TMC/RMC Joint Meeting Transit Management Committee

MEETINGS OF THE Management Committees

Transit Management Rail Management TMC/RMC Committee Committee Joint Meeting (TMC) (RMC)

Date: April 1, 2020

Starting Time 11:00 a.m.

Meetings to occur sequentially

Location: Valley Metro Lake Powell Conference Room (10A) 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor Phoenix

If you require assistance accessing the meetings on the 10th floor, please go to the 14th floor or call 602.262.7433.

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433 Agenda March 25, 2020

Joint Meeting Agenda Transit Management Committee And Rail Management Committee Wednesday, April 1, 2020 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 11:00 a.m.

Action Recommended

1. Public Comment (yellow card) 1. For Information

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

2. Chief Executive Officer’s Report 2. For information

Scott Smith, CEO, will brief the TMC/RMC on current issues.

3. COVID-19 Update 3. For information

An update on transit operation impacts related to COVID-19 will be provided.

4. Minutes 4. For action

Minutes from the March 4, 2020 TMC/RMC meeting are presented for approval.

5. Videography Services Contract Award 5. For action

Scott Smith, CEO, will introduce Hillary Foose, Director Communications and Strategic Initiatives, who will request that the TMC/RMC forward to the Boards of Directors

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

authorization for the CEO to execute multiple two-year base contracts with two, one-year options with the following: The Flip Side Communications, DigiVid 360, Matter Films, Hernandez Creative and WulfenBear Media for videography services. Total expenditures across all vendors will not exceed $170,000 for the first two years. The RPTA and VMR portions are split equally in the amount of $85,000 each.

6. Travel, Expenditures and Solicitations 6. For information

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

7. Future Agenda Items Request and Update on 7. For information Current Events

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

8. Next Meeting 8. For information

The next meeting of the TMC/RMC is scheduled for Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.

Qualified sign language interpreters are available with 72 hours notice. Materials in alternative formats (large print or flash drive) 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.

Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Public Comment

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

COST AND BUDGET None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

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

ATTACHMENT None

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 2 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Chief Executive Officer’s Report

PURPOSE Scott Smith, Chief Executive Officer, will brief the TMC/RMC on current issues.

COST AND BUDGET None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

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

ATTACHMENT None

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433 Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT COVID-19 Update

PURPOSE An update on transit operation impacts related to COVID-19 will be provided.

COST AND BUDGET None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

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

ATTACHMENT None

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433 Minutes DATE AGEDNA ITEM 4 March 25, 2020

Joint Meeting of Transit Management Committee and Rail Management Committee Wednesday, March 4 2020 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 11:00 a.m.

Transit Management Committee Participants Josh Wright, City of Chandler, Chair Jesus Sapien for Ed Zuercher, City of Phoenix, Vice Chair Gina Montes, City of Avondale (phone) Roger Klingler, City of Buckeye Autumn Grooms for Crystal Dyches, City of El Mirage (phone) Dave Trimble, Town of Fountain Hills (phone) Nicole McCarty for Mary Goodman, Town of Gilbert Kevin Link for Kevin Phelps, City of Glendale Julie Arendall, City of Goodyear Scott Butler for Chris Brady, City of Mesa Erik Strunk, City of Peoria Bruce Gardner, Town of Queen Creek Dan Worth, City of Scottsdale Kristen Taylor for Terry Lowe, City of Surprise (phone) Steven Methvin, City of Tempe

Members Not Present Aubree Perry, ADOT Reed Kempton, Maricopa County City of Tolleson

Rail Management Committee Participants Steven Methvin, City of Tempe (Chair) Scott Butler for Chris Brady, City of Mesa (Vice Chair) Jesus Sapien for Ed Zuercher, City of Phoenix Josh Wright, City of Chandler

Chair Wright called the meeting to order at 11:02 a.m.

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433 All right. Good morning, everybody. We're going to go ahead and call this Joint Meeting of the Transit Management Committee and Rail Management Committee to order. Welcome everybody this morning.

1. Public Comment

None.

2. Chief Executive Officer’s Report

Mr. Smith provided an update on the following items:

 Customer Experience Coordinators (video)  Love Our Community Event (19th North)  Calendar  Special RTAG workshop on March 17 at 11:30 a.m.

3. Minutes

Chair Wright said the next item is the minutes from the February 5, 2020 joint meeting.

IT WAS MOVED BY ROGER KLINGLER, SECONDED BY STEVEN METHVIN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 8, 2020 JOINT TMC/RMC MEETING MINUTES.

4. Fiscal Year 2019 Transit Performance Report

Chair Wright said Next item of business, Item Number 4, Fiscal Year 2019 Transit Performance Report. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith said Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like it introduce Marty Zeich who will present the Transit Performance Report, the -- or known as TPR. Marty.

Mr. Zeich provided a presentation which included the following:

 System Summary  All Modes – Historical Trends (ridership)  All Modes – Historical Trends (operating cost per vehicle revenue miles  Bus System Historical Trends  Bus System Ridership Deep Dive (3 slides)  Bus System Peer Comparison

 Rail System Historical Trends  Rail System Peer Comparison  Paratransit Historical Trends  Paratransit Peer Comparison

Mr. Methvin said Thank you for the presentation you do a great job presenting it. What reasons are we -- should we understand is this trend for a national decrease in ridership on the buses?

Mr. Ziech said that's a great question. And it is a national trend for buses as well as frankly most modes and they don't have a complete answer. It's -- it's there's just so many factors that go into why somebody would choose to take a trip versus not take a trip. But the majority of the research coming out of the National Transportation Board as well as the federal government is essentially saying that we see an increase in incomes tied with a relatively calm gas price market.

So gas prices are staying low, people have more money that is showing an increase in car sales and then you're also seeing an increase in the number of people that are choosing alternative work modes: work from home, compressed work weeks.

So all that being said, I wouldn't necessarily say that there's a huge cause for concern. This is just something that we're seeing nationally as everything ebbs and flows just the current trajectory is not necessarily towards a huge boost in transit ridership.

Mr. Phelps said well, let me get my conditions out of the way here real quick. I want to plead for a little bit of grace from my Board members and from staff. I'm going to use the new guy card a little bit. I've been here only four years so some things I'm going to talk about maybe, you know, maybe a little bit off kilter, but it's more designed not to be critical at all. I think this -- our -- this division or this organization does a phenomenal job, but it's more just the kind of contemplation as I was looking at the so don't need a report, Scott. Don't a necessarily response back. But, I guess, if I -- if I propose that I had a solution that would increase ridership by say 10 or 20 percent for the cost of $5 million when we have a $211 million operating budget. I would assume most of us on this -- at the dais here and most of the staff would say that's really worthwhile pursuing.

And, you know, part of it when I was looking at the ridership and the trends again the increasing costs we're doing a great job, but we do see increasing cost with decreasing boardings. And -- and so, I guess, part of it for me is, at what point when we have a $211 million operating budget and we recover through all three modes a total of $8 million in -- in -- in fares; do we maybe start considering what a number of communities are doing which is offering free bus service system-wide? Because typically the -- while there's not been a lot of examples of this happening, it's starting to be more frequent. So at this point, we're getting ready, I think, we're getting ready to hit the street on RFP for a $50 million -- is that the right number? I believe, for our --

our technology for kind of getting rid of our -- I -- that's the number I had in the back of my mind. I don't know if that's a correct number or not, but it's our -- all of our new fare recovery software that we're going to go out to the street on. We -- we spend a fair amount of money collecting this from an accounting standpoint from -- from that part of it so probably our net fare recovery is less than the $8 million that's here.

City of Kansas City just this year went to free bus service. Olympia, Washington back up my way has done it. Saint John's up in Newfoundland has done it. Just recently the Director of the LA Transit kind of -- at a conference talked about maybe eliminating fares within the highest congestion area and then using congestion mitigation funds to help supplant that. So, I guess, just from a standpoint of be talking about it down the road is that our goal as an agency isn't really to have a high fare box recovery. That's -- that's not what our mission is. Our mission is provide mobility for our citizens specially those who don't have a lot of mobility options. Two, to reduce the amount of single occupancy vehicles, travel trips in the region. By doing that we reduce down our congestion on our freeways. By reducing down congestion on our freeways has the benefit also of reducing air quality -- improving our air quality. So to me it's all about volume, is really if we look -- if we -- if we check all the boxes what we're trying to do.

Getting as many people on board has a lot of different impacts. And it just seems to me to be moving forward if these trends don't change, at what point does it become untenable to, you know, to where our ratio of operating costs to the ratio of a rider?

So, for example, I like to use extreme examples to kind of frame this. But if our $211 million operating budget got us one rider; what would we do? We would say that's -- that's way too much money for one rider.

Today we have, you know, we have let's say 10 million boarding and we spend $211 million. Is there a number somewhere in between one and what we're doing, where we say, you know, this really isn't a very good value proposition the way we're doing it. So I guess, I'm sure this conversation's come up before I got here. I -- I'm sure it's a little bit -- there's a lot of things I've missed in the – in the equation, but it -- for me, it just -- I'm not so sure that this trends not going to continue and we have major shifts in how people use transportation as you mention the, you know, the work from home, but, I think, autonomous vehicles, ride share, all kinds of options are going to see this trend going down. And I just would propose to the, you know, to the managers here, you know, at the dais is at some point, you know, would that be a worthwhile to really look to see what would be the impact if we reduced $8 million in costs and it would be less than that net. Net probably reducing $5 million. If we saw a 10 or 15 or 20 percent jump in ridership. And I'll succeed the -- and let you have free game at me now with --

Mr. Smith said no. I would tell you that and just to give you an update. As I go to national conferences and things, this is not an issue that -- that is on the table -- this is an issue we will have to deal with. Because it's -- it's interesting what Kansas City, the

impact it's had on this discussion. Kansas City's not a big system. It's a very, very small system. The City of Kansas City. So it was -- it was easy for them to go to free. They were already offering -- had offered some free on their streetcar. Their bus system isn't very big, but it's been -- it's been interesting to see the -- impact it's had on the national discussion. And I can tell you it's a very, very big issue at every APTA conference I go to. Because groups around the country, especially for lack of a better term, equity groups, social justice groups have taken this up and they've already -- for example, we've had some discussions with some here in the city of Phoenix, but it's particularly about this very issue and about from an equity standpoint creating free bus service.

I just will correct you on one thing and the $8 million. There's actually a $50 million question for us because that's the combined revenue that we get for fares from bus, rail, paratransit. It's just over $50 million, but it's -- it's a policy that – that our electeds and our policymakers will have to grapple with. Because it is being pushed around the country. Not just as an idea, but as really a, we he need you to seriously consider this.

At the end of the day, we're a public service. Whether we have one rider or whether we have 20 million riders, we operate a system that will – that will provide a service to whomever may -- may jump on board. So really -- that's why we've never chased ridership because just like your city parks. They're there. Whether 50 people use them or 500 people use them. They're there as a service because they -- they -- they're important to your community.

And that's sort of how we look at it. We’d like to make this as available to everybody so we focus of customer experience, safety, security because we want to make sure that if anyone chooses to use public transportation, we provide a quality service and I know Jesus thinks the same way that -- that it's a viable option for them whether they -- regardless of what their -- their status is.

So it's not only -- but it's not only a financial one also. I will tell you that one of the things we need to look at is that we do operate some fare-free services in The Valley. And I will tell you that -- and talking to other cities who operate fare free issues. For example, in Salt Lake, they have a fare-free zone around their -- around their downtown. Both bus and -- and -- and light rail.

Our security issuance increase substantially. Fares not only produce revenue, but they also produce a kind of control. Now, whether you can overcome that or want to it just understand it's not as simple as just dollars and cents because there are other issues. But at the end of the day, I mean, from Valley Metro standpoint, we're going to provide the best system we can that we're able to regardless of whether we have one rider or 50 million riders. But just to let you know that you're electeds will have to deal with this issue and it's on the doorstep.

People are serious about pushing this concept of free public transit. And it has spread – it has spread like wildfire since Kansas City did it less than 6-7 months ago. I think it was last summer. It's really been amazing to see how this discussion has fomented and gone into other cities. So you will deal with it at your council level.

Mr. Phelps said I appreciate that. I guess, I need to know more about the 50 million number because what I looked at was in our budget presentation coming up next I know we see RPTA revenue is projected about $8.8 million. And then when I see kind of the breakdown of the operating and capital budget that's with capital it's about three percent so you take out capital of $150 million it is in that, you know, we say in that 8 to 10 percent range.

Mr. Smith said yeah. And Paul could, I mean, first of all, these transit performance include both City of Phoenix and Valley Metro. There are -- they're the regional so when you see these numbers they include City of Phoenix numbers along -- combined with Valley Metro, but Paul can tell a bit more about that.

Mr. Hodgins said the $8.8 million number is really fare revenue for services Valley Metro operates. There's an additional roughly $11 million for Valley Metro rail for the light rail system. So it's about $20 million for the services Valley Metro operates but then there's also all the services that City of Phoenix operates. I don't know offhand exactly how much. I'm going to guess might be $25 million in fare revenue so depending on the year so we're looking at probably $45 to $50 million for the region in fare revenue.

Mr. Smith said and that does -- and I got t o the $50 million by adding paratransit also. So it's about a $50 million total revenue for all the services provided by all the providers. The biggest ones being, you know, provide paratransit, I don't know what you charge, but the thing is that really it's the City of Phoenix and Valley Metro provide 95 percent of the services around here. So the thing is even though we operate differently, there's no doubt that Valley Metro and City of Phoenix have to be in -- in sync as to what we do in our fare policy because we do operate as a single brand and a single system and that's what the public sees. So and you operate your individual cities whether you do it under the Valley Metro brand or not, like in Tempe, the Orbit is free. And – and it -- but it's a circulator. It's a well-defined service.

So it -- it's a discussion that as I've said, we're preparing for because we see it happening in other cities and we've seen it start here. Driven not so much from a staff level, but really from a -- from a community-activist level and we've actually have -- we've actually had questions from some city council members just -- not deep questions, but just may what is this? We've heard about what they did in Kansas City and we're starting to -- we're recognizing that this is going to be an issue that on a policy level city councils will be confronted with. And I would say it's going to happen sooner rather than later. It wouldn't shock me if it's in the next year. That it's going to be

presented before one or more of the city councils here. Specific proposals to consider this and we're preparing from that.

Mr. Phelps said great. Well, thanks for the extra numbers and I'm sure the city of Phoenix is thrilled with the city manager from Glendale suggesting that they walk away from $25 million .

Mr. Smith said no. It's not a new issue.

Mr. Phelps said but it's just something I think we, you know, I'd like to see us be, you know, looking at this. I think there are certainly trends and we know that there is a correlation between, you know, for example, the local economy and gas prices and bus riding.

However we're seeing a decline in communities that aren't robust in the economy so that's, you know, that's -- so there's other things. There may be some more macro trends starting to happen that I -- this -- I want to keep this agency relevant providing a great service and to me I like the notion of higher volume on our line. Higher volume puts more people in the ballot box supporting what we do here and moving it forward. And as we're looking at Prop 400 and what we do in terms of whether we maintain, expand capacity, if we can mitigate through more robust users of the transit system whether it be rail or bus, I think there's some -- there's some larger goals that we could factor in from a cost wise.

Mr. Smith said well, I -- I'll tell you one thing. LA you brought up -- you bout up LA or Marty, I can't remember who brought up LA. But LA is, you know, Phil Washington is a very, very credibly great CEO there who's looking at things. But one of the reasons why he's pushing is that they're investing literally tens of billions in their transit system and have built a rail system and overall transit ridership in LA is down almost 40 percent from where it was ten years ago. Even though the region has grown, their system has grown, there definitely is – are trends that -- that go against what people think and it raises really issues. Why do we continue? And this is going to be a big issue on Prop 400 Extension. Why do we continue to invest in a system that seems to have lowering ridership. It's a valid question that people need to -- that we need to ask ourselves. You brought up one issue that I think, one reason I think this is going to happen sooner; yes. I think on the City of Phoenix -- on one of their subcommittees they have the approval of purchase of the new fare system. Just happened. That's a that's a big spend. Now, granted we have a lot of grant and other stuff that we're helping to pay for that, but it really does beg a legitimate question; how much are we spending on – for us on rail fare enforcement? Which you take -- you take that $11 million in revenue and how much of that is fares? Now, we would still have the security on there because those fare enforcement are there for a presence in addition to fare enforcement. But how much do we pay to collect the money that we're collecting? And when you do that the net-net

definitely shrinks. So that's why I say, it's going to be an issue that going to come up and we just have be prepared for that conversation.

Mr. Methvin said I think many of us are intrigued by the Kansas City model I know I am, but wouldn't -- on these cities, Dallas, Denver, Houston. Are they similar to our region or are they just a single city? Is -- our, like, Portland? Is Portland, Portland plus Beaverton and some of the other communities around that like us? Where we have member agencies that pay in? Or do they have some sort of, maybe a more regional tax that pays for all of that versus the member agencies where we each -- we each contribute to the overall system? Because I know in Tempe where, you know, just these small increases like three percent and six percent are getting to the point where -- where they're busting our budget.

So while very much intrigued in -- in what Mr. Phelps is talking about I -- I'd like to know more about how all of these systems are structured so that we can say, yeah, that -- that is intriguing. Is it just Kansas City has made a decision as a Kansas City council that they're going to do this and there's no other communities around them? No suburb communities?

Mr. Smith said that's -- Kansas City that's the case. It's a self-confined and Kansas City as a city isn't that big and their transit system isn't that big and they made it purely as a city council. It would be like if Tempe decided. I don't even know if it would be -- that would be a good one because it is a very -- relatively small system. But Marty you can talk about our peer cities and our peer groups. Let's just say we are unique. Go ahead, Marty.

Mr. Ziech said certainly yes. So one of the reasons why we do have this peer list versus other potential cities such as Seattle is because we do have more of a region- wide system and most of these cities do as well. We do have the major difference in that the City of Phoenix provides the majority of bus service in the region and so that changes things and, of course, just having it all under the Valley Metro brand. But in general this list was chosen specifically because of -- well, a few different factors. Size was a factor in it where we wanted to make sure that we captured agencies that provided similar levels of service to us at least in some respect. Hence the reason why LA although Phoenix gets compared to LA quite often our systems are not similar enough that that w ould be is a good peer comparison.

Another thing is that all of the cities are Western cities. Even though there are certain cities further back east that do have similar operating characteristics, we wanted to make sure to capture similar Sunbelt-type development.

And then finally, that -- that's exactly it. We wanted to make sure that we had systems that were more regional and so every system up here, Salt Lake City that's the city that's listed on there, but UTA covers the entire Wasatch front. And for Houston it's,

you know, Harris County and from there and there. So I hope that answers the question.

Mr. Smith said well, there is one part of question though that no. These are all though regional authorities. They are not -- we are unique in the sense that although technically we are a regional authority, we're really not. We're a collection of cities. Because the funding basically comes up. Most of these have dedicated tax that they control. That they impose or they're funded. UTA from the State level. The State has taken over UTA and it's basically a State agency, but the cities have much different relationships and roles so the financing is very different.

The financing is much more of a top down in all of these whereas ours is really a bottom up. Where you contract with us to pay for services that we provide or contract with the City of Phoenix if you're -- if you're -- if the bus service is provided by them. That's -- that is unique to all the – and to anyone in -- I've ever seen in the country.

Mr. Methvin said so isn't the conversation -- thank you for that. Isn't the conversation we should be having is whether the way we're structured here in the Valley is the way that can support a program like the one that's in Kansas City?

Mr. Smith said that's why it's going to be a complicated discussion here. Because they have that discussion at their Board and their Board will make a decision that will be, basically, imposed on the region. Obviously, our discussion is with each of you and your individual city councils. Because if Tempe decide to go free. Okay. That'd be nice, but guess what? You have cities next to you that share your routes that may or may not go free. It's okay with the Orbit where it's all self-contained.

But when we get the light rail, when we get to bus even though we're funded on a Prop 400 plus then a city-by city level. The decision of any one city especially the City of Phoenix where things all go through really do impact their neighbors and so everyone's got to be joined in on this discussion. And, yes, there are cities who can for lack of a better term, weather or afford that kind of deal than other cities. Not all of you are on very different financial situations. Some of you have dedicated taxes. Many of you do not. Even if you had dedicated taxes, do you have the wherewithal to withstand this.

So it's going to be a complicated discussion, but it will come up in one or more cities and then the other cities will be looked at to say how are you going to -- how are you going to act? And people will show up at your city councils saying, why don't you follow this city in doing that? And that's going to be the challenge. Difference in our region from those regions and we see it happening because as I talk to other CEOs, they're getting a lot of pressure from their electeds because they're getting pressure from community groups to at least address it.

Mr. Methvin said one of the things I've always appreciated about Valley Metro and the

member agencies is that for, I'll speak for Tempe, we would never want to make a decision that would have a negative impact on -- on Phoenix or Mesa or any other – any of the other member agencies. So, you know, for a smaller city than Phoenix to say, yeah, let's go with this system and then say, Phoenix I -- I hope you have the money to do that. Would be a really tough decision for many of us to make and I think not one that we would ever -- we'd ever make because it just doesn't seem –

Mr. Smith and I think the feeling the mutual. I realize that this is political decision. And it's going to be driven by political considerations and those of us here who have to then deal with those policies that's where the challenge is going to come. Is because these activists aren't coming to me and they're not coming to you they're coming to our electeds.

While you may have that same, I'm not saying your council would be doing it. But it's awfully tough for any city council to have a -- a chamber full of -- of people demanding something and wanting action. That's a tough place to put any city council in. And to say gee, we'd love to do it, but we don't want to -- in case, if it were in your council. It's very difficult to think that an elected who's had -- who has the people in front of them very agitated is going say, gee, I'd love to say, yes, but I'm worried about what Mesa might think. I mean, if you've been on that side of the dais it's -- that's hard. hat really is hard.

And that's what I'm going to tell you about is that I think that that could take place that you have individual councils that take things up that may inadvertently put your city at odd with the balance in the region and we'll just have to deal with that. Because that's, I think, that's the reality seeing who's involved and who's pushing this agenda -- this – this issue. And it's not the Kevin Phelps of the world although thank you for bringing it up, but it is – it is taking place in the political arena with our electeds.

Mr. Sapien said thank you for the presentation and the discussion. I think as we look at those type of, you know, out of the box ideas, we have to see where they've been, you know, tried out. I know Austin several years ago tried free fares and it -- it did not go well, because of the safety issues that you mentioned and so they reverted back to, you know, having a fare. Kansas City, my understanding, we've been following it closely and my understanding a couple of their council members have come out and said, well, we put it in next year's budget, but we haven't decided how to go long term. So it will be interesting to see what happens with that specific, you know, area because they – they are a small agency. Specific to this presentation, it's really good stuff, thank you.

Look forward to this every year. We share the same information, snippets of it with our Citizen's Transportation Commission which oversees the expenditures under the city's T2050 program so we'll definitely be sharing some of this information with them.

One of the things that I would advocate and we're -- we're going to be kind of go out and

start doing this and we're going to have a conversation with Valley Metro is: We've had our commission and our city council kind of tell us that we need to promote ourselves as a bus city. Now that we have, you know, a more robust regional system not only has Phoenix expanded service, but, you know, adjacent cities have over the years as well.

And I know very well rail has gotten a lot the attention over the past couple of years, but with 74 percent of our ridership being on the bus, we really, really want to start promoting ourselves as, you know, a city that has an affordable, frequent, long-hour bus system available. We have not always been known as a city that has that and now we do so we're going start that effort. I've talked to my public information staff and they'll follow up with Valley Metro staff, but we want to start pushing that because we've seen as you've showed up in FY18 some good results and we want to turn that FY19 number back. So we're going to be pushing forward on that and I would encourage everyone else to -- to kind of start thinking about how do we do that? Because we do have a robust system.

Mr. Smith said and if I could just add on to that one little bit and Mr. Phelps, you bring up a great point. What we really need to think about is for many parts of our valley where we don't have that kind of robust system is the reality is that you can't build a transit system on 30-minute headways. It just -- it's proven, it doesn't work. And we saw this in Phoenix when you moved to the 15 and even 20 minutes headways and you expand your hours, that's when people can depend on a system.

The psychology is on the 30-minute, I can't afford to miss that bus because I'm gone. If it's 15 minutes, I'm okay. If it's less than that it's great. And so a lot of what the discussion is how do we improve? If people ask me how can I improve my ridership and put more people in a bus? I say reach and frequency. Expand your reach which means hours or space and frequency, you'll see it. That's been proven. So one thing that's been proven is if you do those two things in tandem you will have increase. That takes an investment.

And I think part of the discussion should be -- if we can invest because if we don't -- if we don't collect revenue that means we're investing more in our system, but what are we getting out of it? Are we really improving the service if we simply make it free?

I think that's -- that's a real question that I would say, if you want to invest $50 million which you're giving up in revenue, take that $50 million and let's improve reach and frequency. Because I think you'll see the return to the community is much greater. That's part of the discussion we need to have because forgoing revenue is just like putting more revenue in because you have to cover that revenue loss somewhere so it's an additional investment. And that's where we really need to increase -- and we have the example right here when Phoenix in October of 2000 -- 17 put in their big changes where they increased reach and frequency you saw that. You saw in '18 that big jump in ridership and it's levelled off a bit, but that deduct was from a higher --

higher baseline. So that's part of the discussion I think we also need to have.

Chair Phelps said any other questions on the report? All right. Thank you, Mr. Ziech.

5. Travel, Expenditures and Solicitations

This item was presented for information.

6. Future Agenda Items Request and Update on Current Events

Mr. Methvin said Mr. Smith, a number of months ago and I had asked about the Valley Metro's plan for addressing complaints. And I know Ray had asked and I agreed that we were going to delay that a little bit, but, quite honestly, I've forgotten what that date so not a criticism, but if somebody could just let me know when that will be coming back.

Mr. Smith said we are working on it. We'll get you the dates when we were ready to come back and talk to you.

Mr. Sapien said so I just want to make everyone aware as of last week, Phoenix's BRT website went live. I know we've talked to some of your member agencies. We're working closely with Valley Metro and MAG and, basically, what we've done is we've reevaluated the corridors that were originally on the Prop 104 map. We are asked to take a look a those and see do we need to change 'em based on things that have changed because those corridors, you know, were established years ago. And as it turns out, you know, we do have six new proposed corridors so I can share that with Valley Metro and they can share that with the group. It's basically phoenix.gov/brt. And so for the next six to eight months we're going to be going out to the community and talking about those proposed BRT routes. We don't yet know are those final? How will they operate? You know, end points? Dedicated lane in whole or in part? Those type of things, but it's up and running and you can go see the maps of the six proposed corridors and give us your feedback.

Chair Wright said very good. Thank you. Any other announcements? All right. If not, our next meeting of the TMC/RMC will be Wednesday, April 1st at 11:00 a.m.

With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Information Summary DATE AGENDA ITEM 5 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Videography Services Contract Award

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute multiple two- year base contracts with two, one-year options with the following: The Flip Side Communications, DigiVid 360, Matter Films, Hernandez Creative and WulfenBear Media for videography services. Total expenditures across all vendors will not exceed $170,000 for the first two years. The RPTA and VMR portions are split equally in the amount of $85,000 each.

COST AND BUDGET The videography contracts for approval have a total term of up to two years with two, one-year options. For the two-year base term across all vendors, the award is up to $170,000 and work will be issued on a task order basis.

For Fiscal Year 2020, the contract obligation is $17,000 which is fully funded within the Valley Metro Adopted FY20 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract obligations beyond FY20 are incorporated into the Valley Metro RPTA and Rail Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY20 through FY24).

The source of funding is Proposition 400 (RPTA) and member city (VMR). There are no federal funds being used for this award.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the TMC/RMC forward to the Boards of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute multiple two-year base contracts with two, one-year options with the following: The Flip Side Communications, DigiVid 360, Matter Films, Hernandez Creative and WulfenBear Media for videography services. Total expenditures across all vendors will not exceed $170,000 for the first two years. The RPTA and VMR portions are split equally in the amount of $85,000 each.

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION As a way to maintain a positive image of the system and to remain current in how we promote our services, video is considered a mainstay across various mediums, e.g. social media, website and broadcast media. Video is also used to capture and document milestone moments for the system, such as groundbreakings, ribbon cuttings

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

and other special events. Video serves as a way to visually communicate our value and how we enhance and support our local communities through the services we provide.

Valley Metro is seeking the services of local videography firms who are qualified to provide pre-production, production and post-production services for videos of varying lengths to capture agency events, projects, services and rider activity. These firms have varying specialties, as well as capabilities of planning, scoping, concept development, scriptwriting, scheduling and are able to travel to the site of the filming, provide all equipment including lighting and audio, retain voiceover talent and/or music. In addition, there is the option to include video accessibility features as needed, e.g. closed captioning, sight-impaired descriptions.

On December 5, 2019, the Boards of Directors authorized the CEO to issue a competitive solicitation for videography services for a two-year contract term with two, one-year extension options.

On January 6, 2020, Valley Metro staff issued a Request for Proposals for videography services in compliance with the Valley Metro Procurement Manual.

The solicitation included the following technical and price evaluation criteria:

Evaluation Criteria Qualifications & Experience of the Firm & Assigned Personnel 300 points Videography Portfolio 300 points Method of Approach and Innovation and Creativity 200 points Cost Proposal 200 points TOTAL POINTS AVAILABLE 1,000 Points

Proposals were received on February 3, 2020. A total of nine offers were received and deemed responsive from the following proposers:

• Amoroma Productions • On Advertising • Circuit Media • The Flip Side Communications • DigiVid 360 • Urias Communications • Hernandez Creative • WulfenBear Media • Matter Films

An evaluation committee, consisting of Valley Metro staff, was appointed to evaluate proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria listed above. Based on the evaluation committee’s scoring, it was determined that five proposers would be chosen for award. By having a variety of videography firms available on contract, Valley Metro can work with the firm most suited to a particular project and ensure their availability at the time of the filming or event. Also, with having the five firms on an as-needed basis, there is also the ability to have these firms competitively bid on individual video projects.

The proposers and their total points are listed below:

Proposers by Points Proposer Technical Points Price Points Total Points The Flip Side Communications 727 140 867 DigiVid 360 717 127 844 Matter Films 721 117 838 Hernandez Creative 708 112 820 WulfenBear Media 706 93 800 Urias Communications 705 82 787 Amoroma Productions 728 40 768 Circuit Media 618 121 739 On Advertising 515 200 715

As individual projects are identified, the following steps will be used to execute a task order: • Valley Metro will match specific task orders with the appropriate videographer(s) based on specific expertise, workload, and availability. • More than one videographer may be asked to provide a quote on the project. • Valley Metro and individual videographer(s) will meet to generally define the scope. • Valley Metro will prepare a scope of work and issue a task order request. • The videographer will prepare a proposal and cost. • Final negotiations occur and the task order is initiated. • If price negotiations are not successful, Valley Metro reserves the right to solicit the other videographer firms on contract.

COMMITTEE ACTION RTAG: March 17, 2020 for information TMC/RMC: April 1, 2020 for action Boards of Directors: April 16, 2020 for action

CONTACT Susan Tierney Communications Manager 602.523.6004 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 6 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Travel, Expenditures and Solicitations

PURPOSE The monthly travel, expenditures and solicitations are presented for information.

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION None

COST AND BUDGET None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

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

ATTACHMENTS Valley Metro Travel Reimbursement Report Valley Metro RPTA and Valley Metro Rail Monthly Accounts Payable over $25,000 Active Requests for Proposals, Qualifications and Invitations for Bids

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority Monthly AP Payments over $25,000 February 21, 2020 to March 20, 2020

Document Effective Transaction Number Name Transaction Description Date Amount 20200312W001 First Transit, Inc. Jan. 2020 Fixed Route Bus Service - Unification 3/12/2020 5,881,004.72 20200227W001 City of Phoenix Bus Acquisition Reimb 2/27/2020 3,386,013.95 20200312W City of Phoenix Feb. 2020 FR Bus Svc, ADA, FR Op Supp, Media Distribution Fee 3/12/2020 2,417,101.54

20200227W004 Transdev Services, Inc Dec 2019 Regional Paratransit Services 2/27/2020 1,677,051.89 20200305W City of Phoenix RTP Reimbursements for Bus Acquisitions 3/5/2020 1,282,377.73 20200228W ADP, LLC PPE 2-23-20 Wages Payable - Reverse Wire 2/28/2020 607,045.60 20200313W ADP, LLC PPE 3-8-20 Wages Payable - Reverse Wire 3/13/2020 603,736.76 20200320W001 Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company March 2020 EE Medical & Vision Coverage 3/20/2020 363,152.38 20200228W ADP, LLC PPE 2-23-20 Federal, State, SS/Med EE/ER Tax-ACH 2/28/2020 246,220.07 20200313W ADP, LLC PPE 3-8-20 Federal, State, SS/Med EE/ER Tax - ACH 3/13/2020 245,633.67 20200320W004 Medical Transportation Management, Inc. Jan. 2020 In-Person Eligibility Assessment and Travel Training 3/20/2020 143,837.36 Services 20200228W001 ASRS PPE 2-23-20 ASRS Contributions Employee 2/28/2020 112,778.94 20200228W001 ASRS PPE 2-23-20 ASRS Contributions Employer 2/28/2020 112,778.94 20200313W001 ASRS PPE 3-8-20 ASRS Contributions Employee 3/13/2020 110,652.65 20200313W001 ASRS PPE 3-8-20 ASRS Contributions Employer 3/13/2020 110,652.65 41334 Dell Marketing L.P. Mobile Precision 3541 Xcto Base, Keyboard & Mouse, Dell 3/4/2020 79,161.90 Latitude 5300, Precision 3431 CTO Base, Dell 24 Monitors 20200316W025 Wells Fargo Bank February 2020 Credit Card Transactions 3/16/2020 70,838.31 20200227W003 Second Generation, Inc. dba Ajo Transportation Jan 2020 Rural Connector Route 2/27/2020 65,784.68 20200227W002 CopperPoint Insurance Company March 2020 Mobility Center Rent 2/27/2020 52,008.57 41370 Enterprise Rideshare December 2019 Vanpool Services 3/10/2020 46,975.25 20200229W003 City of Mesa February 2020 Utilities 2/29/2020 44,898.83 41351 Mosaic451, LLC January 2020 Managed Security Services 3/4/2020 34,600.00 20200312W002 Senergy Petroleum, LLC Mesa Diesel Fuel 3/12/2020 33,931.54 41340 Guidesoft Inc. Week Ending 1.19/20 and 1/26/20 IT Services Consultants 3/4/2020 31,923.93 20200320W002 City of Phoenix Jan. 2020 Platinum Passes 3/20/2020 30,279.00 20200312W002 Senergy Petroleum, LLC West Valley Diesel Fuel 3/12/2020 25,074.38 Total 17,815,515.24 Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Monthly AP Payments over $25,000 February 21, 2020 to March 20, 2020

Effective Transaction Document Number Name Transaction Description Date Amount 20200320W006 Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. Dec 2019 South Central Extension 3/20/2020 7,352,446.86 20200312W Stacy and Witbeck, Inc. Jan 2020 Tempe Streetcar Project 3/12/2020 3,627,919.58 20200305W004 Siemens Mobility, Inc. Milestone C2 Light Rail Vehicle Acquisition Program 3/5/2020 2,420,671.83 20200305W002 Hensel Phelps Construction Co Jan 2020 OMC Expansion 3/5/2020 1,506,312.00 20200320W Alternate Concepts Inc. Jan 2020 Transportation Services 3/20/2020 1,127,821.76 20200320W005 Jacobs Engineering Jan 2020 NW Extension II 3/20/2020 1,011,730.17 20200227W001 Alternate Concepts Inc. December 2019 Transportation Services 2/27/2020 938,285.58 20200227W007 Hill International, Inc. Dec. 20 Program Management-Hill International 2/27/2020 697,936.20 20200305W001 Allied Universal Security Services Jan 2020 Fare Inspection and Security Services 3/5/2020 608,163.44 20200227W006 HDR Engineering, Inc. Nov. 2019 HDR Planning and Community Relations 2/27/2020 435,765.72 20200320W004 HDR Engineering, Inc. Dec. 2019 HDR Planning and Community Relations 3/20/2020 429,239.23 035066 Salt River Project Tempe Streetcar Non Prior Right Utilities 3/19/2020 357,980.88 20200305W AECOM Technical Services, Inc. Dec 2019 South Central LRT Extension 3/5/2020 232,993.27 20200227W005 DMS - Facility Services, Inc. January 2020 Facilities and LRV Cleaning Services 2/27/2020 231,691.55 035061 PGH Wong Engineering, Inc. Jan 2020 NW Extension Project Phase 2 3/19/2020 230,262.19 20200305W005 Stacy and Witbeck, Inc. Jan 2020 50th ST Station 3/5/2020 201,050.00 20200227W003 City of Phoenix Oct.-Dec. 2019 VMR Quarterly Advertising Revenue Payment 2/27/2020 176,251.00 035020 SDB Contracting Services Jan 2020 Construction Services - JOC 3/10/2020 168,375.24 20200227W 101 North First Ave LLC March 2020 Rent, CAM, RE Taxes 101 Bldg 9th-14th Floors 2/27/2020 160,532.46 20200229W APS February 2020 Utilities 2/29/2020 157,635.53 20200320W001 ARCADIS Jan 2020 Consulting Support Services 3/20/2020 132,265.34 034993 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. Dec 2019 Tempe Streetcar Design Services 3/4/2020 99,840.00 20200229W020 SRP February 2020 Utilities 2/29/2020 75,897.53 20200227W005 DMS - Facility Services, Inc. January 2020 Facility Maintenance Services 2/27/2020 66,204.81 20200305W003 Knorr Brake Corporation (KBC) LRV Brake Overhaul 3/5/2020 65,621.86 20200227W002 City of Mesa Oct.-Dec. 2019 VMR Quarterly Advertising Revenue 2/27/2020 54,677.00 20200320W003 Dellner Inc. LRV Coupler Overhaul 3/20/2020 42,996.00 20200320W007 Knorr Brake Corporation (KBC) LRV Brake Overhaul 3/20/2020 42,556.77 034995 URW, LLC Jan 2020 Facilities Landskeeping Services 3/4/2020 40,636.22 035071 Sanderson Ford, Inc. 2020 Ford F250 1FT7X2A63LEC50879 3/19/2020 39,772.36 20200227W003 City of Phoenix Jan. 2020 Fare Handling Fee 2/27/2020 36,129.00 20200320W002 Award Winning Restorations Change Color Scheme on Train 149 3/20/2020 33,960.00 035061 PGH Wong Engineering, Inc. Jan 2020 Systemwide System Design Services 3/19/2020 32,717.81 034994 Tempe Police Department Jan 2020 PM Platform Security Enforcement 3/4/2020 32,232.00 035013 Mary Lucking District 3 Tempe SC Fabrication 7 3/10/2020 30,000.00 035068 Salt River Project S Central Extension Non Prior Right Utilities 3/19/2020 28,158.51 Total 22,926,729.70 Procurement Report as of 03/09/2020

RECENTLY COMPLETED PROCUREMENTS

Contract Procurement FTA Proposal Due Targeted Board Estimated Agency Procurement Title Release Date Term of Contract Comments Administrator Type Funding Date Award Date Contract Value 3 years + 2 one‐year Ed N Joint RFP Transit Asset Management No June 2019 July 2019 January 2020 $1,250,736.00 Executed. options Kianie K Joint RFP Market Research Services Yes June 2019 July 2019 December 2019 $587,617.00 5 years Executed.

ACTIVE PROCUREMENTS

Contract Procurement FTA Proposal Due Targeted Board Estimated Agency Procurement Title Release Date Term of Contract Comments Administrator Type Funding Date Award Date Contract Value Susanna H Joint RFP ERP and EAM Solution No September 2019 November 2019 TBD $5,000,000.00 TBD In evaluation. 2 years + 2 one‐year Kianie K Joint RFP Videography Services No January 2020 February 2020 April 2020 $170,000.00 Pending Board Approval. options SOW received, solicitation in Rick W Joint RFP Operations Cleaning Services No March 2020 April 2020 June 2020 $14,330,000.00 3 year + 2 options development. Ed N RPTA RFP Bus Wash Replacement No November 2019 January 2020 May 2020 $765,000.00 6 years In evaluation. Christian J RPTA COOP Transit Service Planning software No N/A N/A May 2020 $172,000.00 3 years Initiating Documents. Retail Sales Networks for Fare Collection Ed N RPTA RFP No February 2020 April 2020 August 2020 $30,000,000.00 5 years + 3 yr + 2 yr Solicitation issued. and Customer Service

Ed N RPTA RFP Tempe Circulator Vehicles Yes September 2019 November 2019 April 2020 $11,425,000.00 5 Years Pending Board Approval.

Transportation Demand Management 3 years + 2 one‐year Christian J RPTA RFP No November 2019 December 2019 April 2020 $500,000.00 In negotiation. (TDM) Platform Solution options Rick W VMR IFB Paver Maintenance No December 2019 January 2020 NA $149,000.00 3 Years In evaluation.

FUTURE PROCUREMENTS

Contract Procurement FTA Proposal Due Targeted Board Estimated Agency Procurement Title Release Date Term of Contract Comments Administrator Type Funding Date Award Date Contract Value Rick W Joint RFP Landscaping Services No March 2020 April 2020 June 2020 $2,450,000.00 3 year + 2 options SOW Development. Christian J Joint Sole Source Aconex renewal & introduce archiving No July 2020 July 2020 September, 2020 $1,800,000.00 5 years Initiating Documents. Rick W RPTA RFP Bus Inspection Services No March 2020 April 2020 June 2020 $1,600,000.00 5 years SOW Development. Susanna H VMR Sole Source SCV Managed Inventory Program No N/A N/A December 2020 $1,000,000.00 5 years SOW Development. Kianie K VMR IFB Alignment Sweeping Services No March 2020 April 2020 June 2020 $100,000.00 3 years + 2 options SOW Development. Christian J VMR Sole Source Knorr LRV Brakes (Master Purch Agrmt) No TBD TBD TBD $100,000.00 5 years SOW Development.

Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 7 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

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

COST AND BUDGET None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

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

ATTACHMENT None.

Pending Items Request

Item Requested Date Requested Planned Follow-up Date

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

Agenda March 25, 2020

Transit Management Committee Wednesday, April 1, 2020 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 11:00 a.m.

Action Recommended

1. Public Comment (blue card) 1. For Information

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

2. Minutes 2. For action

Minutes from the March 4, 2020 TMC meeting are presented for approval.

CONSENT AGENDA 3A. TDM/Commute Solutions Software Platform Contract 3A. For action Award

Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute a three-year base contract with two, one-year options with RideAmigos for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) software solution supporting Commute Solutions’ ShareTheRide.com platform for a total of $407,550.

3B. Accessible Content Coordination Services Contract 3B. For action Award

Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO execute a two-year cooperative agreement under Knowledge Services for accessible content coordination services for an amount not to exceed $225,000.

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

3C. Manufacture and Delivery of 30 Ft. Heavy Duty 3C. For action Circulator Buses Contract Award

Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute a contract with Gillig, LLC for the purchase of 30 ft. heavy duty circulator buses in an amount not to exceed $15,565,802.

3D. Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Amendment with 3D. For action Arizona State University (ASU) for Autonomous Vehicle Research and Analysis

Staff recommends the Board of Directors authorize the CEO to execute an IGA Amendment to 2018-TOMNET (task order) number SPA00002258, to extend the period of performance to December 30, 2020 to coincide with the federal grant period of performance.

REGULAR AGENDA 4. Purchase of Replacement Vehicles for Regional 4. For action Paratransit Service

Scott Smith, CEO, will introduce Jim Hillyard, Chief Administrative Officer, who will request that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to purchase up to 25 Ford Transit vans from Creative Bus Sales under ADOA Contract ADSPO16-1027 at combined federal and local cost not to exceed $1.75 million for the Valley Metro regional paratransit program.

5. Proposed October 2020 Service Changes 5. For information

Scott Smith, CEO, will introduce Joe Gregory, Manager, Service Planning, who will provide an update on the proposed October 2020 transit service changes and community outreach plan.

6. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current 5. For information Events

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

7. Next Meeting 7. For information

The next TMC meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.

Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Public Comment

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

COST AND BUDGET None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information.

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

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

ATTACHMENT None

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

Minutes March 25, 2020 AGENDA ITEM 2

Transit Management Committee Wednesday, March 4, 2020 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 11:00 a.m.

Members Not Present Aubree Perry, ADOT Reed Kempton, Maricopa County City of Tolleson

Chair Wright called the meeting to order at 11:54 a.m.

1. Public Comment

None.

2. Minutes

Chair Wright we will move on to Item Number 2 which is minutes of our February 5th, 2020, TMC meeting. Are there any comments or suggested he edits to the minutes? If not, I will take a motion to approve the minutes.

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

IT WAS MOVED BY STEVEN METHVIN, SECONDED BY JESUS SAPIEN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 5, 2020 TMC MEETING MINTUES.

3. Fuel for Paratransit Service

Chair Wright said the next Item Number 3 on our agenda is Fuel for Paratransit Service. This is an action item. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith said I think the memo's self-explanatory. Simply moving our fuel purchases from the contractor to the state contract which is -- provides us savings of about $120,000 a year. So we just need to increase the amount that's approved to buy from the state.

IT WAS MOVED BY SCOTT BUTLER, SECONDED BY JESUS SAPIEN AN UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO FORWARD TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZATION FOR THE CEO TO INCREASE THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS PURCHASE ORDER UNDER ARIZONA STATE CONTRACT FOR DIESEL AND UNLEADED FUEL BY $1,760,000 FOR A TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $7,260,000 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2021.

4. Valley Metro RPTA Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) Preliminary Operating and Capital Budget and Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY21 thru FY25)

Chair Wright said item Number 4 is Valley Metro RPTA Fiscal Year 2021 Preliminary Operating and Capital Budget and Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith said thank you. I'll introduce Paul Hodgins, our CFO.

Mr. Hodgins provided a presentation which included the following:

 Baseline: RPTA Operations (3 slides)  Uses of Funds: Operating and Capital (pie chart)  Sources of Funds: Operating and Capital (pie chart)  Uses of Funds: Operating (table)  Sources of Funds: Operating (table)  Uses of Funds: Capital (table)  Sources of Funds: Capital (table)  Pass-thru Funds: Uses (table)  Pass-thru Funds: Sources (table)  Operations and Maintenance Handout  RPTA/Shared Staff Changes from FY20 & 21

 Budget Schedule

Chair Wright said questions for Mr. Hodgins? I know I have a few as well. Mr. Hodgins, going back to the beginning of your presentation on some of your assumptions for passenger boardings. I just would hope you could explain a little better some of those numbers relative to what we just heard from Mr. Ziech about kind of overall national trends with decease boarding. I think we're looking at three and a half percent reduction from '18 to '19 so maybe you can kind of walk us through some of the logic behind your boardings projections here.

Mr. Hodgins said so we had been seeing some deceases in ridership over the past several years including fiscal '19. Fiscal '20 we're actually seeing kind of a levelling out for the most part nationally or maybe even small increases. We continue to see some decease, but I think a lot of that, and we have some preliminary information on some of the efforts we've done for managing the reduced fare abuse, I think some of the deceases we continue to see are related to those efforts we've reduced the number of passes sold and the number of uses on reduced fairs so in eliminating some of that abuse, we've basically eliminated some of that ridership.

So as we move forward though, we do expect the trend to be generally flat which is more consistent with what we're seeing currently nationally. The deceases had been really from, I think, about fiscal '14 or '15 through '19.

Chair Wright said okay. So if we're looking flat nationally, but these are upticks from what I can tell.

Mr. Hodgins said it's a very slight uptick. It's about a hundred thousand increase over, you know, this year's $14.2 million. It's, I mean, I would call that basically flat. There's a slight increase in the service that were delivered, number of service miles that maybe related to that.

Chair Wright said the other question I had and this -- this maybe more a question for you or for Mr. Smith, but especially as it relates to, you know, new hires, new positions. I know we've had this conversation before at the committee and there's been a number of positions added over the last several fiscal years, but I guess I'm looking for more some of that same type of comment about kind of philosophically where are we going with adding positions. I know, you know, we're all preparing our budgets right now as well within our organizations, our cities and I realize there's differences that are -- that are important, but, you know, we're looking out several years about sustainability of some of those positions and, obviously, with some of the – the challenges that -- that some of our boarding, you know, numbers have shown and some of our cost per mile.

I just want to make sure that we're really thinking through, are we going to be able to keep these positions? Are we going to be able to sustain them? Not just for the next

year when there's maybe an uptick in work, but further beyond that as well.

Mr. Smith said and I can tell you that those -- we have the same kind of discussions you have. We're obviously not in a growth mode -- from a passenger and our -- the mileage that we add is minor, but it's there. But we are also, I mean, Mr. Methvin brought up a – a good example of some of our service issues that we deal with, complaints and service quality.

And some of things that we are looking at supervisors, things that we think would have a direct impact on the quality of service that we provide maybe some areas where we believe we've been understaffed in the past and it's showing in some of our operational statistics. Those are -- those are -- when you see an increase especially on the bus side that's usually that plugging a gap or trying to improve a specific level where we see a weakness and if we add a position -- a certain position that might directly impact.

For example, the bus supervisor, we believe goes directly toward our ability to handle some of those complaints. Because, you know, how you -- most of our complaints, for example, deal with operator behavior and the ability to supervisor those operators. We found that we are lower than more -- speaking of peer systems. We're very low on some of the things as we manage the contract.

We don't -- we don't manage drivers directly. We manage a contract. And we find that we are actually in some areas -- in some cases, and I'm using this just as an example, we don't -- we have not had sufficient number of people birddogging that contract on a day-to-day basis so maybe that's why we'd add a person at a supervisory level. I just give you that as an example. But I'll let Paul talk a little bit more in detail about the -- the FTE process.

Mr. Hodgins said I would add to that that this is a -- we may not end up with this number. We have those same conversations internally about is this really needed? Some of the -- some of the positions I mentioned are really a direct result of internal audit findings where there's some lack of oversight perhaps. In fact, we're -- we'll be having a discussion tomorrow about these positions, about whether we can really sustain them, if they're really needed.

So you may see this change before the budget comes, but we -- we understand that we're not in the same growth. We're getting forwards the ends of Prop 400. We don't know what a Prop 400 Extension will look like yet. You know, what the focus of the agency will be so it – we are cognizant of that and we're not, you know, we're trying to limit staff growth to what's really needed, what we think there is a real need to ensure that – as I say, 85 percent of our budget is providing service and we want to ensure that we're providing the best service we can so if it's directly related to service such as oversight of contracts, you know, that probably has a higher precedence than some of the maybe more administrative, but we continue to have be those discussions, yeah. Mr. Methvin said I have one quick question. On slide number 9, Mr. Hodgins and I

recognize this might not be a question for you, but on the regional fleet replacement, is that -- yeah. There we go. Oh, it was 10. Thank you. On the regional fleet replacement, Tempe is moving close and closer to having a hundred percent of our fleet alternative fuel. Can we get at some point to -- maybe this for you Mr. Smith, a – at least for me or everyone on the board. What is our -- what is our strategy for getting closer to that? If that is what one of our goals are. I know in Tempe it is.

Mr. Smith said we're 92 percent right now, CNG alternative fuel. That's positive part of the Regional Clean Air Plan. There's a lot of talk about electric. We have looked at electric. We continue to look at it. We most recently in '17, I believe, actually had a electric bus manufacturer come out and do a test. We always have them show up in the last week in July to do these tests. We're having another one some in this July. Who wants to show us their electric buses. You know, State of California, for example, is mandated that transit systems by 2030 go all electric. I can tell you that in 2017 this bus manufacturer represented that that bus could run 220 miles. I think we got 72 miles out of it running full A/C. We have found that CNG works well for us. City of Phoenix is the same on CNG. We run very few diesel, I think some of our -- some of our -- some of the Orbits, for example, are -- are non-CNG.

We've tried to move to more of a CNG level. The only other alternative right now would be electric and what we've found is the technology is just not there to match our service model and our demands. It'll get there some day. The other thing is that moving to alternative fuels is very expensive. For example, a regular bus that you've seen is, what, Jesus, $700,000 The same one in electric bus before you even put charging is pushing $ 1 million. So it's very, very expensive to change over to some things. We look at it constantly. We're constantly monitoring. And we're constantly bombarded by manufacturers who are selling us on -- on the latest and greatest. That's how we're handling that -- that change and that's the realities of where we are. Jesus, you can add something to that if you -- if you want to.

Mr. Sapien said absolutely. Thank you. So several years ago we studied everything that was out there and that's when we made the move from LNG to CNG because that's kind of the way the onboard propulsion systems were going. And we would -- we took to our council and got approved a policy which is basically for the City of Phoenix fleet.It's 2/3 natural gas, 1/3 diesel and the reason we did that is because we don't want to marry ourselves to only one fuel type.

We all remember the Kinder Morgan pipeline break years ago where everyone was scrambling for fuel. So what we did was we basically said we want to have enough fleet of one or the other so that if we have an interruption of one fuel type, we can still run something like weekend-level service. And so that's why we took that forward and that's currently what we have. We have a 2/3 natural gas, 1/3 diesel, but we're running ultra-low-sulphur diesel so, you know, it qualifies for a lot of benefits there as well.

Mr. Smith said Jesus, if I could. Interesting thing. If you've been following in California, the PG&E brownouts that they've been having, their systems in northern California that have been completely shutdown because they've already gone to all electric buses and they were -- those buses were in the barns because they had no way to charge them. So a lot of considerations. Also a little interesting sidelight is that -- and we, by the way, we have another bus manufacturer coming in this July to give us an update on electric. We will continue to look at it. If you look at carbon footprint and we're all thinking of carbon. From -- on a lifecycle basis, from manufacturer 'til complete use, the CNG actually as good if not better carbon footprint then electric bus does because the manufacturing process and all that. So we feel very comfortable that what we have works for us and it also accomplishes a lot of the environmental goals that we want, clean air and things like that. And we haven't seen anything better come along. Not that we're not constantly looking at it.

Mr. Methvin said I think it's something that we should all be very proud of. I wonder – wonder if there's not opportunities to better share that message with those folks that we're trying to attract to our system in that -- that these are predominantly clean air vehicles.

Mr. Smith said they are very clean air operating vehicles.

Mr. Methvin said the only thing that made me think about this was just the previous item the on $1.7 million in fuel increase and then when I saw this I thought I wonder what our system is. So I think 92 percent is something to be very proud of, three quarters is something to be very proud of as well. And we should find opportunities and avenues to share that.

Mr. Smith said and we are a higher percentage on our buses than Phoenix is. We're almost 100 percent on our buses except for our circulators and vanpool and, of course, cutaways or paratransit. Those are all -- those are all diesel. But we're can constantly looking at it and we'd be more than happy to keep you updated and understand that -- that it is a -- it is a happening issue right now. One of those things though that we don't want to get the hype -- that's the problem we have -- that they have in California. The hype has really outstripped the technology and there's a lot of systems that are struggling with some expectations as it relates to electric which is the big thing on the table right now.

Mr. Sapien said we tested the latest and greatest electric bus Labor Day of last year. Also promised 200 plus miles and not only did we not get that, but it literally broke down on McDowell or Van Buren, I can't remember, one of our routes just because it couldn't handle the heat.

We do the same thing. We test them in the extremes and the technology's just not there yet I wish it was.

Mr. Smith said so the end of July, I think, Proterra's, coming through here to July so we'll invite you to come and ride with us on -- they're beautiful buses. They're really are nice. Quiet, smooth, but technology -- the battery technology just isn't there yet.

Chair Wright said are there any additional questions on this item? Comments? All right. Thank you so much Mr. Hodgins.

5. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

None.

Chair Wright said our next meeting will be Wednesday, April 1st at 11:00 a.m. And with that we'll adjourn this meeting. Thanks very much.

With no further discussion the meeting adjourned at 12:16 p.m.

Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3A March 25, 2020

SUBJECT TDM/Commute Solutions Software Platform Contract Award

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a three-year base contract with two, one-year options with RideAmigos for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) software solution supporting Commute Solutions’ ShareTheRide.com platform for $370,500 plus a contract contingency of $37,050 for a total contract value of $407,550.

COST AND BUDGET The RideAmigos contract for approval has a total term of up to five years (three-year base plus two, one-year options). For the total term, the award is $370,500 plus a contract contingency of $37,050 for a total of $407,550.

For Fiscal Year 2020, the RPTA contract obligation is $40,375, which is fully funded within the Valley Metro Adopted FY20 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract obligations beyond FY20 are incorporated into the Valley Metro RPTA Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY20 through FY25).

The cost for this software is entirely funded by MAG and Maricopa County grants and vanpool user fees. Specifically: • Regional Rideshare and Telework Grant Agreement • Trip Reduction Program Expansion Grant Agreement • Regional Vanpool Program

No Proposition 400 funding is utilized as part of this service.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute a three-year base contract with two, one-year options with RideAmigos for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) software solution supporting Commute Solutions’ ShareTheRide.com platform for a total of $407,550.

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION Valley Metro Commute Solutions assists employers in the Maricopa County Travel Reduction Program (TRP), as well as the public, in finding commuting alternatives to driving alone.

A key element of this program is ShareTheRide.com. ShareTheRide is Valley Metro’s free, online commute-matching system. The tool connects Maricopa County commuters to a secure matching platform that displays carpooling, vanpooling, transit and/or bicycle options. The homepage of ShareTheRide includes links to additional information for various modes. For commuters, in addition to creating commute matches, the new and enhanced system will:

• Manage online contests and challenges to reward alternative mode users • Offer gamification and a user-friendly mobile app • Calculate pollution, fuel, and financial savings from alternative mode use • Provide results and reporting on an individual or aggregated basis • Provide real-time information on traffic, transit routes and more

ShareTheRide also allows companies to manage their TRPs online, streamlining tracking efforts. Employers can manage their internal TRP contests and obtain reports of their employees using ShareTheRide and alternative modes. Employers can also create ShareTheRide accounts for employees without internet access.

In 2009, the Board authorized the CEO to enter into a contract with RideShark to implement, host, maintain and administer the current ride-matching software program supporting ShareTheRide.com. The current service will expire on June 30, 2020.

In November 2019, Valley Metro issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) with the goal of replacing the legacy software system’s web and mobile applications and to meet existing gaps and future growth opportunities as customers’ needs evolve and new mobility services emerge.

The RFP included the following technical and price evaluation criteria:

Evaluation Criteria Functional Requirements 40% Implementation Plan and Timeline 20% Qualifications and Experience 20% Pricing 20% TOTAL POSSIBLE SCORE 100%

On December 10, 2019, three proposals were received from the following firms: the incumbent RideShark, RideAmigos and Trapeze.

An evaluation committee consisting of Valley Metro, City of Tempe Transportation Division, Maricopa County Air Quality Travel Reduction and Outreach, as well as technical staff from these respective agencies, was appointed to evaluate proposals, establish a competitive range and select the proposer to receive the contract award.

The evaluation committee concluded its evaluation by reaching a consensus and unanimously recommending award to RideAmigos for their proposed TDM solution.

Proposers Score Rank RideAmigos 925 1 Trapeze 887 2 RideShark 724 3

The RideAmigos platform offers significant, untapped opportunities, including real time information, a matching system that is truly multi-modal, a robust mobile application, corridor incentivizing, special event transportation options and the opportunity to build more customizable sub-sites for employers. It also provides ongoing user academy and learning opportunities that Valley Metro can share with employers in the program.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020: • Goal 1: Increase customer focus • Goal 2: Advance performance based operation • Goal 3: Grow transit ridership

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: March 17, 2020 for information TMC: April 1, 2020 for action Board: April 16, 2020 for action

CONTACTS Abigail Cooksey-Williams Manager, Transportation Demand Management/Commute Solutions 602.262.7433 [email protected]

Hillary Foose Director, Communications & Strategic Initiatives 602.262.7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3B March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Accessible Content Coordination Services Contract Award

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a two-year cooperative agreement under Knowledge Services for accessible content coordination services for an amount not to exceed $225,000.

COST AND BUDGET The Knowledge Services cooperative agreement for approval has a total term of two years. For the total term, the award cost is $225,000.

For Fiscal Year 2020, the RPTA contract obligation is $25,000, which is fully funded within the Valley Metro Adopted FY20 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract obligations beyond FY20 are incorporated into the Valley Metro RPTA Five-Year Operating and Capital Forecast (FY20 through FY24).

The source of funding is regional Public Transportation Funds.

See below for budget allocations by year.

Purchase Vendor Contract Cost Accessible Content Knowledge State Contract: $225,000 Coordinator Services ADSPO17-174599 FY 2020 Total $25,000 FY 2021 Total $100,000 FY 2022 Total $100,000

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO execute a two-year cooperative agreement under Knowledge Services for accessible content coordination services for an amount not to exceed $225,000.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION Accessible Content Coordinators are professionals trained to ensure websites, mobile applications, eLearning modules, documents and videos comply with federal agency Section 508 and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (or WCAG) 2.0 requirements.

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

This service creates a more accessible, online user experience, particularly for people with disabilities.

Based on local and federal legal requirements for accessible content, Valley Metro began using the services of Knowledge Services to make our website/trip planner, online documents, marketing materials, customer forms, etc. more accessible. There is an ongoing need for this service to ensure accessibility compliance for all users.

The accessible content coordination services are procured from Knowledge Services utilizing a cooperative contract awarded by the Arizona State Procurement Office. Purchasing under a cooperative contract saves Valley Metro resources due to the simplified acquisition process, the cooperative purchasing power of multiple agencies and the use of terms and conditions that have previously been negotiated.

The proposed cost is based on approximately 2,000 hours per year to support the needs of the agency. This service is particularly utilized by Accessible Transit, Marketing and IT, but is available as a resource across the organization.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: March 17, 2020 for information TMC: April 1, 2020 for action Board of Directors: April 16, 2020 for action

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan, FY 2016 – 2020: • Goal 1: Increase customer focus • Goal 3: Grow transit ridership

CONTACTS Moriah Bedient Interim Marketing Manager 602.262.7433 [email protected]

Hillary Foose Director, Communications & Strategic Initiatives 602.262.7433 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

Information Summary DATE AGENDA ITEM 3C March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Manufacture and Delivery of 30 Ft. Heavy Duty Circulator Buses Contract Award

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract with Gillig, LLC for the purchase of 30 ft. heavy duty circulator buses in an amount not to exceed $15,565,802

COST AND BUDGET The cost for the base quanity of 17 buses and optional quantity of 14 buses is included in the chart below:

Fiscal Bus Fuel Qty. Length Mfg. Base Price Total Year Type Type FY 21 17 30 ft. Std. CNG Gillig $468,946 $7,972,082

FY 22 14 Optional Bus Orders Gillig $475,980 $6,663,720

Optional Components Gillig $30,000 $930,000

Total 31 $15,565,802

The above chart is based on the current bus specifications and may change based on the final requirements of the pending bus build with Gillig. Any cost increases will be determined once a notice to proceed has been issued to the vendor and all optional equipment has been identified to place the vehicle into revenue service.

All buses are included in the RPTA Proposed FY21 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract obligations beyond FY21 are included in the RPTA Proposed Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY2022 thru FY2026).

All buses are funded with a combination of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds and Regional Proposition 400 funds.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute a contract with Gillig, LLC for the purchase of 30 ft. heavy duty circulator buses in an amount not to exceed $15,565,802.

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION In January 2019, the Valley Metro Board of Directors authorized the CEO to issue a competitive solicitation for the purchase of medium and/or heavy-duty buses for neighborhood circulator service operated by Valley Metro. On September 6, 2019, Valley Metro issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) solicitation with solutions due on November 13, 2019. A total of eight proposals were received from the following three bus manufacturers: • Gillig, LLC (proposed 1 bus type) • Creative Bus Sales (proposed 5 different bus types) • Alliance Bus Group (proposed 2 different bus types)

As part of the evaluation process, technically responsive vendors were required to present their proposed bus for review by the selection committee. This presentation consisted of a static walk around review, an on the rack visual review and a test-drive of the bus. The evaluation committee, which consisted of Valley Metro staff members as well as representatives from Tempe, Mesa, and Arizona State University identified three bus types that could meet the performance and technical requirements outlined in the solicitation. Following the bus demonstrations, the evaluation committee short-listed the selection to two buses and conducted Best and Final Offers (BAFO) with these two vendors.

Final evaluations resulted in the following scores and recommendation:

Proposers by Points and Rank Order Proposer Technical Points Price Points Total Points Ranking Gillig, LLC 635 250 885 1 Creative Bus Sales 618 197 815 2

The results of the technical review, price points and bus demonstrations resulted in Gillig, LLC scoring the highest in both technical and price. As a result, staff recommends awarding this contract to Gillig, LLC.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item relates to the following goals and strategies in the Five-Year Strategic Plan FY 2016 – 2020: • Goal 1: Advance performance-based operations

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: March 17, 2020 for information TMC: April 1, 2020 for action Board of Directors: April 16, 2020 for action

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

ATTACHMENT None

Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3D March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) Amendment with Arizona State University (ASU) for Autonomous Vehicle Research and Analysis PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute an IGA amendment between Valley Metro and ASU to allow more time for ASU to complete its analysis of the autonomous vehicle pilot. COST AND BUDGET No additional project cost – time extension only RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Board of Directors authorize the CEO to execute an IGA Amendment to 2018-TOMNET (task order) number SPA00002258, to extend the period of performance to December 30, 2020 to coincide with the federal grant period of performance. BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION Valley Metro executed the IGA with ASU In April of 2019. The current task order expires April 30, 2020. ASU’s role is to undertake a number of tasks to address key research questions and collect, archive and analyze data to obtain insights about the behavioral impacts and operational aspects of Autonomous Vehicle MOD services. In order to finish this project, the period of performance will need an extension. COMMITTEE ACTION RTAG: March 17, 2020 for information TMC/RMC: April 1, 2020 for action Board of Directors: April 16, 2020 for action CONTACT Jim Hillyard Chief Administrative Officer 602-495-8234 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433 Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 4 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Purchase of Replacement Vehicles for Regional Paratransit Service

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to purchase up to 25 Ford Transit vans from Creative Bus Sales under ADOA Contract ADSPO16-1027 at combined federal and local cost not to exceed $1.75 million for the Valley Metro regional paratransit program.

COST AND BUDGET Paratransit vehicles are eligible for 80% federal funding. Staff is working with the Maricopa Association of Governments to program $1.4 million in federal funding for these replacement vehicles. The 20% local match will utilize PTF funding requested in the FY 2021 budget. Costs are allocated between cities in proportion to the miles of regional paratransit operated in each jurisdiction during FY 2020. For FY 2021, the total local match is anticipated to be $344,000.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the TMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to purchase up to 25 Ford Transit vans from Creative Bus Sales under ADOA Contract ADSPO16-1027 at combined federal and local cost not to exceed $1.75 million for the Valley Metro regional paratransit program.

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION Since July 2012, Valley Metro has not owned any paratransit fleet. From 2012 to 2017, paratransit service was provided by taxicabs. In July 2017, Transdev began operating paratransit service under the current contract which required Transdev to provided dedicated vehicles. The cost of those vehicles was amortized over the life of each vehicle as a part of cost per trip. In July 2017, Transdev purchased a fleet of 51 wheelchair accessible Dodge Caravans (one wheelchair position per vehicle) with a three-year lifespan and 54 traditional wide-body cutaway paratransit vans (three wheelchair positions per vehicle) with five-year lifespans. The Caravans will reach their normal end of life on July 1, 2020. The wide-body cutaways will reach the end of their normal useful life on July 1, 2022.

In 2018, Valley Metro amended its contract with Transdev to address shortcomings in the original solicitation’s trip number and length forecasts. To reduce the cost of the contract, Valley Metro took on replacement of the paratransit vehicles. As these

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433 vehicles are eligible for federal funds when purchased directly by Valley Metro, this shift reduces the locally funded cost of replacing 104 vehicles by $2.8 million. The amendment requires replacement vehicles continue to be operated and maintained by Transdev.

Staff recommends replacing the current fleet of 104 vehicles over the course of four years starting with the 25 vehicles authorized by this action in FY 2021. Staff further recommends replacing both the current Caravans and cutaway vehicles with Ford Transit paratransit vehicles. The advantages of these vehicles are: • Ford Transits have a lower five-year total cost of ownership than the Caravans or the cutaways, due to longer lifespan than Caravans and better gas mileage than cutaways. Transits save: o $2,660 per vehicle versus Caravans o $47,280 per vehicle versus cutaway • The Transit’s five-year lifespan allows Valley Metro to replace 20% of the fleet each year smoothing capital costs from year to year. • The Transit’s three wheelchair capacity allows for more shared trips. This may result in the need for fewer vehicles. • Fleet uniformity simplifies maintenance and scheduling. • The Transit is more maneuverable than the current cutaway and provides a smoother ride for passengers.

While this board action only authorizes the replacement of 25 vehicles in FY 2021, the anticipated five-year scheduled is shown below:

FY 2025 and FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 beyond

Purchase Ford Transits 25 ≤26 27 27 ≤21

Caravans Retained 51 0 0 0 0

Cutaways Retained 54 54 27 0 0

Ford Transits Retained 0 25 ≤51 ≤78 ≤84 Capital Outlay ($FY20)1 $1.723M ≤$1.792M $1.860M $1.860M $1.446M 20% Local Match ($FY20) $0.344M ≤$0.358M $0.372M $0.372M $0.289M Available Fleet Vehicles 130 ≤105 ≤105 ≤105 ≤105 Note: To facilitate the transition to a five-year replacement schedule, Caravans will be retained in FY 2021 and Cutaways in FY 2022 to provide the required number of vehicles.

1 Valley Metro is working with Creative Bus Sales on final specifications for the vehicles. In addition, as the State contract expires in FY 2021, some inflation should be assumed for FY 2022 – FY 2025. These factors will likely result in modest changes in the estimated annual costs prior to presentation to TMC/RMC.

The FY 2021 purchase will utilize the state of Arizona’s competitively procured cooperative contract for Ford Transits vans. The state’s contract was procured for the purchase of large quantities vehicles and therefore provides more competitive pricing than Valley Metro could secure on its own. The state contract expires in August 2020 but may be extended or rebid by the State. Valley Metro will determine an appropriate procurement vehicle prior to requesting authorization for the remaining vans.

After the first 25 Dodge Caravans are replaced, Valley Metro will evaluate the impact the Transit’s greater capacity has on the total number of vehicles needed for future purchases.

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: March17, 2020 for information TMC: April 1, 2020 for action Board: April 16, 2020 for action

CONTACT Jim Hillyard Chief Administrative Officer 602-495-8234 [email protected]

ATTACHMENT None

Information Summary DATE AGENDA ITEM 5 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Proposed October 2020 Service Changes

PURPOSE To provide an update on the proposed October 2020 transit service changes and community outreach plan.

COST AND BUDGET The estimated costs of the proposed service changes and adjustments are still under evaluation. Once the list of service changes is finalized, staff will define the impact on bus service operating contracts and member agency Intergovernmental Agreements.

RECOMMENDATION This item is for information only.

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION Transit service changes are scheduled twice each year in April and October. In preparation for these service change dates, Valley Metro staff works closely with the Service Planning Working Group (SPWG), comprising representatives from Valley Metro member agencies, to determine needed changes and to coordinate across jurisdictions; the SPWG meets monthly. The changes work in coordination with the five-year Short Range Transit Program (SRTP) as well as the Board-adopted Transit Standards and Performance Measures (TSPM) performance quartiles.

Changes have been proposed and continue to be discussed with the SPWG. Valley Metro staff is analyzing the proposed route changes in terms of the Board-adopted TSPM, Title VI impacts, defining possible fleet needs and all costs involved. The following is a preliminary list of all changes currently being analyzed for possible modification. Included are changes proposed to Valley Metro operated and/or funded services and those operated and/or funded by other jurisdictions. More information about each potential route change will be provided on the Valley Metro website throughout the public outreach process. Overall the proposed changes include route additions, route modifications, service optimization and schedule adjustments.

Proposed Route and Schedule Changes: • Route 27 – 27th Ave: Increase peak frequency to 15 minutes between Van Buren and Thunderbird. • Route 41 – Indian School: Match Phoenix service span expansion 5AM-Midnight Weekdays and Weekends. • Route 77 – Baseline Rd: Increase peak frequency to 15 minutes between 51st Ave and Dobson Rd. • Route 136 – Gilbert Rd: Extend evening service weekdays and Saturdays to Chandler. • Route 170 – Bell: Increase peak frequency to 15 minutes between 35th Ave and Tatum.

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

• Route Earth – Orbit Earth: Rerouting to serve new developments in the area of Rural Rd./Playa del Norte Dr. • FLASH – Change routing to McAllister rather than Mill, and eliminate the loop east of Rural.

Public Outreach Valley Metro is conducting community outreach beginning in April to notify the public and solicit input on the proposed service changes. Comments will be accepted from 5/4/2020-06/05/2020. Customers can provide feedback through the following channels: • On-site region-wide information sessions (based on service change impacts) • Webinar (May 14, 2020) • Social media • Via email at [email protected] • Public hearing (May 19, 2020)

Valley Metro communicates these input opportunities through newspaper advertising (30 days in advance – English and Spanish publications), news release(s), website, email, social media, city publications and targeted outreach at key locations.

Following the public review process and final review by the Service Planning Working Group, proposed service changes operated and/or funded by Valley Metro will be brought before the Board for action. This will include any actions necessary to adjust affected transit service operating contracts and Intergovernmental Agreements with member agencies.

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This item addresses three goals in the Board-adopted FY16-20 Strategic Plan: • Goal 1: Increase customer focus • Goal 2: Advance performance based operations • Goal 3: Grow transit ridership

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: March 17, 2020 for information TMC: April 1, 2020 for information Board of Directors: April 16, 2020 for information

ATTACHMENT None

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

Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 5 February 26, 2020

SUBJECT Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

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

COST AND BUDGET None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION None

STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

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

ATTACHMENT None

Pending Items Request

Item Requested Date Requested Planned Follow-up Date

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

Agenda March 25, 2020

Rail Management Committee Wednesday, April 1, 2020 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 11:00 a.m. Action Recommended

1. Public Comment (blue card) 1. For Information

2. Minutes 2. For action

Minutes from the March 4, 2020 RMC meeting are presented for approval. 3. Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Seat Refurbishment 3. For action Contract Award

Scott Smith, CEO, will introduce Ray Abraham, Chief Operations Officer, who will request that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute a contract with American Seating Company for the purchase of seat inserts to complete a fleet wide LRV seat refurbishment in an amount not to exceed $264,200.

4. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current 4. For information Events

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

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

5. Next Meeting 6. For information

The next meeting of the RMC is scheduled for Wednesday, May 6, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.

Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 1 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Public Comment

COST AND BUDGET None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION None

COMMITTEE PROCESS None

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

ATTACHMENT None

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

Minutes DATE AGEDNA ITEM 2 March 25, 2020

Rail Management Committee Wednesday, March 4, 2020 Lake Powell Conference Room 101 N. 1st Avenue, 10th Floor 11:00 a.m.

Rail Management Committee Participants Steven Methvin, City of Tempe (Chair) Jodi Sorrell for Chris Brady, City of Mesa (Vice Chair) Jesus Sapien for Ed Zuercher, City of Phoenix Josh Wright, City of Chandler

Chair Methvin called the meeting to order at 12:16 p.m.

1. Public Comment

None.

2. Minutes

Chair Methvin said minutes Item Number 2, the minutes. From the February 5th, 2020, RMC meeting. Do you have a motion and a second?

IT WAS MOVED BY JOSH WRIGHT, SECONDED BY JESUS SAPIEN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE FEBRUARY 5, 2020 RMC MEETING MINUTES.

3. Consent Agenda

Item Number 3, the consent agenda. I have two items on the consent agenda, the bus passthrough grant change orders and OMC expansion joint project agreement with ADOT. Any questions for staff on either of those items?

IT WAS MOVED BY JOSH WRIGHT, SECONDED BY JESUS SAPIEN AND UNANIMOUSLY CARRIED TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

4. Valley Metro Rail, Inc. Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) Premilitary Operating and Capital Budget and Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY21 thru FY25

Mr. Smith said and we'll turn it over to Paul.

Mr. Hodgins provided a presentation which included:

 Baseline: Light Rail Operations  Baseline: Streetcar Operations  LRT Capital Project Schedule  Uses of Funds: Project Development  Uses of Funds: Operating and Capital (pie chart)  Sources of Funds: Operating and Capital (pie chart)  Uses of Funds: Operating (table)  Sources of Funds: Operating (table)  Uses of Funds: Capital (table)  Sources of Funds: Capital (table)  Operations and Maintenance Handout  VMR Only Staff Changes from FY20 to FY21  Budget Schedule

Mr. Methvin said any questions for Mr. Hodgins?

Ms. Sorrell said just out of curiosity, the ACI contract, how much does that generally increase each year? Like, three percent? Five percent?

Mr. Hodgins said I think generally it's a three percent increase as an overall, but one of the things that we've seen with ACI is that they have pretty high retention of operators. So as we don't see tenured operators at the higher rate leaving, hiring someone at the lower rate, they just -- all of the operators are staying and the average rate just keeps moving up. We don't have that turnover which is also impacting. So they get kind of a three percent cost of living plus there's this overall increase because of the retention.

5. Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

None.

Chair Methvin said the next meeting is April 1, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.

With no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:26 p.m.

Information Summary

DATE AGENDA ITEM 3 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) Seat Refurbishment Contract Award

PURPOSE To request authorization for the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to execute a contract with American Seating Company for the purchase of seat inserts to complete a fleet wide LRV seat refurbishment in an amount not to exceed $264,200.

COST AND BUDGET The cost for the LRV seat refurbishment is $264,200 which includes all freight costs. The cost for the LRV seat refurbishment is included in the Valley Metro Rail Adopted FY 2020 Operating and Capital Budget. Contract obligations beyond FY2020 are incorporated into the Valley Metro Rail Five-Year Operating Forecast and Capital Program (FY2020 thru FY2024).

The source of funding is from member cities.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the RMC forward to the Board of Directors authorization for the CEO to execute a contract with American Seating Company for the purchase of seat inserts to complete a fleet wide LRV seat refurbishment in an amount not to exceed $264,200.

BACKGROUND | DISCUSSION | CONSIDERATION The current age of the light rail vehicles is 11 years in revenue service. There are currently 50 light rail vehicles (LRVs) in the total fleet. The current LRV fleet has cushioned upholstered seats and Valley Metro changes the upholstery on worn and damaged seat backs and bottoms regularly. Valley Metro wishes to replace the upholstered seats with a form fitted fiberglass/plastic seat. This will be a one-time project for the entire LRV fleet. Reasons for the change to the plastic seats are as follows:

• Easier to clean and sanitize • Customers will be able to identify a spill easier on a seat as compared to upholstered seats • Will not require reupholstering

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433

• The seats will last through the remaing life of the vehicle unless a seat gets damaged.

The recommended vendor to purchase the seat inserts from is American Seating Company and is a sole source procurement due to the company being the original equipment manufacturer (OEM). They are the owners of the seat drawings and we have no ability to reproduce in order to get the correct specifications for any new supplier to design the seats to those specific design features. They have provided the first two LRVs with a proto-type which has worked well.

The purpose of the refurbishment is to keep the equipment in a state of good repair and to maintain safe and reliable operation. This is consistent with the approved Transit Asset Management (TAM) Plan.

An independent cost estimate including a cost comparison and price analysis have been completed. The proposed price has been deemed fair and reasonable based on the price analysis.

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

COMMITTEE PROCESS RTAG: March 17, 2020 for information RMC: April 1, 2020 for action Board of Directors: April 16, 2020 for action

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

ATTACHMENTS None

Information Summary DATE AGENDA ITEM 4 March 25, 2020

SUBJECT Future Agenda Items Request and Report on Current Events

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

COST AND BUDGET None

RECOMMENDATION This item is presented for information only.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION None

COMMITTEE ACTION None

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

ATTACHMENT None

Pending Items Request

Item Requested Date Requested Planned Follow-up Date

Valley Metro I 101 N. 1st Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85003 602.262.7433