condition. Phoenix is in the process of identifying potential projects that could be programmed to bring them within the policy guidelines.

Jurisdiction Equity Summary

by Sub-Region

(millions of dollars) May 9, 2016 Total JE Total Percent of Policy Under Sub-Region Calculated JE PTF (JE PTF Calculated Allocation Over)

Central $433.48 $449.40 $15.93 3.54%

East $789.84 $802.65 $12.81 1.60% West $165.00 $164.06 ($0.94) -0.57% $1,388.32 $1,416.11 $27.80 1.96% 3

Rail/High Capacity Transit Program

The baseline rail model has some significant changes from the adopted 2015 TLCP Update. The passage of Proposition 104 in Phoenix has brought about some changes in the priorities for Phoenix’ rail corridors. Many of the future rail projects within Phoenix are recommended for change. On January 26, 2016 the Phoenix City Council took formal action to establish these priorities for the corridors in Phoenix. The action was taken after public discussion through the Citizens Transportation Commission and upon recommendation from the City of Phoenix Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee. Projects programmed after calendar year 2026 are outside of the TLCP. Priority of projects for new future funding is yet to be determined.

Changes in the financial model have been made so as to not impact the PTF available, or the timing of, any non-Phoenix corridors. Below is a summary of the proposed changes to the corridors including an update of the Tempe Streetcar project.

Capitol/I-10 West – The project is proposed to be separated into two phases, with Phase I to the Capitol complete by 2023 and Phase II west along I-10 complete by 2030. Funding for Phase I includes federal CMAQ that is currently programmed and PTF. Funding for Phase II is assumed to be City of Phoenix local funds.

South Central – The project is recommended to be advanced from 2034 to 2023. The cost estimate has been increased to include a share of the OMC expansion project and additional expansion vehicles to accommodate increased frequency along Central Avenue north to Dunlap. The project is programmed to be funded with federal 5309 New Starts funds, City of Phoenix local funds and PTF. The PTF is being reallocated from the Capitol/I-10 West project.

Northwest Phase II – This project is recommended to be advanced from 2026 to 2023. Moving the schedule forward results in a slightly lower project cost, due to decreased inflation. The project is assumed to be a Small Starts project, with the maximum federal participation of $100 million. The PTF funding for the project is held at the same level as the 2015 TLCP update. The remaining funding is City of Phoenix local funds.

Tempe Streetcar – The Streetcar project received a Medium-High rating from the Federal transit Administration (FTA). The project has been recommended for a $75 million Small Starts grant and has been incorporated into the President’s Budget for federal FY2017. Staff is currently working toward a Small Starts Grant Agreement during FY2017. The completion year for the project is now 2019.

2016 TLCP 2015 TLCP Corridor Open Year Open Year Central Mesa 2015 2015 Northwest Phase I 2016 2016 Gilbert Road 2018 2018 Tempe Streetcar * 2019 2018 Capitol/I-10 West Phase I 2023 2023 Northwest Phase II * 2023 2026 South Central * 2023 2034 West Phoenix/Central Glendale 2026 2026 Capitol/I-10 West Phase II ** 2030 2023 Northeast Phoenix 2034 2034

* schedule changes from 2015 TLCP) ** phase and schedule change

In addition to the proposed changes to the corridors, Phoenix is funding the addition of a light rail station along the current line in the vicinity of 50th Street. The project is in the design phase and is fully funded by Phoenix local funds.

West Phoenix/Central Glendale high capacity transit corridor is currently programmed as a 5-mile corridor connecting the existing 19th Ave LRT extension serving West Phoenix and Downtown Glendale. Valley Metro initiated a transit corridor study in 2013 to identify high capacity transit options in partnership with the cities of Phoenix and Glendale. After completing three levels of technical analysis and extensive public outreach, staff is considering a 7-mile leading alternative connecting 19th Avenue and Camelback LRT station through Camelback Road, north along 43rd Avenue and west along Glendale Ave and Glenn Drive. Additional technical analysis and community outreach will be conducted in FY16 and FY17 with a proposed recommendation taken for city council actions and Valley Metro Rail Board action in late 2016 or early 2017. The 2017 TLCP will be updated to reflect the revised alignment following Board action.

Currently, the rail program baseline financial model is balanced, with a surplus of $88.2 million remaining. The rail program currently anticipates additional financings. An additional issue in FY17 is anticipated and expected to generate up to $62 million. In addition, in FY22 short term financing is needed to cover cash flow. The final financing needs are driven by the construction of three projects simultaneously and will likely change as those projects advance.

Proposed Art Policy

The FAST Act eliminated all art and non-functional landscaping from the list of federally eligible projects. Valley Metro and the member cities believe that art is an important component of capital projects. To that end, staff proposes to implement a regional policy that dedicates up to one percent of the construction budget of each major rail capital project to art. The specific art will be determined on a project-by-project basis working with city staff, artists and community members to define the needs for each project.

Rail capital projects with regional PTF would include the art budget as a regional element, whereas the art for projects that are locally funded would also be locally funded.

COST AND BUDGET Some of the proposed changes to the TLCP bus model have been incorporated into the proposed FY2017 Operating and Capital Budgets and the Five-Year Operating and Capital Forecasts. The increase in ADA PTF reimbursements are not in the proposed budget and may require a mid-year budget adjustment and amendments to current IGAs. Revenues and expenditures forecast within the TLCP are balanced as required by State Statute.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information TMC/RMC: June 1, 2016 approved Boards of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020: o Goal 2: Advance performance based operation  Tactic E: Maintain strong fiscal controls to support Valley Metro’s long-term sustainability

o Goal 3: Grow transit ridership  Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets  Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Boards of Directors approve the Transit Life Cycle Program Update for bus and rail.

CONTACT Paul Hodgins Manager, Revenue Generation and Financial Planning 602-523-6043 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT ADOT Revenue Forecast – PTF for Bus Program ADOT Revenue Forecast – PTF for Rail Program Jurisdiction Equity Summary by Jurisdiction Powerpoint Presentation

Transportation Excise Tax Revenues PTF for Bus Program Comparison of 2015 and 2014 Forecasts (millions of dollars)

2015 Annual 2014 Annual Fiscal Year Forecast Growth Forecast Growth 2015 $72.3 4.6% $71.5 3.5% 2016 $75.8 4.9% $76.0 6.2% 2017 $80.6 6.4% $79.6 4.7% 2018 $85.4 5.9% $83.5 4.9% 2019 $90.1 5.6% $87.0 4.1% 2020 $94.8 5.2% $90.6 4.1% 2021 $99.6 5.0% $94.2 4.0% 2022 $104.3 4.7% $98.1 4.2% 2023 $108.9 4.4% $102.1 4.1% 2024 $113.8 4.6% $106.4 4.2% 2025 $118.9 4.4% $110.9 4.2% 2026 $72.3 $67.4 Actuals 06-15 $618.4 $617.6 Forecast 16-26 $1,044.4 $995.7 20 Year Total $1,662.8 $1,613.4

Transportation Excise Tax Revenues PTF for Rail Program Comparison of 2015 and 2014 Forecasts (millions of dollars)

2015 Annual 2014 Annual Fiscal Year Forecast Growth Forecast Growth 2015 $55.1 4.6% $54.5 3.5% 2016 $57.7 4.9% $57.9 6.2% 2017 $61.4 6.4% $60.6 4.7% 2018 $65.0 5.9% $63.6 4.9% 2019 $68.7 5.6% $66.2 4.1% 2020 $72.2 5.2% $69.0 4.1% 2021 $75.8 5.0% $71.7 4.0% 2022 $79.4 4.7% $74.8 4.2% 2023 $82.9 4.4% $77.8 4.1% 2024 $86.7 4.6% $81.1 4.2% 2025 $90.6 4.4% $84.5 4.2% 2026 $55.1 $51.3 Actuals 06-15 $471.1 $470.5 Forecast 16-26 $795.7 $758.5 20 Year Total $1,266.7 $1,229.1

Jurisdiction Equity Summary (millions of dollars) May 9, 2016

Total Total Policy Calculated PTF JE Under (JE JE Calculated JE Policy Jurisdiction PTF Allocation Over) Percent Percent Avondale $19.8 $21.8 $2.0 1.42% 1.54% Buckeye $4.7 $1.0 ($3.7) 0.34% 0.07% Chandler $132.4 $134.0 $1.6 9.54% 9.46% County $16.5 $9.2 ($7.3) 1.19% 0.65% El Mirage $1.5 $3.2 $1.7 0.11% 0.23% Fountain Hills $0.6 $1.2 $0.6 0.04% 0.09% Gila Bend $0.0 $1.9 $1.9 0.00% 0.14% Gilbert $87.3 $86.6 ($0.7) 6.29% 6.12% Glendale $79.7 $80.4 $0.7 5.74% 5.68% Goodyear $4.1 $3.7 ($0.4) 0.30% 0.26% Guadalupe $3.6 $0.1 ($3.5) 0.26% 0.01% Litchfield Park $0.0 $3.2 $3.2 0.00% 0.23% Mesa $269.8 $275.3 $5.5 19.44% 19.44% Paradise Valley $3.2 $7.6 $4.3 0.23% 0.54% Peoria $28.6 $31.4 $2.8 2.06% 2.22% Phoenix $433.5 $449.4 $15.9 31.22% 31.74% Queen Creek $0.0 $0.9 $0.9 0.00% 0.06% Salt River Reservation $1.1 $0.0 ($1.1) 0.08% 0.00% Scottsdale $142.2 $147.4 $5.2 10.24% 10.41% Surprise $5.0 $3.3 ($1.7) 0.36% 0.23% Tempe $149.6 $149.6 ($0.0) 10.78% 10.56% Tolleson $4.5 $4.4 ($0.1) 0.32% 0.31% Wickenburg $0.0 $0.3 $0.3 0.00% 0.02% Youngtown $0.6 $0.2 ($0.4) 0.04% 0.02% $1,388.3 $1,416.1 $27.8 100.00% 100.00%

Light Rail and High Capacity System Map With updated priorities from City of Phoenix Council

* Projects programmed after calendar year 2026 are outside of the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP). Priority of projects for new future funding is yet to be determined.

6/8/2016

Transit Life Cycle Program 2016 Model Update June 2016

Bus Program Summary

1 6/8/2016

Prop 400 Bus Revenues

$240.0 $220.0 $200.0 $180.0 $160.0 $140.0 millions

$120.0 $ $100.0 $80.0 $60.0 $40.0 $20.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

2015 Forecast 2014 Forecast RTP Forecast 3

Source for Changes • Short Range Transit Program – Five-year program of improvements – Projects eligible for regional funding • Meet or support Transit Standards/Performance Measures • Funding availability • Regional ADA Paratransit Plan

2 6/8/2016

Program Changes • Operating program changes – Improved service – Increased funding for existing bus service – ADA funding • Fleet plan changes

Operating Program

Annualized Impact to Route Scheduled Date Jurisdictional Equity Jurisdictions Other Project Information Increase frequency on weekdays, Saturday and 40 Main Street Oct 2016 $680,000 Mesa Sundays

LINK Main Street Oct 2016 -$980,000 Mesa Replaced with increased service on Route 40

81 Hayden/McClintock Oct 2016 $250,000 Scottsdale, Tempe Increase frequency on Saturdays and Sundays Country Club/ Arizona Increase frequency on weekdays, Saturday and 112 Avenue Oct 2016 $875,000 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa Sundays Country Club/ Arizona LINK Avenue Oct 2016 -$975,000 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa Replaced with increased service on Route 112

45 Broadway Road Oct 2017 $380,000 Mesa Increase frequency on Saturdays, add Sunday service Increase frequency on weekdays and Saturdays, add 136 Gilbert Road Oct 2018 $870,000 Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa Sunday service

156 Chandler Blvd Apr 2021 $390,000 Chandler Increase peak frequency on weekdays

45 Broadway Road Jul 2021 $1,100,000 Mesa Replace local funding, existing service levels

83 83rd Avenue Jul 2024 $1,175,000 Peoria Replace local funding, existing service levels

3 6/8/2016

Operating Program • Funding for ADA – Additional PTF funding/reimbursements • Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, Surprise

Capital Program • Fleet changes – Updated fleet replacement plan – Updated fleet expansion plan • Based on projected SRTP improvements • Placeholders for future expansion

4 6/8/2016

Fleet Acquisition

2016 Update 2015 Update Change % Change

Fixed route buses 1,503 1,423 80 5.6% Paratransit buses 603 580 23 4.0% Rural route buses 23 23 0 0.0% Vanpools 1,541 1,500 41 2.7% Total Fleet 3,670 3,526 144 4.1%

Expenditures

2016 Update 2015 Update Change % Change Operations Expenditure Fixed Route Operations $1,013.1 $997.2 $15.8 1.6% ADA & Alternatives $497.2 $482.9 $14.3 3.0% Regional Expenditures $244.1 $246.1 ($2.1) ‐0.8% Sub‐Total Operations Expenditures $1,754.4 $1,726.3 $28.1 1.6%

Capital Expenditure Debt Service $72.1 $72.1 $0.0 0.0% Fleet $979.7 $938.3 $41.4 4.4% Facilities $267.7 $268.2 ($0.5) ‐0.2% Sub‐Total Capital Expenditures $1,319.5 $1,278.6 $40.9 3.2% Total Expenditures $3,073.9 $3,004.9 $69.0 2.3%

5 6/8/2016

Revenues

2016 Update 2015 Update Change % Change Revenue Operations PTF $1,662.8 $1,613.4 $49.5 3.07% RARF $84.7 $86.5 ($1.8) ‐2.12% Fares $235.1 $243.6 ($8.5) ‐3.49% Federal $68.8 $71.3 ($2.5) ‐3.44% Other revenues $25.2 $20.5 $4.7 22.75% Sub‐Total Operations Revenue $2,076.6 $2,035.2 $41.4 2.03%

Revenue Capital Federal ‐ Capital $960.2 $925.7 $34.5 3.73% Financed Revenue $58.3 $58.3 $0.0 0.00% Other revenues $20.9 $20.9 $0.0 0.00% Sub‐Total Capital Revenue $1,039.4 $1,004.9 $34.5 3.44% Total Revenue $3,116.0 $3,040.1 $75.9 2.50% 11

Cash Flow Summary

Funding Surplus / Bus Program TLCP Totals Shortfall Total Program Revenues $3,066.0 Total Operating Costs ($1,754.4) Funding surplus before capital and financing $1,311.7 Total Capital Costs ($1,246.5) Financing Needs anticipated: Proceeds Debt Service Series 2009 $50.0 ($73.0)

Total Financing $50.0 ($73.0) ($23.0) Total Program Cost 2026 ($3,023.9) Net Fund Balance $42.2

6 6/8/2016

Jurisdictional Equity Summary

Calculated Policy Percent Sub‐region Allocation Allocation Difference Difference Central $433.5 $449.4 $15.9 3.54% East $789.8 $802.7 $12.8 1.60% West $165.0 $164.1 ($0.9) ‐0.57% $1,388.3 $1,416.1 $27.8 1.96%

Rail Program Summary

7 6/8/2016

Prop 400 Rail Revenues

$200.0

$180.0

$160.0

$140.0

$120.0 millions $100.0 $

$80.0

$60.0

$40.0

$20.0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026

2015 Forecast 2014 Forecast RTP Forecast

Capital Projects • Tempe Streetcar updated completion date • South Central updated cost estimate and completion date • Capitol/I-10 West phased with new completion date for Phase II • Northwest Phase II updated completion date

8 6/8/2016

Capital Projects •50th Street light rail station • West Phoenix/Central Glendale – No update to current TLCP – Expect to update next year • Add 2 miles • Adopt specific alignment and identify structures • Update cost and funding assumptions 17

High Capacity Transit Map

Projects programmed after calendar year 2026 are outside of the Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP). Priority of projects for new future funding is yet to be determined. 18

9 6/8/2016

Capital Revenues Assumptions • Capitol/I-10 West Phase I – All CMAQ currently programmed to corridor – PTF local match • South Central – FTA New Starts (FFGA in 2018) – PTF local match shifted from Capital/I-10 West – Phoenix local match 19

Capital Revenues Assumptions •50th Street station – Phoenix funded

10 6/8/2016

2016 Proposed Corridor Costs

Base Utilities 2016 Total 2015 Update Change

Central Mesa $182.6 $8.2 $190.8 $190.8 $0.0

Northwest Phase I $303.4 $26.2 $329.6 $326.6 $3.0

Gilbert Road $147.0 $0.0 $147.0 $147.2 ($0.1)

Tempe Streetcar $162.9 $13.7 $176.6 $176.6 $0.0

Capitol/I-10 West Phase I $158.1 $20.4 $178.5 $993.0 ($814.5)

Northwest Phase II $262.7 $11.2 $273.8 $295.0 ($21.2)

South Central $645.5 $26.9 $672.3 $0.0 $672.3

West Phoenix/Central Glendale $523.1 $28.7 $551.8 $552.9 ($1.0)

Capitol/I-10 West Phase II $148.7 $67.0 $215.6 $0.0 $215.6

Northeast Phoenix $16.5 $0.0 $16.5 $16.5 $0.0

Sub-Total Corridor Extensions $2,367.8 $194.0 $2,561.8 $2,698.5 ($136.7) 21

2016 Proposed Other Capital Costs

Other Capital Expenditures Base Utilities Total 2015 Update Change

LRV Acquisition $96.8 $0.0 $96.8 $96.1 $0.7

50th Street Station $23.8 $0.0 $23.8 $0.0 $23.8

OMC Expansion $18.0 $0.0 $18.0 $31.1 ($13.1)

CP/EV Regional Reimbursements $198.8 $73.6 $272.4 $273.1 ($0.7)

System-wide Support Infrastructure $62.6 $0.0 $62.6 $70.8 ($8.2)

Corridor Planning/CPDA $65.7 $0.0 $65.7 $77.5 ($11.8) Design Standards & System Planning $93.6 $0.0 $93.6 $68.1 $25.5 Sub-Total Other Capital $559.3 $73.6 $632.9 $616.7 $16.3 22

11 6/8/2016

2016 Proposed Capital Revenues

2016 Update 2015 Update Change % Change PTF $1,316.1 $1,265.7 $50.4 4.0% FTA 5309 $953.3 $971.0 ($17.7) ‐1.8% CMAQ $381.3 $264.0 $117.3 44.4% Other federal $43.3 $67.7 ($24.4) ‐36.1% Phoenix T2000 $619.3 $481.2 $138.1 28.7% Mesa $77.6 $147.7 ($70.1) ‐47.5% Glendale $106.5 $100.1 $6.4 6.4% Tempe $13.0 $13.0 $0.0 NA MAG / RPTA $24.3 $22.0 $2.3 10.4% Sub‐Total Capital Revenue $3,534.8 $3,332.5 $202.2 6.1%

2016 Proposed Cash Flow Summary Funding Surplus / TLCP Totals Shortfall Total Program Revenues $3,534.8 Total Base Program Cost ($3,109.8) Funding surplus before PTF utility expenses and financing $425.0 Non Prior Right Utility Relocations ($275.8) ($275.8) Financing Needs anticipated: Proceeds Debt Service Series 2009 $55.5 ($77.6) Series 2014 $135.4 ($156.9) Series 2017 $61.3 ($72.9) Series 2022 $80.0 ($86.6)

Advance Funds by Phoenix $60.0 ($63.0) Total Financing $392.2 ($457.0) ($64.8) Total Program Cost 2026 ($3,450.4) Net Fund Balance $84.4 24

12 6/8/2016

Art Policy • FAST Act eliminated art as eligible activity • Establish policy to fund art – Up to 1% of construction budget • PTF funded regional element for projects with regional funding • Locally funded for non-PTF projects – Coordinate art design with cities

Timeline

TMC and RMC - information May 3, 2016

AFS - information May 11, 2016

Board - information May 18, 2016

RTAG May 17, 2016

TMC and RMC - action June 1, 2016

Board - action June 16, 2016

DATE AGENDA ITEM 6 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Chief Executive Officer Recruitment Update

PURPOSE To provide an informational update regarding the Chief Executive Officer recruitment process.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Scott Smith, Interim CEO will provide an update on the recruitment process.

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS TMC/RMC: June 1, 2016 for information Boards of Directors: June 16, 2016 for information

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information.

CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 7 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Possible Executive Session

PURPOSE The Board may vote to enter Executive Session pursuant to A.R.S. §38-431.03(A.3) (Legal Advice), §38-431.03 (A)(4) (Litigation, Contract Negotiations, and Settlement Discussions).

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION The Board may vote to enter Executive Session.

CONTACT Michael Minnaugh General Counsel 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 8 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Executive Session Action Items

PURPOSE The Board may take action related to items discussed as part of the Agenda Item 7.

The Boards of Directors may instruct its attorney(s) in accordance with matters discussed in executive session concerning Agenda item 7.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION The Board may take action related to the items discussed as part of Agenda Item 7.

CONTACT Michael Minnaugh General Counsel 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 9 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Travel and Expenditures

PURPOSE The monthly travel and expenditures are presented for information.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT John McCormack Chief Financial Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT Valley Metro Travel Reimbursement Report Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail Monthly Accounts Payable over $25,000

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433 Valley Metro Travel Reimbursement Report For Travel Completion Dates April 26, 2016 through May 25, 2016

Total Travel Other Job Title Purpose of Travel Location Dates Traveled Airfare Lodging Meals Misc. Cost Transport Program NTI Training - QC Birmingham, AL 4/26/16 - 4/28/16 $1,006.94 $432.20 $0.00 $427.24 $147.50 $0.00 Supervisor and QA in Transit Community Rail-Volution San Francisco, CA 4/26/16 - 4/30/16 $1,610.21 $137.20 $14.30 $1,080.71 $333.00 $45.00 * Relations Manager Committee Meeting Chief Engineer APTA Rail Track Test Cleveland, OH 5/4/16 - 5/7/16 $1,068.99 $301.96 $2.50 $485.82 $241.50 $37.21 *** Forum Interim CEO APTA Bus and Charlotte, NC 5/14/16 - 5/18/16 $1,801.68 $482.70 $0.00 $1,023.48 $250.50 $45.00 * Paratransit Conf. Deputy Director APTA Bus and Charlotte, NC 5/14/16 - 5/18/16 $1,747.88 $471.20 $19.70 $963.48 $235.50 $58.00 ** Service Planning Paratransit Conf. Manager, APTA Bus and Charlotte, NC 5/14/16 - 5/18/16 $1,768.44 $482.70 $36.76 $963.48 $235.50 $50.00 ** Accessible Transit Paratransit Conf. Chief of Staff APTA Bus and Charlotte, NC 5/15/16 - 5/18/16 $1,413.62 $482.70 $47.50 $739.92 $110.50 $33.00 * Paratransit Conf. Community WTS Annual Austin, TX 5/17/16 - 5/20/16 $1,484.15 $346.20 $33.60 $968.10 $86.25 $50.00 ** Relations Program Conference Manager Report reflects Out of State (AZ) Travel * Misc. cost includes airport parking. ** Misc. cost includes luggage Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Monthly AP Payments over $25,000 April 21, 2016 - May 20, 2016

Effective Document Number Name Transaction Description Date Transaction Amount 35269 City of Phoenix FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 4,356,077.00 20160520W003 FirstGroup America, Inc. April 2016 Fixed Route Bus Service - East Valley 5/20/2016 4,353,401.05 20160520W City of Phoenix May 2016 Fixed Route Service, Dial-A-Ride, Monthly Svc 5/20/2016 1,642,639.20 35206 City of Tempe EVBOM Use and Lease Agreement - Jan. thru March 2016 4/27/2016 1,624,389.00 35266 City of Mesa FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 1,322,949.00 20160422W002 FirstGroup America, Inc. March 2016 Fixed Route Bus Service- East Valley 4/22/2016 950,316.80 20160520W004 Total Transit, Inc. March 2016 East Valley ParaTransit Services 5/20/2016 751,256.94 35258 City of Chandler - MS 412 Transit Services FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 711,502.00 35262 City of Glendale FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 683,171.00 35270 City of Scottsdale - Remittance Processing FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 655,039.00 35261 Town of Gilbert FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 628,125.00 35272 City of Tempe FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 487,303.00 35268 City of Peoria FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 464,218.00 20160513W001 ADP PPE 5/8/16 ADP Wages Payable 5/13/2016 433,958.98 20160429W001 ADP PPE4/24/16 ADP Wages Payable 4/29/2016 433,328.93 35271 City of Surprise FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 354,110.00 20160429W003 United Healthcare May 2016 Employee Dental, Medical & Vision Coverage 4/29/2016 279,720.04 20160520W004 Total Transit, Inc. March 2016 NW Valley ParaTransit/Mobility Center Services 5/20/2016 248,277.14 35254 City of Avondale FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 229,726.00 35263 City of Goodyear FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 196,691.00 20160513W001 ADP PPE 5/8/16 Payroll Taxes and Garnishments 5/13/2016 190,803.07 20160429W001 ADP PPE4/24/16 Payroll Taxes and Garnishments 4/29/2016 190,588.22 20160513W002 ASRS PPE 5/8/16 ASRS 5/13/2016 159,972.79 20160429W002 ASRS PPE 4/24/16 ASRS 4/29/2016 159,495.75 35255 City of Buckeye FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 153,303.00 35313 Goodmans Interior Structures ** Purchase and Delivery of Office Chairs 5/19/2016 140,567.38 20160506W002 Valutrans, Inc March 2016 Zoom (Avondale) Fixed Route Services 5/6/2016 132,467.25 35209 Dell Marketing L.P. 48 Replacement Desktop Computers OptiPlex 9020 4/27/2016 123,051.62 35259 City of El Mirage FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 95,813.00 20160506W002 Valutrans, Inc March 2016 Vee Quiva Fixed Route Services 5/6/2016 75,488.95 35228 vRide, Inc. Jan 2016 Vanpool Services 5/5/2016 67,550.97 35228 vRide, Inc. Feb 2016 Vanpool Services 5/5/2016 61,061.86 5152016 Wells Fargo Bank April 2016 Wells Fargo Credit Card Purchases 5/15/16 55,405.07 35315 Dell Marketing L.P. Network Gear, Power Edge Servers 5/19/2016 49,883.41 35192 Moses, Inc. Feb 2016 Marketing and Advertising 4/21/2016 48,988.54 20160429W007 CopperPoint Mutual Insurance Company May 2016 Mobility Center Rent 4/29/2016 46,829.28 20160430W003 City of Mesa April 2016 CNG Fuel Expense 4/30/2016 45,059.13 20160506W002 Valutrans, Inc March 2016 Glendale Fixed Route Services 5/6/2016 42,312.58 35234 Trend Offset Printing Services Transit Book Printing 5/5/2016 42,268.00 35267 Town of Paradise Valley FY16 AZ Lottery Funds Distribution 5/11/2016 38,630.00 35240 C.A.R.E Evaluators, Inc. March 2016 Mobility Center ADA Evaluations 5/5/2016 33,558.46 35209 Dell Marketing L.P. 24 Replacement Desktop Computers OptiPlex 9020 4/27/2016 30,762.89 35233 World Wide Technology Router for Data Center 5/5/2016 29,791.29 35250 Don Sanderson Ford, Inc. 2016 Ford Excape VIN 1FMCU0G9XGUC82202 5/5/2016 27,975.03 22,847,826.62

Notes ** Reimbursement for Tenant Improvements from SKB - Lease Management Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Monthly AP Payments over $25,000 April 21, 2016 - May 20, 2016

Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Check Date Check Amount 20160422W001 Sundt/Stacy & Witbeck Joint Venture NWX March 2016 NWE Phase 1 Rail Construction 4/22/2016 1,000,439.27 20160513W002 Alternate Concepts Inc. March 2016 Transportation Services 5/13/2016 956,102.81 20160513W003 Jacobs Engineering March 2016 GRE Design Services 5/13/2016 553,231.15 20160520W004 Allied Barton Security Services March 2016 Fare Inspection and Security Services 5/20/2016 325,220.35 20160429W005 PB-Wong Joint Venture March 2016 NWE Project Management/Construction Management 4/29/2016 312,513.28 026398 Southwest Gas Corporation Northwest Extension Prop 400 Utilities 4/21/2016 305,059.42 20160520W004 Allied Barton Security Services April 2016 Fare Inspection and Security Services 5/20/2016 280,021.21 20160513W001 DMS - Facility Services, Inc. March 2016 Facilities and LRV Cleaning Svcs 5/13/2016 149,519.70 26582 RPTA VMR Capital Contribution I.T. Equipment Purchases 5/20/2016 124,701.98 20160520W005 USBC Real Estate LLC June 2016 Rent 101 Bldg 5/20/2016 110,117.15 20160429W HDR/SR Beard & Associates March 2016 Public Involvement Consulting Svcs 4/29/2016 98,151.79 26580 Parsons Transportation Group Inc. April 2016 Engineering Design and Consulting Services for SCADA Upgrade 5/20/2016 97,877.00 20160429W005 PB-Wong Joint Venture March 2016 GRE Project Management/Construction Management 4/29/2016 64,565.57 026466 Aconex 3/30/15-9/29/20 Project Controls Systems Services 4/26/2016 54,150.00 20160429W001 URS Corp Feb 2016 Planning & Conceptual Engineering 4/29/2016 53,218.85 20160429W006 City of Mesa-Central Mesa Billings 10/5/15-1/10/16 CME Expenditures 4/29/2016 46,598.06 026488 Motorola Solutions 800 MHZ Radios and Accessories 5/5/2016 44,996.75 026437 SRP Miscellaneous Accts Receivable Gilbert Road Extension Utilities 4/26/2016 42,133.71 026392 City of Phoenix TVM Mag Stripe Fare Media Rolls and TVM Receipt Blank Rolls 4/21/2016 40,475.00 026475 City of Phoenix- Public Transit April 2016 - Fare Handling Fee 5/5/2016 31,407.00 026474 Brinks, Incorporated March 2016 Armored Car & Cash Mngt Svc 5/5/2016 30,412.04 20160429W005 PB-Wong Joint Venture March 2016 CME Project Management/Construction Management 4/29/2016 29,928.60 20160429W004 Enterprise Technology Services April 2016 IT Service Consultant 4/29/2016 28,426.03 026478 United Right-of-Way March 2016 Facilities Landskeeping Services 5/5/2016 27,816.00 26553 United Right-of-Way April 2016 Facilities Landskeeping Services 5/20/2016 27,816.00 Report Total 4,834,898.72

DATE AGENDA ITEM 10 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

PURPOSE Chairs McDonald and Williams will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT Pending Items Request

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

Pending Items Request

Item Requested Date Requested Planned Follow-up Date

June 9, 2016

Board of Directors Thursday, June 16, 2016 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 12:45 p.m.

Action Recommended

1. Items from Citizens Present (yellow card) 1. For information

2. Minutes 2. For action

Minutes from the May 19, 2016 Board meeting are presented for approval.

3. Public Comment on Agenda Action Items (blue card) 3. For information

CONSENT AGENDA 4A. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Change Orders with the 4A. For action City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass- Through Grants

Staff will recommend that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute change orders for IGAs with the City of Phoenix to allow Valley Metro Rail to be reimbursed for eligible activities.

4B. Rail Rolling Stock Inspection Services Contract Award 4B. For action

Staff will recommend that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a contract with LTK Engineering Group, Inc. to provide inspection services for rail rolling stock for a total term of seven years (five-year base contract plus one two-year renewal option). For the total term of the contract, the award

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433 amount is $395,000 plus a 10% contract change contingency of $39,500 that is included in the overall budget established for the project.

REGULAR AGENDA 5. Planning and Community Relations Support Services 5. For action Contract Award

Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Wulf Grote, Director, Planning and Accessible Transit, who will recommend that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a five- year contract with three, one-year extension options with HDR Engineering Inc. for Planning and Community Relations Support Services in an amount not to exceed $35 million in initial five-year base.

6. Gilbert Road LRT Extension Project Design Services 6. For action Contract Contingency Allocation and Design Services During Construction Contract Modification

Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Wulf Grote, Director, Planning and Accessible Transit, who will request Board of Directors authorization to: 1) allocate previously authorized project contingency to the Design Services Contract in the amount of $705,000; and 2) for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract modification for Design Services During Construction with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. in the amount of $1,250,000 and a 10% contingency amount of $125,000 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed $1,375,000.

7. Gilbert Road LRT Extension Project CM@Risk Contractor 7. For action Contract Modification for Early Work/Procurement

Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Wulf Grote, Director, Planning and Accessible Transit, who will request that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a contract modification with Stacy and Witbeck/Sundt, a Joint Venture, to incorporate Early Work/ Procurement into the Phase 1 pre- construction services on the Gilbert Road LRT Extension (GRE) Project for $9,676,228 and a 10% contingency amount of $967,623 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $10,643,851.

8. 50th Street Station Project Design Services Contract Award 8. For action

Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Wulf Grote, Director, Planning and Accessible Transit, who will request that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a Design Services contract for the 50th Street Station Project with Gannett Fleming, Inc., for $1,221,532 and a 10% contingency amount of $122,153 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $1,343,685.

9. 50th Street Station Project Public Art Services Contract 9. For action Award

Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Wulf Grote, Director, Planning and Accessible Transit, who will request that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a contract for the 50th Street Station Project Public Art Services with Barbara Grygutis for $250,000 and a 10% contingency amount of $25,000 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $275,000.

10. General Consulting Support Services Contract Award 10. For action

Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Wulf Grote, Director, Planning and Accessible Transit, who will request that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a five-year contract, with three, one-year extension options, for the General Consulting Support Service (GCSS) Contract with Arcadis, Inc. for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $11,800,000.

11. Rail Transportation Services Contract Extension 11. For action

Scott Smith, Interim CEO, will introduce Ray Abraham, Chief Operations Officer, who will request that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to extend the existing contract with ACI for Rail Transportation Services for an additional six (6) and one half months through July 15, 2017 in the amount of $5,500,000.

12. Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Election of Valley Metro Rail 12. For action (VMR) Board Officers and Subcommittee Positions

The Board will vote to elect Board officers and Board subcommittee positions for FY 2017.

13. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events 13. For information

Chair Williams will request future agenda items from members and members may provide a report on current events.

14. Next Meeting 14. For Information

The next meeting of the Board is scheduled for Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 12:45 p.m.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Items from Citizens Present

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 2 June 9, 2016

Minutes of the METRO Board of Directors Thursday, April 21, 2016 12:45 p.m.

Meeting Participants Thelda Williams, City of Phoenix, Chair Vice Mayor Kevin Hartke for Councilmember Rick Heumann, City of Chandler Councilmember Lauren Tolmachoff, City of Glendale Vice Mayor Dennis Kavanaugh, City of Mesa

Members Not Present Mayor Mark Mitchell, City of Tempe, Vice Chair

Chair Williams called the meeting to order at 3:28 p.m.

1. Public Comment

Ms. Barker said thank you, Councilwoman Williams. Dianne Barker here. And I'm a bus patron. And I just wanted to give a little bit of history. This is in regards to Valley Metro Rail, and also when the public decided to, you know, fund greater taxes not only 2004, the Regional Area Road Fund and recently the 2015 Phoenix tax.

And the subsidies to light rail were said during that time to some of the people, this is a free enterprise statement. They are greater to light rail than they were to bus drivers -- to bus riders. And basically they're indicating that a lot of the riders from the bus really were taken up by the light rail.

I don't know whether any of you have really read this, but there's a lot of information. One that says over a hundred Valley Metro bus routes just carried half of the region's transit riders, and this was in 2013.

This paper is from 2015. They're saying that Phoenix light rail does not relieve the congestion either, but, you know, we get federal money for transit projects, because the fact they go on the fact that we're supposed to be relieving congestion and we use air quality money.

I really think in MAG's pot we should put all modes in and really look at everything fairly to see really what the truth is.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

Okay. So now a little bit of history and next year we're going to ask for $61 million dollars here for the light rail in bonds. And it looks to me like the bond proceed money is less than that -- and the reserves for 2017, if I'm reading this right. It's your '17 budget.

Now the City of Phoenix is looking to see that they have enough debt reserve to pay for their bond projects, one of which is the Phoenix civic improvement corporation, which is over $300 million, and it's the light rail project. That was done in 2013.

To date, we're looking to put property tax on to make sure we have enough reserves, so if you make bonds for $61 million, have enough reserves to keep a AA rating, a little lesser with Moody's, and the city has the same thing, an AA rating.

This is important. What happened we found out from the public financial management meeting in May of 2012 that we were going to be $69 million shortfall in the light rail bonds? Then the City of Phoenix in June decided in executive session to go with the -- so that we could have a tax that was done on an off cycle. That tax did pass after they got the legislation with Tucson -- that it was okay to have it in August.

And finally where I'm going with this, that month of 6/2012, the City of Phoenix gave this Valley Metro a $60 million loan. It needs to be repaid next year. And the thing is if you repay it, then will the City of Phoenix be in the crunch if they have $37 million deficit.

Mr. Crowley said good afternoon. Sorry you guys had to be with an attorney for so long in a closed room, but that's a part of executive session.

I've got here documents one of which is MAG saying that they're going to be studying the tunnel. And my favorite part of it is that it says there was no public input. And as I stated to Glendale, you're the newbie, and you've heard me bang on that drum how many times. So when they say that there's no input on it, I'm wondering where, when and why.

Then I've got a document here from the City of Phoenix that says the reason that the transit center wasn't completed is because of a 114-story building not being built.

I know, Thelda, amazed me, too, that -- and then the explanation said I got from Wulf were more than interesting.

But then I also look at the division of the moneys and what we're doing with what, and I see the CMAQ funds are going, what, $60 million dollars to rail. Well, what are we putting on the bus, or are we raiding all of the CMAQ funds for the rail?

Because, as I stated, how many times this week have you been watching the news and it said air quality advisory for tomorrow. We're in violation. Air quality advisory for tomorrow. We're in violation. There was one four-day, there was one three-day, and 2

there have been single days, which makes it actually eleven days rather than ten, but I didn't want to zing you. So when we're spending all of those air quality funds on you, the rail, where's the bang for our buck.

And when it comes to the funding sources, it's supposed to be 60/40, that you get 40 percent of those transit 400. Well, in your document here it shows over the next five years you're going to spend a $1.1 billion for rail.

Would somebody show me where we've got a billion and a half going to operating the buses, because that means that, Phoenix, you've got most of your routes done.

Glendale, you don't stop at 67th Avenue. You could go all the way in to Peoria and Surprise and El Mirage and the rest of the units in the system. But that's not what's happening.

With your future planning and your rail, like I said, when you spent, what, $300,000 for new wheels. If you would have used the current technology at the time and built this as magnetic levitation, it would have been faster, safer, and cheaper. Are there any plans to do that in the future?

2. Minutes

Minutes from the April 21, 2016 Board meeting were presented for approval.

IT WAS MOVED BY VICE MAYOR KAVANAUGH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TOLMACHOFF AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE APRIL 21, 2016 BOARD MEETING MINUTES.

3. Operations and Maintenance Center Emergency Backup Generator

Mr. Smith said Madam Chair, this is an item to expand our emergency electrical capabilities at our operation and maintenance center. We currently only have battery power that will hold us for two hours and putting a generator there expands that and that's obviously critical to our operations. So we recommend approval.

Chair Williams said are there any questions? Hearing none, is there a motion?

IT WAS MOVED BY VICE MAYOR KAVANAUGH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TOLMACHOFF AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO AUTHORIZE THE INTERIM CEO TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH CANNON AND WENDT ELECTRIC FOR AN AMOUNT OF $566,000 TO DESIGN, PURCHASE AND INSTALL AN EMERGENCY GENERATOR AT THE VALLEY METRO OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CENTER AND TO ESTABLISH A 10% CONTRACT CHANGE CONTINGENCY OF $56,000 THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE OVERALL BUDGET ESTABLISHED FOR THE PROJECT. 3

4. Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Operating and Capital Budget and Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY 2017 thru 2021

Mr. Smith said Madam Chair, you've received budget updates and there are no material changes, so there will be no presentation unless the members of the Board have a question.

Chair Williams said Blue, you put in a card on it. Can you be brief, because it's the same ask.

Mr. Crowley said to me, I wonder why we have a blended agency that with this budget and such. Like I said, when I looked at it, I showed you're spending a $1.1 billion.

Where is the comparable $1.6 billion for the bus? When I continuously ask the question of funding and where it's not being appropriated specifically, I found it fascinating that you did in your document take ownership of the park-and-ride at Spectrum and the one at 19th and such because you used bus funds to build them.

So now that you're taking ownership of them, it would be nice if you could reimburse the bus equation and maybe we could get some more routes and facilities.

When I see this emergency backup plan and the transit life cycle plan update, I go, what are we doing. I know everyone keeps on saying we ain't got the money. We ain't got the money.

And when is it that you're going to be being multimodal as in that facility there in the Deck Park, because when I see your capital budget, I don't see where that gets addressed or in your operating, because when I see that facility and now being told that the reason it wasn't built, because it was supposed to be intermodal -- was a 114-story building.

Like you said, Thelda, huh. So when it's supposed to be multimodal that the reason that you guys got the money to have rails on that bridge was because they were also building a transit center inside, it was trying to get the moneys. When your operating and capital is just build more rail, I understand that that's something you need and want to do, Glendale, but wouldn't it be nice if you had the grid functioning all the way through town.

And, Mesa, wouldn't it be nice that if you had more than a hundred square miles of your city that doesn't have any bus service at all. Let's be multimodal and get the job done, please.

Chair Williams said thank you, Blue. Any questions? Discussion? Motion?

IT WAS MOVED BY VICE MAYOR KAVANAUGH, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER TOLMACHOFF AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET (JULY 1, 2016 THRU JUNE 30, 2017) AND ACCEPT THE FIVE-YEAR OPERATING FORECAST CAPITAL PROGRAM (FY 2017 THRU 2021).

5. Transit Life Cycle Program (TLCP) (Rail Portion) Update

Chair Williams said the information items, I think, are they different than what we had presentation on?

Mr. Smith said no, well, the rail TLCP is different, but you're all aware of the projects that are included in it, so unless there's questions, we'll dispense with that.

Chair Williams said okay. Do we have any future agenda items you want to put forth? Okay. Hearing none, our next board meeting is June 16, 2016, at 12:45. Here. We are adjourned.

With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Public Comment on Agenda Action Items

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4A June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Change Orders with the City of Phoenix for Federal Transit Administration Pass-Through Grants

PURPOSE To request Board authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute change orders for IGAs with the City of Phoenix to allow Valley Metro Rail to be reimbursed for eligible activities.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Valley Metro Rail has requested extensions to the pass-through IGAs for four existing grants. The extensions are needed to allow additional time to complete the projects identified in the grants. The table below summarizes the requested changes:

Grant Source Extension AZ-88-0001 TIGGER December 31, 2016 AZ-90-X131 5307 – Formula December 31, 2018 AZ-95-X015 CMAQ/STP Flex December 31, 2018 AZ-95-X023 CMAQ/STP Flex December 31, 2018

 Grant AZ-88-0001 was provided through the Transportation Investments for Greenhouse Gas and Energy Reduction (TIGGER) program. The funds were used to construct the solar powered electric generation plant at the Operations and Maintenance Center. There are funds remaining and VMR needs time to identify potential uses for the remaining funds.  Grant AZ-90-X131 includes funding from the Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Program. The funds remaining in this grant are for construction costs associated with the planned transit center in Mesa at Main St. The remaining funds will be reprogrammed for the planned transit center at Main St. and Gilbert Rd. Additional time is needed to complete the project.  Grant AZ-95-X015 includes funds remaining for the upgrade to the SCADA system. Additional time is needed to complete the project.  Grant AZ-95-X023 includes funds remaining primarily for the Gilbert Road Extension. Additional time is needed to complete the project.

The City of Phoenix is the designated recipient for all FTA grant funds for the region. Valley Metro Rail undertakes projects approved for FTA grant funding, then submits requests to Phoenix for reimbursement of actual expenses incurred. Phoenix then executes a drawdown of funds from FTA to pass-through the reimbursement to Valley Metro Rail.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

The pass-through IGA is required in order for Phoenix to reimburse Valley Metro Rail for eligible expenses.

COST AND BUDGET All expenses associated with grant funds are in the approved FY 2017 Adopted Operating and Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Program. The grant funds will offset expenses, reducing the net cost to the Public Transportation Fund and member agency budgets.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute change orders to the intergovernmental agreements with the City of Phoenix for the listed grants.

CONTACT Paul Hodgins Interim Chief Financial Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4B June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Rail Rolling Stock Inspection Services Contract Award

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract with LTK Engineering Group, Inc. to provide inspection services for rail rolling stock for a total term of seven years (five-year base contract plus one two-year renewal option). For the total term of the contract, the award amount is $395,000 plus a 10% contract change contingency of $39,500 that is included in the overall budget established for the project.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Currently, the estimated number of vehicles planned for the LRV procurement is 11 base LRV’s and up to 67 additional options over a seven-year period. Valley Metro will also be contracting for Streetcars within the next seven years. These purchases will be subject to FTA Buy America requirements. The Pre-Award audit, Interim audit and Post Delivery audit will be performed in the LRV and Streetcar manufacturer’s locations.

The purpose of this contract award is to establish Pre-Award, Post-Delivery Buy America audits service for Valley Metro rail rolling stock procurements. Interim Buy America audits as required will also be assigned. Production Inspections will not be part of this scope of services. Per the scope of services, the Contractor shall perform necessary audits and verify certifications required for FTA Buy America regulations pertaining to rolling stock purchases.

In March 2016, Valley Metro issued a federally compliant Request for Proposals for this contract. Proposals were evaluated based on the following criteria: (1) Firm Qualifications & Experience, (2) Understanding / Approach to the Scope of Services and (3) Price. The list of proposers were:

1. SNC Lavalin 2. LTK Engineering Group, Inc. 3. Raul V Bravo and Associates 4. Steve Policar Consulting

At the conclusion of the evaluation process, the selection committee chose the proposal from LTK Engineering Group, Inc. and negotiated contract terms to achieve best value for the agency.

COST AND BUDGET The rail rolling stock inspection services are for a total term of seven years (five-year base contract plus one two-year option). For the total term of the contract, the award VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

amount is $395,000. A 10% contract contingency of $39,500 is established that is included within the overall budget for the project for unanticipated changes.

For the first year of the contract, the contract obligation is $47,400, which is fully funded within the VMR Adopted FY17 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract Obligations beyond FY17 are incorporated into the Valley Metro Rail Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY2017 thru FY2020).

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:  Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic A: Operate an effective, reliable, high performing transit system

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a contract with LTK Engineering Group, Inc. to provide inspection services for rail rolling stock for a total term of seven years (five-year base contract plus one two-year renewal option). For the total term of the contract, the award amount is $395,000 plus a 10% contract change contingency of $39,500 that is included in the overall budget established for the project.

CONTACT Ray Abraham Chief Operations Officer 602-652-5054 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 5 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Planning and Community Relations Support Services Contract Award

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a five-year contract, with three, one-year extension options, with HDR Engineering, Inc. for Planning and Community Relations Support Services (PCRSS).

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Currently, Valley Metro Rail (VMR) has a Planning Support Services contract and a Public Involvement Consultant Services contract, both with HDR Engineering, Inc. The Planning Support Services contract term ends on November 15, 2016; however, the corresponding budget authority will be expended in summer 2016. The Public Involvement contract, originally awarded to Infraconsult, later acquired by HDR, will end September 17, 2017. In an effort to streamline contract management efforts and better coordinate planning and public involvement efforts, the two services were included into the Scope of Services as part of the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) issued in January 2016.

The PCRSS consultant will be utilized to conduct major transit corridor and facility studies, which would include Alternatives Analyses, environmental studies, conceptual design and federal grant process support. Additionally, the consultant may provide ongoing planning support services such as feasibility studies, environmental support, transit facility site selection, transit service and route planning, paratransit services planning, travel forecasting, transit system planning, transit oriented development planning, traffic engineering analyses, geographic information systems (GIS), planning research, preparation of specialty transit grant applications (e.g. TIGER), project programming, graphics and visual renderings, data collection and transit ridership survey support.

Community Relations support will continue to be needed across all phases of planning, design and construction of future high-capacity transit projects. The consultant will also support Valley Metro RPTA transit facility and bus related services to include support for fixed route, paratransit and alternative mode outreach, agency marketing and fare programs and transit facility development. The Community Relations tasks include, but are not limited to establishing working relationships with residents, businesses, and other stakeholders within an assigned area of a project; serve as primary liaison between community interests and technical staff; assist with research, production, and dissemination of project materials; arrange and schedule public meetings and workshops for the project; and assist the agency in the execution of significant event planning and/or marketing initiatives.

The contract shall be in effect for a five-year base, with three, one-year extension options, for up to eight years. To exercise the options, Board discussion and approval will be required. The contract will provide full-time consultant staff who will serve as an extension of Valley Metro staff. The contract is also utilized to bring in part-time, specialized expertise, as needed. Work under this contract will be issued on an annual task order basis.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

This type of multi-year support services contract is beneficial for the following reasons:

 Staffing continuity is critically important across multi-year, corridor projects to ensure effective coordination and expeditious project development.  Creates familiarity of the Valley Metro organization and priorities across a consistent consultant team. Key members of the consultant team co-locate with Valley Metro, which also maximizes coordination and communication.  Assures consistent and timely coordination with the Federal Transit Administration.  Provides quick access, when needed, to specialized experts who are familiar with Valley Metro’s work practices and priorities.

In January 2016, VMR issued a RFQ for PCRSS. Extensive outreach was conducted to promote competition including advertisements in several industry print and online publications. Multiple firms were made aware of and expressed interest in this RFQ.

Also, to be noted, VMR has several significant contracts in procurement at this time. In addition to the PCRSS, the Program Management/Construction Management (PM/CM) and General Engineering Support (GES) are active. To assure that work is spread over multiple consultant teams and to avoid potential conflicts of interest, Valley Metro determined that the prime consultant for each of these three contracts is not permitted to pursue work on the other two contracts.

A single proposal was received for PCRSS from HDR Engineering, Inc. It was determined to be responsive. The evaluation committee, consisting of four Valley Metro staff and a representative each from the cities of Phoenix, Tempe and Mesa, evaluated the proposal on the following criteria:

(1) Firm Qualifications & Experience; (2) Firm’s Capacity; (3) Proposed Technical Staff and Their Competence; and (4) Program/Project Approach

The committee recommended moving ahead with HDR Engineering, Inc. given that their qualification statement was responsive, their costs were deemed fair and reasonable and they have demonstrated expertise and familiarity with transit projects in the metro Phoenix region. It was determined that the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal for this contract is 5.25 percent.

It is anticipated that the PCRSS contract will be used to support Valley Metro RPTA projects and initiatives. This potential use was identified in the initial RFQ advertisement and is anticipated to be less than 15% (approximately $1 million per year) of the overall contract. An Intergovernmental Agreement between VMR and RPTA is being prepared and will be presented to both Boards for approval in August to allow RPTA to utilize the PCRSS.

COST AND BUDGET The five-year base cost will not exceed $35 million. For FY17, the VMR cost is estimated at $5.2 million and the RPTA portion is $900,000. These costs are included in the VMR and 2

RPTA Adopted FY17 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract obligations beyond FY17 are incorporated into the Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY17 thru FY21). The projects supported by the PCRSS consultant are funded by a mix of federal, regional and local dollars.

RELEVANCE TO STRATEGIC PLAN This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:  Goal 1: Increase customer focus o Tactic C: Enhance customer service to member cities o Tactic D: Continue to provide high-level and timely business assistance to communities and businesses in construction areas  Goal 2: Advance performance based operations o Tactic A: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget  Goal 3: Grow transit ridership o Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets o Tactic C: Communicate availability, attractiveness and safety of transit service

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a five- year contract with three, one-year extension options with HDR Engineering Inc. for Planning and Community Relations Support Services in an amount not to exceed $35 million in initial five-year base.

CONTACTS Wulf Grote, P.E. Director, Planning and Accessible Transit 602-322-4420 [email protected]

Hillary Foose Director, Communication and Marketing 602-322-4468 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

6/8/2016

Planning and Community Relations Support Services (PCRSS) Contract Award

June 2016

Background • Current VMR Support Services contracts: – Planning (Nov 2011 – Nov 2016) – Public Involvement (Sep 2012 – Sep 2017) • Combine the two contracts: – Streamline contract management – Greater coordination between planning and public involvement • Both contracts provide support to RPTA – Agreement approved annually by Board

1 6/8/2016

Contract Objectives • Maintain staffing continuity during multi-year project development process – Consultant provides full time staff • Co-location of staff at Valley Metro – Allows better coordination and communication • Expertise with FTA rules, guidance and processes • Quick access to specialized expertise, as needed

Anticipated Projects

• Major Project Support (60%): – Gilbert Road –50th Street LRT Station – Tempe Streetcar – Capitol/I-10 West (Phase I and Phase II) – Northwest Phase II – South Central – West Phoenix/Central Glendale • Value of Projects = $2 billion

2 6/8/2016

Other Planning Support • Corridor/Facility Studies (25%) – Northeast Corridor – Fiesta/Downtown Chandler Corridor – West Glendale Corridor – Peoria Park-and-Ride (RPTA) • Planning studies (15%) – Includes RPTA work – Travel forecasting – Graphics and visual renderings support – Data collection and transit ridership surveys – Service planning and scheduling – Geographic Information Systems (GIS) – Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) 5

Community Relations Support

• For VMR & RPTA activities • For rail program, supports planning, design and construction • Business assistance and major events

3 6/8/2016

Contract Duration & Budget

• Five-year initial period – Not to exceed $35 million – Annual task orders - roughly $7 million • Extensions: – Three one-year options - amount TBD – Future Board action • FY17 Budget - $6.1 million – VMR: $5.2 million – RPTA: $900,000 7

Proposed RPTA Use of Contract

• Contract with Valley Metro Rail • RPTA use of services, as needed – Approximately $1 million per year – Agreement between VMR and RPTA needed • Request for Board approvals in August

4 6/8/2016

Consultant Procurement Process

• Advertisements: print, online, e-mail to 50 vendors • Meetings: DBE/SBE Expo, Pre-submittal conference • Proposal received: Consortium led by HDR Engineering • Proposal deemed responsive and qualified • Conducted price/cost analysis per FTA requirements for single-bid response • Panel: Valley Metro (4), Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa

HDR Consortium • 16 firms – Primary sub: AECOM – Specialized support – Ability to add firms, as needed • Includes: – 6 Disadvantaged Business Enterprises – 3 Small Business Enterprises

5 6/8/2016

Reasons For Lack of Multiple Proposals

• Limited number of firms experienced with FTA project development process – 4 or 5 in region • Two of these firms proposed • Potential conflict of interest for firms interested in follow-on work – Program Management/Construction Management – Engineering for major projects

Recommendation

• Authorize the Interim CEO to execute a contract with HDR Engineering for the PCRSS Contract: – 5 year initial contract – 3 one-year extension options – Not to exceed $35 million – 5-year base

DATE AGENDA ITEM 6 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Gilbert Road LRT Extension Project Design Services Contract Contingency Allocation and Design Services During Construction Contract Modification

PURPOSE To request approval to 1) allocate previously authorized project contingency to the Design Services Contract in the amount of $705,000; and 2) for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract modification for Design Services During Construction with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. in the amount of $1,250,000 and a 10% contingency amount of $125,000 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed $1,375,000.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION In August, 2015, the Board approved the total Gilbert Road LRT Extension (GRE) Project for $152,726,625 which included Design, Design Services During Construction, Construction, Right-of-Way acquisition, Public Art, Light Rail Vehicles, Professional Services, Finance Costs and Project Contingency.

Also, in August, 2015, the Board authorized the CEO to enter into a contract for GRE Design Services with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $7,050,000 excluding contingency. We now need to allocate contingency for the contract to address changes in scope. This item requests Board approval to allocate contingency funds to the Design Services Contract in the amount of $705,000.00 (10% of the contract value) to fund any necessary changes that may occur during the design process. Should the total cost of changes under-run this $705,000, then any unused contingency will move back into project contingency to be used as needed.

Additionally, Design Services During Construction are now needed as early work/procurement is about to commence on the GRE Project. The scope of services for this work will include review of submittals, responses to RFI’s, design changes, and performance of all special inspections. Costs for Design Services During Construction have been negotiated with Jacobs in the amount of $1,250,000.

COST AND BUDGET The GRE project is funded by Federal CMAQ Funds, City of Mesa Funds, 5307 and PTF Funds for the Transit Center and Operator Facility and TPAN Funds. The total budget for the GRE Project is $152,726,625 and this budget will remain unchanged as $705,000 from Un-Allocated Contingency is being allocated as a contingency for the Design Services Contract.

The summary cost report and associated changes are found in the table below.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

Current Contingency Updated Description Forecast Allocation Commitment Forecast Contracted Services $100,317,912 $705,000 $1,375,000 $101,022,912 Right of Way $14,786,915 $14,786,915 Public Art $804,502 $804,502 Vehicles $20,123,631 $20,123,631 Un-Allocated $11,037,615 ($705,000) $10,332,615 Contingency Subtotal $147,070,575 $0 $1,375,000 $147,070,575 Financing Costs $5,656,050 $5,656,050 Total $152,726,625 $0 $1,375,000 $152,726,625

Funding for Design Services During Construction was previously included in the Contracted Services budget line item for an amount of $1,339,884 and does not impact forecasted costs.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

 Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget.

 Goal 3: Grow transit ridership o Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets. o Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors authorize: 1) previously allocated project contingency to the Design Services contract in the amount of $705,000; and 2) approval for the Interim CEO to execute a contract modification for Design Services During Construction with Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. in the amount of $1,250,000 and a 10% contingency in the amount of $125,000 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed $1,375,000.

CONTACT Wulf Grote Director, Planning and Accessible Transit 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 7 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Gilbert Road LRT Extension Project CM@Risk Contractor Contract Modification for Early Work/Procurement

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract modification with Stacy and Witbeck/Sundt, a Joint Venture, to incorporate Early Work/Procurement into the Phase 1 pre-construction services on the Gilbert Road LRT Extension (GRE) Project for $9,676,228 and a 10% contingency amount of $967,623 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $10,643,851.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION In 2011, Valley Metro and the City of Mesa initiated a planning study of the Gilbert Road Extension. The study identified and evaluated various ways light rail could be placed in the 1.9-mile segment of Main Street extending east of Edgemont to Gilbert Road. Alternatives were evaluated to identify a street configuration that would best incorporate light rail along Main Street.

Valley Metro prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA evaluated station locations and a park-and-ride transit center, which is proposed for the west side of Gilbert Road at Main Street. Two station locations were identified at Stapley Drive and Gilbert Road. The EA was finalized and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in November 2013.

The GRE project has four major procurements: Design Services, Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) Services, Public Art Services, and Light Rail Vehicles. To date the Design Consultant, CM@Risk Services, Phase 1, and Public Art Services contracts have all been awarded and final design is approaching the 90% level. The Light Rail Vehicle procurement is underway.

In October, 2015, the Board authorized the CEO to execute a contract for the GRE CM@Risk Contractor for Phase 1, Pre-Construction services with Stacy and Witbeck/Sundt, a Joint Venture for a NTE amount of $1,275,000.

The GRE CM@Risk Contractor is performing two phases of work on the GRE Project. Phase 1 is currently underway for pre-construction services that include collaboration with the Design Consultant during the design process, constructability reviews of the design, potholing for utilities, and the preparation for negotiations of the guaranteed maximum price (GMP) for construction. Phase 2 will be for the actual construction of the GRE Project after reaching agreement of a GMP.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

During the course of design it has been determined that in order to achieve the November 2018 Revenue Service date the CM@Risk Contractor needs to proceed with some early work/procurement on the GRE Project in advance of negotiations of the GMP for Phase 2 and the actual start of Phase 2 work.

The early work consists of median demolition, offset manholes, sewer work, drainage work and temporary street light installation. The early procurement consists of special trackwork and traction power substations. This action is only for the GRE CM@Risk Contractor early work/procurement, a subsequent Board action for the Phase 2 construction services will be required when the GMP has been negotiated.

COST AND BUDGET The GRE project is funded by Federal CMAQ Funds, City of Mesa Funds, 5307 and PTF Funds for the Transit Center and Operator Facility and TPAN Funds. The cost for the contract modification with Stacy and Witbeck/Sundt, a Joint Venture, to perform Early Work/Procurement on the GRE Project and its associated 10% contingency is included in the overall budget established for the project of $152,726,625. The budget for this contract modification is contained in the line item entitled “Contracted Services” in the table below.

Current Updated Description Commitment Forecast Forecast Contracted Services $101,022,912 $10,643,851 $101,022,912 Right of Way $14,786,915 $14,786,915 Public Art $804,502 $804,502 Vehicles $20,123,631 $20,123,631 Un-Allocated $10,332,615 $10,332,615 Contingency Subtotal $147,070,575 $10,643,851 $147,070,575 Financing Costs $5,656,050 $5,656,050 Total $152,726,625 $10,643,851 $152,726,625

Project funding is included in the Valley Metro Rail FY16 Adopted Operating and Capital Budget and FY16 – FY20 Five-Year Capital Program.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

 Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget.

 Goal 3: Grow transit ridership o Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets. 2

o Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the Interim CEO to execute a contract modification with Stacy and Witbeck/Sundt, a Joint Venture, to incorporate Early Work/Procurement into the Phase 1 pre-construction services on the Gilbert Road LRT Extension (GRE) Project for $9,676,228 and a 10% contingency amount of $967,623 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $10,643,851.

CONTACT Wulf Grote Director, Planning and Accessible Transit 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 8 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT 50th Street Station Project Design Services Contract Award

PURPOSE To request Board approval for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a Design Services contract for the 50th Street Station Project with Gannett Fleming, Inc. for $1,221,532 and a 10% contingency amount of $122,153 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $1,343,685.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION The 50th Street Station Project consists of building a new on the existing Valley Metro Rail line in the City of Phoenix.

The 50th Street Station Project has three major procurements: Design Services, Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) Services and Public Art Services. To date the procurement process for Design Services and the Public Art Services is complete. The procurement process for CM@Risk Services is underway. This action is only for the Design Services contract.

The Design Services Contract will include the design of structures, drainage, utility relocations, two station platforms, street reconstruction; geotechnical activities; right-of- way (ROW), systems engineering, urban design, and pavement markings/signage. The Design Services Contract will also provide design management, studies, analyses, cost estimates, design coordination with operations, utility engineering, civil engineering, architectural design, structural engineering, systems engineering, ROW development, surveying, technical support, geotechnical analysis, and all design elements required for the Project.

During the design period, the Design Services Consultant will collaborate with the CM@Risk contractor and Valley Metro to determine the best means and methods for design and construction of the project which will be constructed while revenue service continues through the project site. The Design Services Consultant will also provide design services during construction which includes review of submittals, responses to RFIs, design changes, and performance of special inspections.

A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for 50th Street Station Project Design Services was issued on March 18, 2016. Statements of Qualifications were due and received on April 25, 2016. A total of nine submittals were received and deemed responsive. The selection committee, which was comprised of two City of Phoenix employees and three Valley Metro employees, shorted listed three firms and interviews were held with each on May 13, 2016. The selection committee determined that Gannett Fleming, Inc. was the most qualified and highest ranked firm to perform the design services.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

COST AND BUDGET The 50th Street Station Project is funded by City of Phoenix Proposition 104 Funds. The total budget for the Project is $22,961,981. The cost for the contract with Gannett Fleming, Inc., for Design Services and its associated 10% allocated contingency is included in the overall budget established for the project of $22,961,981. The budget for this contract is contained in the line item entitled “Contracted Services” in the table below.

Description Current Budget Commitment Current Forecast

Contracted Services $17,436,479 $1,221,532 $17,436,479 Right of Way $672,769 $672,769 Public Art $264,411 $264,411 Contingency $4,588,322 $122,153$4,588,322 Subtotal $22,961,981 $1,343,685 $22,961,981 Financing Costs $0 $0 Total $22,961,981 $1,343,685 $22,961,981

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

o Goal 2: Advance performance based operation  Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget.

o Goal 3: Grow transit ridership  Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets.  Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a contract for Design Services for the 50th Street Station Project with Gannett Fleming, Inc. for $1,221,532 and a 10% contingency amount of $122,153 for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed of $1,343,685.

CONTACT Wulf Grote Director, Planning and Accessible Transit 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 9 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT 50th Street Station Project Public Art Services Contract Award

PURPOSE To request Board approval for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract for the 50th Street Station Project Public Art Services with Barbara Grygutis for $250,000 and a 10% contingency amount of $25,000 for a total authorized amount not- to-exceed of $275,000.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION The 50th Street Station Project consists of building a new on the existing Valley Metro Rail line in the City of Phoenix.

The 50th Street Station Project has three major procurements: Design Services, Construction Manager at Risk (CM@Risk) Services and Public Art Services. To date the procurement process for Design Services and Public Art Services is complete. The procurement process for CM@Risk Services is underway. This action is only for the Public Art Services Contract.

The Public Art Services Contract will develop, design and install artwork at the 50th Street Station. The artist will work with the community to develop artwork that works within the environment and reflects the spirit of the project. The artist will collaborate with the Design Consultant and the CM@Risk Contractor through the process of design and construction.

A Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for 50th Street Station Project Public Art Services was issued on March 31, 2016. The RFQ solicited information in the form of Submittals of Qualifications (SOQ) from experienced artists. The Agency received 46 SOQs. The SOQs were then evaluated and ranked to determine Offerors who could successfully deliver the public art. On May 10, 2016, the 50th Street Station Project evaluation panel selected, Barbara Grygutis as the best qualified artists for Valley Metro.

COST AND BUDGET The 50th Street Station Project is funded by City of Phoenix Proposition 104 Funds. The total budget for the Project is $22,961,981. The cost for the contract with Barbara Grygutis, for Public Art Services and its associated 10% allocated contingency is included in the overall budget established for the project of $22,961,981. The budget for this contract is contained in the line item entitled “Public Art” in the table below. If needed, the 10% allocated contingency will draw from the “Contingency” line.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

Current Description Commitment Current Forecast Budget Contracted Services $17,436,479 $17,436,479 Right of Way $672,769 $672,769 Public Art $264,411 $250,000 $250,000 Contingency $4,588,322 $25,000$4,602,733 Subtotal $22,961,981 $275,000 $22,961,981 Financing Costs $0 $0 Total $22,961,981 $275,000 $22,961,981

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

Goal 2: Advance performance based operation  Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget.

Goal 3: Grow transit ridership  Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets.  Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a contract for the 50th Street Station Project Public Art Services with Barbara Grygutis for $250,000 and a 10% contingency amount of $25,000 for a total authorized amount not- to-exceed of $275,000.

CONTACT Wulf Grote Director, Planning and Accessible Transit 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 10 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT General Consulting Support Services Contract Award

PURPOSE To request approval for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a five-year contract, with three, one-year extension options, for the General Consulting Support Service (GCSS) Contract with Arcadis, Inc. for a total authorized amount not-to-exceed $11,800,000.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Valley Metro is in need of consultant support with specialty expertise to assist Valley Metro as projects are implemented. The GCSS Consultant will provide the expertise needed to ensure that projects identified in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) are completed on time, within budget and meets Valley Metro’s expectations. The types of services provided by the GCSS Consultant are engineering services, construction management/inspection services, project scheduling, cost estimating, environmental, quality assurance, real estate support and other services as required.

The GCSS Consultant may provide design and construction support for the following Valley Metro projects: Gilbert Road Extension, 50th Street Station, Tempe Streetcar, Northwest Extension Phase 2, South Central, OMC Expansion, Capitol I-10 West, and the West Phoenix/Central Glendale. The GCSS Consultant may also be utilized to provide design and construction support for modifications to the existing 26-mile light rail line. Most of the services required will be short term in duration and on an as needed basis.

On February 22, 2016, Valley Metro issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to solicit Statement of Qualifications (SOQ) for General Consulting Support Services. A Pre- Submittal Conference was held on March 2, 2016, and the RFQ closed on April 7, 2016. A single responsive SOQ was received from a qualified Offeror. A Cost/Price Analysis was performed and the Offeror rate structure has been deemed to be fair and reasonable.

A Selection Committee, consisting of four Valley Metro staff and a representative from the City of Phoenix was appointed to evaluate the responsive SOQ. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, the Selection Committee found Arcadis, Inc. to be qualified and the proposal advantageous to Valley Metro.

Arcadis has also met the Small Business Outreach Requirements of the DBE Program for this contract.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

COST AND BUDGET This contract will be in effect for five years from the date of contract approval by the Board with an option of up to an additional three years. The value of this contract over the eight-year duration will be for an amount not-to-exceed $11,800,000. Annual funding amounts and revenue sources for the GCSS Contract will be identified in the Fiscal Year budgets.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

o Goal 2: Advance performance based operation  Tactic C: Deliver projects and services on-time/on-budget.

o Goal 3: Grow transit ridership  Tactic A: Expand and improve transit services to reach new markets.  Tactic B: Improve connectivity of transit services for greater effectiveness.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: May 17, 2016 for information RMC: June 1, 2016 approved Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to execute a five-year contract with three, one-year extension options with Arcadis, Inc. for General Consulting Support Services for an amount not-to-exceed $11,800,000.

CONTACT Wulf Grote Director, Planning and Accessible Transit 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 11 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Rail Transportation Services Contract Extension

PURPOSE To request Board authorization for the Interim Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to extend the existing contract with Alternate Concepts, Inc. (ACI) for Rail Transportation Services for an additional six (6) and one-half months through July 15, 2017 in the amount of $5,500,000.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Rail Transportation Services are currently provided to Valley Metro Rail under a five- year base contract plus five, one-year renewal options with Alternate Concepts, Inc. (ACI). The contract was entered into by the parties in January 2007 with an initial expiration date in January 2012. Valley Metro has exercised all five, one-year options to extend services through December 31, 2016. Valley Metro seeks to extend the contract an additional six (6) and one-half months through July 15, 2017.

In April 2016, Valley Metro issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting qualified contractors for the provision of Rail Transportation Services beginning January 1, 2017. The current procurement schedule has the proposals due June 20, 2016 and evaluations to begin thereafter with a recommendation for award scheduled for the September 2016 Board of Directors meeting.

To best serve the interests of the agency, staff is recommending the current contract be extended an additional six (6) and one-half months through July 15, 2017 to:

1. Align the new contract beginning and end dates with Valley Metro’s fiscal year dates that run from July through June each year. 2. To coincide with lower ridership demands for efficient transition of services.

This is a level of effort, cost plus fixed fee contract. This type of contract allows Valley Metro flexibility in the provision of service and being able to schedule additional hours when needed such as special events. Valley Metro provides thorough oversight of the rail operations to ensure that only permissible costs are paid and that the contractor is exercising adequate overall cost controls.

COST AND BUDGET The cost of Rail Transportation Services for calendar year 2016 is estimated at $9,395,000. The cost for the additional six (6) and one-half months and through July 15, 2017 extension is estimated at $5,500,000.

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 85003 • 602-262-7433

The contract with ACI for Rail Transportation Services is budgeted and funded on a fiscal year basis. Funding for this extension is included in the METRO Adopted FY17 Operating and Capital Budget.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020:

 Goal 2: Advance performance based operation o Tactic A: Operate an effective, reliable, high performing transit system

COMMITTEE PROCESS Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 – for action

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the Interim CEO to extend the existing contract with ACI for Rail Transportation Services for an additional six (6) and one- half months through July 15, 2017 in the amount of $5,500,000.

CONTACT Ray Abraham Chief Operations Officer 602-652-5054 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

DATE AGENDA ITEM 12 June 8, 2016

SUBJECT Fiscal Year 2017 (FY17) Election of Valley Metro Rail (VMR) Board Officers and Subcommittee Positions

PURPOSE The Board will vote to elect Board officers and Board subcommittee positions for FY 2017.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Board officer and Board subcommittee elections are scheduled for June of each year. At the May 2016 Board meeting, it was announced that election of officers and subcommittee appointments would be brought forward at the June meeting for the following positions:

 Chair of the Board of Directors:  Vice Chair of the Board of Directors;  Audit and Finance Subcommittee member; and  RPTA/Valley Metro Rail Board Subcommittee members.

The Chair of the FY17 Audit and Finance Committee will be designated by the Chairs of the RPTA and VMR Boards after taking office.

COST AND BUDGET There is no fiscal impact.

COMMITTEE PROCESS VMR Board of Directors: June 16, 2016 for action

 VMR Board Chair – Mayor Mark Mitchell, City of Tempe

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

 VMR Board Vice Chair – Vice Mayor Dennis Kavanaugh, City of Mesa  Audit and Finance Subcommittee – Councilmember Rick Heumann, City of Chandler  VMR members of the Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail Board Member Subcommittee o Councilmember Rick Heumann, City of Chandler o Councilmember Thelda Williams, City of Phoenix

CONTACT PERSON Chairwoman Thelda Williams, Councilmember, City of Phoenix

ATTACHMENT None

Letters of Interest are available upon request.

DATE AGENDA ITEM 13 June 9, 2016

SUBJECT Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

PURPOSE Chair Williams will request future agenda items from members, and members may provide a report on current events.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

CONTACT Scott Smith Interim Chief Executive Officer 602-262-7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT Pending Items Request

VALLEY METRO • 101 N 1ST AVE • STE 1300 • PHOENIX AZ • 602-262-7433

Pending Items Request

Item Requested Date Requested Planned Follow-up Date