Agenda - Monterey-Salinas Transit
Agenda - Monterey-Salinas Transit
Agenda - Monterey-Salinas Transit
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Board of Directors Regular Meeting<br />
Monday, March 19, 2012<br />
MST Conference Room<br />
One Ryan Ranch Road, <strong>Monterey</strong><br />
10:00 a.m.<br />
TRANSPORTATION: Ride Line 8 Ryan Ranch-Edgewater to MST Office<br />
1. CALL TO ORDER<br />
1-1. Roll call.<br />
1-2. Pledge of Allegiance.<br />
2. CONSENT AGENDA<br />
2-1. Review highlights of <strong>Agenda</strong>. (Carl Sedoryk)<br />
These items will be approved by a single motion. Anyone may request<br />
that an item be discussed and considered separately.<br />
2-2. Adopt Resolution 2012-17 recognizing Rosemary Bayles, Human<br />
Resources Generalist, as Employee of the Month for February, 2012.<br />
(Kelly Halcon) (pg. 1)<br />
2-3. Adopt Resolution 2012-19 recognizing Richard Meza, Coach Operator, as<br />
Employee of the Month for March, 2012. (Robert Weber) (pg. 3)<br />
2-4. Disposal of property left aboard buses. (Sonia Bannister) (pg. 5)<br />
2-5. Minutes of the regular meeting of February 13, 2012. (Deanna Smith)<br />
(pg. 7)<br />
2-6. Financial Report – January, 2012. (Kathy Williams) (pg. 15)<br />
2-7. Minutes from Public Hearing, <strong>Salinas</strong>, February 4, 2012. (Deanna Smith)<br />
(pg. 23)
2-8. Minutes from Public Hearing, Carmel, February 6, 2012. (Deanna Smith)<br />
(pg. 27)<br />
2-9. Minutes from Public Hearing, Seaside, February 8, 2012. (Deanna Smith)<br />
(pg. 31)<br />
2-10. Minutes from Public Hearing, Prunedale, February 9, 2012.<br />
(Deanna Smith) (pg. 35)<br />
2-11. 2011 Community Stakeholder Survey. (Zoe Shoats) (pg. 37)<br />
2-12. Purchase One Replacement Engine. (Michael Hernandez) (pg. 43)<br />
End of Consent <strong>Agenda</strong><br />
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS<br />
3-1. February Employee of the Month – Rosemary Bayles, Human Resources<br />
Generalist. (Kelly Halcon)<br />
3-2. March Employee of the Month – Richard Meza, Coach Operator. (Robert<br />
Weber)<br />
3-3. Donation of Vehicle from Gil’s Basketball Academy. (Carl Sedoryk)<br />
3-4. Presentation by Majic Consulting: “Onboard Passenger Survey and Attitude<br />
and Awareness (Non-Rider Telephone) Survey” (Zoe Shoats) (pg. 45)<br />
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA<br />
Members of the public may address the Board on any matter related to the<br />
jurisdiction of MST but not on the agenda. There is a time limit of not more<br />
than three minutes for each speaker. The Board will not take action or<br />
respond immediately to any public comments presented, but may choose<br />
to follow-up at a later time, either individually, through staff, or on a<br />
subsequent agenda.<br />
5. COMMITTEE REPORTS<br />
No action required unless specifically noted.<br />
5-1 Finance Committee Minutes from February 13, 2012. (Deanna Smith)<br />
(pg. 49)<br />
6. BIDS/PROPOSALS<br />
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS<br />
8-1 Adopt Accessible Taxicab Distribution Policy. (Tom Hicks) (pg. 53)<br />
8-2 Adopt MST Bylaw changes re: election of officers, Article VI (b).<br />
(Carl Sedoryk) (pg. 59)<br />
9. NEW BUSINESS<br />
9-1 Authorize adding discounts for residential complexes serving the elderly<br />
and disabled to the Group Discount Program. (Zoe Shoats) (pg. 67)<br />
10. REPORTS & INFORMATION ITEMS<br />
The Board will receive and file these reports, which do not require any<br />
action by the Board.<br />
10-1. General Manager/CEO Report – January, 2012. (pg. 69)<br />
10-2. TAMC Highlights – February, 2012. (pg. 119)<br />
10-3. Washington D. C. Lobbyist report – February, 2012. (pg. 123)<br />
10-4. State Lobbyist report – February, 2012. (pg. 125)<br />
10-5. Staff trip reports. (pg. 127)<br />
10-6. Correspondence. (pg. 129)<br />
11. COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS<br />
11-1. Reports on meetings attended by Board members at MST expense<br />
(AB1234).<br />
12. ATTACHMENTS<br />
12-1 Disbursement Journal for January, 2012. (pg. 135)<br />
13. ANNOUNCEMENTS<br />
14. CLOSED SESSION<br />
As permitted by Government Code §64956 et seq. of the State of California, the Board<br />
of Directors may adjourn to Closed Session to consider specific matters dealing with<br />
personnel and/or pending possible litigation and/or conferring with the Board's Meyers-<br />
Milias-Brown Act representative.<br />
14-1 Conference with property negotiators, Gov. Code § 54956.8. (Parcel #<br />
APN 032-171-005, L.2.3, L.2.4.1, L.2.4.2, APN 031-011-056-000). Agency
negotiator, Carl Sedoryk. Negotiating party, <strong>Monterey</strong> County<br />
Redevelopment Agency. (No enclosure) (Carl Sedoryk)<br />
14-2 Conference with Legal Counsel-Litigation, Existing Litigation, Gov. Code §<br />
54956.9(a). Landwatch v. County of <strong>Monterey</strong>. (<strong>Monterey</strong> Superior Court<br />
Case No. M113552). (No enclosure) (Carl Sedoryk)<br />
14-3. Conference with Legal Counsel-Litigation, Existing Litigation, Gov.<br />
Code § 54956.9(a). ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino Technologies<br />
Limited, Plaintiffs, v. <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> Corporation,<br />
Defendant (CV 12 0990), an action filed in U.S. District Court for<br />
the Northern District of California (San Francisco). (No enclosure)<br />
(Carl Sedoryk)<br />
14-4 General Manager Performance Evaluation, Gov. Code § 54957 (b) - (No<br />
enclosure) (K. Halcon)<br />
15. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION<br />
15-1. Report on Closed Session and possible action.<br />
16. ADJOURN<br />
NEXT MEETING DATE: April 9, 2012 in MST Conference Room.<br />
NEXT AGENDA DEADLINE: March 27, 2012<br />
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of<br />
the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong><br />
Administration office at 1 Ryan Ranch Road, <strong>Monterey</strong>, CA during normal business<br />
hours.<br />
Upon request, MST will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative<br />
formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or<br />
services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please<br />
send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief<br />
description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or<br />
service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to Deanna Smith,<br />
MST, One Ryan Ranch Road, <strong>Monterey</strong>, CA 93940 or dsmith@mst.org.
<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> Corporation<br />
Board of Directors Regular Meeting<br />
March 19, 2012<br />
MST Conference Room<br />
One Ryan Ranch Road, <strong>Monterey</strong><br />
Immediately following regular meeting of MST Board of Directors.<br />
TRANSPORTATION: Ride Line 8 Ryan Ranch-Edgewater to MST Office<br />
1. CALL TO ORDER<br />
1-1. Roll call.<br />
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA<br />
Members of the public may address the Board on any matter related to the jurisdiction of<br />
MST but not on the agenda. There is a time limit of not more than three minutes for each<br />
speaker. The Board will not take action or respond immediately to any public comments<br />
presented, but may choose to follow-up at a later time, either individually, through staff,<br />
or on a subsequent agenda.<br />
3. CLOSED SESSION<br />
As permitted by Government Code §64956 et seq. of the State of California, the<br />
Board of Directors may adjourn to Closed Session to consider specific matters<br />
dealing with personnel and/or pending possible litigation and/or conferring with<br />
the Board's Meyers-Milias-Brown Act representative.<br />
3-1 Conference with Legal Counsel-Litigation, Existing Litigation, Gov. Code §<br />
54956.9(a). ArrivalStar S.A. and Melvino Technologies Limited, Plaintiffs,<br />
v. <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> Corporation, Defendant (CV 12 0990), an<br />
action filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San<br />
Francisco). (No enclosure) (Carl Sedoryk)<br />
4. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION<br />
4-1 Report on Closed Session and possible action.
5. ADJOURN<br />
Upon request, MST will provide written agenda materials in appropriate<br />
alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation,<br />
including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to<br />
participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including<br />
your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the<br />
requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or<br />
service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to<br />
Deanna Smith, MST, One Ryan Ranch Road, <strong>Monterey</strong>, CA 93940 or<br />
dsmith@mst.org
1<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 2-2<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
ROSEMARY BAYLES<br />
FEBRUARY 2012<br />
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH<br />
WHEREAS, each month <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> recognizes an outstanding employee<br />
as Employee of the Month; and<br />
WHEREAS, the Employee of the Month is recognized for their positive contribution to<br />
MST and to the entire community; and<br />
WHEREAS, Rosemary Bayles began her career with MST as a Human Resources<br />
Generalist in August of 2010. In her first year, Rose has helped in creating new efficient, stream<br />
lined processes within the Human Resources Department; and<br />
WHEREAS, Rosemary Bayles re-vamped the Leaves of Absences processes by auditing<br />
files and developing a database to track the leaves. She established a protocol of keeping in touch<br />
with employees and obtaining timely status updates. These new processes bridged the gap<br />
between employees, payroll and the department supervisors; and<br />
WHEREAS, Rosemary Bayles assisted and led the recruitment efforts in filling over 30<br />
vacant or newly created positions in 2011. She was instrumental in creating a new assessment for<br />
mechanic applicants and developing new recruitment guidelines when working with hiring<br />
managers. These tactics have led to finding the right applicant for the positions; and<br />
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
<strong>Transit</strong> recognizes Rosemary Bayles as Employee of the Month for February 2012; and<br />
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Rosemary Bayles is to be congratulated for her<br />
excellent work at <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong>.<br />
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT<br />
PASSED AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2012-17 this 19 th day of March 2012.<br />
_______________________ _____________________<br />
Fernando Armenta Carl G. Sedoryk<br />
Chairman Secretary
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
2
3<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 2-3<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
Richard meza<br />
march 2012<br />
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH<br />
WHEREAS, each month <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> recognizes an outstanding employee<br />
as Employee of the Month; and<br />
WHEREAS, the Employee of the Month is recognized for their positive contribution to<br />
MST and to the entire community; and<br />
WHEREAS, Richard Meza began his career as a Coach Operator with <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
<strong>Transit</strong> in June of 2009; and<br />
WHEREAS, Richard Meza was recently recognized for two years of consecutive safe<br />
driving. He is safe, on-time, and continues to provide a high level of customer service; and<br />
WHEREAS, Richard Meza recently finished working six months within the Operations<br />
Department as a Temporary Operations Supervisor providing added support in Operations when<br />
needed most. Many employees have been very positive in their comments with respect to his<br />
level of cooperation and professionalism while he served in that role; and<br />
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
<strong>Transit</strong> recognizes Richard Meza as Employee of the Month for March 2012; and<br />
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Richard Meza is to be congratulated for his<br />
excellent work at <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong>.<br />
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT<br />
PASSED AND ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2012-19 this 19 th day of March 2012.<br />
_______________________ _______________________<br />
Fernando Armenta Carl G. Sedoryk<br />
Chairman Secretary
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
4
To: Board of Directors<br />
From: Sonia Bannister, Office Administrator<br />
Subject: Disposal of unclaimed property left on bus<br />
St. Vincent de Paul (Seaside)<br />
5<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 2-4<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
2 water bottles 1 apron 1 make up bag<br />
2 sunglasses 1 head phone 1 scarf<br />
2 caps 1 lunch box<br />
1 book 2 backpacks<br />
1 jacket 3 cell phones<br />
To be disposed<br />
2 backpacks 2 credit cards<br />
1 lunch bag 1 hat<br />
1 water bottle 2 notebooks<br />
2 keys<br />
MST makes an attempt to contact the owners of Lost and Found items. If the items are<br />
unclaimed after 30 days, they are added to the above list.
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
6
7<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 2-5<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
BOARD OF DIRECTORS<br />
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING<br />
MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT<br />
February 13, 2012<br />
1. CALL TO ORDER<br />
Chair Armenta called the meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. in the MST Conference Room<br />
and Director Clark led the Pledge of Allegiance.<br />
Present: Fernando Armenta County of <strong>Monterey</strong><br />
Kristin Clark City of Del Rey Oaks<br />
Alan Cohen City of Pacific Grove<br />
Libby Downey City of <strong>Monterey</strong><br />
Alvin Edwards City of Seaside<br />
John Huerta, Jr. City of Greenfield<br />
Susan Kleber City of King<br />
Frank O’Connell City of Marina<br />
David Pendergrass City of Sand City<br />
Sergio Sanchez City of <strong>Salinas</strong><br />
Karen Sharp City of Carmel-by-the-Sea<br />
Patricia Stephens City of Soledad<br />
Absent: Maria Orozco City of Gonzales<br />
Staff: Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO<br />
Angela Dawson Accountant<br />
Mark Eccles Director of IT<br />
Mike Gallant Planning Manager<br />
Kelly Halcon Director of Human Resources & Risk Management<br />
Hunter Harvath Asst. General Manager/Finance & Administration<br />
Michael Hernandez Asst. General Manager/COO<br />
Tom Hicks Mobility Manager<br />
Michelle Overmeyer Grants & Compliance Analyst<br />
Deanna Smith Executive Assistant to the GM/CEO<br />
Robert Weber Director of Transportation Services<br />
Kathy Williams General Budget & Accounting Manager<br />
Carl Wulf Facilities Manager<br />
Ben Newman Risk & Security Manager<br />
Sonia Bannister Office Administrator
Others: Dave Laredo General Counsel/De Lay & Laredo<br />
Heidi Quinn De Lay & Laredo<br />
Margaret Davis Friends of the Fort Ord Warhorse<br />
Bryan Sperber CSUMB Student<br />
Therese Potter CSUMB Student<br />
Bill Weigle Retired<br />
L. Telase Retired<br />
David Ford Retired<br />
Kay Cline Retired<br />
Diane Cotton Retired<br />
Lynn Hamilton Retired<br />
Greg Furey Retired<br />
Jean Donnelly Retired<br />
David Donnelly Retired<br />
Steve Ecklund Retired<br />
Steven Judd MST<br />
Fred Watson CSUMB/Marina<br />
Lisa Deas Backcountry Horsemen of CA<br />
Jason Campbell Seaside Resident<br />
Susan Campbell Seaside Resident<br />
Eric Petersen Citizen<br />
Lance Atencio MV Transportation<br />
Jim Fink Citizen, MST Customer<br />
Susan Pruea Teacher<br />
Sharon Hack <strong>Transit</strong> Rider<br />
Apology is made for any misspelling of a name.<br />
2. CLOSED SESSION<br />
2-1 Conference with property negotiators, Gov. Code § 54956.8. (Parcel #<br />
APN 032-171-005, L.2.3, L.2.4.1, L.2.4.2, APN 031-011-056-000) Agency<br />
negotiator, Carl Sedoryk. Negotiating party, <strong>Monterey</strong> County<br />
Redevelopment Agency. (No enclosure) (Carl Sedoryk)<br />
2-2 Conference with Legal Counsel-Litigation, Existing Litigation, Gov. Code §<br />
54956.9(a). Landwatch v. County of <strong>Monterey</strong>. (<strong>Monterey</strong> Superior Court<br />
Case No. M113552) (No enclosure) (Carl Sedoryk)<br />
2-3. General Manager Performance Evaluation, Gov. Code § 54957 (b) - (No<br />
enclosure) (K. Halcon)<br />
Public Comment<br />
Margaret Davis stated that the Board should represent the public. Ordinary<br />
people need access to public land for recreation, and the public was promised a<br />
continuous trail from beach to BLM land. She opposes the Whispering Oaks project.<br />
8
Susan Pruea read two limericks and a devotional excerpt on sin. She opposes<br />
the Whispering Oaks project.<br />
John Hutchison stated he was petitioner number 18,000 opposing Whispering<br />
Oaks development. He “called out” Mr. Sedoryk and challenged him to a hiking debate<br />
with members of the media acting as mediators.<br />
An unnamed student of CSUMB can’t believe the selfishness of MST and does<br />
not support the development.<br />
Brian Sperber disputed the accuracy of site alternative evaluations and opposes<br />
the development.<br />
Fred Watson believes Whispering Oaks is a valuable habitat for numerous<br />
species. Other sites are preferable and available.<br />
Jason Campbell believes the development is the wrong course for MST and the<br />
public. He believes alternative site evaluations are flawed.<br />
Paul Wolf stated that he speaks for numerous people and the more he told<br />
people about the project, the more they opposed it.<br />
Director Huerta arrived at 10:15 a.m.<br />
Lynn Hamilton does not want the trail to go by a bus yard. She believes the<br />
Marina Airport is preferable.<br />
Steve Ecklund can’t understand why MST would want to build at Whispering<br />
Oaks because it is not easy to get there.<br />
Bill Weigle addressed Mr. Sedoryk and requested his resignation. He believes<br />
Mr. Sedoryk wasted $4 million dollars prematurely, is disingenuous regarding alternative<br />
sites, and is ignoring the public.<br />
Diane Cotton stated that the FORA plan’s intent was to build on blighted areas,<br />
and Whispering Oaks is not blighted. She stated she will chain herself to an oak tree if<br />
the project continues.<br />
Eric Petersen opposes Whispering Oaks. He asked for MST to start over and<br />
look for a new site.<br />
Sharon Hack is surprised that MST is fighting the public.<br />
Kay Cline questioned whether a consolidated facility is even necessary. She<br />
thinks that three sites might be a good idea, and read a poem by an eighth grade<br />
student.<br />
9
Lisa Daes represents 3,000 equestrians and hates to see the Cavalry Trail<br />
severed.<br />
Jim Fink stated that he researched this issue last July and believes the public<br />
who opposes the project are misinformed. He believes LandWatch has acted<br />
fraudulently. He supports the Whispering Oaks project.<br />
Close Public Comment<br />
3. RETURN TO OPEN SESSION<br />
3-1. Report on Closed Session and possible action.<br />
Item 2-3 was postponed until March 19, 2012. No reportable action was taken<br />
on any item.<br />
4. CONSENT AGENDA<br />
4-1. Review highlights of <strong>Agenda</strong>. (Carl Sedoryk)<br />
Mr. Sedoryk read the highlights of the agenda.<br />
4-2 Adopt Resolution 2012-17 recognizing Rosemary Bayles, Human<br />
Resources Generalist, as Employee of the Month for February, 2012.<br />
(Kelly Halcon)<br />
4-3 Disposal of property left aboard buses. (Sonia Bannister)<br />
4-4 Minutes of the regular meeting of January 9, 2012. (Deanna Smith)<br />
4-5 Financial Report – November and December, 2011. (Kathy Williams)<br />
4-6 Claim Rejection – Cruz, Sebolino, King, and Herrera. (Ben Newman)<br />
4-7 Approve Resolution 2012-18 (Attachment 1) authorizing the filing of a<br />
grant application with the <strong>Monterey</strong> Peninsula Foundation. (Michelle<br />
Overmeyer)<br />
4-8 Minutes from Public Hearing - January 23, 2012. (Deanna Smith)<br />
4-9 Minutes from Public Hearing – January 24, 2012. (Deanna Smith)<br />
4-10 Fremont-Lighthouse BRT Modification to Contract. (Hunter Harvath)<br />
Public Comment – None<br />
Due to time constraints, item 4-2 was pulled from the agenda. Director Huerta<br />
made a motion to approve the consent agenda excepting item 4-2 and was<br />
seconded by Director Stephens. The motion carried unanimously.<br />
10
5. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS<br />
5-1 February Employee of the Month – Rosemary Bayles, Human Resources<br />
Generalist. (Kelly Halcon)<br />
5-2 Donation of Vehicle from Gil’s Basketball Academy. (Carl Sedoryk)<br />
All presentations were postponed until the March 19 Board meeting.<br />
6. COMMITTEE REPORTS<br />
6-1 Planning & Operations Minutes from January 9, 2012. (Deanna Smith)<br />
7. BIDS/PROPOSALS<br />
None.<br />
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS<br />
8-1 Conduct Public Hearing for FY 2012 Program of Projects. Adopt FY 2012<br />
Program of Projects and authorize the filing of appropriate grant<br />
applications with the Federal <strong>Transit</strong> Administration and Caltrans. (Hunter<br />
Harvath)<br />
Mr. Harvath directed the Board to page 49 of the agenda and stated that the<br />
hearing was noticed according to MST policy and federal requirements. He stated that<br />
funds received will be used for operations and planning.<br />
Public Comment – None<br />
Director Clark made a motion to adopt the FY 2012 Program of Projects and<br />
authorize the filing of appropriate grant applications with the Federal <strong>Transit</strong><br />
Administration and Caltrans and was seconded by Director Stephens. The<br />
motion carried unanimously.<br />
8-2 Conduct Public Hearing for Proposed spring 2012 service reductions.<br />
(Hunter Harvath)<br />
Mr. Harvath stated that today’s public hearing is the seventh in a series of public<br />
hearings conducted throughout the MST service area. In November, MST received<br />
information on an unexpected reduction in state funding levels of approximately<br />
$600,000. Next year, the shortfall could be as much as $1.3 million dollars.<br />
Mr. Harvath highlighted the proposed elimination of weekend and holiday<br />
discount fares for all riders except those who are under 18, over 65, active military,<br />
those will disabilities, and Medicare card holders. He provided a PowerPoint<br />
presentation detailing all proposed service reductions and ridership data. He stressed<br />
that reductions were spread across all service areas. Implementation of the reductions<br />
is scheduled for late April 2012.<br />
11
Director Clark asked how much money will be saved by eliminating the discount<br />
fares. Mr. Harvath stated that savings are expected to be approximately $200,000<br />
during FY 2013. Savings will be less for the remainder of FY 2012.<br />
Director Huerta asked if the service reductions will result in MST driver layoffs.<br />
Mr. Harvath stated that MST does not plan to reduce its driver force. The regular<br />
attrition of drivers will balance out labor expenses.<br />
Director Edwards asked if staff had looked over all public comments including<br />
those placed on the dais. Mr. Harvath stated that staff had read and considered all<br />
comments, and that exceptions have been made for several requests. He emphasized<br />
that some public requests were for additional service, but that the nature of service<br />
reductions mandate that cuts must be made. Reductions are primarily to service areas<br />
and routes with low ridership, and a fair distribution of service area reductions was<br />
attempted. Director Edwards stated that most public comments are received after<br />
changes are made. Mr. Harvath stated that numerous attempts to inform the public and<br />
encourage participation in public hearings were made, including requests for phone or<br />
written comments from those who could not attend. Mr. Sedoryk stated that the most<br />
effective method of informing riders of proposed changes and meeting times comes<br />
from the car cards placed in MST buses.<br />
Public Comment<br />
Mr. Fink asked that the two questions he submitted in his email regarding<br />
changes to Line 13 and Line 16 be answered. He stated that if the Line 8 mid-day route<br />
is cut, there will be no way for transit riders to return home from attending MST Board<br />
meetings.<br />
Sharon Hack stated that Sacramento is increasing service and she does not<br />
understand why <strong>Monterey</strong> needs to reduce service. She thinks the overall changes are<br />
creative, but thinks the weekend changes will be confusing. She believes the fares are<br />
too low and should be tied to the cost of fuel. She suggested a “car free” website with<br />
information on how to successfully navigate the transit system. She believes that more<br />
marketing is effective in encouraging public transportation use among the public.<br />
Close Public Comment<br />
Mr. Harvath stated that he appreciated Ms. Hack’s comments and would look into<br />
her suggestions. He stated that Sacramento has a local sales tax for transportation that<br />
provides additional funding; <strong>Monterey</strong> County does not and has failed in its last three<br />
attempts to pass a tax measure. He assured Mr. Fink that the Line 8 changes would<br />
still allow for transportation to and from MST Board meetings. Line 28 will run hourly<br />
after 7:00 p.m. Line 16 from CSUMB will run on Lightfighter Drive, and he assured that<br />
Line 29 to 55, from Prunedale to San Jose, will run effectively.<br />
Director Downey made a motion to approve the proposed fare and service<br />
changes for spring 2012 and was seconded by Director Huerta. The motion<br />
carried unanimously.<br />
Director Huerta stated that he supports the effort to pass a local sales tax to<br />
support public transportation.<br />
12
Director Edwards thanked MST for making the effort to hold a public hearing in<br />
Seaside.<br />
Director Armenta thought that holding the hearing at Northridge Mall on a<br />
Saturday was a good idea and asked staff to try to encourage those walking in and<br />
around the mall to attend next time.<br />
9. UNFINISHED BUSINESS<br />
9-1 Authorize the purchase of Bus Rapid <strong>Transit</strong> Shelters. (Michael<br />
Hernandez)<br />
Mr. Hernandez stated that the purchase of shelters is fully funded by the Very<br />
Small Starts program and Proposition 1B. He displayed a photo of the shelter prototype<br />
and stated that the project has a fall 2012 completion goal.<br />
Director Sanchez asked for the cost per shelter and what would be done with the<br />
shelters that would be replaced. Mr. Hernandez stated that three shelters would be<br />
placed in Sand City and one in Seaside. All old shelters will be placed in areas without<br />
shelters. The eleven foot shelters cost $28,105 and the double sized shelters cost<br />
$59,800.<br />
Directors Kleber and Sharp were concerned that they would not properly protect<br />
from the elements and only had seating for two people. Mr. Hernandez stated that the<br />
shelters were not designed to be weather-proof, but they do provide shelter from rain.<br />
The eleven foot shelter seats two people and provides a covered area for one<br />
wheelchair. The double shelter has more seating.<br />
Public Comment<br />
Mr. Fink asked if the shelters will be able to accommodate a Light Rail system.<br />
Ms. Hack encouraged bike hooks at shelters.<br />
Close Public Comment<br />
Mr. Harvath stated that the proposed Light Rail system is slated to run along the<br />
Del Monte corridor in <strong>Monterey</strong>, not the Fremont corridor being used for BRT. He<br />
confirmed that all shelters have bike racks and MST buses can store bikes.<br />
Director Armenta encouraged MST staff to make sure that South County is<br />
considered for new projects, shelters, and other transit-related enhancements.<br />
10. NEW BUSINESS<br />
None.<br />
13
11. REPORTS & INFORMATION ITEMS<br />
11-1 General Manager/CEO Report.<br />
11-2 TAMC Highlights – December, 2011 and January, 2012.<br />
11-3 Washington D. C. Lobbyist report – December, 2011 and January, 2012.<br />
11-4 State Lobbyist report – December, 2011 and January, 2012.<br />
11-5 Staff trip reports.<br />
11-6 Correspondence.<br />
12. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON MATTERS NOT ON THE AGENDA<br />
Mr. Fink thanked the MST driver who assisted him on New Year’s Eve when he<br />
fell while disboarding a bus.<br />
p.m.<br />
13. COMMENTS BY BOARD MEMBERS<br />
13-1 Reports on meetings attended by Board members at MST expense<br />
(AB1234).<br />
14. ATTACHMENTS<br />
14-1 Disbursement Journal for November and December, 2011.<br />
15. ANNOUNCEMENTS<br />
16. ADJOURN<br />
There being no further business, Chair Armenta adjourned the meeting at 12:22<br />
14
To: Board of Directors<br />
15<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 2-6<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
From: Kathy Williams, General Accounting & Budget Manager<br />
Subject: Financial Reports – January 2012<br />
RECOMMENDATION:<br />
1. Accept report of January 2012 cash flow presented in Attachment #1<br />
2. Approve January 2012 disbursements listed in Attachment #2<br />
3. Accept report of January 2012 treasury transactions listed in Attachment #3<br />
4. Accept financial statements for the month of January 2012 in Attachment #4<br />
FISCAL IMPACT:<br />
The cash flow for January is summarized below and is detailed in Attachment #1.<br />
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Beginning balance January 1, 2012 $ 5,606,002.27<br />
Revenues 2,155,406.33<br />
Disbursements <br />
Ending balance January 31, 2012 $ 5,312,989.95<br />
Disbursements are approved by your Board each month and are shown in<br />
Attachment #2. Detail of the disbursements is attached as agenda item 12-1. Treasury<br />
transactions are reported to your Board each month, and are shown in Attachment #3.<br />
Financial statement are provided for your review in Attachment #4.
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
16
PUBLIC HEARING<br />
Northridge Mall Community Room<br />
796 Northridge Mall, <strong>Salinas</strong>, CA 93906<br />
February 4, 2012<br />
12:00 p.m.<br />
1. CALL TO ORDER<br />
23<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 2-7<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
Hunter Harvath called the meeting to order at 12:04 p.m. in the Northridge Mall<br />
Community Room.<br />
Staff: Hunter Harvath Asst. General Manager/Finance & Administration<br />
Deanna Smith Executive Assistant to the GM/CEO<br />
Michael Hernandez Asst. General Manager/COO<br />
Miriam Gutierrez Customer Service Representative<br />
Christy Sugabo Paratransit Eligibility Specialist<br />
Public: Leonie Lear MST Rider<br />
Abi Koch MST Rider<br />
Roland MV Transportation<br />
Tony Paredes MST Rider<br />
Chris Rubrecht MST Rider<br />
Apology is made for any misspelling of a name.<br />
2. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED SERVICE REDUCTIONS<br />
Mr. Harvath introduced himself and MST staff, welcoming all members of the<br />
public. Mr. Harvath gave a PowerPoint presentation, focusing on all proposed service<br />
changes to the <strong>Salinas</strong> area. He explained that only 30% of MST’s operating costs are<br />
covered by passenger fares with the other 70% coming from state and federal funding.<br />
Anticipated reductions of $600,000 to $1.3 Million in funding from the State of California<br />
and the Federal Government require MST to reduce bus service to maintain a balanced<br />
budget. Mr. Harvath stated that the discounted fares on Sundays and Holidays would<br />
now only be offered to those aged 65 and older, 18 and under, Medicare card holders,<br />
active military, and those with disabilities.<br />
3. PUBLIC COMMENT<br />
Leonie Lear and Abi Koch stated that Lines 41 and 49 often run late. Ms. Lear<br />
stated that reductions in Line 41 will affect her ability to maintain her work schedule and<br />
might result in job loss. She requested that the 9:20 p.m. service be maintained in order
to keep her job. Mr. Harvath stated that MST would be able to maintain the 9:20 p.m.<br />
service and that he would recommend to the only the elimination of the 10:20 p.m.<br />
service to the Board of Directors. He stated that the Board of Directors will be<br />
presented with proposed service changes and all public comments on Monday,<br />
February 13, 2012. Once the changes are approved, new Rider’s Guides will be printed<br />
and distributed in time for the anticipated April 28, 2012 service changes.<br />
Tony Paredes and Chris Rubrecht, members of the public, arrived at 12:21 p.m.<br />
Mr. Harvath ensured them that when he completed his presentation he would discuss<br />
their concerns individually.<br />
Ms. Lear asked why Line 29 route costs an additional dollar. Mr. Harvath stated<br />
that the fares for long distance routes cost more, while the shorter routes cost less.<br />
Ms. Koch asked why Line 24 Grapevine Express was now serving Carmel-bythe-Sea.<br />
Mr. Harvath stated that the Carmel City Council unanimously requested the<br />
service. Ms. Koch provided a detail of her commute route which includes numerous<br />
route changes to make it to and from Carmel on weekdays. Mr. Harvath stated that<br />
Line 7 was the only line with substantial changes and that her routes would be affected<br />
by only five or ten minutes. Ms. Koch stated that most of the MST drivers were very<br />
kind and helpful and that she liked the safety of riding the bus. She stated that some<br />
drivers wait more that the two minute wait period in between stops, which is sometimes<br />
an inconvenience for those with tight schedules.<br />
Ms. Koch and Ms. Lear were satisfied with the information and concluded their<br />
comments.<br />
Mr. Rubrecht requested information on the Line 20 weekend route and stated<br />
that he rides the 11:15 p.m. to go home on Saturday. Mr. Harvath stated that there<br />
would be no changes to the 11:15 service. Mr. Rubrecht asked if Line 43 would remain<br />
the same as he uses this route both weekdays and weekends. Mr. Harvath suggested<br />
he use Line 23 on the weekend instead of Line 43 to get to the South Main Street and<br />
East Romie Lane corridors.<br />
Roland asked if there would be the same number of trips on Line 23 to King City.<br />
Mr. Harvath stated that there were some changes to Line 23 taking place immediately<br />
but that he would have to double check before he could provide accurate information.<br />
Mr. Paredes informed MST staff that he was hearing impaired. He was assisted<br />
personally by Miriam Gutierrez and Mr. Harvath, who helped him communicate his<br />
concerns in written format. Mr. Paredes occasionally rides Line 41 at 10:20 p.m, but<br />
mostly earlier in the evening. Mr. Harvath stated that unfortunately, due to low<br />
ridership, the 10:20 p.m. route will be cut, but the 9:20 p.m. route will remain. After<br />
some discussion, it became apparent that Mr. Paredes would qualify for a courtesy card<br />
and other fare discounts because of his disability. Mr. Paredes stated that he could not<br />
afford to pay for a doctor’s evaluation and purchases his fares as he boards. Mr.<br />
24
Paredes’ contact information was taken, and he was told that someone would be<br />
contacting him personally to make sure he obtains all of the discounts for which he is<br />
eligible. He was also assured that he would be provided the support he needs to fill out<br />
applications and obtain his discount cards.<br />
Roland of MV Transportation asked Mr. Harvath to go over all proposed changes<br />
to MV service routes. The following information was provided for MV service changes:<br />
Line 1: No changes<br />
Line 2: No changes to express<br />
Line 8: Service during rush hour only. 6:19 a.m., Saturday and Sunday<br />
service eliminated.<br />
Line 13: Will serve Del Rey Oaks on Saturday and Sunday to compensate for<br />
no service on Line 8.<br />
Lines 9: No changes to MV service.<br />
Line 10: No changes to MV service.<br />
Line 24: City of Carmel wants Line 24 to serve downtown Carmel. Service loop<br />
into neighborhood in Carmel Valley eliminated due to low/no ridership.<br />
No service into The Barnyard.<br />
Line 7: Eliminate service.<br />
Line 4: Extend to CHOMP.<br />
Line 16: No changes to MV service. Will serve Wal-Mart after 10:00 a.m.<br />
Line 22: Service eliminated for Off-Season. Will operate from Memorial Day to<br />
Labor Day.<br />
Line 27: Will most likely keep service with MV Transportation and will continue<br />
on weekdays only.<br />
Line 25: Small buses will continue to serve this line. CSUMB has expressed<br />
interest in larger buses, but may not be able to afford the cost<br />
differential compared to the minibuses.<br />
Trolleys: Carmel grant funding has run out. <strong>Salinas</strong> grant funding runs out in<br />
April. Pacific Grove has funding to run for another year. <strong>Monterey</strong> is<br />
still funded.<br />
Line 78: Service depends on Federal funding.<br />
On Call: Possibly adding Soledad in summer of 2012.<br />
Roland requested that On Call Service to Forest and Beach be highlighted on<br />
MST map as it is designated for Cardoza and Crescent.<br />
Cristy Sugabo asked why On Call Service was not available between Gonzales,<br />
Greenfield and King City. Mr. Harvath stated that with the large service area, taking<br />
service to King City, for instance, would mean that the buses were out of the main<br />
service area for long periods of time. Currently, funding is not available to expand<br />
service.<br />
Roland asked if MST could provide service to the Soledad Prison. Mr. Harvath<br />
stated that Mr. Gallant has met with officials, but to date possibility of service is only<br />
25
eing discussed. Roland also asked if service in Marina OnCall will be extended<br />
beyond Gigling Rd. Mr. Harvath stated that the further MST goes out of the core area,<br />
primary service would necessarily be reduced.<br />
Miriam Gutierrez asked if the new Hartnell East Campus in the Alisal District<br />
would be able to take part in the Free Fare Zone. Mr. Harvath stated that the current<br />
funding from Hartnell College pays only for free fares at the Alisal and Homestead bus<br />
stops. In order to offer this option, Hartnell College would have to pay more to cover the<br />
costs. Miriam and Roland informed Mr. Harvath that buses were also picking up free<br />
fares at College Drive, which is not a designated bus stop for free fares. Mr. Harvath<br />
will research this.<br />
4. ADJOURNMENT<br />
There being no further business, Mr. Harvath adjourned the meeting at 1:13 p.m.<br />
26
27<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 2-8<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
PUBLIC HEARING<br />
Sunset Center Chapman Room<br />
San Carlos St. and 9 th Ave., Carmel, CA 93921<br />
February 6, 2012<br />
6:00 p.m.<br />
1. CALL TO ORDER<br />
Hunter Harvath called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Sunset Center<br />
Chapman Room.<br />
Staff: Hunter Harvath Asst. General Manager/Finance & Administration<br />
Deanna Smith Executive Assistant to the GM/CEO<br />
Sally Cota Customer Service Representative<br />
Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO<br />
Public: Patricia Colgrove MST Rider<br />
Jen Dunn MST Rider<br />
Chris Harrold Carmel Valley Resident<br />
Edeen Hill MST Rider<br />
Kim Mitchell MST Rider<br />
Jacqueline Dupree MST Rider<br />
Apology is made for any misspelling of a name.<br />
2. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED SERVICE REDUCTIONS<br />
Mr. Harvath introduced himself and MST staff, welcoming all members of the<br />
public. Mr. Harvath gave a PowerPoint presentation, focusing on all proposed service<br />
changes to the Carmel area. He explained that only 30% of MST’s operating costs are<br />
covered by passenger fares with the other 70% coming from state and federal funding.<br />
Anticipated reductions of $600,000 to $1.3 Million in funding from the State of California<br />
and the Federal Government require MST to reduce bus service to maintain a balanced<br />
budget. Mr. Harvath stated that the discounted fares on Sundays and Holidays would<br />
now only be offered to those aged 65 and older, 18 and under, Medicare card holders,<br />
active military, and those with disabilities. Mr. Harvath took comments and questions<br />
from members of the public, assisting them individually as necessary.<br />
Mr. Harvath mentioned that the City of Carmel has requested that Line 24<br />
Carmel Valley-Grapevine Express, serve downtown Carmel as well as the Carmel<br />
Valley corridor.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT<br />
Jen Dunn stated that ridership on Line 4 is low. As a way to increase ridership<br />
and provide a service to elderly MST riders who are members of the Carmel<br />
Foundation, she suggested moving the bus stop at Monte Verde to Lincoln. Monte<br />
Verde is very steep and elderly riders have stopped taking lunch at the Foundation<br />
because it is too difficult to walk up Monte Verde for transportation. Since there is no<br />
parking at the Carmel Foundation, if this change was made, they could park at the<br />
Crossroads and catch the bus on Lincoln. She suggested that the route run from Monte<br />
Verde to 9 th Avenue, taking Lincoln to 8 th and then back to Monte Verde. Melissa<br />
McKenzie is the contact at the Foundation.<br />
Ms. Dunn requested that MST drivers stop before pulling in to the <strong>Monterey</strong><br />
<strong>Transit</strong> Center to change the destination signage. She also requested that they stop<br />
putting the “Out of Service” signs on before entering the transit center.<br />
Ms. Dunn mentioned that the bus shelter at Devendorf Park be checked because<br />
the City of Carmel has secured a trash can in the sheltered area designated for<br />
wheelchairs. This causes those in wheelchairs to have to wait in the rain. She<br />
mentioned that the current schedule makes it difficult to take the bus to MST Board<br />
meetings.<br />
Patricia Colgrove asked why some drivers write down passenger info as well as<br />
recording the info electronically. Mr. Harvath stated that MV Transportation operates<br />
the mini buses and requires both manual and electronic rider tallies. She requested<br />
early service on Line 4 to CHOMP.<br />
Edeen Hill stated that she takes the bus into Carmel Rancho every morning to do<br />
her banking before opening her store in downtown Carmel at 10:00 a.m. With the<br />
elimination of service between 9:08 a.m. and 10:08 a.m. she will not be able to keep her<br />
schedule. She requests that MST consider keeping service during this hour. Mr.<br />
Harvath stated that he will work with staff to see if this request can be accommodated.<br />
Ms. Dunn stated that tourists sit in the bus shelter at the Crossroads at Rio Rd.<br />
waiting for a bus. She requests signage stating service times for this stop, and directing<br />
them to the kiosk across the street.<br />
Ms. Colgrove stated that the mini buses have terrible suspension.<br />
Ms. Dunn stated that she is pleased that service from Carmel to CHOMP will be<br />
increased to seven days per week instead of five. Tourists use Line 4 and 24 to get<br />
from the park to Carmel Mission, but she is never able to tell them what time the bus<br />
picks up for the Mission. She requests info in the Rider’s Guide specific to service to<br />
Carmel Mission.<br />
28
Ms. Hill states that she used to travel to Del Monte Center and <strong>Monterey</strong> on Line<br />
5 in the evening, but she is no longer going out because it is dark and late at Carmel<br />
Rancho and she frequently sits alone at the bus stop. She stated that no one uses the<br />
late night service at Carmel Rancho to Carmel. The current route has added almost an<br />
hour to the trip since Line 11 was eliminated. She suggested going down Carpenter to<br />
serve those who live further away from Ocean Avenue. Ms. Dunn suggested making a<br />
right on Carpenter down to Devendorf Park, taking 6 th Street to a right on Junipero,<br />
making a left on Ocean Avenue back up to the highway, then into Carmel Rancho.<br />
Ms. Mitchell is very disappointed that Line 11 has been eliminated. She stated<br />
that many buses run empty and riders are dropped off in crime-ridden areas. She<br />
suggested keeping track of ridership before continuing service. Mr. Harvath displayed<br />
ridership data and stated that MST uses ridership data extensively to determine route<br />
changes.<br />
The public generally agreed that Line 11 should be reinstated throughout the day<br />
instead of only during peak periods.<br />
Ms. Dunn stated that if Line 8 is reduced, the public will not be able to ride public<br />
transit to attend MST Board meetings. Mr. Sedoryk stated that staff will re-examine this<br />
issue.<br />
Mr. Harvath stated that Lines 9 and 10 is a lifeline service for hospitality workers.<br />
Line 7 will be eliminated because Line 4 will provide service to CHOMP. This change<br />
will eliminate duplication of service.<br />
Ms. Dunn stated that Lines 91, 92, and 93 are viewed by bus drivers as a Pacific<br />
Meadows service. They will not stop at 6 th and Mission even if there are riders waiting<br />
at the stop.<br />
Ms. Dupree works late and must walk all the way up Ocean for bus service. She<br />
stated that Line 11 would pick her up at the bottom of Ocean and drop her off at<br />
Carpenter which is closer to her home. Mr. Harvath stated that suggested changes to<br />
late night service on Line 5 should accommodate her. She asked if Line 13 would still<br />
serve Ryan Ranch. Mr. Harvath stated that the 6:19 a.m. service will be eliminated, but<br />
there are no changes to the afternoon route. On Saturday and Sunday, there will be no<br />
service into Ryan Ranch, but will instead serve Del Rey Oaks and Garden Rd.<br />
Members of the public expressed concern about homeless people who loiter at<br />
<strong>Monterey</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> Center and at the bus stop at Del Monte Center. Mr. Sedoryk stated<br />
that <strong>Monterey</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> Center is a city park and that MST is not allowed to employ<br />
security at this location. They request that the bus stop locations are evaluated for<br />
safety. Mr. Harvath stated that he will be meeting with City of <strong>Monterey</strong> Police<br />
Department on February 8 and will discuss this issue with them. Concern was also<br />
expressed regarding homeless riders who loiter day and night on MST buses.<br />
29
Ms. Dunn stated that Del Monte Center security does not remove the chain at<br />
their entrance early in the morning. This causes the bus to be late.<br />
Ms. Mitchell stated that bus drivers often leave early. Mr. Harvath stated that this<br />
is never acceptable and encouraged that complaints be submitted so it can be taken<br />
care of.<br />
Ms. Dunn requested better signage for Line 24 on Rio Road, at 6 th and Mission,<br />
and at the bus stops on Lighthouse and Fountain Avenues. She also requested a<br />
bench at the stop at Fountain.<br />
Ms. Mitchell asked why small buses do not serve areas with low ridership. Mr.<br />
Harvath stated that all MST buses are in service and there are no extra small buses<br />
available.<br />
Ms. Colgrove stated that MST bus drivers complain about driving 12 hours per<br />
day. She also asked why she must pay an extra .50 cents on Line 22 to Big Sur even<br />
though she has a bus pass. Mr. Harvath stated that some of the longer routes have<br />
been designated as regional routes.<br />
Ms. Dupree requests that Line 11 be reinstated.<br />
Mr. Sedoryk elaborated on state and federal funding for transit and stated that<br />
<strong>Monterey</strong> County does not have a sales tax measure to offset reduced government<br />
funding.<br />
4. ADJOURNMENT<br />
There being no further business, Mr. Harvath adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.<br />
30
PUBLIC HEARING<br />
Oldemeyer Center Blackhorse Room<br />
986 Hilby Avenue, Seaside, CA 93955<br />
February 8, 2012<br />
6:00 p.m.<br />
1. CALL TO ORDER<br />
31<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 2-9<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
Hunter Harvath called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. in the Oldemeyer Center<br />
Blackhorse Room.<br />
Staff: Hunter Harvath Asst. General Manager/Finance & Administration<br />
Deanna Smith Executive Assistant to the GM/CEO<br />
Miriam Gutierrez Customer Service Representative<br />
Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO<br />
Public: Dora Trujillo MST Rider<br />
Alex Almazon MST Rider<br />
Jim Fink MST Rider<br />
Alvin Edwards Seaside Council Member and MST Board Member<br />
Apology is made for any misspelling of a name.<br />
2. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED SERVICE REDUCTIONS<br />
Mr. Harvath introduced himself, welcoming all members of the public. With only<br />
two members of the public present, Mr. Harvath spoke individually to each, highlighting<br />
specific PowerPoint slides that related to service reductions on routes used by those<br />
present. He explained that anticipated reductions of $600,000 to $1.3 Million in funding<br />
from the State of California and the Federal Government require MST to reduce bus<br />
service to maintain a balanced budget, and that reductions were being made to all MST<br />
service areas. Mr. Harvath stated that the discounted fares on Sundays and Holidays<br />
would now only be offered to those aged 65 and older, 18 and under, Medicare card<br />
holders, active military, and those with disabilities.<br />
3. PUBLIC COMMENT<br />
Ms. Trujillo stated that she is a regular customer of MST and that she takes both<br />
Lines 4 and 24 regularly. She is pleased that Line 24 will now be serving downtown<br />
Carmel as she commutes from Seaside to Carmel and Carmel Valley daily. She<br />
requested a bench at the bus stop in front of the Hacienda on Carmel Valley Road.
Ms. Trujillo stated that she occasionally rides Line 55 and that she is pleased<br />
there will be no changes. She is disappointed that Line 11 has been eliminated. She<br />
stated that she must pay $20 for a taxi every Sunday to ride from <strong>Monterey</strong> to Seaside<br />
in the late evening because of service reductions on Lines 9 and 10. She requested<br />
that a 9:15 p.m. service be added to Line 9 or Line 10 on Sunday evening. She also<br />
stated that the bus driver on Line 9 often honks for the Line 24 bus to pick her up, but it<br />
often passes her by.<br />
Ms. Trujillo asked if MST makes their decisions about service reductions based<br />
on ridership data. Mr. Harvath stated that ridership data is extensively used in making<br />
decisions and explained PowerPoint slides that detailed ridership data. He stated that<br />
staff will make an effort to add a late night route on Sundays.<br />
Ms. Trujillo stated that she liked the route changes on Lines 8 and 16. She<br />
stated that she has missed the Line 4 bus because the driver was early and did not wait<br />
for her. She did call MST when this happened and they sent someone to pick her up.<br />
Mr. Harvath apologized, stating that it is not acceptable for buses to leave early or<br />
ignore customers. He encouraged her to call MST Customer Service whenever she has<br />
a problem like this.<br />
Mr. Edwards asked if complaints made by citizens at a recent MST Board<br />
meeting regarding previous route changes have been taken care of. Mr. Harvath stated<br />
that as of Saturday, most problems with these routes have been addressed, especially<br />
connection issues with Pacific Grove and Carmel Valley buses.<br />
Mr. Fink arrived at 6:34 p.m. after other members of the public had left. He<br />
presented Mr. Harvath with a copy of an email detailing his comments and suggestions.<br />
He stated that he will attend the MST Public Hearing on Monday, February 13, and<br />
asked Mr. Harvath to review his comments prior to the meeting. He stated that he firmly<br />
believes that fare increases should be considered over service reductions. He prefers<br />
alternative #1 to alternative #2 on proposed changes to Lines 1 and 2.<br />
Mr. Fink requested that Line 43 be retained seven (7) days per week, because<br />
he needs the route to attend church at St. Ansgar’s. Mr. Harvath stated that ridership is<br />
too low to justify this route on Sunday. Mr. Fink requested a flag drop in front of St.<br />
Ansgar’s Lutheran Church on San Joaquin Street in <strong>Salinas</strong>.<br />
Mr. Fink requested staff look into route discrepancies on Line 7. Mr. Harvath<br />
stated that he is aware that there are some problems with the route and will have staff<br />
research the problem.<br />
Mr. Fink requested that the MST Rider’s Guides include “interline” information in<br />
the right hand margins. Sacramento Regional <strong>Transit</strong>’s Rider’s Guides are printed with<br />
this information and it is very helpful. Mr. Harvath will check the guides and consider<br />
adding this information.<br />
32
4. ADJOURNMENT<br />
There being no further business, Mr. Harvath adjourned the meeting at 6:45 p.m.<br />
33
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
34
PUBLIC HEARING<br />
Prunedale Library Community Room<br />
17822 Moro Rd., Prunedale, CA 93907<br />
February 9, 2012<br />
6:00 p.m.<br />
1. CALL TO ORDER<br />
35<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 2-10<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
Staff arrived at 5:30 p.m. and waited until 6:35 p.m. for members of the public to<br />
arrive.<br />
Staff: Hunter Harvath Asst. General Manager/Finance & Administration<br />
Deanna Smith Executive Assistant to the GM/CEO<br />
Sally Cota Customer Service Representative<br />
Michael Hernandez Asst. General Manager/COO<br />
Public: None.<br />
Apology is made for any misspelling of a name.<br />
2. PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED SERVICE REDUCTIONS<br />
There being no members of the public present, the presentation was not<br />
delivered.<br />
None.<br />
3. PUBLIC COMMENT<br />
4. ADJOURNMENT<br />
There being no further business, Mr. Harvath adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m.
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
36
To: Board of Directors<br />
From: Zoé Shoats, Marketing Analyst<br />
Subject: 2011 Community Stakeholder Survey<br />
RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Receive report on the 2011 Community Stakeholder Survey.<br />
FISCAL IMPACT:<br />
None.<br />
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
37<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 2-11<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
MST surveys stakeholders annually in its service area to gauge knowledge of and<br />
opinions regarding this agency.<br />
DISCUSSION:<br />
In January 2012, approximately 471 surveys were distributed to community<br />
stakeholders including elected officials, governmental agencies, social service<br />
organizations, private citizens, and representatives from private industries such as<br />
hospitality, agriculture and construction. A total of 35 surveys were returned and yielded<br />
the following highlights:<br />
• Familiarity with MST’s services:<br />
Respondents were most familiar with MST’s regular fixed route service and Line 24<br />
Carmel Valley Grapevine Express, with the MST Trolley in <strong>Monterey</strong> ranking third and<br />
MST On Call in Gonzales ranking fourth most familiar. Of MST’s special event services,<br />
respondents were most familiar with service to First Night <strong>Monterey</strong> and <strong>Monterey</strong><br />
County Fair. Service to events at Laguna Seca, the <strong>Monterey</strong> Jazz Festival, <strong>Monterey</strong><br />
Bay Blues Festival, and the California International Airshow <strong>Salinas</strong> were notable. Only<br />
four respondents were familiar with mobility programs including RIDES ADA Paratransit.<br />
• When rating MST’s attributes from “excellent” to “very poor,” the following areas were<br />
rated on a scale of one to five (with one as very poor and five as excellent) as follows:<br />
Safety of service 4.3<br />
Helpfulness of staff 4.3<br />
Staff knowledge 4.2<br />
Staff professionalism 4.2
Overall impression of MST’s administration 4.2<br />
Overall impression of MST’s services 4.1<br />
Quality of service 4.1<br />
Value of service 4.1<br />
MST’s representation of itself in the community 4.0<br />
Perceived value of transit in the community 3.7<br />
Convenience of service 3.6<br />
• When ranking MST’s priorities “adding frequency to existing routes” ranked highest<br />
with “adding new routes” second and “add capacity to existing routes” third.<br />
• When asked how to meet local transportation needs, the following alternatives were<br />
rated on a scale of one to five (with one as “least effective” and five as “most effective”)<br />
as follows:<br />
Buses 4.4<br />
Improved roads 4.2<br />
More vanpools/carpool incentives 3.9<br />
More dedicated bike lanes 3.8<br />
Bus rapid transit 3.7<br />
Rail 3.5<br />
New roads 3.0<br />
• When asked if respondents would support a “new local sales tax dedicated to funding<br />
public transit and transportation services,” 73% of respondents said they would support<br />
it while 27% said they would not. As a follow-up question, individuals who would support<br />
the new tax were asked what percentage would be appropriate. Thirty percent of<br />
respondents would support a ¼ percent increase, 35% would support a 1/8 percentage<br />
increase, 22% would support a 1/10 percent increase, and 13% were undecided.<br />
Attachment: 2011 Community Stakeholder Survey<br />
38
39<br />
ATTACHMENT 1<br />
2011 COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER SURVEY RESULTS<br />
(35 Responses)<br />
1. Which of MST’s services are you familiar with?<br />
(22) Regular fixed-route buses Mobility Programs:<br />
(3) Line 12 & 14 Naval Postgraduate School (4) MST RIDES ADA Paratransit<br />
(7) Line 23 <strong>Salinas</strong> - King City (0) Travel Training<br />
(12) Line 24 Carmel Valley Grapevine Express (4) Senior / Disabled Taxi Vouchers<br />
(9) Line 55 <strong>Monterey</strong> - San Jose Express (4) Lines 91 – 93 Carmel Senior Shuttle<br />
(5) Lines 68 - 79 Presidio of <strong>Monterey</strong><br />
(5) Lines 82 & 83 Fort Hunter Liggett<br />
Special Event Services:<br />
MST Trolley: (9) Laguna Seca<br />
(7) Carmel-by-the-Sea Trolley (7) California International Airshow <strong>Salinas</strong><br />
(2) CSUMB Otter Trolley (12) First Night <strong>Monterey</strong><br />
(9) <strong>Monterey</strong> Trolley (9) <strong>Monterey</strong> Jazz Festival<br />
(5) Pacific Grove Trolley (7) <strong>Monterey</strong> Bay Blues Festival<br />
(2) <strong>Salinas</strong> Trolley (12) <strong>Monterey</strong> County Fair<br />
(1) <strong>Salinas</strong> Holiday Parade of Lights<br />
MST On Call: (1) Sand City West End Celebration<br />
(1) Marina<br />
(8) Gonzales<br />
(6) Greenfield<br />
(2) King City<br />
2. What do you believe to be MST’s annual ridership?<br />
(5) Less than 1 million (10) 1 million - 2 million (3) 2 million – 3 million<br />
(1) 3 million – 4 million (7) 4 million – 5 million (4) Over 5 million<br />
3. Please rate the following:<br />
Excellent<br />
5<br />
Good<br />
4<br />
Fair<br />
3<br />
Poor<br />
2<br />
Very<br />
Poor<br />
1<br />
Average<br />
Overall impression of MST’s services 9 17 6 0 0 4.1<br />
Convenience of service 4 13 12 2 0 3.6<br />
Quality of service 4 15 5 1 0 4.1
Safety of service 13 14 4 0 0 4.3<br />
Value of service 14 8 6 2 0 4.1<br />
Overall impression of MST’s administration 13 11 8 0 0 4.2<br />
Helpfulness of staff 9 14 6 2 0 4.3<br />
Staff knowledge 13 12 3 2 0 4.2<br />
Staff professionalism 13 12 5 1 0 4.2<br />
MST’s representation of itself in the community 11 10 9 0 1 4.0<br />
Perceived value of transit in the community 5 16 7 2 1 3.7<br />
4. Do you or your employees use MST? Yes (20) No (13)<br />
5. Are you aware of the tax incentives provided to employers who provide transit passes to their<br />
employees? Yes (18) No (13)<br />
If you would like to learn more, please provide your contact information.<br />
(no contact information given)<br />
6. What do you believe should be MST’s highest priorities?<br />
(Please rank in order of importance)<br />
(2) Add new routes* (3) More special event shuttles<br />
(6) Add frequency to existing routes* (3) Upgrade vehicles<br />
(2) Add capacity to existing routes* (6) Improve customer service<br />
(6) Cut routes* (7) Improve public image of MST<br />
(1) Other<br />
*Where / What?<br />
Improve cost & also availability of reduced cost passes. We used to sell them to our staff<br />
via payroll deduction, but had to stop. Some of our staff were reselling them. Clearly<br />
there’s a community need for better pricing on monthly passes & better access<br />
availability to purchase them.<br />
Carmel Valley – later.<br />
Service between South <strong>Salinas</strong> & <strong>Monterey</strong>.<br />
To / from CSUMB.<br />
Redesign routes to meet consumer needs<br />
Carmel Valley / Laureles Grade<br />
40
7. In order to meet local transportation needs in <strong>Monterey</strong> County, please rate the following<br />
alternatives:<br />
Most<br />
Effective<br />
5<br />
41<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
Least<br />
Effective<br />
1<br />
Average<br />
Score<br />
Rail 13 6 3 6 5 3.5<br />
Buses 17 12 2 1 0 4.4<br />
New roads 7 6 7 7 6 3.0<br />
Improved roads 13 16 4 0 1 4.2<br />
More dedicated bike lanes 12 9 5 4 2 3.8<br />
More vanpools / incentive for carpoolers<br />
Bus Rapid <strong>Transit</strong> (Road and traffic<br />
7 15 9 0 0 3.9<br />
signal improvements that provide faster<br />
bus service)<br />
8 14 7 2 2 3.7<br />
Comments:<br />
We need light rail from <strong>Monterey</strong> to Bay Area (San Jose).<br />
I am not in favor of cutting route 4 in Carmel.<br />
Consumers still depend on autos.<br />
8. Community sector that you represent:<br />
(9) Private Citizen (1) Private industry (0) Agribusiness<br />
(14) Government (1) Elected official (5) Education<br />
(4) Hospitality (1) Health / Social services (2) Construction/Developer<br />
(2) Other<br />
Organization (optional):<br />
TAMC<br />
CSUMB<br />
9. While <strong>Monterey</strong> County does not currently have local sales taxes for transit/transportation,<br />
nearly 90% of the population of the state of California lives in counties that do have such local<br />
sales taxes. In that regard, would you support a new local sales tax for <strong>Monterey</strong> County that<br />
would be dedicated to funding public transit for the community at large including transportation<br />
services for the elderly and disabled? Yes (24) No (9)<br />
If yes, what percentage of sales tax would be appropriate?<br />
1/4 percent (7) 1/8 percent (8) 1/10 percent (5) Undecided (3)
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
42
To: Board of Directors<br />
43<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 2-12<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
From: Michael Hernandez, Assistant General Manager/COO<br />
Subject: Purchase One Engine Replacement<br />
RECOMMENDATIONS:<br />
Authorize the purchase of one (1) replacement engine for MST’s heavy-duty<br />
diesel fleet from Valley Power Systems.<br />
FISCAL IMPACT:<br />
$30,742.32. Funding is available in MST’s capital budget.<br />
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Your Board approves all purchases that exceed $25,000.<br />
DISCUSSION:<br />
MST operates 80 heavy-duty clean diesel coaches. The bulk of the fleet (76<br />
buses) are Gillig coaches, the remaining four are newer MCI coaches. MST has 29<br />
buses, or 36% of the fleet, that are currently eligible for retirement under FTA<br />
requirements to operate heavy-duty buses for 12 years or 500,000 miles.<br />
A replacement engine is required for coach 1124, a model year 2003 Gillig with<br />
approximately 338,000 miles. Coach 1124 experienced a catastrophic gear train failure<br />
damaging the engine. This is the second engine failure within several weeks. When<br />
engines fail MST purchases a “rebuilt” engine from either the engine manufacturer or an<br />
after market distributer.<br />
Given the overall age of our fleet with 29 coaches in excess of 500,000 miles, it<br />
is anticipated that additional engine replacements may be required in the coming year.<br />
The replacement of this engine is essential in order for MST to meet its obligations for<br />
transit service.<br />
MST has applied for the Federal <strong>Transit</strong> Administrations “State of Good Repair”<br />
grant to replace the 29 coaches eligible for retirement; however, we are in a nationwide<br />
competition with other transit properties for these limited funds.
To: Board of Directors<br />
From: Zoé Shoats, Marketing Analyst<br />
45<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 3-4<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
Subject: Attitude and Awareness (Non-Rider) & On-Board Passenger Surveys<br />
RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Receive presentation by Majic Consulting staff on the 2011 MST Attitude and<br />
Awareness (Non-Rider) Survey and the 2011 MST On-Board Passenger Survey.<br />
FISCAL IMPACT:<br />
None.<br />
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
These surveys measure customer satisfaction, one of MST’s four key business<br />
Drivers, and are consistent with the customer and market focus component of MST’s<br />
business model.<br />
DISCUSSION:<br />
Public transit agencies regularly conduct passenger and non-passenger surveys<br />
to gauge opinions of customers and to find out information about those individuals who<br />
do not currently take public transit. This data can then be used to improve services for<br />
existing passengers as well as to increase ridership by marketing MST more effectively<br />
to non-riders. The last comprehensive passenger and non-passenger surveys were<br />
conducted in the fall of 2009.<br />
At the October 10, 2011 meeting, your Board approved a contract with Majic<br />
Consulting to conduct the 2011 MST Attitude and Awareness Survey of non-riders and<br />
the 2011 MST On-Board Passenger Survey. During November and December 2011,<br />
376 randomly selected non-passengers participated in a telephone survey (94 in<br />
Spanish). Also, 567 passengers (98 in Spanish) were interviewed aboard MST buses<br />
and at transit facilities. The conclusions of the surveys are summarized in an<br />
attachment. For a more detailed review of the survey results, Belynda Johnson,<br />
Managing Director of Majic Consulting, will report to your Board the findings and<br />
highlights of this project.
Attachment: Attitude and Awareness (Non-Rider) and 2011 On-Board Passenger<br />
Survey Results<br />
46
ONBOARD RIDER SURVEY RESULTS<br />
M S T O n b o a r d R i d e r S u r v e y<br />
M O N T E R E Y - S A L I N A S T R A N S I T<br />
Overall, the average survey respondent was an employed, English speaking white female, 18-24 years of age,<br />
who has lived in <strong>Monterey</strong> County for more than 10 years and has some college education. She rents a<br />
residence in Seaside or Marina and has a household income of less than $10,000. She has either a valid<br />
driver’s license or owns a motor vehicle, but not both.<br />
The average respondent has been using MST for less than one (1) year, but rides the service five (5) or more<br />
times per week because she did not have a car available. Both the economic downturn and the September 17 th<br />
service reductions did not affect the average rider’s use of the service. The average rider finds the service to<br />
be a value with respect to her distance traveled and the cost of travel.<br />
The average survey respondent typically pays her MST bus fare using cash and only uses one bus for the<br />
purpose of her trip, which was either going to or coming from work. The average respondent has access to<br />
the internet at home, but has not visited the MST website within the past 60 days. The average respondent<br />
indicates she would ride more often if MST offered more frequent service.<br />
Driver Safety was rated the highest of all of MST’s listed attributes. The average respondent agrees that the new<br />
fareboxes are more convenient and also speed-up boarding time. The statement that public transit is good for the<br />
community was the statement that resonates the most with the average respondent.<br />
In spite of frequently using cash to pare for her bus fare, the average respondent is aware that she can<br />
purchase an MST bus pass online. She was also familiar with the fare price prior to boarding the bus. The<br />
average respondent typically learned about MST service announcements on the bus and is most likely to plan<br />
her trip on MST by using the MST Bus Riders Guide, even though she is aware that she can plan her bus trip<br />
by using Google <strong>Transit</strong> on MST’s website. The <strong>Monterey</strong> Trolley service is the MST service that the average<br />
respondent is most familiar with.<br />
Overall, the average MST respondent is not interested in having MST serve new locations. However, the<br />
location that received the most interest as a potential new location for MST to serve is Downtown Santa<br />
Cruz.<br />
Page | 5
COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS<br />
M S T C o m m u n i t y S u r v e y<br />
M O N T E R E Y - S A L I N A S T R A N S I T<br />
Overall, the average community survey respondent was an English speaking white female over the age of 65,<br />
with a college degree, who has lived in <strong>Monterey</strong> County for more than 10 years. She lives in <strong>Salinas</strong> in a<br />
household where there are more than two licensed drivers and has a household income of more than<br />
$100,000 per year.<br />
While the average community survey respondent has access to the internet at home, she has not visited MST’s<br />
website. Television is the average community survey respondent’s favorite form of media and she engages in it<br />
for fewer than four hours a day.<br />
The average community survey respondent estimated that the MST daily bus fare is $2.00. Additionally, the<br />
average community survey respondent believed that MST’s annual ridership was fewer than one (1) million<br />
passengers per year. Out of all of MST’s services, the average community survey respondent was most familiar<br />
with MST Local Bus Routes.<br />
The economic downturn had not affected the average community survey respondent’s decision to ride the<br />
bus. The average community survey respondent’s reason for not riding the bus was because she needed her car<br />
during the day. Closer bus stops was the most common request and most important service improvement<br />
according to the average community survey respondent.<br />
According to the average community survey respondent, extending the commuter rail from San Jose to <strong>Salinas</strong> and<br />
increase bus service for residents had virtually equal results in regard to future traffic problems. Additionally, she<br />
felt that building more roads was the worst solution to dealing with future traffic problems. The average<br />
community survey respondent was familiar with MST’s local routes and felt that MST provided mobility for both<br />
low-income residents and persons with disabilities/seniors. However, she did not feel that MST improved parking<br />
availability or reduced traffic congestion.<br />
Page | 1
49<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 5-1<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
MONTEREY-SALINAS TRANSIT BOARD OF DIRECTORS<br />
FINANCE COMMITTEE MINUTES<br />
February 13, 2012<br />
9:00 a.m.<br />
One Ryan Ranch Road, <strong>Monterey</strong><br />
Present: Fernando Armenta County of <strong>Monterey</strong><br />
Frank O’Connell City of Marina<br />
Karen Sharp City of Carmel-by-the-Sea<br />
Susan Kleber City of King City<br />
Patricia Stephens City of Soledad<br />
Staff: Carl Sedoryk General Manager/CEO<br />
Angela Dawson Accountant<br />
Hunter Harvath Asst. General Manager/Finance & Administration<br />
Michael Hernandez Asst. General Manager/COO<br />
Deanna Smith Executive Administrative Assistant/Deputy Secretary<br />
Kathy Williams Accounting and Budget Manager<br />
Kelly Halcon Director of Human Resources & Risk Management<br />
Michelle Overmeyer Grants Analyst<br />
Other: Dave Laredo General Counsel/De Lay and Laredo<br />
1. Call to Order.<br />
Chair Armenta called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and roll call was taken.<br />
2. Public comment on matters not on the agenda.<br />
None.<br />
3. Review of FY2012 Mid Year Operating Results and recommend budget<br />
adjustments.<br />
Kathy Williams presented the operating results covering the period of July 1,<br />
2011 through December 31, 2011. She reminded the committee that while MST is over<br />
budget on revenue for this period, MST reports on accrual basis; therefore, not all cash<br />
has been received to date. She highlighted that MST’s expenses are over budget with<br />
labor costs contained. Marketing expenses are over budget by $30,000 due to studies<br />
and surveys, including consulting fees. Services are also over budget, while fuel costs
are under budget. Insurance is over budget, in part because CalTIP deductibles are<br />
difficult to project. The final YTD Actual Operating Results places MST over budget by<br />
$788,000. She believes that much of this will be balanced by the effects of the<br />
proposed April 2012 service reductions.<br />
Director Stephens arrived at 9:08 a.m.<br />
Director Armenta asked for more explanation on the revenue and expense<br />
overages. Ms. Williams explained that, fortunately, the diesel sales tax revenue has<br />
exceeded budget expectations. Mr. Sedoryk explained that while diesel tax revenue<br />
has previously been budgeted annually, revenue expectations are now reported<br />
quarterly. This change makes it difficult to accurately budget on an annual basis. If<br />
total revenue from this source remains over budget, the surplus could be used for<br />
capital investments or toward establishing a reserve fund. Additionally, expenses have<br />
been incurred because of required bus maintenance resulting from approximately 30%<br />
of the MST fleet either at or overdue for replacement.<br />
Director O’Connor asked why the YTD totals on page 2 for overtime are not<br />
stated. Mr. Harvath explained that overtime is built in to the totals for wages as a<br />
weighted average including overtime and training salary expenses.<br />
Director Kleber arrived at 9:14 a.m.<br />
4. Review of Capital Budget and Funding Availability.<br />
Ms. Williams stated that while MST still has $600,000 in its Capital Budget, there<br />
really are no funds for bus replacement or major capital expenses. Most of the budget<br />
is required for safety-related needs, and all revenue is being used to support essential<br />
facility-related operations. There remains over $2 million dollars in defined project<br />
needs because of budget shortfalls which does not include deferred bus purchases.<br />
Grants remain the primary resource for all bus purchases. Mr. Sedoryk stated that the<br />
capital funds are in effect the only reserve fund MST currently has.<br />
Director Armenta asked what the “bus sinking fund” was. Mr. Sedoryk stated that<br />
this is a fund designed to allocate funds for the replacement of MST large buses. Mr.<br />
Harvath stated that MST has applied for federal grants for bus replacement, but have<br />
been unsuccessful so far. With federal earmarks now forbidden, federal funding for this<br />
purpose is very difficult to obtain.<br />
5. Status of cash flow.<br />
Mr. Harvath stated that MST is basically floating the federal government $2.5<br />
million dollars in allocated funding. This federal funding represents 35% of MST’s<br />
annual budget, and the funding delays have required MST to take no-interest loans from<br />
TAMC to make payroll. He stated that the Board must make some tough decisions<br />
about MST’s levels of service moving forward, as he believes the situation in<br />
Washington, DC, is expected to worsen this year. He stated that 90% of the state’s<br />
50
population live in counties that have a sales tax measure that directly support public<br />
transportation. <strong>Monterey</strong> County is in the 10% without any direct local funding from its<br />
constituents.<br />
6. Discuss need/desirability of a reserve policy.<br />
Mr. Sedoryk stated that with the formation of the <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong><br />
District, we are now able to hold funds in reserve. He encouraged the Board to discuss<br />
a policy for establishing a reserve fund and for setting an acceptable amount of<br />
reserves.<br />
Director Stephens asked if a 3 month reserve was still an established industry<br />
standard. Mr. Sedoryk stated that other districts have anywhere from 15% to 30% of<br />
their operating budget set aside for reserves. Santa Cruz Metro holds a 6 month<br />
reserve. A 3 month reserve fund for MST would equate to approximately $7 million<br />
dollars. He reminded the Board that MST needs to fund a capital budget at the same<br />
time.<br />
Director Sharp agreed that a 3 month reserve is a good idea. Mr. Sedoryk<br />
suggested that the Board establish the policy and reserve amount prior to next year’s<br />
fiscal budget process.<br />
Director Stephens stated that, unfortunately, the public will probably not be<br />
supportive of a sales tax measure until they “feel the pain” of reduced transportation<br />
service.<br />
Director Armenta asked when the Finance Committee will meet again. Mr.<br />
Harvath stated that the Finance Committee will meet again in May and the FY 2013<br />
proposed budget will be presented to the Board for approval in June. Mr. Sedoryk also<br />
stated that it will be time to work on a new Strategic Plan in January of 2013.<br />
Director Kleber suggested a policy that required MST to set aside one month of<br />
reserves each year for three years to reach the 3 month reserve goal without being<br />
unrealistic. Mr. Sedoryk thought this was an excellent suggestion. Director Armenta<br />
stated that he supported the concept of accepting “pain” now as opposed to delaying it.<br />
7. Review FY 2012/13 budget schedule and assumptions.<br />
Mr. Harvath suggested adding reserves to budget expectations and reminded the<br />
Board that federal law prohibits MST from cutting services to its RIDES program. He<br />
stated that local gas tax revenue seems to be ticking upward.<br />
8. Adjourn.<br />
There being no further business, Chair Armenta adjourned the meeting at 9:49a.m.<br />
51
To: Board of Directors<br />
53<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 8-1<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
From: Hunter Harvath, Assistant General Manager – Finance & Administration<br />
Subject: Accessible Taxis Distribution Policy<br />
RECOMMENDATION:<br />
1. Adopt policy for distributing accessible taxi vehicles purchased by MST into local<br />
taxi fleet operations.<br />
2. Authorize General Manager/CEO to implement accessible taxi cab program and<br />
execute lease agreements with successful applicants who qualify for receipt of<br />
vehicles.<br />
FISCAL IMPACT:<br />
Potential lease revenues of $9,000 per vehicle over 5 years.<br />
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Your board is responsible for approving policies that ensure proper utilization of<br />
MST assets in compliance with state and federal regulations.<br />
DISCUSSION:<br />
In late 2009, MST received a federal New Freedoms grant in the amount of<br />
$207,360 to purchase wheelchair accessible taxis. Among the goals of the New<br />
Freedoms program is to assist the mobility needs of seniors and persons with<br />
disabilities who do not qualify for MST’s RIDES paratransit program, which is an<br />
existing federal mandate under the Americans with Disabilities Act. New Freedoms<br />
funds can also support programs (such as same day service) that exceed ADA<br />
requirements for the benefit of MST’s existing RIDES customers. Subsequently, in the<br />
spring of 2011, MST received additional federal New Freedoms grant funds in the<br />
amount of $250,000 to purchase additional wheelchair accessible taxis. While the grant<br />
funds cover 80% of the cost of the vehicle purchases, MST has pledged 20% of its local<br />
capital dollars to purchase these vehicles. In October 2011, your Board approved the<br />
purchase of the first three accessible taxi vehicles, which are specially customized<br />
Dodge minivans. Now that MST has worked through some procurement issues with<br />
Caltrans, which administers these federal New Freedoms grant funds on behalf of small<br />
urban and rural transit agencies like MST, the first three of these accessible taxi<br />
minivans have been delivered and are ready to be deployed into service.
In coordination with rules and regulations of the federal New Freedoms program,<br />
staff is proposing for your Board’s consideration the following policy that will govern the<br />
development of procedures through which these vehicles can be made available fairly<br />
and equitably to local taxi providers to offer same day transportation services to elderly<br />
and disabled customers, some of whom may need a wheelchair accessible vehicle.<br />
Once allocated a vehicle(s), the company would sign a five-year lease contract<br />
with MST providing a monthly payment of $150, for a total of $9,000 over the life of the<br />
lease. At the end of the five-year lease period, the vehicle would revert back to MST for<br />
disposal at its discretion. For example, your Board could decide to sell the vehicle at<br />
auction, to redeploy it somehow in MST’s mobility services, offer it back to the taxi<br />
provider for a nominal fee, or disposed of by some other method as your Board sees fit.<br />
The lease contract would include certain provisions that would ensure the vehicle<br />
would be used in compliance with all state and federal regulations. For example, the<br />
taxi company would have to give disabled passengers and seniors priority to hire the<br />
vehicle before it could be used to carry other passengers. As such, MST would have<br />
contract language that requires the taxi provider to give first priority to MST emergency<br />
calls for accessible transportation, second priority to a holder of an MST taxi voucher<br />
who requires an accessible vehicle, and third priority to a member of the general public<br />
with a disability requiring an accessible vehicle, before responding to a member of the<br />
general public without a disability. The federal New Freedom grant also requires that a<br />
taxi company have a policy of shared-rides. And, MST would insist that the taxi<br />
provider participate in training on assisting customers with disabilities and special needs<br />
provided by MST or its designee.<br />
Other terms and conditions regarding maintenance would be enforced through<br />
the lease contract, as Caltrans requires that, as the recipient of these grant funds, MST<br />
is liable for the maintenance, repair and continued good condition and operability of the<br />
vehicle. Staff will work with MST’s legal counsel to finalize these terms and conditions<br />
into a lease contract document that will be made available to prospective participants in<br />
the accessible taxi program.<br />
Staff seeks Board adoption of the attached Accessible Taxicab Distribution Policy<br />
and authorization of the General Manager/CEO to enter into lease agreements with<br />
successful applicants of the Accessible Taxicab program. Once adopted by your Board,<br />
staff will implement a competitive process for distribution of the vehicles that will include<br />
the following elements with the program:<br />
1. MST would solicit applications from local taxi companies using the <strong>Monterey</strong> County<br />
Regional Taxi Authority (RTA) mailing list. Interested companies would complete<br />
and submit the application to MST staff for consideration.<br />
2. All applicant companies must be in full compliance with the RTA to be considered for<br />
the Taxi Lease Program, including all drivers and vehicles.<br />
54
3. MST staff would screen all applicants and score them according to their abilities to<br />
provide prompt and reliable service according to the requirements of the program.<br />
4. Extra consideration would be given to companies with a documented history of<br />
serving seniors and persons with disabilities with a user-friendly dispatch system<br />
and with technology that provides security and payment options.<br />
5. An initial lottery of qualified applicants would select up to 3 providers. The 3 vehicles<br />
currently on hand would be distributed such that at least one of the three is based on<br />
the Peninsula and another of the three is based in <strong>Salinas</strong>.<br />
6. If/when additional taxis are delivered to MST, a second solicitation and lottery would<br />
be conducted based on the number of vehicles available. Depending upon the<br />
number of qualified applicants, a company with a significant presence in both<br />
communities would be eligible to receive more than one accessible taxi, if available.<br />
55
PURPOSE<br />
DRAFT<br />
MST Accessible Taxicab Distribution Policy<br />
MST’s Accessible Taxicab Distribution Policy is designed so that vehicles can be<br />
made available fairly and equitably to local taxi providers to offer same day<br />
transportation services to elderly and disabled customers, some of whom may need a<br />
wheelchair accessible vehicle.<br />
The Accessible Taxicab Distribution Policy provides a framework for creating<br />
procedures to fairly and equitably allocate vehicles purchased by MST to local taxi<br />
providers to offer same day transportation services to elderly and disabled customers,<br />
some of whom may need a wheelchair accessible vehicle; ensure the vehicle would be<br />
used in compliance with all state and federal regulations; and, allow MST to recover an<br />
appropriate percentage of its local share of capital dollars to purchase of these vehicles.<br />
ACCESSIBLE TAXICAB DISTRIBUTION POLICY<br />
To promote the fair and equitable allocation of vehicles purchased by MST to<br />
local taxi providers to offer same day transportation services to elderly and disabled<br />
customers, some of whom may need a wheelchair accessible vehicle; ensure the<br />
vehicles used remain in compliance with all state and federal regulations; and, allow<br />
MST to recover an appropriate percentage of its local share of capital dollars to<br />
purchase of these vehicles, staff shall implement procedures and programs that require:<br />
1. MST solicits applications from local taxi companies using the <strong>Monterey</strong> County<br />
Regional Taxi Authority (RTA) mailing list. Interested companies would complete<br />
and submit the application to MST staff for consideration.<br />
2. All applicant companies be in full compliance with the RTA to be considered for<br />
the Taxi Lease Program, including all drivers and vehicles.<br />
3. MST staff screen all applicants and score them according to their abilities to<br />
provide prompt and reliable service according to the requirements of the<br />
program.<br />
4. Extra consideration is given to companies with a documented history of serving<br />
seniors and persons with disabilities with a user-friendly dispatch system and<br />
with technology that provides security and payment options.<br />
56<br />
ATTACHMENT 1
5. Distribution of vehicles in such a manner that at an appropriate number of<br />
accessible cabs are placed within the Peninsula communities and City of <strong>Salinas</strong><br />
based on documented customer demand.<br />
6. Recovery of an appropriate percentage of MST’s local share of capital dollars for<br />
purchase of these vehicles allowing the successful applicant to sign a lease<br />
contract with MST providing monthly payments over the life of the vehicle. At the<br />
end of the lease period, the vehicle would revert back to MST for disposal at its<br />
discretion.<br />
7. The vehicle would be used in compliance with all state and federal regulations<br />
8. Depending upon the number of qualified applicants, a company with a significant<br />
presence in both communities would be eligible to receive more than one<br />
accessible taxi, if available.<br />
9. Development of terms and conditions regarding maintenance, repair and<br />
continued good condition and operability of the vehicle to be enforced through<br />
the lease contract, as required by grant funds.<br />
57
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
58
To: Board of Directors<br />
From: Carl Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO<br />
Subject: MST Board of Directors, Rotation of Officers<br />
RECOMMENDATION:<br />
59<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 8-2<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
Adopt changes to <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> District bylaws to promote rotation of board<br />
members in Board leadership positions.<br />
FISCAL IMPACT:<br />
None.<br />
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Your Board requested staff to recommend changes to the District bylaws to promote<br />
rotation of board members in Board leadership positions. The <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong><br />
District bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting of the Board upon the<br />
affirmative vote of a majority of members.<br />
DISCUSSION:<br />
At the June 15, 2011 Board Meeting, Chair Armenta requested that the TAMC<br />
bylaws regarding Officer Term Limits be researched and considered by the MST Board<br />
of Directors as a template for future officer positions. At your September, 2011 Board<br />
meeting, your Board directed staff to propose modifications the MST District bylaws to<br />
promote the rotation of representation in Board leadership positions from the Peninsula,<br />
<strong>Salinas</strong> Valley, and from cities and county representatives.<br />
To achieve this outcome staff recommends the following addition to Article VI. (b)<br />
OFFICERS of the MST District Bylaws.<br />
ARTICLE VI. OFFICERS<br />
b. The Board shall appoint annually members to a Nominating Committee<br />
responsible for recommending officer appointments to the full Board. It shall be<br />
the responsibility of the Nominating Committee to encourage diversity among<br />
officers and full participation among representatives of each jurisdiction in such<br />
positions of leadership.
Staff believes that by placing the responsibility with the Nominating Committee<br />
the Board will have the ability to promote diversity of leadership on the Board, but<br />
also maintains the flexibility to retain leadership positions should circumstances<br />
dictate that to be the best course of action.<br />
A complete set of revised bylaws with additions denoted by underlines and<br />
deletions denoted by strike-through are attached. The <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong><br />
District bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting of the Board upon the<br />
affirmative vote of a majority of members<br />
ATTACHMENT: Draft Bylaws with recommended revisions<br />
60
THE BYLAWS OF THE<br />
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE<br />
MONTEREY SALINAS TRANSIT DISTRICT<br />
These Bylaws are intended to supplement Part 17 (commencing with Section 106000) to<br />
Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to transportation.<br />
These Bylaws outline the basic organization and the administration procedures used by the<br />
<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> District, successor agency to the <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> Joint<br />
Powers Agency, and <strong>Monterey</strong> Peninsula <strong>Transit</strong> Joint Powers Agency. When serving as the<br />
Public <strong>Transit</strong> Operator the <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> District is referred to as the “District”.<br />
ARTICLE I. COMPOSITION OF BOARD<br />
The district shall be governed by a Board of Directors which shall be composed of one<br />
representative from each member jurisdiction. Each member of the Board of Directors shall have<br />
one vote. Each member jurisdiction shall appoint one regular member and one alternate member<br />
to the Board of Directors and shall notify the district in writing of its appointments or any change<br />
of representative.<br />
ARTICLE II. APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS<br />
Each member shall serve solely at the pleasure of the appointing member jurisdiction. Members<br />
shall be either elected officials or officers or employees of the appointing member jurisdiction.<br />
ARTICLE III. DISTRICT POWERS<br />
a. Taxes. The District may, with the concurrence of a majority of the member jurisdictions<br />
represented on the Board of Directors, cause to be submitted to voters of the District a<br />
ballot measure for the imposition of taxes in accord with the limits set by the District<br />
enabling Act.<br />
b. Fees. The District may impose and administer fees and other funding sources secured<br />
for transportation system operation, maintenance, and improvement, as authorized by<br />
law.<br />
c. Fares. The Board of Directors may set fares for public transit service by resolution or<br />
minute order.<br />
d. Bonds. The District may issue bonds, payable from revenues of any facility or enterprise<br />
to be acquired or constructed by the District, in the manner provided by the Revenue<br />
Bond Law of 1941 (Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 54300) of Part 1 of Division 2<br />
of Title 5 of the Government Code), all of the provisions of which are applicable to the<br />
District.<br />
61
ARTICLE IV. FUNDING<br />
The District may promulgate a plan for funding transportation projects.<br />
ARTICLE V. MEETINGS<br />
a. Regular meetings of the Board shall be held the second Monday of each month<br />
throughout the year commencing at the hour of 10:00am in the <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong>,<br />
Thomas D. Albert Division Conference Room at One Ryan Ranch Road, <strong>Monterey</strong>,<br />
California 93940. Regular meetings may also be held on other days, at other times, and<br />
places as the business of the <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> District (“District”) requires.<br />
Unless otherwise determined, meetings shall be held in the <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong>,<br />
Thomas D. Albert Division at One Ryan Ranch Road, <strong>Monterey</strong>, California 93940.<br />
b. District meetings are open to the public and are conducted according to the Ralph M.<br />
Brown Act (Govt. Code Section 54950 et seq.) and Roberts Rules of Order. Time will be<br />
allotted at each meeting for the public to present their views to the District on<br />
transportation items, as set forth in Govt. Code Section 54954.3. Public presentations on<br />
transportation matters not on the District’s agenda are limited to three minutes each,<br />
unless extended at the discretion of the Chair. The Chair may establish reasonable<br />
limitations on the time allotted for public presentations on any District agenda item.<br />
c. The voting members of the District may meet in closed session to discuss those matters<br />
authorized by state law. Only appointed District representatives and, in their absence,<br />
their appointed alternates may attend Closed Sessions. Ex-officio members shall not be<br />
authorized to attend Closed Sessions.<br />
d. The District Chair in consultation with the General Manager/CEO may cancel any<br />
regular meeting if there are no items presented that require the District's immediate<br />
attention.<br />
e. The District <strong>Agenda</strong> will be prepared by the District staff and will close at noon<br />
Wednesday nine (9) working days before the regular meeting. Any member may request<br />
in writing an item to appear on the agenda. The request shall be made by the agenda<br />
deadline and any supporting papers must be furnished by that time or be readily<br />
available.<br />
f. <strong>Agenda</strong> packets shall be distributed to District members, alternates, and ex-officio<br />
members.<br />
ARTICLE VI. OFFICERS<br />
a. The Board shall elect a Chair ,Vice-Chair, Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Treasurer, and<br />
Deputy Treasurer at the first regular meeting in July of each calendar year to serve until<br />
the first regular meeting in July of the next succeeding calendar year. If the positions of<br />
62
Chair and Vice-Chair are both vacated at any time, the elections for the remainder of the<br />
terms shall be held at the next regularly scheduled meeting.<br />
b. The Board shall appoint annually members to a Nominating Committee responsible for<br />
recommending officer appointments to the full Board. It shall be the responsibility of the<br />
Nominating Committee to encourage diversity among officers and full participation<br />
among representatives of each jurisdiction in such positions of leadership.<br />
The Nominating Committee will meet prior to the month of July of each calendar year<br />
and make their recommendations for Board approval at the July Board meeting.<br />
c. Duties of elected officers are defined as follows:<br />
The Chair shall preside at all regular and special meetings and shall preserve order<br />
and decorum and shall decide all questions of order and procedure not otherwise<br />
provided for in these By-Law subject to the will of the majority of the board quorum<br />
in attendance. The Chair shall be entitled to make or second any motion, discuss and<br />
present any matter as a member of the Board without having to step down from the<br />
Chair. The Chair may appoint committees from time to time for any purpose he or<br />
she deems proper for the conduct of Board business.<br />
The Vice-Chair shall assume all duties of the Chair in the latter’s absence from any<br />
meeting.<br />
The Secretary shall be the General Manager/CEO and keep the official minutes of all<br />
meetings of the Board, and shall perform such other duties as determined by the<br />
Board.<br />
The Deputy Secretary shall be a staff member and assume all duties of the Secretary in the<br />
latter’s absence from any meeting.<br />
The Treasurer shall be a staff member, and shall review and monitor the financial<br />
condition of the District, ensure that the Board is adequately informed of its financial<br />
condition, and act as the fiscal agent of the Board.<br />
The Deputy Treasurer shall be a staff member and assume all duties of the Treasurer in the<br />
latter’s absence from any meeting.<br />
ARTICLE VII. BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES<br />
a. The Board shall consider staff recommendations, adopt policies, conduct hearings, make<br />
appointments, and perform all other activities required via motion, resolution, or ordinance<br />
to further the mission and goals of the District; comply with federal, state, and local laws;<br />
and provide staff guidance and oversight to fulfill its fiduciary responsibilities to the<br />
constituencies it serves.<br />
63<br />
Formatte<br />
Deleted<br />
Formatte<br />
numbering<br />
Asian text,<br />
numbers, T<br />
Formatte<br />
numbering<br />
Formatte<br />
numbering<br />
Asian text,<br />
numbers, T
. Subject to the will of a majority of the Board, the Chair, or the Vice-Chair in the Board<br />
Chair’s absence, may establish permanent and ad hoc committees as are determined<br />
necessary. These committees shall act to provide advice and recommendation to the Board<br />
of Directors on policy matters relative, but not limited to transportation services, facilities,<br />
compensation and benefit programs, legislation, marketing and finances affecting the<br />
District. These committees shall be members of the Board of Directors as selected by the<br />
Chair and such other persons, including District staff and public members as selected by<br />
the Board. Any establishment of a committee shall specify the purpose of the committee,<br />
the length of time the committee shall serve and the times and methods by which the<br />
committees shall report to the Board. Meeting times and dates of this committee shall be<br />
established by a majority of the<br />
committee members. Written minutes of each meeting shall be maintained.<br />
c. Pursuant to the AB644, the enabling legislation creating the District, the Board shall:<br />
Adopt an annual budget; adopt an administrative code, by ordinance, which prescribes<br />
the powers and duties of the district officers, the method of appointment of the district<br />
employees, and methods, procedures, and systems of operation and management of the<br />
district; and cause a post audit of the financial transactions and records of the district to<br />
be made at least annually by a certified public accountant.<br />
ARTICLE VIII. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.<br />
The Board shall appoint a Chief Executive Officer to serve as administrative head of the District.<br />
a. The duties of the Chief Executive Officer subject to the discretion and control of the<br />
Board include:<br />
1. All duties and responsibilities assigned, delegated or allowed by Federal, State and<br />
local law, rule, statute, regulation and/or ordinance to the administrative head of a<br />
State transportation district.<br />
2. All necessary liaison activities between the District and Federal, State and local<br />
public agencies relating to public transportation services originating or terminating<br />
within the geographical boundaries of <strong>Monterey</strong> County.<br />
3. All necessary activities required by law to plan, organize, coordinate, direct and<br />
evaluate the activities of the District, including (a) the organization and<br />
administration of Board and committee meetings; (b) the development and<br />
management of the operating and capital budgets of the District; (c) the<br />
management of transportation-related projects; (d) the performance of contract<br />
negotiations, monitoring and administration.<br />
4. All personnel matters including the hiring, compensation, promotion, and<br />
disciplining of District staff, including employee termination consistent with Board<br />
adopted personnel policies and procedures and related labor agreements.<br />
64
5. All duties and activities related to procurement, construction, general<br />
administration, maintenance and operation of MST facilities, equipment and transit<br />
programs as necessary and required to carry out Board approved District policies.<br />
6. All necessary activities related to Federal and State legislative matters concerning<br />
public transportation in the District.<br />
7. All necessary activities required of the Secretary to the Board.<br />
8. Such other duties and responsibilities as may be, from time to time, assigned or<br />
delegated by the District Board of Directors.<br />
ARTICLE IX. LEGAL COUNSEL.<br />
The Board shall appoint its legal counsel and shall determine the duties and responsibilities of its<br />
legal counsel.<br />
ARTICLE X. QUORUM.<br />
No action of the Board shall be taken unless a quorum thereof is present. A majority of the<br />
entire voting membership of the Board shall constitute a quorum.<br />
ARTICLE XI. VOTING.<br />
a. Voice Vote. Subject to the will of a majority of the voting Board Members in attendance,<br />
the Chair may call for voting on a motion by voice vote without calling the roll. A<br />
member’s silence shall be recorded as an affirmative vote<br />
b. Calling the Roll. Any voting member may call for a roll call vote.<br />
c. Minimum vote. Except as may otherwise be required by State law and except as<br />
otherwise indicated in these Bylaws, no action or recommendation of the Board shall be<br />
valid unless a majority of a quorum of voting Board Members concur therein.<br />
d. Abstaining Vote. A vote to abstain is not to be construed as a vote for or against a motion.<br />
ARTICLE XII. STIPEND.<br />
The voting members and non-voting ex-officio members of the Board of Directors shall be paid<br />
a stipend for each MST meeting actually attended where a quorum is present. An alternate shall<br />
be entitled to a stipend only if the appointed member is not present at the meeting and only one<br />
stipend per meeting shall be paid per jurisdiction. This stipend amount shall be determined by an<br />
action of the Board.<br />
65
ARTICLE XIII. BUDGET PROCESS.<br />
a. For each fiscal year (July 1 to June 30), the Board shall adopt a District budget for capital<br />
and operating expenses, as well as capital and operating revenues.<br />
b. The Board shall adopt at least a preliminary budget by June 30 which shall serve as the<br />
tentative District budget pending adoption of a final budget. A final budget shall be<br />
adopted no later than August 30 of each year.<br />
ARTICLE XIV. RESOLUTIONS.<br />
Resolutions of the Board may be adopted conditionally and referred to the District Chief Executive<br />
Officer for drafting in the proper form. Resolutions shall be numbered consecutively and annually<br />
and copies thereof shall be maintained by the Secretary to the Board Members and made available<br />
to the Public. A copy of each Resolution shall be delivered to each Board Member.<br />
ARTICLE XV. APPEALS<br />
a. All Board decisions are final. A motion to reconsider action taken by the Board may be<br />
made only on the day the action was taken. The motion to reconsider may be made only by<br />
a Board member who voted with the prevailing side. This does not prevent a Board<br />
member from making or remaking the same or any other motion at a subsequent meeting of<br />
the Board.<br />
b. Any judicial review of a Board decision shall be undertaken within the time limits<br />
established by law.<br />
ARTICLE XVI. AMENDMENT OF BYLAWS.<br />
These bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting of the Board upon the affirmative vote of a<br />
majority of members.<br />
66
To: Board of Directors<br />
From: Zoé Shoats, Marketing Analyst<br />
67<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 9-1<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
Subject: Authorize adding discounts for residential complexes serving the elderly<br />
and disabled to the Group Discount Program<br />
RECOMMENDATION:<br />
Include monthly passes for residents of senior and disabled housing in Group Discount<br />
program and offer a 50% discount for pre-paid passes for all residents of a senior<br />
and/or disabled housing complex.<br />
FISCAL IMPACT:<br />
Unknown at this time.<br />
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:<br />
Your board is responsible for setting fares and approving discounts.<br />
DISCUSSION:<br />
MST currently has a Group Discount program which allows organizations, such<br />
as local employers, community groups, and residential complexes to purchase monthly<br />
bus passes in bulk for their employees, members, and residents at a discounted rate.<br />
The program encourages the use of public transportation by making riding the bus an<br />
outstanding benefit, with reduced administration costs to MST.<br />
With the current Group Discount program, the amount of the discount for each<br />
pass type is based on quantity purchased (see table, below). The program only<br />
provides discounts on full-fare passes for adults and does not further discount the halfprice<br />
passes for youth, elderly, disabled, Medicare cardholders and active duty military.<br />
Staff is proposing extending the same rates of discount for half-price monthly<br />
passes for residential complexes serving the elderly and disabled as shown in the<br />
shaded columns of the table. As developers of residential complexes are required to<br />
have a minimum number of parking spaces, this program would, with approval of local<br />
government, allow developers of senior and disabled housing to reduce the number of<br />
required parking spots while encouraging the use of public transportation for their
esidents. Similar parking reduction programs are already in place in several Bay Area<br />
communities.<br />
Quantity Discount<br />
Super<br />
Pass<br />
68<br />
Basic Pass<br />
Super<br />
Discount<br />
Pass<br />
Basic<br />
Discount<br />
Pass<br />
1-2 passes None $150.00 $75.00 $75.00 $37.00<br />
3-5 passes 10% $135.00 $67.50 $67.50 $33.30<br />
6-9 passes 15% $127.50 $63.75 $63.75 $31.45<br />
10-19 passes 20% $120.00 $60.00 $60.00 $29.60<br />
20-25 passes 25% $112.50 $56.25 $56.25 $27.75<br />
26-30 passes 30% $105.00 $52.50 $52.50 $25.90<br />
31+ passes 35% $97.50 $48.75 $48.75 $24.05<br />
In addition, staff is also proposing to allow residential housing complexes for the<br />
elderly and disabled the ability to pre-purchase monthly bus passes in bulk at a 50%<br />
discount should the complex pay upfront for a full year of passes for all of their<br />
residents. This would make the Super Discount pass $450 per resident annually<br />
($37.50 per month) and the Basic Discount pass $222 per resident annually ($18.50 per<br />
month). Passes would be distributed as needed so as not to encourage fraud.
To: Board of Directors<br />
From: C. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO<br />
Subject: January 2012 Monthly Report<br />
69<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 10-1<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
Attached are the most recent monthly statistics and the reports from the<br />
Administration and Operations/Maintenance Departments.<br />
I traveled to San Diego to participate in an Executive Committee strategic<br />
planning and business meeting for the California <strong>Transit</strong> Association on January 19 –<br />
20. At the meeting we reviewed and adopted association budget and state legislative<br />
advocacy program for the coming year. Additionally, we received updates and reviewed<br />
policies associated with the association financial oversight, member services, and<br />
educational programs.<br />
I traveled to Washington DC on January 26 – 27 to conduct legislative advocacy<br />
meetings with staff members from the House of Representatives and Senate as well as<br />
representatives of the Federal <strong>Transit</strong> Administration (FTA). Topics discussed included<br />
Reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU, Federal <strong>Transit</strong> Commuter Fringe Benefits, and<br />
proposals affecting the Bus and Bus Facilities funding programs. Attachment 4 is an<br />
itinerary of meetings that were held in Washington DC.<br />
I attended the American Public <strong>Transit</strong> Association General Manager/CEO<br />
conference in Orlando, FL on January 28 – 31. At the conference I provided a<br />
presentation on MST risk-management and safety/security programs as part of a<br />
session on transit industry best practices. At the conference I also received updates on<br />
the latest federal policies and regulations, trends in labor contract negotiations, new<br />
technologies, and customer service programs from other leaders within the transit<br />
industry.<br />
Attachment #1 – Operations Department Report January 2012<br />
Attachment #2 – Facilities & Maintenance Department Report January 2012<br />
Attachment #3 – Administration Department Report May January 2012<br />
Attachment#4 – Itinerary of January 26 – 27 meetings in Washington DC.
PREPARED BY: ____________________________<br />
Carl G. Sedoryk<br />
70
71<br />
ATTACHMENT 1<br />
March 2, 2012<br />
To: M. Hernandez, Assistant General Manager / C.O.O.<br />
From: R. Weber, Director of Transportation Services<br />
Cc: MST Board of Directors<br />
Subject: Transportation Department Monthly Report January 2012<br />
FIXED ROUTE BUS OPERATIONS:<br />
System Wide Service: (Fixed Route & DART Services):<br />
Preliminary boarding statistics indicate that ridership decreased by 5.98% in January 2012,<br />
(300,008), as compared to January 2011, (319,097). Fiscal year-to-date, passenger boardings<br />
have decreased by only 0.67% for the same period last year.<br />
Productivity decreased slightly from 14.4 passengers per hour (January 2011), to 14.1 PPH in<br />
January of this year.<br />
Trolley Services:<br />
MST <strong>Salinas</strong> Trolley: carried 874 passengers in January, which represents a 43.28% increase<br />
from January of 2011 (610).<br />
MST CSUMB (Otter) Trolley: Carried 652 passengers in January, averaging 766 passenger<br />
boardings per month in its first year of operation.<br />
Supplemental / Special Services:<br />
None to report<br />
System Wide Statistics:<br />
Ridership: 300,008<br />
Vehicle Revenue Hours: 21,204<br />
Vehicle Revenue Miles: 340,723<br />
System Productivity: 14.1 Passengers Per Vehicle Revenue Hour<br />
Scheduled One-Way Trips: 33,244<br />
Time Point Adherence: Of 118,262 total time-point crossings sampled for the month of<br />
January, the <strong>Transit</strong>Master system recorded 15,199 delayed arrivals to MST’s published timepoints<br />
system-wide. This denotes that 87.15% of all scheduled arrivals at published time-points<br />
were on time. (See MST Fixed-Route Bus ~~ On Time Compliance Chart FY 2012.)
Service arriving later than 5 minutes beyond the published time point is considered late. The ontime<br />
compliance chart, (attached), reflects system wide “on-time performance” as a percentage<br />
to the total number of reported time-point crossings.<br />
Trips With 10 or More Standees: There were twenty seven (27) reported trips with 10 or more<br />
standees for the month of January. (See Operations Summary report for further information)<br />
Cancelled Trips: As listed below, there were a total of thirteen (13) cancelled trips for the<br />
month of January for both directly operated and contracted services.<br />
Reason MST MV Transportation % Of All Missed<br />
Extended Pass Boarding 6 0 46.15%<br />
Mechanical Failure 3 0 23.08%<br />
Staffing 3 0 23.08%<br />
Traffic 1 0 7.69%<br />
Totals 13 0 100%<br />
Documented Occurrences: MST Coach Operators are required to complete an occurrence<br />
report for any unusual incident that occurs during their work day. The information provided<br />
within these reports is used to identify trends, which often drive changes in policy or standard<br />
operating procedures. The following is a comparative summary of reported incidents for the<br />
month(s) of January 2011 and 2012:<br />
CONTRACTED SERVICES:<br />
MST RIDES ADA / ST Paratransit Program:<br />
Occurrence Type January-11 January-12<br />
Collision: MST Involved 0 2<br />
Medical Emergency 2 0<br />
Object Hits Coach 0 1<br />
Passenger Conflict 4 1<br />
Passenger Fall 5 4<br />
Passenger Injury 2 0<br />
Employee Injury 0 0<br />
Other 4 4<br />
Near Miss 1 0<br />
Unreported Damage 1 0<br />
Fuel / Fluid Spill 0 2<br />
Total Occurrences 19 14<br />
Preliminary boarding statistics for the MST RIDES program reflect that for the month of January<br />
there were 9,225 passenger boardings. This represents an 11.78% increase in passenger<br />
boardings from January of 2011, (8,253). Fiscal year-to-date, passenger boardings for this<br />
program have increased by 5.88% over the same period last year.<br />
72
For the month of January, 87.73 % of all scheduled trips for the MST RIDES Program<br />
arrived on time, increasing from 86.34 % in January of 2011. (See MST RIDES ~~ On<br />
Time Compliance Chart FY 2012.)<br />
Productivity for January of this year was at 2.4 passengers per hour, increasing from<br />
1.94 in January of 2011.<br />
Paratransit Certification Statistics:<br />
For the month of January, 54 applications were reviewed, resulting in 53 approvals and<br />
1 denial. Of the approvals, 44 were new program participants, and 9 were<br />
recertifications.<br />
36 participants were deactivated in the database.<br />
A total of 78 applications were received – 24, (30%), did not complete the application<br />
process.<br />
As of January 2012, there are 3,096 registered / active program participants.<br />
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER:<br />
In January, the Communications Center summoned public safety agencies on three (3)<br />
separate occasions to MST’s transit vehicles and facilities:<br />
Agency Type Incident Type Number Of Responses<br />
Police Passenger Incident / Other 3<br />
ATTACHMENTS:<br />
MST Fixed-Route Bus ~~ On Time Compliance FY 2012.<br />
MST Fixed-Route Bus ~~ Boarding Statistics FY 2012.<br />
MST Trolley Service ~~ Boarding Statistics FY 2012<br />
MST RIDES ~~ On Time Compliance FY 2012<br />
MST RIDES ~~ Boarding Statistics FY 2012<br />
73<br />
Robert Weber
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
74
MST FIXED ROUTE<br />
ON-TIME COMPLIANCE FY 2012<br />
FY 11 FY12 FY12 FY12<br />
ON-TIME TIME POINT DELAYED ARRIVALS ON-TIME<br />
MONTH PERFORMANCE COUNT 5 + MINUTES PERFORMANCE<br />
Jul 84.86% 118,325 17,036 85.60%<br />
Aug 83.25% 139,320 24,060 82.73%<br />
Sept 83.31% 121,794 23,969 80.32%<br />
Oct 86.54% 116,442 21,649 81.41%<br />
Nov 86.62% 112,468 19,434 82.72%<br />
Dec 88.10% 120,189 18,810 84.35%<br />
Jan 89.30% 118,262 15,199 87.15%<br />
Feb 88.11%<br />
March 89.79%<br />
April 86.19%<br />
May 87.87%<br />
June 88.36%<br />
Total N/A 846,800 140,157 N/A<br />
YTD Average 86.00% 120,971 20,022 83.47%<br />
On-Time Compliance<br />
100%<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
Jul<br />
Aug<br />
Sept<br />
Oct<br />
On-Time Compliance<br />
FY 2012<br />
Nov<br />
Dec<br />
Jan<br />
FY11 FY12<br />
75<br />
Feb<br />
March<br />
April<br />
May<br />
June<br />
Jan 2012<br />
Data Sampled: 87.0%<br />
Goal<br />
87%
MST FIXED ROUTE BOARDINGS<br />
FY 2012 Monthly Boardings<br />
MONTH FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 % CHANGE<br />
July 385,052 406,623 412,265 1.39%<br />
Aug 420,751 429,204 449,737 4.78%<br />
Sep 394,189 418,155 418,519 0.09%<br />
Oct 376,171 386,961 376,475 -2.71%<br />
Nov 333,974 343,922 336,982 -2.02%<br />
Dec 308,937 311,123 303,533 -2.44%<br />
Jan 280,327 319,097 300,008 -5.98%<br />
Feb 303,307 321,023<br />
Mar 350,500 358,403<br />
April 350,469 337,070<br />
May 363,614 364,594<br />
June 382,331 375,977<br />
TOTAL 4,249,622 4,372,152 2,597,519<br />
YTD Avg. 357,057 373,584 371,074 -0.67%<br />
YTD Comparison 2,499,401 2,615,085 2,597,519 -0.67%<br />
Boardings are inclusive of all On Call, Trolley, & Fixed Route Services<br />
500,000<br />
450,000<br />
400,000<br />
350,000<br />
300,000<br />
250,000<br />
200,000<br />
150,000<br />
100,000<br />
50,000<br />
0<br />
MONTHLY RIDERSHIP<br />
July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June<br />
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012<br />
76
INPUT of Resources OUTPUT END PRODUCT<br />
VEHICLE VEHICLE TOTAL<br />
TOTAL REVENUE REVENUE BOARDINGS<br />
EMPLOYEES OPERATING COST MILES HOURS (UNLINKED TRIPS)<br />
MONTH FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012<br />
JUL 240.0 248.0 $1,927,614 $2,235,897 341,909 384,558 21,949 24,255 406,623 412,265<br />
AUG 237.0 247.0 $2,093,268 $2,468,451 338,511 398,293 21,764 25,072 429,204 449,737<br />
SEP 234.0 247.0 $2,545,265 $2,546,233 334,253 364,818 20,981 22,733 418,155 418,519<br />
OCT 235.0 246.0 $2,105,961 $2,699,738 341,855 348,283 21,322 21,791 386,961 363,043<br />
NOV 238.0 245.0 $2,177,880 $2,452,286 320,533 325,718 19,991 20,415 343,922 336,982<br />
DEC 238.0 245.0 $2,848,523 $2,970,950 336,441 343,596 20,880 21,498 311,123 303,533<br />
SUBTOTAL $13,698,511 $15,373,555 2,013,502 2,165,266<br />
126,887 135,764<br />
2,295,988 2,284,079<br />
JAN 241.0 246.0 $2,243,787 $2,548,070 333,567 340,723 20,638 21,204 319,097 300,008<br />
FEB 245.0 $2,160,033 315,750 19,446 321,023<br />
MAR 253.0 $2,460,010 361,376 22,211 358,403<br />
APR 250.0 $2,454,335 366,221 22,558 337,070<br />
MAY 247.0 $2,322,640 374,013 23,065 364,594<br />
JUN 248.0 $3,196,674 371,981 23,252 375,977<br />
TOTAL - - $28,535,990 $17,921,625 4,136,410 2,505,989 258,057 156,968 4,372,152 2,584,087<br />
AVERAGE 242.2 246.3 $2,377,999 $2,560,232 344,701 357,998 21,505 22,424 364,346 369,155<br />
Service Efficiency Cost Efficiency Service Effectiveness Measures Cost Effectiveness<br />
VEHICLE COST/<br />
COST/<br />
REVENUE HRS/ REVENUE BOARDINGS/ BOARDINGS/ UNLINKED<br />
EMPLOYEE HOUR REVENUE MILE REVENUE HOUR TRIP<br />
MONTH FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012<br />
JUL 91.5 97.8 $87.82 $92.18 1.19 1.07 18.5 17.0 $4.74 $5.42<br />
AUG 91.8 101.5 $96.18 $98.45 1.27 1.13 19.7 17.9 $4.88 $5.49<br />
SEP 89.7 92.0 $121.31 $112.01 1.25 1.15 19.9 18.4 $6.09 $6.08<br />
OCT 90.7 88.6 $98.77 $123.89 1.13 1.04 18.1 16.7 $5.44 $7.44<br />
NOV 84.0 83.3 $108.94 $120.12 1.07 1.03 17.2 16.5 $6.33 $7.28<br />
DEC<br />
SUBTOTAL<br />
87.7 87.7 $136.42 $138.20 0.92 0.88 14.9 14.1 $9.16 $9.79<br />
JAN 85.6 86.2 $108.72 $120.17 0.96 0.88 15.5 14.1 $7.03 $8.49<br />
FEB 79.4 $111.08 1.02 16.5 $6.73<br />
MAR 87.8 $110.76 0.99 16.1 $6.86<br />
APR 90.2 $108.80 0.92 14.9 $7.28<br />
MAY 93.4 $100.70 0.97 15.8 $6.37<br />
JUN<br />
TOTAL<br />
93.8 $137.48 1.01 16.2 $8.50<br />
AVERAGE 84.1 91.0 $105.16 $114.17 1.10 1.03 17.7 16.5 $6.53 $6.94<br />
Note - All statistics include contracted-out service.<br />
* - Preliminary data for current year.<br />
MST FIXED ROUTE BUS Program<br />
Comparative Statistics<br />
FY 2011 - FY 2012<br />
77
5,000<br />
4,500<br />
4,000<br />
3,500<br />
3,000<br />
2,500<br />
2,000<br />
1,500<br />
1,000<br />
500<br />
Total Ridership<br />
YTD Average<br />
YTD Comparison<br />
0<br />
MST TROLLEY - SALINAS<br />
FY 2012 Monthly Boardings<br />
Did Not Operate<br />
MONTH FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 % CHANGE<br />
Jul<br />
Aug<br />
Sep 966 993 906 -8.76%<br />
Oct 1,642 1,143 1,486 30.01%<br />
Nov 1,258 1,016 1,418 39.57%<br />
Dec 922 589 717 21.73%<br />
Jan 648 610 874 43.28%<br />
Feb 1,205 1,114<br />
Mar 1,523 1,334<br />
Apr 1,425 918<br />
May 1,227 1,126<br />
Jun<br />
10,816 8,843 5,401<br />
1,087 870 1,080 24.13%<br />
5,436 4,351 5,401 24.13%<br />
SALINAS TROLLEY MONTHLY RIDERSHIP<br />
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun<br />
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012<br />
78
5,000<br />
4,500<br />
4,000<br />
3,500<br />
3,000<br />
2,500<br />
2,000<br />
1,500<br />
1,000<br />
Total Ridership<br />
YTD Average<br />
YTD Comparison<br />
500<br />
0<br />
MST CSUMB TROLLEY<br />
FY 2012 Monthly Boardings<br />
Did Not Operate<br />
MONTH FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 % CHANGE<br />
Jul<br />
Aug 368 N/A<br />
Sep 1,010 N/A<br />
Oct 1,054 N/A<br />
Nov 940 N/A<br />
Dec 573 N/A<br />
Jan 652 N/A<br />
Feb<br />
Mar<br />
Apr<br />
May<br />
Jun<br />
4,597<br />
766 N/A<br />
4,597 N/A<br />
CSUMB TROLLEY MONTHLY RIDERSHIP<br />
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun<br />
FY2010 FY2011 FY2012<br />
79
MST RIDES<br />
ON TIME COMPLIANCE FY - 2012<br />
MONTH FY11 FY12<br />
Jul 85.85% 84.47%<br />
Aug 85.44% 84.92%<br />
Sept 86.06% 83.95%<br />
Oct 86.56% 83.48%<br />
Nov 86.56% 84.62%<br />
Dec 87.47% 86.36%<br />
Jan 86.34% 87.73%<br />
Feb 86.30%<br />
March 86.27%<br />
April 86.47%<br />
May 85.87%<br />
June 86.12%<br />
YTD Average 86.33% 85.08%<br />
On-Time Compliance<br />
100%<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
Jul<br />
Aug<br />
Sept<br />
MST RIDES<br />
On-Time Compliance FY - 2012<br />
Oct<br />
Nov<br />
Dec<br />
Jan<br />
FY11 FY12<br />
80<br />
Feb<br />
March<br />
April<br />
May<br />
June<br />
Goal<br />
90%
Total Ridership<br />
YTD Average<br />
YTD Comparison<br />
11,000<br />
10,000<br />
9,000<br />
8,000<br />
7,000<br />
6,000<br />
5,000<br />
4,000<br />
3,000<br />
2,000<br />
1,000<br />
0<br />
MST RIDES Program<br />
Monthly Boardings<br />
MONTH FY 2010 FY 2011 FY2012 % CHANGE<br />
Jul 8,939 8,663 8,665 0.02%<br />
Aug 8,514 8,794 9,638 9.60%<br />
Sep 9,386 9,354 9,718 3.89%<br />
Oct 9,335 9,189 9,807 6.73%<br />
Nov 8,275 8,900 9,485 6.57%<br />
Dec 8,147 8,626 8,874 2.88%<br />
Jan 7,454 8,253 9,225 11.78%<br />
Feb 8,112 8,155<br />
Mar 9,406 9,266<br />
Apr 9,219 8,739<br />
May 9,263 8,720<br />
Jun 8,837 8,793<br />
104,887 105,452 65,412<br />
8,579 8,826 9,345 5.88%<br />
60,050 61,779 65,412 5.88%<br />
MST RIDES MONTHLY RIDERSHIP<br />
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun<br />
FY 2010 FY 2011 FY2012<br />
81
INPUT of Resources OUTPUT END PRODUCT<br />
VEHICLE VEHICLE TOTAL<br />
TOTAL REVENUE REVENUE BOARDINGS<br />
EMPLOYEES OPERATING COST MILES HOURS (UNLINKED TRIPS)<br />
MONTH FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012<br />
JUL 41.0 46.0 $237,015 $220,118 80,427 83,056 4,544 4,428 8,663 8,665<br />
AUG 42.0 46.0 $238,374 $217,185 80,569 87,416 4,616 5,210 8,794 9,638<br />
SEP 44.0 46.0 $264,418 $217,506 85,883 87,833 4,992 4,972 9,653 9,718<br />
OCT 45.0 46.0 $257,503 $237,001 87,487 91,668 5,052 5,160 9,189 9,807<br />
NOV 45.0 54.0 $242,626 $221,259 82,945 76,581 4,639 4,534 8,900 9,483<br />
DEC 45.0 55.0 $240,625 $224,592 85,293 84,841 4,673 4,894 8,626 8,874<br />
SUBTOTAL $1,480,561 $1,337,661 502,604 511,395 28,516 29,198 53,825 56,185<br />
JAN 45.0 55.0 $232,814 $181,836 81,593 83,948 4,257 4,860 8,253 9,225<br />
FEB 45.0 $233,818 81,036 4,310 8,155<br />
MAR 46.0 $262,661 91,823 4,828 9,266<br />
APR 45.0 $253,388 88,003 4,613 8,739<br />
MAY 45.0 $260,110 90,121 4,735 8,720<br />
JUN 46.0 $259,398 89,446 4,545 8,793<br />
TOTAL 272 $55 $2,982,750 $1,519,497 1,024,626 595,343 55,803 34,058 105,751 65,410<br />
AVERAGE 44.5 49.7 $248,563 $217,071 85,386 85,049 4,650 4,865 8,813 9,344<br />
Service Efficiency Cost Efficiency Service Effectiveness Measures Cost Effectiveness<br />
VEHICLE COST/<br />
COST/<br />
REVENUE HR/ REVENUE BOARDINGS/ BOARDINGS/ UNLINKED<br />
EMPLOYEE HOUR REVENUE MILE REVENUE HOUR TRIP<br />
MONTH FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2011 FY 2012<br />
JUL 110.8 96.3 $40.62 $49.71 0.11 0.10 1.9 2.0 $21.25 $25.40<br />
AUG 109.9 113.3 $42.25 $41.69 0.11 0.11 1.9 1.8 $22.21 $22.53<br />
SEP 113.5 108.1 $40.59 $43.75 0.11 0.11 1.9 2.0 $21.41 $22.38<br />
OCT 112.3 112.2 $42.88 $45.93 0.11 0.11 1.9 1.9 $22.65 $24.17<br />
NOV 103.1 84.0 $43.17 $48.80 0.11 0.12 1.9 2.1 $23.12 $23.33<br />
DEC 103.8 89.0 $42.05 $45.89 0.10 0.10 1.8 1.8 $23.39 $25.31<br />
SUBTOTAL 108.9 $41.93 0.11 1.9 $22.34<br />
JAN 94.6 88.4 $50.08 $37.41 0.11 0.11 1.8 1.9 $27.29 $19.71<br />
FEB 95.8 $52.20 0.11 1.9 $27.14<br />
MAR 105.0 $48.30 0.11 1.9 $25.14<br />
APR 102.5 $51.73 0.11 1.9 $27.35<br />
MAY 105.2 $52.58 0.11 1.9 $27.36<br />
JUN 98.8 $52.92 0.11 1.9 $27.34<br />
TOTAL - - - - - - - - - -<br />
AVERAGE 104.5 97.9 $46.55 $44.61 0.11 0.11 1.9 1.9 $24.60 $23.23<br />
Note - All statistics include contracted-out service.<br />
* - Preliminary Data<br />
MST RIDES Program<br />
Comparative Statistics<br />
FY 2011 - FY 2012<br />
82
<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong><br />
Operations Summary Report<br />
Fixed Route Services<br />
January 2012
Service Delivered Service Quality<br />
Ridership 300,008 On-time Time Points 103,063<br />
Passengers / Vehicle Revenue Hour 14.1 Delayed Time Points 15,199<br />
Revenue Miles 340,723.3 On-time Passenger Boardings 263,146<br />
One-way Trips Scheduled 33,244 Percent On-time Boardings 88%<br />
Seasonal Service:<br />
The MST Trolley <strong>Salinas</strong> had 874 boardings this month compared to 610 boardings last January. Line 22-Big Sur<br />
had a total of 131 boardings compared to 155 boardings last January. The CSUMB Otter Trolley had 652<br />
boardings in January - it did not operate last year.<br />
Supplemental Service:<br />
Fixed Route Operations Summary Report<br />
January 2012<br />
Systemwide Service:<br />
For the month of January, ridership on fixed-route service fell 6% compared to January 2011, when 319,097<br />
boardings were recorded. Revenue hours operated over the same timeframe increased by 2.7%, resulting in a<br />
8.5% drop in productivity (measured in passengers per hour).<br />
Ridership for the fiscal year-to-date (July - January), is 0.7% less than it was last fiscal year. However, as a result<br />
of revenue hours operated having increased by 6.4% during the same timeframe, fiscal year-to-date productivity<br />
has fallen by 6.6%.<br />
None.<br />
5,000,000<br />
4,000,000<br />
3,000,000<br />
2,000,000<br />
1,000,000<br />
20.00<br />
15.00<br />
10.00<br />
5.00<br />
-<br />
-<br />
2,499,401<br />
Systemwide Ridership<br />
2,615,085<br />
2,597,519<br />
FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 - YTD<br />
Jul-Jan Jul - Jun<br />
Systemwide Pax / Revenue Hour<br />
17.67<br />
16.94 16.55<br />
FY 10 FY 11 FY 12 - YTD<br />
1.00<br />
0.90<br />
0.80<br />
0.70<br />
0.60<br />
0.50<br />
0.40<br />
0.30<br />
0.20<br />
0.10<br />
0.00<br />
85%<br />
Jul<br />
83%<br />
Aug<br />
On Time Passenger Boardings<br />
81%<br />
Sep<br />
81%<br />
Oct<br />
83%<br />
Nov<br />
84%<br />
Dec<br />
88%<br />
Jan<br />
Feb<br />
Mar<br />
Target 87%<br />
No supplemental or special event service operated<br />
this month.<br />
Apr<br />
May<br />
Jun
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
9<br />
7<br />
11<br />
Fixed Route Operations Summary Report<br />
January 2012<br />
Cancelled Trips by Month - Fiscal Year to Date<br />
29<br />
10<br />
12<br />
13<br />
0 0 0 0 0<br />
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun<br />
Cancelled Trips by Reason - Fiscal Year to Date<br />
Passenger Boarding - 34<br />
Trips<br />
37%<br />
Mechanical Failure - 17<br />
Trips<br />
19%<br />
Traffic - 16 Trips<br />
17%<br />
Non-MST Accident - 2<br />
Trips<br />
2%<br />
Other - 7 Trips<br />
8%<br />
MST Accident - 9 Trips<br />
10%<br />
Employee Error - 6 Trips<br />
7%
Ridership by Line - January 2012<br />
Total Passengers<br />
41-East Alisal-Northridge<br />
20-<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
10-Fremont-Ord Grove<br />
9-Fremont-Hilby<br />
23-<strong>Salinas</strong>-King City<br />
14,446<br />
16-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Marina<br />
13,522<br />
29-Watsonville-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
12,240<br />
76-Presidio-Stilwell Park Express<br />
11,759<br />
2-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Pacific Grove<br />
10,390<br />
69-Presidio-Dunes<br />
9,882<br />
49-Northridge<br />
8,451<br />
1-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Pacific Grove<br />
7,945<br />
11-Edgewater-Carmel<br />
7,220<br />
43-Memorial Hospital<br />
7,066<br />
28-Watsonville-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
6,837<br />
5-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Carmel<br />
6,136<br />
24-Carmel Valley-Grapevine Express<br />
5,587<br />
42-East Alisal-Westridge<br />
5,296<br />
45-East Market-Creekbridge<br />
5,015<br />
74-Presidio-Preston Park Express<br />
4,302<br />
75-Presidio-Marshall Park Express<br />
3,975<br />
44-Northridge<br />
3,561<br />
48-East <strong>Salinas</strong>-Airport Business Center<br />
3,056<br />
46-Natividad<br />
3,007<br />
8-Ryan Ranch-Edgewater<br />
2,502<br />
MST On Call Greenfield 2,341<br />
19-Marina-<strong>Monterey</strong> 2,257<br />
25-Marina-<strong>Salinas</strong> 2,177<br />
4-Carmel-Carmel Rancho 2,081<br />
55-<strong>Monterey</strong>-San Jose Express 2,048<br />
79-Presidio-San Jose Express 1,955<br />
77-Presidio-Seaside 1,799<br />
MST On Call Marina 1,718<br />
71-Presidio-Marina Express 1,504<br />
27-Watsonville-Marina 1,465<br />
14-NPS-<strong>Monterey</strong> 1,208<br />
7-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Carmel 1,175<br />
70-Presidio-La Mesa 1,143<br />
MST Trolley <strong>Salinas</strong> 874<br />
73-Presidio-Prunedale Express 863<br />
13-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong> 819<br />
72-Presidio-N <strong>Salinas</strong> Express 785<br />
21-<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> 740<br />
3-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong> 666<br />
68-Presidio-<strong>Salinas</strong> Express 664<br />
MST On Call Gonzales 662<br />
CSUMB Otter Trolley 652<br />
83-Ft Hunter Liggett-Paso Robles … 648<br />
MST On Call King City 645<br />
12-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Dunes 625<br />
82-Ft Hunter Liggett-<strong>Salinas</strong> Express 359<br />
91-Pacific Meadows-Ryan Ranch 256<br />
93-Pacific Meadows-<strong>Monterey</strong> 209<br />
15-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong> 205<br />
92-Pacific Meadows-CHOMP 153<br />
22-Big Sur 131<br />
78 78-Presidio-Pacific Presidio Pacific Grove<br />
124<br />
21,822<br />
20,989<br />
36,061<br />
35,991<br />
- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000
76-Presidio-Stilwell Park Express<br />
69-Presidio-Dunes<br />
9-Fremont-Hilby<br />
74-Presidio-Preston Park Express<br />
10-Fremont-Ord Grove<br />
49-Northridge<br />
11-Edgewater-Carmel<br />
41-East Alisal-Northridge<br />
71-Presidio-Marina Express<br />
43-Memorial Hospital<br />
77-Presidio-Seaside<br />
20-<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
46-Natividad<br />
70-Presidio-La Mesa<br />
5-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Carmel<br />
73-Presidio-Prunedale Express<br />
75-Presidio-Marshall Park Express<br />
14-NPS-<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
72-Presidio-N <strong>Salinas</strong> Express<br />
16-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Marina<br />
45-East Market-Creekbridge<br />
29-Watsonville-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
19-Marina-<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
22-Big Sur<br />
MST On Call Greenfield<br />
1-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Pacific Grove<br />
42-East Alisal-Westridge<br />
23-<strong>Salinas</strong>-King City<br />
2-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Pacific Grove<br />
44-Northridge<br />
21-<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
68-Presidio-<strong>Salinas</strong> Express<br />
79-Presidio-San Jose Express<br />
28-Watsonville-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
24-Carmel Valley-Grapevine Express<br />
8-Ryan Ranch-Edgewater<br />
7-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Carmel<br />
48-East <strong>Salinas</strong>-Airport Business Center<br />
15-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
78-Presidio-Pacific Grove<br />
MST Trolley <strong>Salinas</strong><br />
4-Carmel-Carmel Rancho<br />
83-Ft Hunter Liggett-Paso Robles Express<br />
93-Pacific Meadows-<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
MST On Call Marina<br />
12-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Dunes<br />
27-Watsonville-Marina<br />
3-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
91-Pacific Meadows-Ryan Ranch<br />
55-<strong>Monterey</strong>-San Jose Express<br />
13-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
MST On Call King City<br />
92-Pacific Meadows-CHOMP<br />
25-Marina-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
MST On Call Gonzales<br />
82-Ft Hunter Liggett-<strong>Salinas</strong> Express<br />
CSUMB Otter Trolley<br />
Productivity by Line - January 2012<br />
Passengers Per Hour<br />
28.5<br />
26.4<br />
25.9<br />
25.7<br />
25.0<br />
24.1<br />
22.5<br />
21.9<br />
21.3<br />
20.8<br />
19.7<br />
17.9<br />
16.4<br />
16.1<br />
15.9<br />
15.0<br />
14.4<br />
14.2<br />
13.7<br />
13.3<br />
13.0<br />
12.8<br />
12.8<br />
12.4<br />
12.3<br />
12.1<br />
12.0<br />
11.8<br />
11.3<br />
11.0<br />
10.4<br />
10.0<br />
9.7<br />
7.9<br />
7.3<br />
7.0<br />
6.2<br />
6.1<br />
5.9<br />
5.7<br />
5.4<br />
5.4<br />
5.4<br />
5.2<br />
5.2<br />
5.0<br />
4.5<br />
4.3<br />
4.3<br />
3.8<br />
3.4<br />
3.4<br />
3.3<br />
2.4<br />
1.8<br />
1.4<br />
44.5<br />
- 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
MST Trolley <strong>Salinas</strong><br />
44-Northridge<br />
69-Presidio-Dunes<br />
83-Ft Hunter Liggett-Paso Robles Express<br />
14-NPS-<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
12-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Dunes<br />
15-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
CSUMB Otter Trolley<br />
77-Presidio-Seaside<br />
42-East Alisal-Westridge<br />
28-Watsonville-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
75-Presidio-Marshall Park Express<br />
76-Presidio-Stilwell Park Express<br />
72-Presidio-N <strong>Salinas</strong> Express<br />
71-Presidio-Marina Express<br />
25-Marina-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
20-<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
4-Carmel-Carmel Rancho<br />
74-Presidio-Preston Park Express<br />
1-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Pacific Grove<br />
2-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Pacific Grove<br />
10-Fremont-Ord Grove<br />
3-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
16-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Marina<br />
41-East Alisal-Northridge<br />
5-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Carmel<br />
79-Presidio-San Jose Express<br />
78-Presidio-Pacific Grove<br />
19-Marina-<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
7-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Carmel<br />
22-Big Sur<br />
43-Memorial Hospital<br />
13-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
70-Presidio-La Mesa<br />
11-Edgewater-Carmel<br />
73-Presidio-Prunedale Express<br />
29-Watsonville-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
68-Presidio-<strong>Salinas</strong> Express<br />
48-East <strong>Salinas</strong>-Airport Business Center<br />
9-Fremont-Hilby<br />
27-Watsonville-Marina<br />
24-Carmel Valley-Grapevine Express<br />
23-<strong>Salinas</strong>-King City<br />
21-<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
8-Ryan Ranch-Edgewater<br />
55-<strong>Monterey</strong>-San Jose Express<br />
82-Ft Hunter Liggett-<strong>Salinas</strong> Express<br />
49-Northridge<br />
46-Natividad<br />
45-East Market-Creekbridge<br />
Schedule Adherence by Line - January 2012<br />
Percent On-time Timepoints<br />
86.8%<br />
86.7%<br />
86.7%<br />
86.5%<br />
85.6%<br />
85.3%<br />
85.1%<br />
84.5%<br />
84.4%<br />
83.9%<br />
83.1%<br />
82.8%<br />
82.4%<br />
79.0%<br />
77.6%<br />
76.9%<br />
76.2%<br />
71.5%<br />
64.8%<br />
64.2%<br />
60.5%<br />
97.7%<br />
97.6%<br />
97.4%<br />
97.1%<br />
96.7%<br />
96.5%<br />
96.5%<br />
95.7%<br />
95.7%<br />
95.3%<br />
95.1%<br />
94.3%<br />
94.2%<br />
93.8%<br />
93.2%<br />
93.1%<br />
91.9%<br />
91.8%<br />
91.0%<br />
90.7%<br />
90.2%<br />
89.8%<br />
89.5%<br />
89.1%<br />
89.0%<br />
87.7%<br />
87.6%<br />
87.3%<br />
87.3%<br />
0% 20% 40% 60%<br />
87% adherence<br />
standard<br />
80% 100%
January 2012<br />
Primary Routes<br />
Systemwide Ridership: 300,008<br />
Systemwide Revenue Hours: 21204:48<br />
Systemwide Revenue Miles: 340,723.3<br />
Ridership VRHrs VRMi Pax/Hr % Riders % Hrs<br />
1-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Pacific Grove 7,945 645:24 6,200.2 12.31 2.6% 3.0%<br />
9-Fremont-Hilby 20,989 794:34 7,074.7 26.42 7.0% 3.7%<br />
10-Fremont-Ord Grove 21,822 848:45 9,575.7 25.71 7.3% 4.0%<br />
41-East Alisal-Northridge 35,811 1591:12 16,178.4 22.51 11.9% 7.5%<br />
42-East Alisal-Westridge 5,296 437:42 4,570.5 12.10 1.8% 2.1%<br />
Total 91,863 4317:37 43,599.5 21.3 30.6% 20.4%<br />
Local Routes<br />
Ridership VRHrs VRMi Pax/Hr % Riders % Hrs<br />
2-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Pacific Grove 10,390 883:40 10,706.7 11.76 3.5% 4.2%<br />
3-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong> 666 147:00 1,782.0 4.53 0.2% 0.7%<br />
4-Carmel-Carmel Rancho 2,081 385:07 3,957.5 5.40 0.7% 1.8%<br />
5-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Carmel 6,136 381:59 4,577.3 16.06 2.0% 1.8%<br />
7-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Carmel 1,175 166:57 1,999.2 7.04 0.4% 0.8%<br />
8-Ryan Ranch-Edgewater 2,502 343:30 5,271.0 7.29 0.8% 1.6%<br />
11-Edgewater-Carmel 7,220 299:30 4,333.5 24.11 2.4% 1.4%<br />
13-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong> 819 213:00 3,192.3 3.84 0.3% 1.0%<br />
15-Ryan Ranch-<strong>Monterey</strong> 205 33:36 653.1 6.09 0.1% 0.2%<br />
16-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Marina 13,522 987:51 17,417.9 13.69 4.5% 4.7%<br />
43-Memorial Hospital 7,066 332:20 3,702.5 21.26 2.4% 1.6%<br />
44-Northridge 3,561 314:20 1,786.1 11.33 1.2% 1.5%<br />
45-East Market-Creekbridge 5,015 378:24 6,104.2 13.25 1.7% 1.8%<br />
46-Natividad 3,007 168:00 1,923.9 17.90 1.0% 0.8%<br />
48-East <strong>Salinas</strong>-Airport Business Center 3,056 496:39 6,249.6 6.15 1.0% 2.3%<br />
49-Northridge 8,451 338:05 2,967.9 25.00 2.8% 1.6%<br />
91-Pacific Meadows-Ryan Ranch 256 59:30 1,113.0 4.30 0.1% 0.3%<br />
92-Pacific Meadows-CHOMP 153 45:30 743.4 3.37 0.1% 0.2%<br />
93-Pacific Meadows-<strong>Monterey</strong> 209 38:51 396.9 5.38 0.1% 0.2%<br />
Total 75,490 6013:49 78,878.0 12.6 25.2% 28.4%<br />
Regional Routes<br />
Ridership VRHrs VRMi Pax/Hr % Riders % Hrs<br />
19-Marina-<strong>Monterey</strong> 2,257 176:03 3,160.5 12.82 0.8% 0.8%<br />
20-<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> 35,743 1811:31 34,998.7 19.73 11.9% 8.5%<br />
21-<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> 740 67:12 1,342.5 11.01 0.2% 0.3%<br />
23-<strong>Salinas</strong>-King City 14,422 1205:27 34,856.9 11.96 4.8% 5.7%<br />
24-Carmel Valley-Grapevine Express 5,587 709:48 14,505.0 7.87 1.9% 3.3%<br />
25-Marina-<strong>Salinas</strong> 2,177 653:48 12,274.5 3.33 0.7% 3.1%<br />
27-Watsonville-Marina 1,465 293:39 7,732.2 4.99 0.5% 1.4%<br />
28-Watsonville-<strong>Salinas</strong> 6,837 706:15 19,316.6 9.68 2.3% 3.3%<br />
29-Watsonville-<strong>Salinas</strong> 12,240 941:25 15,506.4 13.00 4.1% 4.4%<br />
55-<strong>Monterey</strong>-San Jose Express 2,048 481:54 14,359.2 4.25 0.7% 2.3%<br />
Total 83,516 7047:02 158,052.5 11.9 27.8% 33.2%
Military Express Routes<br />
Ridership VRHrs VRMi Pax/Hr % Riders % Hrs<br />
12-<strong>Monterey</strong>-Dunes 625 121:06 2,190.3 5.16 0.2% 0.6%<br />
14-NPS-<strong>Monterey</strong> 1,208 84:00 816.9 14.38 0.4% 0.4%<br />
68-Presidio-<strong>Salinas</strong> Express 664 64:03 1,180.2 10.36 0.2% 0.3%<br />
69-Presidio-Dunes 9,882 346:19 3,708.3 28.54 3.3% 1.6%<br />
70-Presidio-La Mesa 1,143 69:39 772.8 16.41 0.4% 0.3%<br />
71-Presidio-Marina Express 1,504 68:36 1,140.3 21.92 0.5% 0.3%<br />
72-Presidio-N <strong>Salinas</strong> Express 785 55:18 1,138.2 14.19 0.3% 0.3%<br />
73-Presidio-Prunedale Express 863 54:15 1,197.0 15.91 0.3% 0.3%<br />
74-Presidio-Preston Park Express 4,302 165:54 2,885.4 25.93 1.4% 0.8%<br />
75-Presidio-Marshall Park Express 3,975 264:57 3,660.3 15.00 1.3% 1.2%<br />
76-Presidio-Stilwell Park Express 11,759 264:15 3,196.2 44.50 3.9% 1.2%<br />
77-Presidio-Seaside 1,799 86:27 1,022.7 20.81 0.6% 0.4%<br />
78-Presidio-Pacific Grove 124 21:00 263.5 5.90 0.0% 0.1%<br />
79-Presidio-San Jose Express 1,955 194:36 5,126.1 10.04 0.7% 0.9%<br />
82-Ft Hunter Liggett-<strong>Salinas</strong> Express 359 202:18 7,229.0 1.77 0.1% 1.0%<br />
83-Ft Hunter Liggett-Paso Robles Express 648 120:29 5,062.2 5.38 0.2% 0.6%<br />
Total 41,594 2183:12 40,589.4 19.1 13.9% 10.3%<br />
MST On Call<br />
Ridership VRHrs VRMi Pax/Hr % Riders % Hrs<br />
MST On Call Marina 1,718 327:50 4,466.0 5.24 0.6% 1.5%<br />
MST On Call Gonzales 662 273:00 1,680.0 2.42 0.2% 1.3%<br />
MST On Call Greenfield 2,341 189:00 2,100.0 12.39 0.8% 0.9%<br />
MST On Call King City 645 189:00 2,604.0 3.41 0.2% 0.9%<br />
Total 5,366 978:50 10,850.0 5.5 1.8% 4.6%<br />
Seasonal / Supplemental<br />
Ridership VRHrs VRMi Pax/Hr % Riders % Hrs<br />
22-Big Sur 652 51:00 1,274.4 12.79 0.2% 0.2%<br />
MST Trolley <strong>Salinas</strong> 874 153:18 1,039.5 5.70 0.3% 0.7%<br />
CSUMB Otter Trolley 652 460:00 6,440.0 1.42 0.2% 2.2%<br />
Total 2,179 664:18 8,753.9 3.3 0.7% 3.1%
To: Carl G. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO<br />
91<br />
ATTACHMENT 2<br />
March 2, 2012<br />
From: Michael Hernandez, Assistant General Manger/COO<br />
Subject: Monthly Maintenance Report for December 2011<br />
This monthly report summarizes information about fuel prices and the activities of<br />
the Maintenance/Facilities Departments during the month of December. Detailed<br />
statistical information is also attached.<br />
Fuel Prices:<br />
Fleet Status:<br />
Dec Dec Nov Dec %<br />
Low High Average Average Change<br />
Diesel $3.15 $3.36 $3.52 $3.28 -6.8%<br />
Gasoline $3.26 $3.41 $3.48 $3.28 -5.7%<br />
Road Call Rate<br />
Goal: 7,000 Miles or<br />
More<br />
Miles<br />
Between<br />
Road Calls: Operating Cost Per Mile:<br />
December 18,506 December $1.29<br />
Past 12 Months: 15,171 FY12 Year To Date $1.19<br />
Comments:<br />
In December there were a total of 14 road calls, of which 14 were maintenance<br />
related. The highest road calls were due to electrical and cooling issues during the<br />
month.<br />
The MCI coach that arrived in November was placed into service on December<br />
19 th . Major work efforts included removing a failed engine in coach 1808 and repairs by<br />
Facilities staff to the TDA bus washer. During the month of December through January<br />
2012 the AssetWorks maintenance management software system was upgraded to a new<br />
version. Some monthly reports or data were not accessible, or only provided partial data<br />
during the upgrade.<br />
Michael Hernandez
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
92
Active Fleet<br />
Series<br />
Manufacturer<br />
Model/Year Quantity Engine Fuel Type MPG<br />
1101 - 1121 Gillig - 2000 21<br />
1122 - 1129 Gillig - 2003<br />
Gillig Low-floor<br />
8<br />
1701 - 1712 2002 12<br />
1713 - 1724<br />
1725 - 1729<br />
1801 - 1804<br />
1805 -1808<br />
2001 - 2010<br />
4501 - 4504<br />
Gillig Low-floor<br />
2003 12<br />
Gillig Low-floor<br />
2007 5<br />
Gillig Suburban<br />
2002 4<br />
Gillig Suburban<br />
2003 4<br />
Gillig Low-floor<br />
2007 10<br />
MCI D4500<br />
2009/10/12 4<br />
Historical<br />
Fleet Number Manufacturer Model Vehicle(s) Fuel Type<br />
80<br />
Fuel Used<br />
January 2012<br />
MST Operated Fixed Route Bus Fleet - Summary Information<br />
Fageol Twin Coach<br />
1948 1 Gasoline<br />
Revenue Fleet<br />
Miles: 277,589 40,308<br />
Gallons:<br />
Average<br />
Miles Per<br />
57,062 1,482<br />
Gallon: 4.86 27.20<br />
Repeat Road Calls<br />
0<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
280 HP Clean Diesel 4.29<br />
Detroit DC<br />
Series 50 ERG<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
Clean Diesel 3.98<br />
280 HP Clean Diesel 5.70<br />
Detroit DC<br />
Series 50 ERG Clean Diesel 4.88<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
280 HP<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
Clean Diesel 5.57<br />
280 HP Clean Diesel 4.50<br />
Detroit DC<br />
Series 50 ERG Clean Diesel 4.61<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
280 HP Clean Diesel 5.80<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
480 HP Clean Diesel 6.09<br />
Non-Revenue<br />
Fleet Inventory Value<br />
93<br />
Fuel, Coolant,<br />
Lubricants $112,652.04<br />
Parts/<br />
Supplies $269,335.93<br />
Total Value $381,987.97
Diesel Fleet - Cost Per Mile<br />
Fleet Series, Year<br />
and # of Vehicles Labor Parts Fuel Oil/Fluids Total Cost Miles<br />
Cost Per<br />
Mile<br />
1100s (2000 - 21) $19,641.02 $36,314.23 $30,756.61 $1,887.54 $88,599.40 69,060 $1.28<br />
1100s (2003 - 8) $4,284.89 $2,226.89 $23,574.52 $916.20 $31,002.50 24,843 $1.25<br />
1700s (2002 - 12) $9,749.63 $11,474.00 $30,303.65 $814.87 $52,342.15 30,424 $1.72<br />
1700s (2003 - 12) $9,376.21 $9,182.50 $3,633.60 $69.94 $22,262.25 36,255 $0.61<br />
1700s (2007 - 5) $3,159.94 $2,290.98 $15,090.69 $880.65 $21,422.26 17,669 $1.21<br />
1800s (2002 - 4) $6,946.29 $5,188.25 $16,338.54 $442.64 $28,915.72 16,665 $1.74<br />
1800s (2003 - 4) $2,952.89 $1,382.08 $16,338.54 $442.64 $21,116.15 19,189 $1.10<br />
2000s (2007 - 10) $7,357.85 $7,177.81 $28,610.02 $1,052.60 $44,198.28 30,067 $1.47<br />
4500s (2009/10/12 - 4) $4,216.30 $2,216.92 $16,195.69 $625.85 $23,254.76 14,918 $1.56<br />
Total Dec 2011: $67,685.02 $77,453.66 $180,841.86 $7,132.93 $333,113.47 259,090 $1.29<br />
Labor Parts Fuel Oil Cost Per Mile<br />
Dec Fleet Average: $0.26 $0.30 $0.70 $0.03 $1.29<br />
FY12 Cost Per Mile: $0.18 $0.23 $0.75 $0.03 $1.19<br />
100%<br />
75%<br />
50%<br />
25%<br />
0%<br />
Cost Per Mile:<br />
Fleet Series &<br />
Model Year<br />
2.1%<br />
41.0%<br />
22.2%<br />
34.7%<br />
$1.28<br />
1100s<br />
(2000)<br />
December 2011<br />
Fleet Cost Per Mile<br />
December 2011<br />
Fleet Miles: 259,090 Average Fleet Cost Per Mile: $1.29<br />
3.0% 1.6% 0.3% 4.1% 1.5% 2.1% 2.4% 2.7%<br />
7.2%<br />
13.8%<br />
76.0%<br />
$1.25<br />
1100s<br />
(2003)<br />
21.9%<br />
18.6%<br />
57.9%<br />
$1.72<br />
1700s<br />
(2002)<br />
41.2%<br />
42.1%<br />
16.3%<br />
$0.61<br />
1700s<br />
(2003)<br />
10.7% 17.9%<br />
14.8%<br />
70.4%<br />
$1.21<br />
1700s<br />
(2007)<br />
94<br />
24.0%<br />
56.5%<br />
$1.74<br />
1800s<br />
(2002)<br />
6.5%<br />
14.0%<br />
77.4%<br />
$1.10<br />
1800s<br />
(2003)<br />
16.2%<br />
16.6%<br />
64.7%<br />
$1.47<br />
2000s<br />
(2007)<br />
9.5%<br />
18.1%<br />
69.6%<br />
$1.56<br />
4500s<br />
(09/10/12)<br />
Oil<br />
Parts<br />
Labor<br />
Fuel
Road Calls<br />
20<br />
18<br />
16<br />
14<br />
12<br />
10<br />
8<br />
6<br />
4<br />
2<br />
0<br />
MECHANICAL ROAD CALLS BY BUS SERIES<br />
December 2011<br />
Total Diesel Miles: 259,090 Roadcalls: 14<br />
3<br />
4<br />
2<br />
Bus Series & Model Year<br />
3<br />
95<br />
1<br />
0 0<br />
1<br />
0
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
96
To: Carl G. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO<br />
97<br />
March 2, 2012<br />
From: Michael Hernandez, Assistant General Manger/COO<br />
Subject: Monthly Maintenance Report for January 2012<br />
This monthly report summarizes information about fuel prices and the activities of<br />
the Maintenance/Facilities Departments during the month of January. Detailed statistical<br />
information is also attached.<br />
Fuel Prices:<br />
Jan. Jan. Dec. Jan. %<br />
Low High Average Average Change<br />
Diesel $3.35 $3.52 $3.28 $3.41 4.0%<br />
Gasoline $3.38 $3.42 $3.28 $3.40 3.7%<br />
Fleet Status:<br />
Road Call Rate<br />
Goal: 7,000 Miles or<br />
More<br />
Miles<br />
Between<br />
Road Calls: Operating Cost Per Mile:<br />
January 13,879 January $1.03<br />
Past 12 Months: 15,436 FY12 Year To Date $1.22<br />
Comments:<br />
In January there were a total of 25 road calls, of which 20 were maintenance<br />
related. The highest single road call category was due to engine issues.<br />
A new Diesel Emissions Fluid (DEF) tank was installed at TDA. The use of the<br />
DEF fluid is required in the exhaust system of all new transit buses. Facilities completed<br />
some parking restriping in the TDA bus yard for increased safety.<br />
During the month of December through January 2012 the AssetWorks<br />
maintenance management software system was upgraded to a new version. Some<br />
monthly reports or data were not accessible, or only provided partial data during the<br />
upgrade.<br />
Diesel and gasoline fuel prices increased by approximately 4% during the month of<br />
January.<br />
Michael Hernandez
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
98
Active Fleet<br />
Series<br />
Manufacturer<br />
Model/Year Quantity Engine Fuel Type MPG<br />
1101 - 1121 Gillig - 2000 21<br />
1122 - 1129 Gillig - 2003<br />
Gillig Low-floor<br />
8<br />
1701 - 1712 2002 12<br />
1713 - 1724<br />
1725 - 1729<br />
1801 - 1804<br />
1805 -1808<br />
2001 - 2010<br />
4501 - 4504<br />
Gillig Low-floor<br />
2003 12<br />
Gillig Low-floor<br />
2007 5<br />
Gillig Suburban<br />
2002 4<br />
Gillig Suburban<br />
2003 4<br />
Gillig Low-floor<br />
2007 10<br />
MCI D4500<br />
2009/10/12 4<br />
Historical<br />
Fleet Number Manufacturer Model Vehicle(s) Fuel Type<br />
80<br />
Fuel Used<br />
January 2012<br />
MST Operated Fixed Route Bus Fleet - Summary Information<br />
Fageol Twin Coach<br />
1948 1 Gasoline<br />
Revenue Fleet<br />
Miles: 286,401 40,308<br />
Gallons:<br />
Average<br />
Miles Per<br />
57,062 1,482<br />
Gallon: 5.02 27.20<br />
Repeat Road Calls<br />
0<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
280 HP Clean Diesel 4.29<br />
Detroit DC<br />
Series 50 ERG<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
Clean Diesel 3.98<br />
280 HP Clean Diesel 5.70<br />
Detroit DC<br />
Series 50 ERG Clean Diesel 4.88<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
280 HP<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
Clean Diesel 5.57<br />
280 HP Clean Diesel 4.50<br />
Detroit DC<br />
Series 50 ERG Clean Diesel 4.61<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
280 HP Clean Diesel 5.80<br />
Cummins ISM<br />
480 HP Clean Diesel 6.09<br />
Non-Revenue<br />
Fleet Inventory Value<br />
99<br />
Fuel, Coolant,<br />
Lubricants $112,652.04<br />
Parts/<br />
Supplies $269,335.93<br />
Total Value $381,987.97
MILES<br />
Miles<br />
Goal:<br />
7,000<br />
Miles<br />
36,000<br />
33,000<br />
30,000<br />
27,000<br />
24,000<br />
21,000<br />
18,000<br />
15,000<br />
12,000<br />
9,000<br />
6,000<br />
3,000<br />
0<br />
40,000<br />
35,000<br />
30,000<br />
25,000<br />
20,000<br />
15,000<br />
10,000<br />
5,000<br />
0<br />
Feb<br />
2011<br />
MILES BETWEEN MECHANICAL ROAD CALLS<br />
January 2012 - Miles: 277,589<br />
Mar<br />
2011<br />
April<br />
2011<br />
May<br />
2011<br />
June<br />
2011<br />
July<br />
2011<br />
Aug<br />
2011<br />
Sep<br />
2011<br />
Oct<br />
2011<br />
Nov<br />
2011<br />
Fleet Wide Miles Between Roadcalls<br />
FY11 vs. FY12 Year to Date Comparison<br />
Dec<br />
2011<br />
Jan<br />
2012<br />
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun<br />
FY11 15,068 9,884 10,679 19,935 9,195 8,714 9,263 9,453 9,707 12,790 15,227 24,334 11,820<br />
FY12 16,586 14,659 13,711 20,563 17,503 18,506 13,879 16,487<br />
January 2012 100<br />
Goal:<br />
7,000<br />
Miles<br />
Aver.<br />
YTD
OCCURENCES<br />
110<br />
100<br />
90<br />
80<br />
70<br />
60<br />
50<br />
40<br />
30<br />
20<br />
10<br />
0<br />
* "Other" category includes: Fluid leaks, Lights, Windshield Wipers other items.<br />
January 2012<br />
All ROAD CALLS - BY CATEGORY<br />
FY 2011 & 2012<br />
CUMULATIVE YEAR-TO-DATE<br />
Air Sys. Brakes Exhaust Cooling Doors Electrical Engine Trans Fare box<br />
101<br />
Other<br />
Mech.<br />
Pass/Sick<br />
Radio/<br />
ACS<br />
Tire Vandal W/C Lift Total<br />
FY11 19 7 96 12 2 68 65 4 15 8 11 7 12 2 9 337<br />
FY12 - YTD 7 4 25 19 5 32 18 4 10 15 5 6 2 0 6 158<br />
Jan-12 0 1 0 3 1 3 5 1 0 7 1 1 1 0 1 25
January 2012<br />
Total PM Inspections<br />
120<br />
100<br />
80<br />
60<br />
40<br />
20<br />
0<br />
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE INSPECTIONS<br />
PAST TWELVE MONTHS<br />
Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12<br />
Total PMIs 84 89 98 109 100 119 104 104 104 93 84 90<br />
% On Time 96% 60% 77% 98% 98% 94% 90% 91% 94% 97% 92% 96%<br />
102<br />
100%<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
PMs for Dec/Jan based on AssetWorks data during system upgrade<br />
0%<br />
% of PM Inspections On-Time<br />
Goal<br />
80%
100%<br />
75%<br />
50%<br />
25%<br />
0%<br />
Cost Per Mile:<br />
Fleet Series &<br />
Model Year<br />
November 2011<br />
4.0% 4.5% 3.6% 2.9% 4.4% 3.0% 3.6% 3.5% 4.4%<br />
7.6%<br />
15.9%<br />
72.4%<br />
$1.05<br />
1100s<br />
(2000)<br />
Fleet Cost Per Mile<br />
January 2012<br />
Fleet Miles: 277,589 Average Fleet Cost Per Mile: $ 1.04<br />
13.8%<br />
20.3%<br />
61.4%<br />
$1.32<br />
1100s<br />
(2003)<br />
23.0%<br />
19.4%<br />
53.9%<br />
$1.07<br />
1700s<br />
(2002)<br />
18.0%<br />
23.8%<br />
55.3%<br />
$1.22<br />
1700s<br />
(2003)<br />
5.7%<br />
11.4%<br />
78.5%<br />
$0.72<br />
1700s<br />
(2007)<br />
103<br />
11.1%<br />
11.2%<br />
74.7%<br />
$0.98<br />
1800s<br />
(2002)<br />
12.9%<br />
15.3%<br />
11.6%<br />
16.9%<br />
68.1% 67.9%<br />
$1.04<br />
1800s<br />
(2003)<br />
$0.84<br />
2000s<br />
(2007)<br />
5.9%<br />
6.1%<br />
83.6%<br />
$1.09<br />
4500s<br />
(2009/10/12)<br />
Oil<br />
Parts<br />
Labor<br />
Fuel
Road Calls<br />
7<br />
6<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
MECHANICAL ROAD CALLS BY BUS SERIES<br />
January 2012<br />
Total Diesel Miles: 277,589 Roadcalls: 20<br />
5<br />
1<br />
January 2012 104<br />
0<br />
Bus Series & Model Year<br />
6<br />
0 0<br />
4<br />
3<br />
1
$4,000.00<br />
$3,500.00<br />
$3,000.00<br />
$2,500.00<br />
$2,000.00<br />
$1,500.00<br />
$1,000.00<br />
$500.00<br />
$0.00<br />
VANDALISM COSTS - PAST 12 MONTHS<br />
Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 Jan-12<br />
Buses $467.32 $48.27 $0.00 $0.00 $390.42 $33.12 $129.18 $51.01 $58.90 $33.06 $88.83 $0.00<br />
Bus Stops $594.00 $250.00 $707.00 $234.00 $309.92 $1,155. $616.00 $186.50 $489.50 $679.50 $736.00 $1,158.<br />
STC $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $68.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12.50<br />
MTX $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $12.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,500. $0.00 $0.00<br />
MTP $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00<br />
January 2012 105
Total Inventory & Fuel Value<br />
12 Month Rolling Inventory, Fuel & Fluids Value - January 2012<br />
Total Inventory: $ 381,987.97 Value Per Bus: $ 3,367 12 Month Average: $ 3,275<br />
$350,000<br />
$300,000<br />
$250,000<br />
$200,000<br />
$150,000<br />
$100,000<br />
$50,000<br />
$0<br />
106<br />
$5,000<br />
$4,800<br />
$4,600<br />
$4,400<br />
$4,200<br />
$4,000<br />
$3,800<br />
$3,600<br />
$3,400<br />
$3,200<br />
$3,000<br />
Inventory Value<br />
Fuel Value<br />
Inventory Value / Bus<br />
Inventory $ Value Per Bus
$5.25<br />
$5.00<br />
$4.75<br />
$4.50<br />
$4.25<br />
$4.00<br />
$3.75<br />
$3.50<br />
$3.25<br />
$3.00<br />
$2.75<br />
$2.50<br />
$2.25<br />
$2.00<br />
12 Month Rolling Fuel Cost - As of January 31, 2012<br />
Diesel Gasoline<br />
107<br />
FY 2012 Fuel Budget:<br />
Diesel 3.50 Gallon<br />
Gasoline $3.75 Gallon
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
108
Date: March, 2012<br />
To: C. Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO<br />
109<br />
ATTACHMENT 3<br />
From: Hunter Harvath, Assistant General Manager Finance & Administration; Mark<br />
Eccles, Director Information Technology; Kathy Williams, General Accounting<br />
Manager; Kelly Halcon, Director of Human Resources/Risk Management;<br />
Tom Hicks, CTSA Manager; Sonia Bannister, Office Administrator; Zoe<br />
Shoats, Marketing Analyst<br />
Subject: Administration Department Monthly Report January, 2012<br />
The following significant events occurred in Administration work groups for the<br />
month of January 2012:<br />
Human Resources<br />
A total employment level for January 2012 is summarized as follows:<br />
Positions Budget FY11 Actual Difference<br />
Coach Operators / Trainees 143 135 -8<br />
C/O on Long Term Leave * 2 10 8<br />
Coach Operators Limited Duty 2 2 0<br />
Operations Staff 26 26 0<br />
Maintenance & Facilities 48 47 1<br />
Administration (Interns 2 PT) 24.5 23.5 -1<br />
Total 245.5 243.5 -2<br />
January Worker’s Compensation Costs<br />
Indemnity (paid to employees) $27,592.44<br />
Other (includes Legal) $2,931.54<br />
Medical includes Case Mgmt,UR, Rx & PT $9,671.61<br />
TPA Administration Fee $4,000.00<br />
Excess Insurance $3,493.58<br />
Total Expenses $40,195.59<br />
Reserves $1,217,625.20<br />
Excess Reserved ($392,084.15)<br />
# Ending Open Claims 46
Training<br />
Description Attendees<br />
Annual VTT Training 0<br />
Risk Management Update<br />
January 2012 January 2011<br />
Preventable Preventable<br />
Description Yes No Yes No<br />
Vehicle hits Bus 0 1 0 2<br />
Bus hits object 0 0 1 0<br />
TOTAL 0 1 1 2<br />
During the month of January 2012 there were no preventable collisions. This continues<br />
our outstanding safety and accident frequency ratio (AFR).<br />
Number of Accidents<br />
13<br />
12<br />
11<br />
10<br />
9<br />
8<br />
7<br />
6<br />
5<br />
4<br />
3<br />
2<br />
1<br />
0<br />
Accident Statistics<br />
110<br />
non-preventable<br />
preventable
Miles Traveled<br />
400,000<br />
350,000<br />
300,000<br />
250,000<br />
200,000<br />
150,000<br />
100,000<br />
50,000<br />
There were no claims paid and $8,149.02 recovered during this period.<br />
Accounting Update<br />
0<br />
Miles Between Preventable Collisions<br />
During the month of January, staff focused on year end payroll and reporting<br />
items. In addition, all finance staff continued to focus on the implementation of our<br />
newly upgraded financial system (Navision).<br />
General Accounting:<br />
Staff is focused on ensuring that the financial information of the agency is properly<br />
stated and recorded on many reports. Accounts payable and payroll continue to meet<br />
their weekly deadlines.<br />
Grants and Compliance:<br />
Staff continues to attend training to ensure MST is compliant in many areas. A<br />
continued area of focus is continually seeking grant funding from numerous sources.<br />
Purchasing:<br />
Staff continues the daily challenge of managing inventory levels while MST‟s fleet<br />
continues to age. Managing cost, lead times, and necessity are a daily task.<br />
111<br />
Series2<br />
Series1<br />
Series3<br />
MBPC = Miles<br />
Between<br />
Preventable<br />
Collisions<br />
Standard = Not<br />
more than 1<br />
preventable<br />
collision per<br />
100,000 miles
CTSA Update<br />
In January, a group of four staff members from ParaCruz, the ADA Paratransit<br />
service of Santa Cruz Metro, visited MST at the <strong>Monterey</strong> Mobility Management Center<br />
to share information about their county‟s paratransit operations and learn about the<br />
recent changes to MST‟s paratransit service. The group agreed to meet again within<br />
the year and to include their respective advisory committees in future meetings. The<br />
CTSA Manager also met with the <strong>Monterey</strong> County Veteran‟s Services Collaborative<br />
regarding MST‟s specialized transportation programs for persons with disabilities and<br />
how MST might assist with the Stand Down planned for <strong>Monterey</strong> County veterans in<br />
June 2012.<br />
The MST Mobility Advisory Committee (MAC) met January 25th at the<br />
Transportation Agency for <strong>Monterey</strong> County (TAMC) office in <strong>Salinas</strong> and new member<br />
Melissa McKenzie from the Carmel Foundation was welcomed. The committee<br />
received a presentation from Interim, Inc. about the transportation need of adults with<br />
mental illness. Also, Andy Cook of TAMC asked for public input on unmet transit needs<br />
within <strong>Monterey</strong> County. In 2011, the MAC became the official review body for<br />
overseeing the unmet needs process as it pertains to the transportation needs of travelchallenged<br />
individuals.<br />
For the month of January, the Mobility Trainer attended the S.C.O.R.E (South<br />
County Outreach Efforts) meeting in Soledad, the P.A.R.T.S (Preventing Alcohol<br />
Related Trauma in South County) meeting in Greenfield, and our very first MST<br />
Navigators meeting in <strong>Monterey</strong>. The Mobility Trainer also gave eight presentations to<br />
the Prundale Senior Center, where 22 people attended; Los Ositos in <strong>Salinas</strong>, where 17<br />
seniors attended; San Andres Regional Center (meeting with 1 staff member); Regency<br />
Court (meeting with 1 staff member), CHISPA (meeting with 2 staff members); North<br />
High special education department (meeting with 2 staff members), Sherwood Village<br />
(meeting with 7 staff members), and Alisal Family Center (meeting with 1 staff member).<br />
In addition, the Mobility Trainer completed 33 ADA Paratransit physical<br />
assessments, 3 travel training assessments, and a total of 2 referrals to MST<br />
Navigators.<br />
Total person trained (including RIDES assessments): 33<br />
Total # people contacted during public presentations: 39<br />
Total persons otherwise contacted: 13<br />
For the month of January, the Mobility specialist completed 33 ADA Paratransit<br />
physical assessments and a total of 2 travel training sessions. The Mobility Specialist<br />
spoke with 5 Rides applicants about travel training and its benefits.<br />
For the month of January the MST Navigator volunteers provided shopping<br />
assistance for the residence of Pacific Meadows by carrying grocery bags on and off<br />
Line 92. Additionally, the volunteers provided travel training to two individuals for a total<br />
of 18 hours. The Navigators met at Pacific Meadows to answer transportation<br />
112
questions twice this month as well. They also met with patrons of the Scholze Park<br />
Center twice this month. There is one volunteer who helps in the office with RIDES<br />
certification letters, and she volunteered 10 hours of her time for that purpose. All told,<br />
the MST Navigators volunteered 66 hours for the month of January.<br />
Total person trained (including RIDES assessments): 35<br />
Total # people contacted during public presentations: 00<br />
Total persons otherwise contacted: 03<br />
Total volunteer Navigator service hours: 66<br />
Customer Service Update<br />
Service Report Type<br />
Jan<br />
'12 %<br />
113<br />
Jan<br />
'11 %<br />
Valid<br />
Employee Compliment 5 7.35% 3 3 5.08%<br />
Service Compliment 2 2.94% 1 0 0.00%<br />
Improper Employee<br />
Conduct 18 26.47% 6 14 23.73%<br />
Passed By 7 10.29%<br />
3 5.08%<br />
Request To Add Service 6 8.82%<br />
4 6.78%<br />
Improper Driving 5 7.35%<br />
9 15.25%<br />
No Show 4 5.88% 2 3 5.08%<br />
Late Arrival<br />
Inaccurate Public<br />
4 5.88% 1 3 5.08%<br />
Information 4 5.88% 1 2 3.39%<br />
Fare / Transfer Dispute 3 4.41%<br />
5 8.47%<br />
Early Departure 2 2.94%<br />
3 5.08%<br />
Bus Stop Amenities 2 2.94%<br />
0 0.00%<br />
Service Schedule 2 2.94%<br />
0 0.00%<br />
ADA Compliance 1 1.47%<br />
2 3.39%<br />
Off Route 1 1.47%<br />
1 1.69%<br />
Agency Policy<br />
Request To Reduce<br />
1 1.47%<br />
0 0.00%<br />
Service 1 1.47%<br />
0 0.00%<br />
Passenger Injury 0 0.00%<br />
2 3.39%<br />
Facilities Vandalism 0 0.00%<br />
1 1.69%<br />
Carried By 0 0.00%<br />
1 1.69%<br />
Late Departure 0 0.00%<br />
1 1.69%<br />
Service Other 0 0.00%<br />
1 1.69%<br />
Vehicle Maintenance 0 0.00%<br />
1 1.69%<br />
68 100.00%<br />
59 100.00%
“Improper Employee Conduct” (18) represented 26.47 % of overall service reports and<br />
“Improper Driving” reports (5) represented 7.35 % of overall service reports for January<br />
2012.<br />
MST received five “Employee Compliments” and two “Service Compliments” reports in<br />
January. Of the seven compliments, two involved MST contracted service.<br />
Employee Compliments<br />
Passenger states “<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong> has the most wonderful Coach<br />
Operators; they make the trip from San Jose to <strong>Monterey</strong> very pleasant.”<br />
Passenger compliments MV Coach Operator Michael Roland, for Marina-On<br />
Call, saying that she, “was trying to get to a new destination, and not only did he<br />
assist her with information, he made sure to drop her off at a stop where she<br />
could catch her new bus.”<br />
Passenger states that Coach Operator Danny Alvarado, “Was extremely safe in<br />
his driving skills. When they were on Hwy 1, in their lane was a refrigerator, and<br />
he safely, skillfully avoided hitting it and kept everyone safe. She was very<br />
impressed.”<br />
Mr. Dave McIntosh (passenger) states Coach Operator V. Fraley “Went above<br />
and beyond to help him make his connection.”<br />
Mr. Robert Rosenthal (passenger) compliments Coach Operator Ernie Sanchez,<br />
“Ernie is very conscientious, friendly, helpful and very punctual. I feel very safe<br />
knowing he is my driver.”<br />
Service Compliments<br />
IT Update<br />
RIDES Passenger states “Thank you for providing a service that I greatly<br />
needed, and consider it my salvation.”<br />
Ms. Helaine Clark (passenger) “Thanks Hunter Harvath and staff for providing<br />
service at midnight for passengers to get from „First Night <strong>Monterey</strong>‟ back to<br />
Rippling River.”<br />
Staff configured the Trapeze ITS <strong>Transit</strong>master system. Staff continued to<br />
monitor and configure software and hardware for the Assetworks Maintenance system.<br />
Staff continued to support and monitors the Navision Payroll system. Staff coordinated<br />
with the MST HR Department regarding the HR Module upgrade. Staff continued to<br />
configure data for the GIRO DDAM Timekeeping system. Staff updated software<br />
114
components of MST workstations. Staff continued developing functionality of the<br />
Customer Service and RIDES databases. Staff kept the MST web page updated and<br />
made the appropriate changes as required.<br />
Staff continued to support MST staff as needed, proactively ensuring MST staff<br />
was supported fully with their IT needs.<br />
Marketing and Sales Update<br />
Published news stories include: “<strong>Transit</strong> tax is simply ignorant” (The Californian,<br />
1/2/12); “Woman hit in <strong>Salinas</strong> crosswalk by pickup truck” (KSBW, 1/11/12); “<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
police search for hit-and-run driver” (The Californian, 1/11/12); “<strong>Transit</strong> bus depot<br />
makes no sense at Fort Ord” (The Californian, 1/11/12); “Soapbox: 2012 transportation<br />
challenges in <strong>Monterey</strong> County” (The Californian, 1/12/12); “Woman suffers hit-and-run”<br />
(<strong>Monterey</strong> County Herald, 1/12/12); “Maria Orozco: Transport agency has a good year”<br />
(<strong>Monterey</strong> County Herald, 1/13/12); “MST offers limited holiday schedule” (<strong>Monterey</strong><br />
County Business Council‟s Friday Facts, 1/13/12); “San Francisco to Mexico (via L.A.<br />
and San Diego) on public transit – 6 trains, 12 buses, 49 hours” (californiastreets.org,<br />
1/16/12); “Hot topics in district 4” (<strong>Monterey</strong> County Weekly, 1/19/12); “Proposal before<br />
county” (<strong>Monterey</strong> County Herald, 1/12/12); “Business park vote delayed as Board of<br />
Supervisors seeks Whispering Oaks deal” (<strong>Monterey</strong> County Herald, 1/24/12);<br />
“Whispering Oaks hearing set for Feb. 14” (<strong>Monterey</strong> County Herald, 1/25/12); “MST<br />
schedules hearings on proposed service changes” (<strong>Monterey</strong> County Business<br />
Council‟s Friday Facts, 1/27/12); “Hooked on towing” (<strong>Monterey</strong> County Herald,<br />
1/30/12); “Wrong place for MST” (<strong>Monterey</strong> County Herald, 1/31/12).<br />
Press releases sent include: “MST bus service on Martin Luther King Jr. Day”<br />
(1/11/12); “Public hearings on proposed service changes effective April 2012” (1/20/12);<br />
“MST service modifications effective Saturday, February 4” (1/30/12).<br />
Marketing activities: Updated the employee of the year photo in the lobby; made<br />
edits to the annual report mailing list; mailed out annual report and community<br />
stakeholder surveys; scheduled MST‟s “Cry” and “Scream” TV commercials on<br />
Comcast and Central Coast ABC with funds from CMAQ grant; delivered GoPasses to<br />
<strong>Salinas</strong> Library with funds from CMAQ grant; delivered GoCards to the Veteran‟s<br />
<strong>Transit</strong>ion Center with funds from CMAQ grant; made modifications to service effective<br />
February 4 which included updating maps and schedules pages in the Rider‟s Guide,<br />
updating online maps and schedules and posting car cards notifying passengers of the<br />
modifications; sought Spanish translation for April service change public hearing<br />
presentation; attended <strong>Monterey</strong> Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Membership<br />
Luncheon recognizing MST for 20 years of continuous chamber membership; ordered<br />
MST promotional materials; managed MST website content and Facebook page;<br />
coordinated delivery of printed promotional materials.<br />
115
Planning Update<br />
During the month of January, staff finalized preparations for the February 4 th<br />
minor service change and began conducting public hearings on additional service<br />
changes and reductions for a spring service change. Staff began working with its<br />
consultant, Nelson Nygaard, on the <strong>Salinas</strong> Area Service Analysis study, designed to<br />
assess transit services in <strong>Salinas</strong> and recommend new routes and schedules to meet<br />
current transit demands. Staff continued to work with MST‟s military partners on<br />
improving and fine tuning services to the Presidio, Fort Hunter Liggett and Naval<br />
Postgraduate School. Staff also continued working with CSUMB and Hartnell College<br />
on the transit partnerships MST has with those educational institutions. Staff continued<br />
planning efforts with the JAZZ Bus Rapid <strong>Transit</strong> program.<br />
Staff attended meetings with TAMC, FORA, AMBAG and other local agencies.<br />
Staff traveled to Washington DC to conduct legislative advocacy and subsequently<br />
traveled to Orlando, Florida, to attend the American Public Transportation Association‟s<br />
<strong>Transit</strong> CEOs Seminar.<br />
116
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY FOR MONTEREY COUNTY<br />
www.tamcmonterey.org<br />
HIGHLIGHTS<br />
February 22, 2012 Meeting<br />
INDEPENDENT TRANSPORTATION NETWORK<br />
BEGINS IN MONTEREY COUNTY<br />
The Transportation Agency for <strong>Monterey</strong> received a presentation on the Independent<br />
Transportation Network <strong>Monterey</strong> County (ITN<strong>Monterey</strong>County). ITN<strong>Monterey</strong>County<br />
is a new non-profit volunteer based transportation service that provides arm-through-arm,<br />
door-to-door rides 24 hours per day, 7 days per week for any reason to adults over the age<br />
of 60 and adults 18+ with visual impairments.<br />
ITN<strong>Monterey</strong>County’s service provides a travel option in <strong>Salinas</strong> and the greater<br />
<strong>Monterey</strong> Peninsula that is safe and dignified and will allow members the independence<br />
to travel when and where they wish without having to rely on family or friends, or drive<br />
in unsafe situations.<br />
Volunteers provide the majority of the rides while paid drivers provide a back up when<br />
volunteers aren’t available. Volunteers commit to driving three hours per month and<br />
indicate blocks of time they will be available to drive. They provide assistance as needed,<br />
such as offering an arm down stairs or bring a bag of groceries to the rider’s kitchen<br />
counter. Everyone who uses the service becomes a dues-paying member of the nonprofit<br />
organization. Annual membership costs $50 for individuals and $75 families.<br />
Member-riders call the ITN<strong>Monterey</strong>County dispatcher to schedule a ride. Scholarships<br />
are available for individuals who meet the federal poverty criteria. No money is<br />
exchanged when the ride is provided and gratuity is not allowed. Member-riders receive<br />
a monthly invoices accounting for the number and cost of the rides taken.<br />
For more information about ITN<strong>Monterey</strong>County visit their website at:<br />
www.ITN<strong>Monterey</strong>County.org.<br />
TRANSPORTATION FOR LIVABLE COMMUNITIES GRANT<br />
TRANSFERRED TO CHISPA PROJECT
On a vote of 11-3, the Transportation Agency Board approved the City of Marina's<br />
request for a transfer of the $300,000 Transportation for Livable Communities <strong>Transit</strong>-<br />
Oriented Development incentive grant awarded for the MST <strong>Transit</strong> Village project to the<br />
CHISPA De Forest apartment building. The Board also approved a deadline extension to<br />
the time of the next round of TLC grants, at which time the City must reapply for the<br />
funds, or for one year, whichever is shorter.<br />
The Transportation Agency enacted the TLC grant program in 2003 to incentivize the<br />
creation of affordable housing in existing communities close to transit, which reduces the<br />
demand on regional road networks and increases transit ridership. The goal of the<br />
program is to promote walkable, relatively high-density development near transit options,<br />
thereby increasing living and transportation choices while reducing reliance on<br />
automobiles. The Board also directed staff to initiate a third round of TLC grant awards<br />
upon resolution of the funding scenario for the US 101 - San Juan Road interchange<br />
project, expected by this summer.<br />
SAN JUAN ROAD AT HWY 101 INTERCHANGE PROJECT<br />
RECEIVES LOCAL FUNDS<br />
The San Juan Road at Highway 101 Interchange project maybe under construction as<br />
early as Fall 2012. The Transportation Agency for <strong>Monterey</strong> County approved allocating<br />
$17.875 million in local funds to match the $28.325 million of Trade Corridor<br />
Improvement Funds State bonds awarded to the project.<br />
Safety on Highway 101 is the primary concern behind plans for a new interchange near<br />
the intersection of San Juan Road and Highway 101. With over 85 accidents occurring at<br />
this intersection over the past five years (one fatal) plans for this intersection will make<br />
entering and exiting the highway safer and congestion free.<br />
The Transportation Agency originally committed to provide a one for one non-state fund<br />
match to the $28.325 million Trade Corridor Improvement Funds State bonds awarded to<br />
the US 101 San Juan Road Interchange Project. Subsequently, $10.450 million of federal<br />
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds were programmed to the project<br />
reducing the commitment to $17.875 million. Transportation Agency controlled funds,<br />
including Regional Surface Transportation Program and development impact fees, are<br />
being put aside to cover the remaining $17.875 million commitment.<br />
The US 101 San Juan Road Interchange Project is on schedule to be “Ready to List” in<br />
early April 2012. Upon meeting this milestone projects can request state funding<br />
allocations from the California Transportation Commission. The local funding<br />
commitment could be less than $17.875 million if Corridor Mobility Improvement<br />
Account bond funds are allocated to the project. Corridor Mobility Improvement<br />
Account funded projects must be under construction by December 2012.
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE<br />
REDUCTIONS<br />
The Transportation Agency Board approved reductions to the regional development<br />
impact fee for new developments located in infill areas and designating areas eligible for<br />
reductions. The Regional Development Impact Fee, approved by the County and all the<br />
cities in the county in 2008, provides for new development to pay their share of<br />
transportation improvements as mitigation for impacts of traffic generated by their<br />
projects.<br />
It was determined that development in built up areas promotes more use of alternatives to<br />
driving. Under the discount program, fees would be reduced by 10% for residential or<br />
industrial area, 15% for retail areas and 20% for office developments. To make<br />
implementation of the revised fees easier for the jurisdictions, infill area maps were<br />
prepared that designated areas in the region that meet the specific characteristics of infill<br />
development. Developments falling outside of these areas would still be eligible for trip<br />
reductions through the existing appeals process. The following criteria were used to<br />
identify appropriate sites as infill:<br />
1. Locations with 5,000 or more employees working within a l-mile radius;<br />
2. Residential with a minimum density of 12 dwelling units per net acre, or nonresidential<br />
with a minimum floor area ratio of 1.0;<br />
3. <strong>Transit</strong> service located within a ½ mile;<br />
4. A parcel has to be currently vacant to be considered infill;<br />
5. Under-developed parcels would qualify as refill parcels; and<br />
6. A parcel must be privately owned and located in an “urban” environment.<br />
The proposed trip rate reductions for infill developments could reduce revenues up to<br />
$6.4 million. With these changes, the fee program is expected to generate $243 million,<br />
with one-percent reimbursing the agency’s fee program administrative expenses, to year<br />
2030.<br />
CITY OF SAND CITY RECEIVES<br />
STATE TRANSPORTATION FUNDS<br />
The Transportation Agency allocated more than $17,000 in Regional Surface<br />
Transportation Funds to the City of Sand City to connect the California Ave, Sylvan-<br />
Tioga, overlay project to their Sand Dunes Drive Coastal Bike Path Interconnect Project. The<br />
purpose of the project is to provide a designated crossing or travel lane for bicycles and
pedestrians from the north end of Sand Dunes Drive at Tioga Ave, across the Highway 1<br />
over-crossing to the existing sidewalk on Tioga. Projects eligible for Regional Surface<br />
Transportation Program funding include local street and roadway rehabilitation, local match<br />
for federal transportation funds, bike lanes, pedestrian facilities, public transit capital, and<br />
signal coordination.<br />
NEW BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES<br />
ADVISORY COMMITTEE COUNCIL MEMBER<br />
The Transportation Agency approved Megan Tolbert as the primary and Richard Dawson<br />
as the alternate to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Advisory Committee representing<br />
California State University <strong>Monterey</strong> Bay. Ms. Tolbert is a Transportation Planner and<br />
Mr. Dawson is the Outdoor Recreation Coordinator for CSUMB.<br />
Transportation Agency staff continues to actively pursue candidates for vacancies on the<br />
Committee. Vacancies remain for <strong>Monterey</strong> County District 3, and the cities of Carmel,<br />
Del Rey Oaks, Sand City, Seaside, Greenfield, Gonzales, King City and Soledad. Staff<br />
requests that Board members in these areas recruit any possible interested individuals and<br />
refer them to staff for more information.
TO: Carl Sedoryk<br />
FROM: Thomas P. Walters<br />
<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong><br />
Washington, D.C. Office<br />
123<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 10-3<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
March 5, 2012<br />
The following report summarizes recent actions taken on behalf of <strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong><br />
<strong>Transit</strong>.<br />
TPW:dwg<br />
Arranged advocacy meetings for MST staff in Washington, D.C.<br />
Contacted House Delegation to request support for funding the Mass <strong>Transit</strong><br />
Account of the Transportation Trust Fund in SAFETEA-LU Reauthorization<br />
legislation.<br />
Contacted Senate Finance Committee to request support for S. 1034, the<br />
Commuter Benefits Equity Act of 2011.<br />
Participated in APTA Washington Area <strong>Transit</strong> Industry Representatives Task<br />
Force conference call to coordinate advocacy on H.R. 7, the American Energy<br />
and Infrastructure Jobs Act of 2012, and S. 1813, the Moving Ahead for Progress<br />
in the 21st Century Act.<br />
Provided updates to MST on transportation and appropriations legislation.
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
124
DATE: March 1, 2012<br />
TO: Carl Sedoryk, General Manager/CEO<br />
<strong>Monterey</strong>-<strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong><br />
FROM: John E. Arriaga, President<br />
SUBJ: February 2012 Activity Report<br />
125<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 10-4<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
MEMO<br />
Week of February 6, 2012<br />
Monitored gubernatorial appointments<br />
Monitored California <strong>Transit</strong> Association activities<br />
Monitored California Transportation Commission activities<br />
Monitored all new and old legislation that may be relevant to MST and eventually be<br />
monitored on their legislative track<br />
Provided MST with JEA & Associates Capitol Weekly Report on key events and<br />
activities in Sacramento/the Capitol<br />
Week of February 13, 2012<br />
Monitored gubernatorial appointments<br />
Monitored California <strong>Transit</strong> Association activities<br />
Monitored California Transportation Commission activities
Monitored all new and old legislation that may be relevant to MST and eventually be<br />
monitored on their legislative track<br />
JEA meeting with Assembly Member Alejo staff to discuss possible legislation<br />
Provided MST with JEA & Associates Capitol Weekly Report on key events and<br />
activities in Sacramento/the Capitol<br />
Week of February 20, 2012<br />
Monitored gubernatorial appointments<br />
JEA meeting with Assembly Member Alejo staff to discuss possible legislation<br />
Monitored California <strong>Transit</strong> Association activities<br />
Monitored California Transportation Commission activities<br />
Monitored all new and old legislation that may be relevant to MST and eventually be<br />
monitored on their legislative track<br />
Prepared MST legislative track for Carl Sedoryk<br />
Provided MST with JEA & Associates Capitol Weekly Report on key events and<br />
activities in Sacramento/the Capitol<br />
Week of February 27, 2012<br />
Monitored gubernatorial appointments<br />
Monitored California <strong>Transit</strong> Association activities<br />
Monitored California Transportation Commission activities<br />
Monitored all new and old legislation that may be relevant to MST and eventually be<br />
monitored on their legislative track<br />
Monitored all new legislation that may be relevant to MST<br />
Prepared MST legislative track for Carl Sedoryk with old and new legislation<br />
Provided MST with JEA & Associates Capitol Weekly Report on key events and<br />
activities in Sacramento/the Capitol<br />
Please feel free to contact me at (916) 669-1340 with any questions or concerns you may have<br />
regarding information contained in this report.<br />
126
To: Carl Sedoryk<br />
127<br />
<strong>Agenda</strong> # 10-5<br />
March 19, 2012 Meeting<br />
March 5, 2012<br />
From: Hunter Harvath, Assistant General Manager – Finance & Admin.<br />
Subject: TRIP REPORT<br />
On January 26-27, 2012, I traveled to Washington, DC, to conduct legislative<br />
advocacy meetings with professional staff members from both the House of<br />
Representatives and the Senate as well as from the Federal <strong>Transit</strong> Administration<br />
(FTA). These included representatives from the following offices:<br />
Senator Barbara Boxer<br />
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren<br />
Congressman Sam Farr<br />
Congressman John Olver<br />
Congressman Pete DeFazio<br />
Congressman Mike Honda<br />
Senator Dianne Feinstein<br />
FTA Office of Budget and Policy<br />
On January 28-31, 2012, I traveled to Orlando, FL, to participate in the<br />
American Public Transportation Association’s <strong>Transit</strong> CEOs Seminar. While at the<br />
seminar I participated in the following sessions:<br />
Bus & Paratransit CEOs Committee Meeting<br />
Opening General Session – Public Transportation Takes Us There<br />
Policy & Trends in Surface Transportation<br />
Executives Exchange: Views and Insights<br />
Chair & President’s Roundtable<br />
Workforce Development – Next Gen<br />
APTA President & CEO’s Breakfast for Deputy Chief Executives<br />
Peer-to-Peer Presentations: Case Studies, Best Practices and New<br />
Programs<br />
Labor Relations Overview<br />
Leadership & Public Transportation Security<br />
New Business Models<br />
Staying on Message<br />
Wired: How Your Customers Have Changed and What to Do About It<br />
Hunter Harvath
This page left intentionally blank.<br />
128
Mr. Carl G. Sedoryk<br />
General Manager/Chief Executive Officer<br />
<strong>Monterey</strong> <strong>Salinas</strong> <strong>Transit</strong><br />
One Ryan Ranch Road<br />
<strong>Monterey</strong>, CA 93940<br />
Dear Mr. Sedoryk:<br />
February 10, 2012<br />
On behalf of the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), I thank you<br />
for your participation at the 2012 APTA <strong>Transit</strong> CEOs Seminar in Orlando, FL.<br />
Your session received high ratings. Participants responded that the session was<br />
relevant to their needs and provided new information. We are grateful for your candid<br />
presentation. We fully recognize that we would not receive such positive feedback from<br />
participants without the excellent presentations and stimulating discussions provided by<br />
talented individuals like you.<br />
Thank you for helping make the seminar a success. We appreciate your continued<br />
involvement and unique contributions. I hope to see you at the Legislative Conference or<br />
another APTA conference very soon.<br />
MPM/lm:jr<br />
Sincerely yours,<br />
Michael P. Melaniphy<br />
President & CEO<br />
1666 K Street, N.W., 11th Floor Washington, DC 20006 Phone (202) 496-4800 FAX (202) 496-4324<br />
Executive Committee<br />
Chair<br />
Gary C. Thomas<br />
Vice Chair<br />
Flora M. Castillo, CHIE<br />
Secretary-Treasurer<br />
Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr.<br />
Immediate Past Chair<br />
Michael J. Scanlon<br />
Members-at-Large<br />
David J. Armijo<br />
Ronald L. Epstein<br />
Greg Evans, M.Ed.<br />
Joseph J. Giulietti<br />
Sharon Greene<br />
Crystal Lyons<br />
Reginald A. Mason<br />
Sharon McBride<br />
Gary W. McNeil<br />
Thomas F. Prendergast<br />
Phillip A. Washington<br />
Alice Wiggins-Tolbert<br />
Charles R. Wochele<br />
Alan C. Wulkan<br />
President & CEO<br />
Michael P. Melaniphy<br />
www.apta.com