Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-1998-115 Novaeon, Inc.• • RESOLUTION NO. R-98-1 15 A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the City Manager and the City Clerk of the City of Yakima to execute a professional services agreement with Novaeon to assist with the development of a paratransit eligibility certification process. WHEREAS, the City of Yakima Transit Division needs professional services to assist with the development of a paratransit eligibility certification process and training of personnel to process paratransit eligibility applications; and WHEREAS, Novaeon has experience and expertise regarding paratransit eligibility certification, and agrees to perform these development and training services for the City under the terms and conditions set forth in the attached agreement. WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Yakima to enter into an agreement with Novaeon for professional services in accordance with the terms and conditions of the attached agreement; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA: The City Manager and the City Clerk of the City of Yakima are hereby authorized and directed to execute the attached and incorporated agreement with Novaeon for professional services to assist with the development of a paratransit eligibility certification process. ADOPTED BY•THE CITY COUNCIL this '1 day of4i(,(Or , 1998. ATTEST: City Clerk IlkIns/pokrotranat art protes/avaart/ [mat John Puccinelli, Mayor PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT, hereinafter "Agreement", is made and entered into by and between the City of Yakima, a Washington State municipal corporation, hereinafter the "City", and Novaeon, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereinafter "NOVAEON". WHEREAS, the City of Yakima Transit Division needs professional services to assist with the development of paratransit eligibility certification process and training of personnel to process paratransit eligibility applications. WHEREAS, NOVAEON has experience and expertise regarding paratransit eligibility certification, and agrees to perform these development and training services for the City under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, promises, and agreements set forth herein, it is agreed by and between the City and NOVAEON as follows: 1. Scope of Development and Training Services. NOVAEON shall provide the following professional services to the City: a. Assist Transit Division personnel with the development of paratransit eligibility application form; b. Assist Transit Division personnel with the development of internal procedures for processing paratransit eligibility applications in a timely fashion; c. Assist Transit Division personnel with the development of an administrative appeal process for paratransit eligibility applicants; d. Assist Transit Division personnel with the development of a data base format for paratransit trip eligibility information for use by the Transit Division and the City's paratransit provider ("Access Paratransit"); and e. Assess training needs of Transit Division personnel related to paratransit eligibility certification process. f. Provide monthly status reports in writing to the Transit Division Manager by September 4th, October 5th, and November 6th, 1998 respectively, that describe in detail the services and training that have been provided to the City during the preceding month and the progress that has been made towards development of the paratransit eligibility certification process. Page 1 of 5 (Ik)agr/paratransit cert. process/novaeon/transit-pm It is the intent of the parties that development of the paratransit eligibility certification process, including both application and appeal processes, shall be complete by midnight, November 6, 1998. 2. Consideration. The City agrees to provide NOVAEON a total sum not to exceed Eight Thousand Dollars ($8,000.00) as full compensation for all professional services performed under and pursuant to this Agreement. This sum is based upon NOVAEON providing services hereunder at the rate of Sixty Five Dollars ($65) per hour. NOVAEON shall submit satisfactory documentation/invoice evidencing said services to the Transit Division Manager following completion of the class. The City shall make payment to NOVAEON within thirty (30) calendar days upon receipt of the documentation/invoice. All payments are expressly conditioned upon NOVAEON providing services hereunder that are satisfactory to the City. 3. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence upon full execution by all parties and shall terminate at 12:00 midnight, November 6, 1998, unless sooner terminated by either party in accordance with Section 16 of this Agreement. 4. Status of NOVAEON. NOVAEON and the City understand and expressly agree that NOVAEON is an independent contractor in the performance of each and every part of this Agreement. NOVAEON and its officers, employees, agents, instructors, and subcontractors shall make no claim of City employment nor shall claim any related employment benefits, social security, and/or retirement. 5. Taxes and Assessments. NOVAEON shall be solely responsible for compensating its employees and for paying all related taxes, deductions, and assessments, including but not limited to, federal income tax, FICA, social security tax, assessments for unemployment and industrial injury, and other deductions from income which may be required by law or assessed against either party as a result of this Agreement. In the event the City is assessed a tax or assessment as a result of this Agreement, NOVAEON shall pay the same before it becomes due. 6. Non -Discrimination. During the performance of this Agreement, NOVAEON shall not discriminate on the basis of race, age, color, sex, religion, national origin, creed, marital status, political affiliation, or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap. This provision shall include but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, selection for training, and the provision of services under this Agreement. 7. The Americans With Disabilities Act. NOVAEON agrees to comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (ADA), and its implementing regulations. The ADA provides comprehensive civil rights to individuals with disabilities in the area of employment, public accommodations, state and local government services, and telecommunications. 8. Compliance With Law. NOVAEON agrees to perform all training services under and pursuant to this Agreement in full compliance with any and all applicable laws, rules, and regulations adopted or promulgated by any governmental agency or regulatory body, whether federal, state, local, or otherwise. Page 2 of 5 (1k)agr/paratransit cert. process/novaeon/transit-pm 9. No Insurance provided by City. It is understood the City does not maintain liability insurance for NOVAEON and/or its officers, employees, agents, instructors, and/or subcontractors. 10. Indemnification. a. NOVAEON agrees to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all suits, actions, claims, liability, damages, judgments, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) which result from or arise out of the sole negligence of NOVAEON, its officers, employees, agents, instructors, and subcontractors in connection with or incidental to the performance or non- performance of this Agreement. b. The City agrees to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend NOVAEON, its officers, employees, agents, and instructors from and against any and all suits, actions, claims, liability, damages, judgments, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) which result from or arise out of the sole negligence of the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents in connection with or incidental to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement. c. In the event that the officials, officers, agents, instructors, employees, and/or subcontractors of both NOVAEON and the City are negligent, each party shall be liable for its contributory share of negligence for any resulting suits, actions, claims, liability, damages, judgments, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees). d. Nothing contained in this Section or this Agreement shall be construed to create a liability to any third party or a right of indemnification in any third party. 11. Insurance provided by NOVAEON. On or before the date this Agreement is fully executed by the parties, NOVAEON shall provide the City with a certificate of insurance as proof of commercial liability insurance with a minimum liability limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit bodily injury and property damage. The certificate shall clearly state who the provider is, the amount of coverage, the policy number, and when the policy and provisions provided are in effect (any statement in the certificate to the effect of "this certificate is issued as a matter of information only and confers no right upon the certificate holder" shall be deleted). Said policy shall be in effect for the duration of this Agreement. The policy shall name the City, its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds, and shall contain a clause that the insurer will not cancel or change the insurance without first giving the City thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice (any language in the clause to the effect of "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company" shall be crossed out and initialed by the insurance agent). The insurance shall be with an insurance company or companies rated A -VII or higher in Best's Guide and admitted in the State of Washington. 12. Assignment. This Agreement, or any interest herein, or claim hereunder, shall not be assigned or transferred in whole or in part by NOVAEON to any other person or entity without Page 3 of 5 (1k)agr/paratransit cert. process/novaeon/transit-pm the prior written consent of the City. In the event that such prior written consent to an assignment is granted, then the assignee shall assume all duties, obligations, and liabilities of NOVAEON as stated herein. 13. Severability. If any portion of the Agreement is changed per mutual agreement or any portion is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 14. Integration. This written document constitutes the entire agreement between the parties. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon either party unless such change or addition be in writing and executed by both parties. 15. Non -Waiver. The waiver by NOVAEON or the City of the breach of any provision of this Agreement by the other party shall not operate or be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach by either party or prevent either party thereafter enforcing any such provision. 16. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement, with or without cause, by giving the other party ten (10) days advance written notice of termination. 17. Survival. Any provision of this Agreement which imposes an obligation after termination or expiration of this Agreement shall survive the term or expiration of this agreement and shall be binding on the parties to this Agreement. 18. Notices. Unless stated otherwise herein, all notices and demands shall be in writing and sent or hand -delivered to the parties at their addresses as follows: To City: To NOVAEON: Transit Division Manager Yakima Transit Division 2301 Fruitvale Blvd. Yakima, WA 98902 Pat Sullivan President & CEO Novaeon 33600 6th Avenue Federal Way, WA 98003-6743 or to such addresses as the parties may hereafter designate in writing. Notices and/or demands shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid or hand -delivered. Such notices shall be deemed effective when mailed or hand -delivered at the addresses specified above. 19. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. 20. Venue. The venue for any action to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall lie in the Superior Court of Washington for Yakima County, Washington. Page 4 of 5 (tk)agr/paratransit cert. process/novaeon/transit-pm CITY OF YAKIMA NOVAEON By: Date: R. A. Zaisji:. City Manager ATTEST: •,,,,,, 4 -A C'x 1J t 0 City Clerk CITY CONTRACT NO. RESOLUTION NO. —qR-1 1 Page 5 of 5 (lk)agr/paratransit cert. process/novaeon/transit-pm By: wan, President/CEO Date: BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL YAKIMA, WASHINGTON AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. / 3 For Meeting of 8/4/98 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Authorizing and Directing the City Manager and the City Clerk to execute an agreement with Novaeon, Inc. for professional services. SUBMI 1 IED BY: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works CONTACT PERSON/TELEPHONE: Bill Schultz, Transit Manager/575-6005 SUMMARY EXPLANATION: The contract with Novaeon is intended to assist staff with the task of preparing to implement a modified Dial -A -Ride (DAR) client eligibility process. As the attached contract indicates, the work products with which assistance is to be rendered are as follows: • Dial -A -Ride client application form • Transit Division internal procedures for processing applications • Data base format for client trip eligibility information for both the Transit Division and the City's contractor, Access Paratransit • Client appeal process • Assessment of staff training needs related to modified eligibility process. This contract is the next step in the implementation of the Transit Task Force recommendation relative to DAR client eligibility, and a project upon which the Council Transit Committee has placed a high priority. EXHIBITS Resolution X Ordinance Contract X Other(Specify) 7/7/98 memo to Dick Zais Funding Source: Transit Division Operating Budget APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: City Manager STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve resolution authorizing contract execution TRANSIT COMMI t i LE RECOMMENDATION: This item was presented to the Transit Committee at their July 21, 1998 meeting. COUNCIL ACTION: Memorandum July 7, 1998 To: Dick Zais, City Manager From: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works Bill Schultz, Transit Manager Subject: Hiring of Dial -A -Ride Project Consultant As an integral part of moving ahead in the development of a new system for determining client eligibility for the Dial -A -Ride (DAR) program, we need to hire a contractor experienced in a nuiubei of critical areas. We have located such a company called Novaeon located in Federal Way. During initial talks, we determined the cost, for the type of assistance we need at this time, to be in the $7,000- 8,000 range. Areas where outside assistance is critically important are- • Development of the Dial -A -Ride application form, • Development of the internal client eligibility process • Training for staff (Transit Division & contractor) • Development of database format for client trip eligibility information, • Development of Client Appeal Process. Staff is moving ahead on the redevelopment of the DAR client eligibility process. The areas mentioned above are very important to get underway immediately in order to meet the 90 day timeline established at the Council Transit Committee meeting. Novaeon has been working with several transit agencies in the Northwest. They have just completed the development of a new application form for Spokane Transit and an appeal process for Pierce Transit. We feel having their expertise in getting us through similar process development will be extremely valuable and should enable us to avoid some problems agencies experience as they struggle through this for the first time. We believe their assistance will enable us to develop a system that works reasonably smoothly from the beginning. In the interest of time, we are asking that we be allowed to hire Novaeon immediately to begin the work projects outlined above. The cost of these services will be covered by the Transit Division operating budget Professional Service line item #462.4.462.519.T643.54710.410. In addition, as we move into the client re -certification process it will become necessary for us to obtain the services of a contractor with specific physiological knowledge related to an applicant's ability to utilize the transit services available to them. Staff should be able to make the eligibility determinations in the vast majority of cases, but in some instances additional knowledge will be required. We will need, at a later time, to have a contractor on i udrd to help make these more difficult case decisions. We may also find that staff limitations may require us to contract even more or perhaps all of the application review process. Novaeon is currently providing these contract services for other transit systems. However, at this point, we do not know what our needs for such assistance will be. This short term project will give us an opportunity to experience a working relationship with Novaeon. Summary Commentary on Transit Taskforce Recommendations (July 28, 1998) Transit Taskforce Mission Statement: To review and evaluate all operations and functions of the City of Yakima's transi .-jy.;tem and recommend improvements and efficiencies to the Yakima City Council. The following are the Transit Taskforce recommendations followed with updated information or comments from staff an,l City Council Transit Committee. Taskforce Recommendations (Found in Taskforce Report - 5/19/98) Reduce Dial -A -Ride eligible client base to 1% of the total population. 2. Purchase buses with seating to accommodate 85% of the peak ridership. It is understood by Staff the Taskforce position is this service level can be met by acquiring $55,000 vehicles similar to those vehicles being used by Ben -Franklin transit in their Dial -A -Ride program. Recommend that the maintenance of the new vehicles be contracted out. . Retrofit non -accessible buses with wheelchair lifts. Staff Comments Staff is conducting a detailed review of client list. Recommend a contract for professional service to assist in modifying the application process. Staff is focusing on vehicles available to purchase without the necessity of the bidding process. The vehicle realistic base price is higher than what Ben -Franklin paid three years ago. Further, Ben - Franklin received an exceptional deal on their purchases. A recent call for bid by the Olympia transit agencyS puts the vehicle base price at $65,000. A destination sign required for fixed -route service adds another $11,100. Tax and license adds over $6,000. This places vehicle acquisition costs at more than $82,000. To provide mobility for those who no longer qualify for Dial -A -Ride service, all buses not being replaced should be retrofitted with wheelchair lifts. Current Transit Committee Recommendations The Council Transit Committee concurred with Staff. A contract with Novaeon is set for full Council consideration on 8/4/98. The Council Transit Committee recommends purchase of smaller and lighter duty vehicles but are divided between two models. Two favor the Blue Bird at $123,000 and the other favors the cutaway at $82,000. The difference is heavier duty materials, longer operating life and slightly larger capacity. Staff is to pursue expanding current contract for vehicle maintenance to include the new buses. Recommend the vehicle purchase issue be given a public hearing. The Council Transit Committee agreed with the Taskforce wheelchair lift retrofit proposal. Retrofit (11) Gillig buses with lifts. preliminary City Council Direction 07/30/98 11:45 AM 4. Increase base fixed -route fare to $1 and Dial -A -Ride fare to $2. 5. Conduct an analysis of various fare structures for City Council consideration. 6. Reduce fleet size to meet federal policy. 7. Eliminate Dial -A -Ride service on Sunday and non -transit service holidays. 8. Accept Access Paratransit's proposal for a one-year demonstration contract to operate Fixed -Routes 3 & 10. To ease the financial burden on lower income passengers, pass prices should be kept at a much lower rate as an alternative to higher cash fares. Hold a public hearing as required by law. Staff will need further direction from Council on fare structure alternatives to be analyzed. An analysis should be completed before any change in fare rates is made. The reduction has occurred with the loss of three (3) 1974 GMC buses. The fleet size meets federal guidelines. The GMC's will be sold. (Below FTA Spare Ratio By (1)) Staff supports this action. Most Sunday ridership is to and from church. Staff believes the churches will step up to fill the void and provide the transportation necessary. This action will effect three (3) full. - time equivalent transit operators during the demonstration period if both routes are contracted out. (Does this constitute a Reduction In Force (RIF) which requires Civil Service Action?) (If the contract continues after the demonstration period, how will the Fixed -Routes be contracted?). Hold a public hearing on this issue as required by Federal Transit Administration. An analysis of fares should be conducted prior to consideration of any change in fares. The Taskforce recommendation is fulfilled by the loss of three GMC's to engine failure. The buses will be sold. The Council Transit Committee recommends staff evaluate the feasibility of further reducing service hours on Sundays and non -transit service holidays. Issues need to be resolved concerning the Bargaining Agreement and private contract development before the City Council considers contracting out Fixed -Route # 3. (see attached report and legal service request) The Council Transit Committee recommends elimination of Fixed -Route # 10 and providi.c►g a special focus route instead. 07130/98 11:47 AM 9. New recommendation not in the Recommend a public hearing be held Set date of September 1, 1998 for a Taskforce Report. by the City Council on the Taskforce public hearing to consider the final recommendations. Taskforce recommendations. 07/30/98 11:47AM POLICY STATEMENT Relative to PROCEDURES GOVERNING TRANSIT SERVICE AND FARE MODIFICATIONS INTRODUCTION: When considering major transit service modifications, particularly service reductions, or modification of basic system fares, the following procedures will be followed. GE1‘.'ERAL: Major changes in service, either routes or schedules, or any change in fares, must be approved by City Council Resolution. A major reduction in service is any modification of routes or service schedule which results in a reduction in force among transit operating personnel. A reduction in force is an action requiring the lay off or reassignment of personnel to other duties. This action is conducted in accordance with Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Prior to making a final decision on major service reductions or fare increases public comment must be sought. This will be accomplished through the public hearing process. PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES: Public hearings can be conducted in two ways. The first method is for the City Council to conduct the hearing as an agenda item for a regular City Council meeting. The second method is for the hearing to be conducted separately. The hearing can be presided over by the City Council or by staff. Every public hearing will be advertised in a local news paper of general circulation at least two weeks prior to the date of hearing. The advertisement will indicate the date, time and location of the hearing, the subject matter upon which public testimony is being sought. The advertisement will also indicate where copies of the proposal or subject material can be obtained and where, and to whom, written testimony can be addressed. Detailed minutes of the hearing will be taken and published as a part of the record. At the appointed time, the meeting will be called to order by the person presiding over the hearing and introductory statements made by those making the proposal. The presiding officer will then call for public testimony by declaring the public hearing open. When all persons, who are present and wanting to speak, have had an opportunity to be heard, the public hearing can be closed by the presiding officer. At that time any written testimony can be entered into the record. Questions and discussion by those conducting the hearing are also appropriate at this time. A public meeting will be conducted for other changes in routes and schedules or fare structure which do not require a public hearing, but for which public comment is desired by the City Council. The same procedures may be used for notification and conducting a public meeting as that for public hearings as noted above. FTA C 9030.1E 10/10/96 o. Public Comment on Fare and Service Changes. The grant applicant must certify that it has a locally developed process to solicit and consider public comment before raising a fare or carrying out a major reduction of transit service. J V The grantee is expected to have a written policy that describes the public comment process on increases in the basic fare structure and on major service reductions. The policy should provide an opportunity for a public hearing or public meeting for any fare increase or major service reduction and should describe how such meetings will be conducted and how the results of such meetings will be considered in the process of changing fares and service. A public meeting is not mandatory; however, an opportunity \ for a public meeting in order to solicit comment must be given. Evenditure on Transit Security Proiects. The grant applicant must certify that it will expend for transit security projects for each fiscal year not less than one percent of the under Area Formula Program for each fiscal year, or the funds it receives the Urbanized i'vivausa Program grant applicant must certify that such expenditures for security projects are not necessary. Projects that use operating assistance funds and projects that use capital assistance funds may be counted as eligible projects to be used toward the one percent that must be spent on security projects. Examples of transit security projects include (but are not limited to): (1) Increasing lighting within a transit system or adjacent to one at bus stops, subway stations, parking lots, and garages; (2) Camera surveillance of an area within or adjacent to the transit system.; (3) Providing an emergency telephone line and radio communication links to contact law enforcement or security personnel in areas within or adjacent to the transit system; (4) Any other project intended to increase the security and safety of an existing or planned transit system; (5) Contracts for security training; (6) Security analysis studies; (7) Stag salaries for personnel exclusively involved with security; and (8) Contracts for security services. Category XII.A(10) in Appendix G pertains to security. During triennial reviews, grantees will be asked to show the basis of the security -related certification. 6. PROGRAM OF PROJECTS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION REQUIREMENT'S a. Source of Projects. The source from which projects are selected to be in an FTA grant application is that part of a metropolitan area's TIP (approved by the MPO, found to be consistent with the metropolitan area's long-range plan by FTA, and approved by the Governor) that is within an approved STIP. The first-year program of the approved TIP constitutes a list of "meed to" projects for FFA grant application purposes. In this circular, the term "program of projects" will mean those projects in the first-year program Page V-9 -DRAFT - REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL July 23, 1998 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Yakima City Council FROM: Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works Bill Schultz, Transit Manager SUBJECT: Proposal to contract Route #3 as a pilot project One of the recommendations of the Transit Task Force is to consider a one(1) year contracted service demonstration project to contract out a bus route. BACKGROUND: During Transit Task Force activities, a subject which was discussed was providing fixed route transit service through a private contractor. At the last meeting of the Task Force, Access Paratransit (our Dial -A - Ride contractor), submitted a written proposal offering to provide contract service on two routes as a one year pilot project. They had selected routes #3 & #10 as these are low ridership routes which may be conducive to being operated utilizing the small buses which they can provide. The Task Force had little time to consider the proposal, but they felt that it offered a concept which should be explored. Therefore, it was added to their recommendations, which were being prepared for submission to the City Council. The Council Transit Committee has been studying Task Force recommendations in preparation for their report to the full Council. During discussion of the contracting proposal, Access Paratransit informed the Transit Committee that their proposal was a concept document and that they would need to provide additional detail to the Committee at a future meeting. They received that detail at their last meeting (7/21/98), but had no opportunity to read and discuss its content. Now the Committee is forwarding its report to the full Council and having to make a recommendation without anopportunity to fully discuss the pros and cons of such a concept. Many question remain unasked, let alone answered. While most of these can be worked out in the final negotiation of a contract, should the Council decide to do so, an issue which has been mentioned is the labor contract language which limits the City's contracting options. In this regard, we have requested a legal opinion to help resolve this issue. 7/27/98 Prior to directing that a contract be drawn up, the Council may want to develop some goals that it wants the project to accomplish. It is iffic .0 to .,t..t..i-.«t..-. a .. .d` mionst►ntiop project is 01 IccGCCfu II if we UI!IIGUIL to ueteit1miG 11 a uG iRji,7uGiu »1 project is •w• •• •••- have not first defined success. As an example, the Council may want to set goals for ridership, service cost, service reliability, customer satisfaction, etc., which are quantifiable. Then on-going monitoring of operating data and on -board surveys can uetCw.-.° ne progress toward satisfaction of project goals, Based upon: the Council's objectives, staff can develop a system to monitor the project and provide regular reports to the Council. Thus, by thio ti...... the .dnonstr. tion period is nearinn rmm�lPtion The Council 11 1G time 1116 UI17 JI l II 4aeve a r�.e+v. ++v......y .. ...1.. ...., - •_ - --- ---- will have the information it will need to evaluate the project and determine its future. 7/27/98 REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES July 23, 1998 TO: Ray Paolella, City Attorney Chris Waarvick, Director of Public Works Bill Schultz, Transit Manager SUBJECT: Labor issue involved in contracting bus route One of the recommendations from the Transit Task Force which the City Council will be considering, (possibly at 8/4/98 meeting), is the contracting out of one (1) bus route (Route#3), for a one year demonstration project. While there are several ancillary issues which would have to be worked out, the major impediment to such a contract is the issue involving labor contract language. The current AFSCME Transit C.B.A. language stipulates the following: ARTICLE XI - CONTRACTING WORK "The City agrees that no permanent employee shall be laid off as a direct result of the City contracting work currently done by City Employees. The City However, retains the right to contract work as deemed desirable or necessary by the City and reassign employee who might otherwise be laid off as a result thereof. The City further retains the right to lay off employees at the discretion of the City, due to lack of funds." This is the entire text on the subject. The Transit Division has two (2) vacant full-time Transit Operator positions which will not be filled pending the resolution of the contracting out issue by the City Council. Is it possible that the open positions are sufficient to allow (per CBA), the contracting of a single route without having to lay off any currently employed Operators? Anticipating that there may be other issues involved which, at first glance, may not meet the eye, such as Civil Service Rules regarding a RIF, we are requesting your legal review of this issue. Additionally, while the one year demonstration project is the current issue, there may be other labor issues, of a legal nature, if the choice is made to continue contracting beyond the one year. CC. Dick Zais, City Manager Glenn Rice, Assistant City Manager ACCESS PARATRANS I T , INC. 612 N. 16th Avenue Yakima, Washington D5002 (509) 248-2229 TO: Transit Committee Yakima City Council FROM: Pam Scott, CEO Access Paratransit RE: Pilot Bus Route Demonstration Project For Route *3 DATE: July 20, 1998 I have been asked to present to the Yakima City Council Transit Committee my final proposal for the operation of Yakima Transit Bus Route #3. I understand that my final proposal will become binding for a one-year pilot demonstration project if accepted by the City Council, and I am prepared to stand behind my proposal. We will run the route with two wheelchair -lift accessible vehicles. Both of the vehicles we have in mind for purchase have wheelchair lifts and securement areas. One is an 18 ambulatory/4 wheelchair passenger bus and the other is a 14 ambulatory/3 wheelchair cutaway passenger vehicle. The larger vehicle would be used during the busy periods, and the cutaway would be utilized during the slower periods. In the event of a vehicle being out of service for maintenance and/or repairs, the other vehicle would run the entire route. The average ridership at any given point of this route is 6, with a maximum number of riders being 13 and the maximum number of boarders being 11. Both of these vehicles would be able to handle the route efficiently with a minimum number of stand-up passengers. We currently have 4 drivers with passenger endorsed CDL licenses. We are working on endorsements for at least two more drivers so that we have a pool with which to work. As I mentioned in the preliminary proposal, our rate would cover the training costs of our drivers, and would be contingent upon Yakima Transit providing the fare boxes and the driver trainer. We woulA -''�^ want to have bike racks on our buses, and I have been informed that there may be surplus bike racks in Yakima Transit's inventory. Other areas that would need to be discussed are: 1) a two-way radio with Transit's frequencies; 2) the advertising signs that currently adorn the sides of the buses; 3) appropriate signage to identify the bus, 4) what constitutes actual billable service hours and; 5) billing frequency. However, I have no doubt that we can come to some mutual agreements regarding these items. Based on all the facts, figures, numbers, and statistics that I have reviewed, I would like to submit my proposal of $53.50 per service hour to operate Route #3 on a one-year pilot demonstration project. City Council Transit Committee Bus Route Pilot Demonstration Protect Access Paratransit Page 2 Access Paratransit has worked hard to form a good relationship with Yakima Transit and the City Council in the 20 months that it has operated the Dial -A -Ride contract. And we have worked hard to keep the ccntract cost down as well as providing excellent service to our clients and the community. Without a city transit system, there is no Dial -A -Ride program. And we will work Just as hard to insure that we provide the best possible service in this pilot protect endeavor. I thank you for giving us this opportunity to forge a new partnership between government, private enterprise, and the community. Our goals follow the same path - to provide quality transportation to all the citizens in our community while insuring that the service will remain viable. Thank You. Pamela S. Scott cc: v 1-) „3 ccrey-- Bill Schultz, Yakima Transit Karen Allen, Yakima Transit John Haddix, Yakima Transit Rich Lyons, Yakima Transit Russ Keen, Access Paratransit General Manager Cliff Scott, Access Paratransit Operations Manager 1998 TRANSIT BUS PROCUREMENT PROJECT July 10, 1998 mn. J. Vs ul.ilit.la £LcALLoaV VV+"'••'vVvv FROM: Bill Schultz, Transit Manager STT°'; CT Information requested relative to capital and maintenance cost comparison experience of other transit systems operating small buses We have had considerable difficulty obtaining the information requested, as Don Toney's report, which follows, indicates. What we have received is mostly anecdotalexperiencesshared by maintenance managers at various systems. The systems contacted do not keep statistical information in a manner that allows comparison. Additionally, maintenance personnel do not keep unit cost information at all. As Don's report points out, they do not charge other operating divisions for services rendered, as our Equipment Rental Division does. Therefore, they have no need for the kind of statistical data that he uses. That is not to say that the information does not exist somewhere in the organization. The people who do accounting and statistical reporting must have this information. However, the time and personnel to do the research necessary, to locate the needed data and develop comparable information, simply are not available to us. We would like to suggest another direction. Since we want and need to get through the procurement process as quickly as possible, perhaps we should look for the vehicles which are readily available to us through contracts already in place with other agencies. To that end, we have located three vehicle models which are currently under contract in the State of Washington. Intercity Transit (Olympia) has two sizes of ElDorado National cut -a -way bus under contract. The States of Illinois and Florida have a small bus built by Blue Bird under contract, the price of which Washington venders will honor. Grant County PTBA is currently purchasing this model. The information we have received thus far on these vehicles is attached. More will be obtained. Note: Schetky Northwest is a vender of various sizes and types of passenger vehicles. They have sent a substantial document on the various types which includes the material excerpted and included with this packet as Attachment#2. It gives a brief description of the basic types of transit vehicle. The two cut -a -ways which Intercity Transit has under contract were specified in two different sizes. 10 passenger (7 & 3 wheelchairs) at a cost of $80,800 and 16 passenger (14 & 2 wheelchairs) at a cost of $80,580 inclusive of taxes and options. These buses are approximately 25 feet in overall length. The Blue Bird model is a heavier duty bus also 25 feet in length. The passenger configuration is presently unknown although the vehicle is handicapped accessible and would accommodate at least two wheelchairs. The cost is approximately $123,500 inclusive of taxes. Note: Gillig Corp. has provided a life cycle cost comparison between light duty and heavy duty buses for use as shuttle vehicles which was done by the Denver Airport. It is included as Attachment#3. If we use the Blue Bird to calculate the capital cost estimate, the purchase of five (5) buses will cost approximately $617,500. This will leave $482,500 r cm airing, of the approximately $1,100,000 available project funds, for wheelchair lift retrofits. At approximately $30,000 per retrofit, all 11 remaining non- accessible buses in the fleet can be retrofit. The combined capital expenses bus purchases and retrofit will be $947,500. The following steps remain to complete the bus procurement process: a determine the type, number, and cost of bus to be purchased • determine the number of wheelchair lift retrofits which can be accomplished with the remaining funding • develop and file FTA grant request • develop bid specifications for wheelchair lift retrofit • receive Letter of No Prejudice from FTA (about 30 days after grant filing) • contact agency holding purchase contract for selected bus • place order for buses • receive grant approval and execute grant contracts • solicit bids for wheelchair lift retrofit • open bids & award retrofit contract An issue of reliability of light duty buses has called into question whether or not additienal buses should be purchased in order to have sufficient spare buses in the fleet to be sure that all routes will be covered at all times. We are proposing the purchase of five (5) buses to replace the four (4) GM's and three (3) Orions because that is the maximum we can purchase within FTA spare ratio guidelines. Since FTA guidelines limit the number of spare vehicles a system can have in an active fleet status, any buses purchased in excess of the federal guideline maximum would have to be purchased with local funds only (Transit Capital Reserve Fund). However, as long as the fleet exceeds the federal guideline for spare ratio, federal funds can not be used to purchase neither additional nor replacement buses. The Transit Task Force recommended that maintenance of the light duty buses be contracted out. To do so will lighten the maintenance load for the Equipment Rental Division mechanics. The maintenance contract should require priority maintenance for the buses in order that they can return to service as soon as possible. An option for contracting maintenance would be to have the contract cover service work only (oil & filter change, lube, etc.). Equipment Rental would then continue to do repair maintenance. Don Toney's report attempts to estimate the likely cost of contracted maintenance services for the lighter duty buses, if that option were to be pursued. To: Transit Sub -Committee c, From: D.L. Toney, Flt. Manager Subj: Transit Vehicle Maintenance Our quest for maintenance cost comparison information between heavy-duty transit coaches and cut -a -way van type vehicles has not been highly successful. It seems that for the most part the PTBA type Transit systems do not have to track cost in the same manner that we do. This is in part because they do not operate a charge -back maintenance operation. I was able to get some cost information for the City of Everett. The following table lists that information. APWA code Description CPM/H CPM/H Last 12 Months Life cost 2307 Trk. Van Fwd cntl sw Ford & Goshen paratransit . 4720 .6681- 2315 Trk Bus BOC Ford Elf Bus . 6787 1.6076 7316 Trk. Bus Chev Trolley .9528 .3580 2516 Trk Bus Int Gillig, Orion Bus .6700 .6652 2716 Trk Bus Gillig & Orion Bus .5667 .7657 Metro's Jim Boon stated that they track their cost in man-hours of maintenance per 1000 miles of operation. They currently have a fleet of cut -a -way vans, which are about one (1) year old, and a group of 35 -ft. Gillig Phantoms of the same age. Their experience to date shows that the cut -a -way vans require approximately 10% more man-hours of maintenance compared to the Gillig Phantoms. Cut -a -way vans 4.1 man-hours per 1000 miles. 35 -ft Gillig Phantoms, 3.7 man-hours per 1000 miles. Most repair parts are replaced under warranty; therefore, cost figures are not available 9.t this time. Metro staff expects that the ratio of man-hours per 1000 miles between Cuta- ways and standard transit coaches to will be greater as the units age and accumulate higher mileage. Link Transit indicated that their experience has been that the cut -a -way type vans require many more man-hours of maintenance then a standard transit coach. While they did not have any comparative data, their feeling was that the cut -a -ways required as much as 50% more man-hours then the standard transit coach. Other agencies contacted were Pierce Transit, Spokane Transit, Clailam Transit, Ben Franklin Transit, and Kitsap Transit. As stated, meaningful cost comparative information was unavailable. However.the over whelming consensus of opinion was that the cut -a -way type bus requires more man-hours of maintenance per unit of measurement then a standard heavy duty transit coach, with the disparity of becoming greater with age and mileage. High problem areas have been: Brakes Electrical System Transmission Air Conditioning Cooling System Suspension The following is a list of components, which were, as a consensus, highly recommended as minimal requirements to include in vehicle specifications. Diesel Engine, Cummins, or International preferred. Automatic Transmission, Allison preferred. (OverDrive feature disabled on transmissions.) Highest Capacity alternator available. Highest capacity cooling system available Brake Retarder, hydraulic or Telma Electric, (hydraulic preferred) High capacity suspension components. The one bright spot mentioned by all contacted agencies is that of fuel consumption, which is 2 to 3 times or more miles per gallon in favor of the cut -a -way vans. The following tables illustrate our best -estimated cost of maintenance over a five year life cycle for the types of busses being considered. OPERATING COST SERVICE ITEMS H.D TRANSIT BUS CUT -A -WAY VANS ENGINE HEAVY DUTY DIESEL GAS ENGINE , LIGHT DUTY DIESEL ESTIMATED SERV ICE LIFE 275,000 80 TO 100,000 MAJOR OVERHAUL NONE 2- GASOLINE ENGINE LABOR HRS PER OVERHAUL NONE 100 GASOLINE TOTAL HRS IN 5 YRS. NONE 200- GASOLINE ESTIMATED ENGINE OVERHAUL COST NONE `12000 TRANNSMISSION SERVICE HD ALLISON FORD,CHEVROLET ESTIMA 1 ED SERVICE LIFE 150,000 MILES 50 TO 75,000 MILES MAJOR OVERHAUL 1 4 LABOR HOURS PER OVERHAUL 35 30 ESTIMATED TRANSMISSION OVERHAUL COST $5000 $6000 BRAKES SERVICE AIR HYDRAULIC ESTIMATED SERVICE LIFE 30,000 6,000 RELINNINGS REQUIRED 6 33 MANHOURS PER RELINE 8 6 BRAKE SVC. LABOR HRS. (5yrs) 48 99 ESTIMATED BRAKE RELINE/OVERHAUL COST (5yrs) $5000 $10000 OIL USAGE — OIL CHANGES 6,000 MILE INTERVAL 3,000 MILE INTERVAL — ESTIMA I ED COST PER CHANGE $25.00 $15.00 4 CHANGES REQUIRED (5yr0 34 67 COST OF OIL CHANGES (5yr.) $850.00 $1005.00 SUMMARY SERVICE COST HD TRANSIT BUS CUT -A -WAY VAN LABOR HRS. ENGINE SERVICE 0 100 LABOR HRS. TRANSIMISSION 35 120 1.,ABOR HRS. BRAKE SERVICE 48 198 TOTAL SERVICE HRS. (5yrs) 83 418 TOTAL SERVICE COST (5yrs) 1 $10.850 $29005 ESTIMATED MANHOURS MALNTENANCE (5yrs) NOTE #1 2200 2400 ESTIMATED LABOR COST (5yrs) NOTE #2 $110,000 $120,000 NOTE #1 ESTIMATES BASED ON 5.5 HRS. PER 1000 MILE OF OPERATION, 40,000 MILES YEARLY. CURRENT FLEET AVERAGE IS 7.75 HRS FOR TRANSIT FLEET. NOTE # 2 BASED ON $50.00 PER HOUR. NOTE # 3 FIGURES DO NOT INCLUDE PARTS COST WHICH TYPICALLY ARE EQUAL TO LABOR COST. INTERCITY TRANSIT Light -Duty Buses MANUFACTURER ElDorado National CONTRACT TERM: February 13,1997 to February 1Z 2000 BASE ORDER PRICES: Model 1- ElDorado National Aerotech 220-Paratransit Van (Destination sign cabling only — no destination sign installed) Unit Price: $63,548.00 Model 2 - ElDorado National Aerotech 240- Shuttle Van (Destination sign cabling only — no destination sign installed) Unit Price: $63,329.00 Any orders placed after the initial 90 -day period shall be the base order price plus any escalation calculated on the US Department of Labor/Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index Category 1411-06. OPTIONS: Electronic Destination Sign Luminator Mini Mega Max (front, side and rear run #) Unit Price: $11,100.00 SIGNIFICANT COMPONENTS: Ford Super -Duty E diesel chassis 176" Wheelbase 7.3L diesel engine Ford E4OD Transmission Telma Retarder USSC Drivers Seat Romeo Rim bumpers Freedman fold -up seats DELIVERY: 240 Days: After receipt of order POLITICAL SUBDIVISION PURCHASING CLAUSE: Prices established by this contract may apply to other political subdivisions. CONTACTS: Contract Ann Freeman-Manzanares, Project Coordinator, (360) 705-5838 Specifications: Randy Winders, Maintenance Director, (360) 705-5883 h\FSP\pr ojestAvehiciee\97paza\vansum97.doc 07/07/98 TUE 13:27 FAX 3607056820 PUB TRANS & RAIL If any warranted component, units or subsysteixt havrepaired, � �e �rebuilt, ortereplaced � o the concurrence of the manufacturer, the subsystem shall the original subsystem. 1.14 Excessive Number of Operational Failures 11-1 he event that during the warranty period specific repairs or modifications are required on 25% of the vehicles nec-a:�ait�ated by defects in design, material, or workmanship furnish necessary l p all nabor delivered under this contract, the Contractor shall promptly aired or labor andced materials to effect those repairs or modifications to all vehicles. These rep then be covered automatically under an extended warranty/product s�,.�.a1s shall warranty.The warranty shall improvement guarantee for the time orof the original the date the defect was repaired._L_ ,,,Da bythe manufacturer for labor and overread costs associated Transit will be reimbursed with the waxranty work accomplished. Labor and overhead costs are $35/`Hour. Transit will be reimbursed by the manufacturer for defective parts and for parts that must be replaced to correct the defect at cost plus 20% for shipping and handling. 1.15 General Dimensions The vehicle furnished under these specifications shall comply with the following approximate dimensions: Model 1 Vehicles Ford E40 Superduty Chassis (7 units) Seated Wheelchair Total Pasgen ers passenaers • 13 3 13 10 7 Project 9608 Dimensions Length 298" maximum Height 115"gum Wheelbase 158" GVWR 14,050 pounds Aisle width 13" C seat cushion Interior headroom 74" minimum Page 33 fj003 ti, Specifications Modell Vehicles Ford E40 Superduty Chassis (2 Units) Seated Wheelchair Passengers _ Passengers Total 18 0 18 14 2 16 Dimensions: Length 298" maximum Height 115" maximum Wheelbase 176" GVWR 14,050 pounds Aisle width 13" ® seat cushion Interior headroom 74" minimum 2 MECHANICAL . 2.1 Front Axle The axle shall have the axle manufacturer's maximum load rating for the gross loads that the vehicle builder designed them to carry. The gross Load includes seated plus standee load. 2.2 Rear Axle The axle shall have the axle manufacturer's maximum load rating for the gross loads that the vehiclft,builder designed them to carry. The gross load includes seated plus standee load. The rear axle shall be single speed with 4:10 gear ratio to provide a speed of not mo? than 65 mph. 2.3 Brakes and Air Equipment Brakes shall be dual -power assisted system with disc type on the front wheels and 3" drum or disc type on the rear wheels. A parking brake shall be supplied with foot activation. A brake warning light shall be installed on the dash board. Brakes shall be designed to meet all FMVSS codes. 2.3.1 Park Brake Vehicle shall be equipped with actuators capable of bringing the vehicle to a stop within the specifications of the FMVSS. Brake system shall be balanced to provide safe stop operation. 2.3.2 Alr Compressor The air compressor shall be a Gast Model 1HAB-19-M114. The air supply compressor and adjustable cutout governor shall be mounted underhood. Project 9608 Page 34 Specifications Blue Bird Transhuttle BLUE BIRD CORPORATION .d!r.T-. �itii .r•T,r.l;rrl!ran>� a.r:tit.�cr�r•r.ra:l� TRANSHUTTLE EZ LOADER MMI' Page 1 of 3 DiSTRiBUTORS mi ISM EMI Whether you're in community transportation or one of the many shuttle-reiateri industriec Blue Bird has JAA Utl6AFr-A bduLbK eaxY....0 avv, ✓awv ✓uw uw� created the one bus perfectly suited to meet your needs: the TranShuttle CS. This durable, 25 -foot, ten-year tested vehicle represents an unsurpassed value versus cutaway conversion vans, and can be configured for any conceivable purpose. From the direct response operator preferring a more basic, economical package, to the hotel shuttle manager requiring a choice of soft interior upfitting options, Blue Bird's TranShuttle CS offers the perfect blend of strength, style, and value. The TranShuttle CS, which endured the 350,000 mile, ten-year simulated life Federal testing at Altoona, features steel body construction and a unique flat -floor design that accommodates up to eight wheelchair stations. 4 SPECIFICATIONS Engine & Chassis Features • Cummins 5.9 B Series turbocharged, in-line six -cylinder diesel engine, 175 hp. Custom manufactured for power and durability. • Allison AT545 automatic transmission with four forward and one reverse speed. • Dual "C" channel, one-piece, full-length chassis frame with 3" flanges made of .25" thick, 50,000 psi steel. • Parabolic taperleaf front suspension. Provides Just a few inches longer than a cutaway, yet it offers http://www..blue-bird.com/transhiuttle:html 7/8/98 Blue Bird Transhuttle improved ride, handling, and durability -three times that of multi -leaf designs. • Double -action, direct -acting Monroe shock absorbers. • Hydraulic power assist four-wheel disc brakes. • Tilt steering column with 18" two -spoke padded steering wheel. • ctIndard axles (10,700 lbs. front, 15,000 lbs. rear). • Single front, dual rear disc wheels (19.5" rims). • Goodyear 265 70R tubeless tires. 45 -gallon fuel tank. Hinged engine door for easy access for fluid level checks. Safety and Strength Features • Blue Bird electric -powered outward -opening entrance door. • 3 -step non-skid stepwell. • Stainless steel entrance handrail. • Clearance, cluster, and side marker lights. • Inside 4" x 16" rear-view mirror. • Outside left and right mirrors, 6 1/2" x 10" flat and 6 1/2" x 10" convex. • A11 -galvanized steel unitized construction: • 16 -gauge outer panels. • 20 -gauge roof sheets which span entire 'vehicle width. • Continuous floor line armor belt. • Flat -floor design includes heavy 14 -gauge floor panels reinforced with full -width "U" channel crossmembers 9" apart. • Riveted and welded construction, including structural steel angle reinforcement for floor joints. • One 16 -gauge full-length applied rubrail. • 12" frame -mounted one-piece steel bumpers 3/16" plate steel. • 3" rear, side, and intermediate side reflectors. • Rear emergency door. Durability Features • Body parts thoroughly rust -proofed after fabrication and before assembly. • Body skirt, floor, and wheelhousing http://www.blue-bird.comitranshuttle.html Page 2 of 3 111 uch more seating capacity and headroom (nearly 6 1/2 feet). ranShuttle CS 132" wheelbase 8.8' turning radius Cutaway Conversion 176" wheelbase 31.1' turning radius Drivability Features • Bostrom Routemaster driver's seat. • Transparent dark green tint sun visor. • Two-piece curved/tinted windshield. • Two -speed, non -glare electric windshield wipers. • Electric windshield washer. • Fiber-optic illumination of switch panel eliminates glare. Comfort and Convenience Features • 77" headroom. • Heater air intake on right front below windshield level. Manual control for fresh air. Driver fresh air on left by driver's feet. • 90,000 BTU front heater/defroster; 12,000 BTU auxiliary heater located under driver's seat. • 1 1/2" insulation in roof, rear, and sides. • Double sliding driver's side window with defroster. • Interior dome lights. • Flat floor. • Up to eight wheelchair positions. vailable Special Options • Air conditioning. • Air brakes. • Low back fixed and high back recliner seats. • Transit windows. 7/8/98 Blue Bird T i:Shui. e undercoated before mounting. • Gray, heat -cured polyester semi -gloss interior paint. • OEM polyurethane exterior paint. • Rlark rihherl aisle. • Smooth underseat black floor covering. Serviceabiiiiy Features • Enclosed battery compartment with sliding tray. • Easily accessible exterior wiring terminal compartment under driver window. • color -coded and numbered wiring. • Easily removable wire molding. • Auto -resetting circuit breakers for body wiring. • 12" safety glass split -sash clear tempered glass windows in aluminum frames. • Rubber -trimmed fuel fill opening. • Soft interior. • Air -ride suspension. • ADA -approved package. • Coach bus rear cap assembly. snanv ether available nntinnc P2GP of 0 -Buses 1 LTC I CS Buses 1 OMC 1 Transhuttle 1 EZ Loader 1 Natural Gas 1 Security 1 APC 1 Distributors Home 1 School 1 Commercial 1 Motorcoach 1 Search 1 E-mail Copyright @ 1997 Blue Bird Corporation. Specifications shown in this Web Site were in effect on the date they were approved -for posting and inclusion in the site. In keeping with its policy of continual product improvement, Blue Bird reserves the right to change specifications without notice and without incurring obligations. http://www.blue-bird.com/transhuttle.htrnl 7/8/98 Report to the Yakima City Council From the Yakima Transit Task Force Bruce Smith, Chairman Dave McCartney, Vice Chairman Ernie Berger Sheila Burns Jar Arcand Mike Larson Al Deatley Charlie Eglin Mary Place May 18, 1998 Task Force Process The first meeting of the Transit Task Force was held on Sept. 9, 1997. All of the Task Force's meetings were held in the Public Works Department's training room with public seat- ing. A portion of each meeting was set aside for audience par- ticipation. All of the meetings were taped for Y -PAC and broadcast at least twice, and usually three or four times, dur- ing the following week. At the request of the staff, the Task Force changed from weekly meetings to bi-weekly meetings to al- low for more preparation and research time. The Task Force meeting schedule and topics are listed be- low: .Sept. 7, 1997: Review budgets, quarterly reports, col- lective bargaining agreements, annual reports and 1998 operat- ing schedules. .Sept. 23, 1997: Review transit services, operations, hours, funding and fleet composition. .Sept. 30, 1997: Study Dial -A -Ride (DAR) program and Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). •Oct. 7, 1997: DAR and ADA continued. •Oct. 14, 1997: Review Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA) history and the Commute Trip Reduction Act and .program. .Oct. 28, 1997: Review transit operating data and statis- tics. .Nov. 4, 1997: Review bus size information and departmen- t's purchasing procedures. .Nov. 18, 1997: Meet with Yakima School District repre- sentatives to discuss school busing arrangement. Also reviewed bus bench contract and transit exterior advertising program. .Dec. 2, 1997: Study and begin projections for division's operating and capital budgets. .Dec. 16, 1997: Meet with representatives of the Laidlaw corporation and discussed benefits and disadvantages of priva- tizing transit systems. .Jan. 6, 1998: Meet with representatives from bus manu- facturers and discuss bus size differences and features. •Jan. 20, 1998: Finalize budget projections for both op- erating and capital budget. •Jan. 31, 1998: Conduct a public meeting for citizen in- put. .Feb. 3, 1998: Receive ridership survey and study from the Eisenhower High School AP Statistics class. .Feb. 12, 1998: Travel to Tri -Cities to meet with man- agers of Ben Franklin Transit. .Feb. 16, 1998: Conduct a public meeting with Transit em- ployees. .Feb. 17, 1998: Discuss employee meeting results and re- view results from Tri -Cities' trip. •March 3, 1998: Review inter -city charges, budget and ve- hicle maintenance labor rate breakouts. •March 17, 1998: Begin discussion regarding recommenda- tions. •March 24, 1998: Finalize recommendations. In addition to these meetings, members spent hours re- searching issues and reviewing the material provided by staff. Most members also rode buses throughout this period, and met with riders and employees. The process took longer than anticipated, primarily be- cause much of the most -basic information needed to draw conclu- sions was not available. For example, no realistic financial projections had ever been completed for the division. The Task Force had no idea the dimension of Transit's future financial problems. The Task Force held several meetings formulating the projections. Considerable time and effort went into developing the budget assumptions and reviewing and predicting the trends which drive the projections. The Task Force's next major hurdle was gathering ridership data. Although cumulative numbers were available, specific route ridership figures had not been tracked. For example, the Task Force was not able to find out how many riders rode on which route, how many riders were on a bus at one time, what the average rider's trip length was, etc. The Task Force con- tracted with Eisenhower High School's Advanced Placement Statistics Class to gather and compile that data, which is pre- sented in more detail in the Second Section. Information on the acquisition and operating costs of var- ious bus sizes and types was also unavailable. There was also a lack of information regarding the depreciation and "wear -and - tear" experience for various vehicles. The Task Force dedi- cated several meetings to gathering and analyzing this mate- rial, including a trip to the Tri -Cities to evaluate Ben ,= f1 AAt , which utilizes several sizes and types of buses. The last area of major analysis by the Task Force was the impact of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) on the Transit System. This legislation is a driving factor behind the growth of Transit's Dial -A -Ride (DAR) program. The Task Force discovered that Yakima's DAR -eligible population is much higher than other cities. Our research and conclusions on this topic are also presented in the Second Section. Research and Conclusions This section reviews the significant information developed by the Task Force which led to our conclusions. Much more in- formation was developed during this process, but this is the most -important material we relied upon to make our conclusions. The information is grouped together according by topic, al- though there is -some overlap in many instances. Financial Projections Developing reliable financial data was probably the biggest job the Task Force faced. Attached is the 7 -Year Fi- nancial Model we produced with the assistance of Tim Jensen, from the City's Finance Department. The Financial Model pre- dicts the division will lose $16,853 at the end of 1998, $563,516 at the end of 1999, and $/1,323,122 at the end of 2000. These figures are cumulative losses, meaning the losses from the earlier years roll forward and contribute to the loss of subsequent years. (Please note: these projections are based on the assump- tion that no changes will be made to Transit's budget and oper- ating procedures. In other words, these figures represent the future of Transit if nothing is changed. We realize that's an unlikely scenario if these figures prove even remotely accu- rate.) Among the assumptions used to reach these calculations: .4% sales tax growth rate, .3% inflation rate, .12% growth in Dial -A -Ride usage, •No operating costs increases (including wages) above the inflation rate, •A 50% reduction of Federal Transit Administration funds from $600,000 to $300,000 from 1997 to 1998, and a reduction to zero for future years, •A leveling -off of service hours for the fixed -route sys- tem, and •A slight decrease in fixed -route system boardings. These assumptions seem simple, but several hours of re- search and discussion went into determining several of them. For example, in determining a 12% growth rate in the Dial -A - Ride program, we evaluated the historical growth rate of the system and charted several ridership trends. Prime among those patterns was the high usage of DAR by retirement facilities. Our research showed (for the first time) that 80% to 85% of DAR trips either originated from or terminated at a retirement fa- cility. The Task Force surveyed retirement facilities in the city and discovered an immediate increase of 30% in retirement facility beds was planned. That trend alone will boost DAR ridership. We did not assume any increased funding from the state or federal government, and we did not assume the passage of a Pub- lic Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA) any time in the near fu- ture. By definition, these projections are "what if's", but we believe these are accurate planning tools, and, if anything, the projections are optimistic. Ridership Data The Task Force set out early on to establish more in-depth ridership data than was available. Our goal was to try and de- termine how many people rode which routes, on which days, and at what times. We also needed to establish the types of rider- ship, i.e. children going to school, people going to work, etc. We also wanted to know how long average trips were, i.e. two or three blocks or several miles. To accomplish this cumbersome task, we worked with Eisen- hower High School's Advanced Placement Statistics class. The students in the class (along with other volunteers from the student body) rode each bus route for almost every minute of the day. There are 13 buses (some are trippers, added on dur- ing busy times) running 12 hours per day. Over 600 man-hours went into gathering and entering the data and preparing the re- port, which is 130 pages long. The students tracked the ingress and egress of riders, and the total number of riders on board at each stop. Each individual route's ridership data was tracked on a spreadsheet. The summary information was compiled on spreadsheets and displayed in charts and graphs. The com- plete report is available for review, but the most important results are summarized below. Some routes are listed twice be- cause there are two buses running the route, thereby providing half-hour service. Maximum number of riders: •Route #1: 14 •Route #2: 52 •Route #2: 52 •Route #3: 13 •Route #4: 26 •Route #5: 39 •Route #5: 29 •Route #6: 15 •Route #7: 17 •Route #7X: 27 *Route #9: 32 •Route #9X: 18 •Route #10: 6 Maximum number of boarders: •Route #1: 14 •Route #2: 51 *Route #2: 51 *Route #3: 11 •Route #4: 13 •Route #5: 27 •Route #5: 17 •Route #6: 13 •Route #7: 15 •Route #7X: 23 •Route #9: 14 •Route #9X: 14 •Route #10: 4 Maximum number departing: •Route #1: 9 •Route #2: 43 •Route #2: 38 •Route #3: 10 •Route #4: 15 •Route #5: 17 •Route #5: 12 •Route #6: 15 •Route #7: 13 •Route #7X: 7 •Route #9: 11 •Route #9X: 11 •Route #10: 3 Average number of riders: •Route #1: 9 =Route #2: 10 =Route #2: 8 ',Route #3: 6 •Route #4: 10 •Route #5: 7 •Route #5: 12 .Route #6: 6 •Route #7: 10 .Route #7X: 8 =Route #9: 10 •Route #9X: 6 •Route #10: 2 We drew several conclusions from this information, as well as from the supporting data and the route -by -route analyses provided. •Route #2 is the heaviest -used route, mainly because it serves the school population at Eisenhower, Franklin and Davis. The maximum number of riders was 52, but the maximum number of boarders was 51 ... meaning that when the bus stopped at Eisen- hower there was only one non -school rider. This happens only during peak hours, i.e., immediately before and after school. •The Yakima School District uses Yakima Transit to bus about 448 students, nine months of the year. The district used to bus 1,800 students using Yakima Transit. Changes in state law and funding formulas have caused the school district to re- duce its use of Yakima Transit. The district uses Yakima Tran- sit only when it's less expensive than utilizing its own buses. •Only two other routes ever have more than 30 riders dur- ing their busiest runs: Route #5 served 39 at its peak, and Route #9 had 32 riders. .All three of the routes that have more than 30 riders at one time offer half-hour service. The other routes offer one- hour service. This means the riders on those three routes have more scheduling choices. •The average number of riders was surprisingly low. The overall average number of riders on any bus at any time was 8. The high average was 12 (Route #5) and 10 riders (Route #2). The low averages were 2 riders (Route #10) and 6 riders (Routes #9, #6 and #3). Acquisition And Operating Costs The Task Force reviewed the costs of purchasing and oper- ating several different sizes, classes and types of buses. The staff had considerable experience with full-size bus costs, but handy information regarding mid-size or small -size buses. Representatives from bus manufacturers and private bus compa- nies presented information to the Task Force, and members met with managers of the Tri -Cities' transit system (Ben Franklin Transit) to evaluate these issues. Ben Franklin Transit uti- lizes various sizes and types of vehicles. The main conclu- sions were: •Mid-size buses are not much cheaper than full-size vehi- cles. Small Shuttle -type buses are considerably cheaper. Full-size buses cost approximately $250,000. Shuttle buses can be purchased for about $55,000. •Recently purchased Yakima Transit full-size buses are wheelchair accessible and seat 42 passengers seated. Other passengers can ride standing. 'Yakima Transit owns and maintains 22 buses; 13 buses are needed to service the system. That spare ratio is high by com- parative standards, but the staff believes it needs extra spares because of the length of time it takes for buses to be serviced or repaired by the City Shops. Any revenue generated from the sales of excess buses will likely go directly to Tran- sit and not have to be shared with the federal government be- cause most of the older models have been fully depreciated. •Smaller buses (similar to airport shuttles) can be con- figured with a wheelchair lift and designed to handle two wheelchairs and 17 passengers seated or one wheelchair and 21 passengers seated. Additional riders can stand and use the overhead railing for support. •Full-size buses should be replaced every 12 to 15 years. Ben Franklin Transit replaces its shuttle buses every 7 years. The smaller vehicles receive complete overhauls at 200,000 miles. .Smaller buses cause much less wear and tear on the streets. According to Fred French of the city's Engineering Department, one empty transit bus causes the wear -and -tear of 1,900 cars; a full bus equals 7,200 cars. One empty small bus causes the wear -and -tear of 15 automobiles; a full one equals 55 cars. •it costs Yakima Transit $71.60 per service hour (less de- preciation) to operate a full-size bus. Ben Franklin Transit's shuttle buses cost $41 to $45 per hour (less depreciation) to operate_ Ben Franklin uses this type of vehicle for the Tri - Cities' Dial -A -Ride program. DAR puts less wear -and -tear on vehicles than does fixed -route use. The Task Force estimates that operating shuttle buses on Yakima's fixed -route system will increase costs $10 to $12 per hour, bringing a more -accu- rate operating figure to $57 per service hour. Consequently, it costs $14.60 per service hour less to operate a shuttle bus than a full-size bus. •The 1998 budget for Transit hours for the fixed route system. replaced by a shuttle bus, Yakima per year ($14.60 per service hour service hours.) Americans With Disabilities Act Dial -A -Ride Program The single most -significant factor affecting Yakima Tran- sit during the last several years has been implementation of the Americans With Disabilities Act's (ADA) federal regula- tions. ADA is the driving factor behind the growth in the di- vision's Dial -A -Ride program (DAR). The Task Force reviewed in-depth both ADA regulations and the DAR program. Our major conclusions were: •Yakima Transit's decision to bid the DAR contract has been very successful. Privatizing DAR has proven cost effec- estimates 45,144 service If every full-size bus was Transit would save $659,102 savings multiplied by 45,144 tive, and competitive bidding has kept Yakima's DAR cost (per trip) among the lowest in the Pacific Northwest. •Yakima Transit has an extremely high percentage of DAR - eligible riders. Yakima has certified 3.2% of its population eligible for DAR; Metro (Seattle) has 2.2%, Tri -Met (Portland) has .68%, Pierce Transit (Tacoma) has 1.67%, Los Angeles County has .3% and Eugene, Oregon has .67 %. •Most of the other transit systems' fixed -route system buses are handicapped accessible. Of Yakima's 22 buses, only four are handicapped accessible. If the fixed -route system is not handicapped accessible, those riders must be served by DAR. It costs $30,000 to make a bus handicapped accessible. All new buses purchased must be handicapped accessible, by law. •Most of the other transit systems have a much more com- plete and thorough DAR certification process. For example, para -professionals are retained by many of these systems to evaluate disabilities. In some cases, riders are given limited DAR certifications usable under certain conditions, i.e. bad weather, etc. This costs the other transit systems more money up -front, but results in substantial long-term savings. •A handful of riders are extremely heavy users of DAR. The top user took 1,375 trips in 1997 for a cost to Yakima Transit of $12,375. The next highest were 700 trips ($6,300) and 570 trips ($5,130). Most of the trips for all three users were personal in nature, not work- or medical -related. •Yakima Transit, at the City Council's direction, offers DAR service on Sundays and holidays, even though that service is not required by law. Two-thirds of the Sunday DAR service is for ambulatory clients. The cost for providing this service is more than $39,000. Recommendations 1. Establish a goal to reduce the Dial-A-Ride-eligible base to 1% of the City of Yakima population. The Task Force believes implementation of screening and eligibility processes similar to those of other transit systems and strict enforce- ment of those procedures will reduce the number of eligible Dial-A-Ride users, yet still meet ADA requirements. For every 10% reduction in DAR ridership, Yakima Transit will save more than $115,000 per year. This policy will also slow the growth of DAR, If Yakima reduces its Dial-A-Ride pool down to twice the percentage of population as Eugene, Oregon, (a comparable area) the city will save $450,000. 2. Bus size purchases should be based on the ability to accommodate 85% of peak ridership sitting, based on the Task Force's ridership study. When purchasing new buses, the Task Force believes the sizes and types should be determined by the needs of the system. Because peak periods spike the ridership upwards just a couple of times each day, we think it is accept- able for some riders to stand for very short intervals during these times. We believe in the accuracy of the study we had conducted, and think those statistics should be used to calcu- late the size of buses purchased. It is our anticipation that three or four routes of the current system will require full- size buses, but the rest can be adequately serviced by smaller vehicles. We believe that the change-over should begin with the next round of purchases. If 50% of the buses purchased are shuttle-type buses, Transit will save $330,000 per year in op- erating costs and hundreds of thousands in dollars in acquisi- tion costs. 3. All buses should be made handicapped accessible. One key to reducing the DAR client base is to make the entire sys- tem handicapped accessible. Many current DAR-eligible passen- gers would be able to use the regular fixed-route system if the buses were accessible. DAR use should be denied to riders able to use the fixed-route system. If the bus sizes are determined by the ridership (as recommended above), we estimate Yakima Transit will need just four to eight full-size buses, which in- cludes spares. Four of Transit's buses are already handi- capped-accessible, so a maximum of four more will need to be converted at a one-time cost of $120,000. This expense can be shared with the Federal Transit Administration, costing the City of Yakima $24,000. 4. Bus fares should be increased to $1 for fixed route buses and $2 for Dial-A-Ride. The Task Force believes boosting DAR fares will increase the rider's contribution (although fare revenue will still be a very small percentage of the total costs), and reduce DAR's usage. Federal regulations allow DAR fares to be twice fixed-route fares, so a fixed-route increase to $1 is required to raise DAR fares to $2. 5. Recommend the staff prepare a study offering a broader range of information regarding fare changes, both higher and lowers, for the City Council. 6. Sell all buses in excess of the Federal Transit Admin- istration's spare ratio standard. Once the buses' sizes and types are determined according to the above-listed recommenda- tions, the number of spare buses should be determined by the FTA's normal procedure. Any buses in excess of that figure should be sold. Depending on the price received and the number of buses sold, Yakima Transit should receive between $10,000 and $30,000 for each vehicle sold. 7. Eliminate Dial-A-Ride service on Sundays and non -ser- vice holidays. Most of the Sunday service provided by DAR is used by ambulatory riders attending some type of church ser- vice. Because Yakima Transit offers Sunday DAR, the Task Force discovered that many churches have discontinued or reduced their transportation programs. We believe most of these riders will continued to be served on these days through private means. The regular fixed-route system does not operate on these days, yet those riders (many more than DAR) manage to at- tend Sunday and holiday functions. This change will result in a saving of $39,000 per year. 8. Accept Access Paratrarnsit's proposal for a one-year demonstration project to privatize the operation of Route #3 and CO. The Task Force is impressed with the efficiencies and savings + e er7 by Va1rimm Trans t 's 11r -1147=i -inn of a privat e \.1 GiA Vt. Va ✓I iata �..a.a�uw .m.yysauia. r company to provide DAR service. We are unsure what the overall role is for privatization, but we believe that an incremental approach may be the best way to test privatization. Allowing Access Paratransit to operate a pilot program to service these two routes for one year will have the least impact on the sys- tem because the maximum number of riders on the two routes is 13 and 6, respectively. /28/98 Yakima Transit 7 -Year Financial Model Table 1 Cash Flow 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 )PERATIONS estimate budget 15,666 30,321 (16,863) (663,516) (1,323,122) (2,327,603) (3,612,234) (6,216,779) IEGINNING CASH BALANCE )perating Revenues Sales Tax Additional Sales Tax MVET 3,030,000 3,640,000 3,786,600 3,937,024 4,094,606 4,268,286 4,428,617 4,605,761 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 YFA Operating Grant 600,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fare Revenues 293,200 309,664 308,123 306,696 305,072 303,651 304,811 302,613 Interest 15,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 11,000 Other Operating Revenue 70,660 76,000 78,280 80,628 83,047 85,639 88,106 90,748 lubtotal Operating Revenues 4,008,750 4,336,654 4,183,003 4,336,249 4,493,624 4,668,375 4,832,632 5,010,128 Transfer In from Operating Reserve 0 0 0 Nisi Operating Revenues 4,008,750 4,336,654 4,183,003 Ibta1 Revenues & Cash 4,024,318 4,386,975 4,166,151 )perating Expenditures Local Fixed Route & Special Ope Dial • A - Ride Service Trolley Service iubtotal Operating Expenditures 8,993,995 4,383,827 4,729,666 5,094,865 5,498,006 6,943,107 6,436,077 6,761,431 Transfer Out to Capital Reeerve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,335,249 3,771,733 0 4,493,624 3,170,602 0 4,658,375 2,330,872 3,084,403 3,232,441 3,390,604 909,592 1,151,387 1,339,082 O 0 0 0 0 4,832,632 6,010,123 1,220,298 (205,656) 3,560,450 3,738,806 3,926,668 4,121,941 4,122,397 1,634,406 1,769,200 2,017,449 2,314,136 2,639,034 0 0 0 0 0 (bt1Operating Expenditures 3,993,995 4,383,827 4,729,666 5,094,866 5,498,005 6,943,107 6,436,077 6,761,431 Net Operating Revenuee over Expenditures Rotel Cash Available for Capital 14,755 (47,174) (646,663) (769,607) (1,004,380) (1,284,732) (1,603,645) (1,761,309) 30,321 (16,853) (563,616) (1,323,122) (2,327,603) (3,612,234) (6,216,779) (6,967,088) ASSUMPTIONS Sales Tax Growth Rate (Per State) Additional Sales Tax Real Growth Rate Inflation Rate Operating Reserve (months) 4.0% 00 0.0% 3.0% 1.0 CAPITAL PROGRAM Table 1 (Cont.) 1997 1998 1999 2000 Athol Budget 2001 2002 2003 2f0, Capital Resources Available from Operations 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Federal Grants 0 600,000 814,771 629,411 648,293 667,742 687,774 ( 37,774 576,000 83,000 260,000 260,000 270,400 281,216 292,465 1: )4,163 Other Subtotal Capital Resources BEGINNING BALANCE Total Reeawoea & Treaefers Capital Expenditures Administration &Facilities Su poet Vobides & Equipment Vehicle Replacements Local Fixed Route Dial • A • Ride Trolley Service 576,000 683,000 1,064,771 889,4111 918,693 948,968 980,239 1}31,937 1,070,240 1,142,962 840,604 841,9111 868,669 934,886 920,166 1,025,687 1,646,240 1,825,952 1,905,375 1,731,322 1,777,252 1,883,843 1,900,405 2,017,624 397,166 0 10,000 15,000 15,000 16,000 15,000 397,166 43,378 84,000 20,000 55,000 0 34,000 0 43,378 O 763,848 1,018,464 786,763 810,366 834,877 869,718 859,718 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vehicle Ekpareion Local Fixed Route 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dial • A . Ride 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Trolley Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Velhide RefiubiemeM 62,744 0 0 0 0 80,000 0 0 Other Capital Items Transfer Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base Facility Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Park & Ride Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bus Shelters 0 0 15,000 16,000 17,000 0 0 0 Bus Turn -outs & Turn-arounde 0 22,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miec ellaneoua 0 165,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1bta1 Capital Expenditures 503,288 985,348 1,063,464 872,763 842,366 963,6'77 874,718 1,300,262 Cash Balance 1,142,'• 62 840,604 841,911 868,659 934,885 920,166 1,025,687 717,363 Depreciation 276,i 48 273,893 255,382 239,399 239,068 216,617 162,018 106,203 Transfer out to Capital Reserve 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ENDING CASH BALANCE 1,142,852 840,604 841,911 868,659 934,886 920,166 1,026,687 717,368 1/28198 Projected Seiviae Base Service Hours (1) Service Homs - LFR n - Hours Service Hours - Special Service Additions - Hours New total Service Hours Annual Boardings - LFR (2) - Charter Table 1-1 Yakima Transit Local Fixed Route & Special Operations 1997 1998 Actual Budget 45.177 46.144 44.841 44.841 2 336 300 0 1 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 45.096 45.098 46.100 45.102 45,108 46.108 44,843 44841 44.841 44.841 44,847 44.847 3 4 5 6 0 5 250 250 250 250 250 250 2 3 4 0 0 0 46,177 45,147 46.101 46,105 45.109 46.108 45.108 45.113 1,031727 20,845 990.478 21,000 980.571 21.500 970.766 22.000 961058 22.500 951447 23,000 951447 941.933 23,500 24,000 Wear:mums (1) Base hours - LFR (1996) Base hours - Special (1996) (3) Boardings (Calculated) 44,841 N/A 1,031,746 Source: Monthly Operations Fixed Route Report 12/1996 Source: Rich Lyons memorandum 03/15/1995 Source: Table 2 - Fare Model (Actual 1996: 1,031,746) ILProjected endittlres find He�eslues . - Operating Costs(1) Direct Staff Costs Direct Manual Costs Overhead Costs Direct Operating Costs Depreciation Costa (est.) Total Operating Coate Capital Costa - Vehicles Eu; ct for LER Service Expansion Replacement Buses (small) Replacement Buses (large) Costs for Expansion Buses (2) Costs for Replacement Buses (2) Costa for Vehicle Refurbishment Total Capital Coats Estimated Fare Revenues Fixed Route Service Revenue per boarding (5) Special Operations Revenue per boarding 1997 Estimate 1998 Budget 1,684.872 1758.953 846.151 939,591 553.380 533,897 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 1845.019 1937,442 2.034.494 2136.171 2.242.980 2.243,229 985,565 1,034,935 1086, 779 1141,092 1,198,147 1.198.280 560,020 588.073 617.532 648,394 680.814 680,889 3,084.403 3,232.441 3.390,604 3,560.450 3.738.805 3,925.658 4121941 3,122397 316.069 316,069 316.069 316,069 3,400.472 3.548.510 3,706.673 3.876.519 0 0 0 0 0 62.744 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 0 763,848 1018.464 0 0 0 3 0 786,763 0 316.069 316.069 316.069 316.069 4.054874 4.241727 4.438,010 4435.466 0 0 3 0 810.366 0 0 0 3 0 834,677 80,000 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 859718 859,718 0 0 62.744 763.848 1018,464 786,763 296, 428 0.29 24.135 116 285.339 0.29 24.314 1.16 283,230 0.29 24.893 116 281124 0.29 25,472 116 810,366 914.677 859,718 859,718 279,021 0.29 26,061 1.16 276.921 0.29 26,630 1.16 277.601 274.825 0.29 0.29 27.209 27.788 1.16 116 Assumptions (1) Direct Staff Cost/Hour (1997) Direct Manual Cost/Hour (1997) Overhead Cost/Hour (1997) Total Cost/ Hour (1997) (excluding depreciation) (including depreciation) (2) Cost/bus (small) (1997) Cost/bus (large) (1997) (3) Real growth (4) Inflation rate (5) Revenue per boarding - LFR $38.96 $20.81 311.83 371.60 378.60 30 3240,000 2.0% 3.0% Source: 1997 Direct Staff Costa/ Base Service Hours Source: 1997 Direct Manual Costa/ Base Service Hours Source: 1997 Overhead Costa/ LFR Base Service Hours Source: Source: Yakima Transit Staff Source: Yakima Transit Staff Source: Table 2 - Fare Model 3/98 Piciected Table 1-2 Yakima Transit Dial- A - Ride Service ie Service Hours (1) ervice Additions • Hours w Total ieL u flows oardings per Hour 1997 estiroste 1998 Budget 13,210 13,210 0 661 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 13,871 14,565 15,293 16,058 16,861 17,704 694 728 765 803 843 885 13,210 13,871 14,565 15,293 16,058 16,861 17,704 18,589 s7,enn 97,440 6.6 7.0 109;133 7.5 122,229 136,896 153.324 8.0 8.5 9.1 171.723 192.329 9.7 10.3 suntptyons Base hours 13,210 Source: Yakima Transit Sta$ .:ii^#ec Etet4iis.aniyennpa- aerating Costa yi ect Staff Coats rirect Manual Costs ?verhead Costs .DA. expansion tal Dirxt Operating Costs ?preciation Coats tal Operating Costs Tits. co Vehi 'ans for Service Expansion replacement Vans 'costa for Added Vans (2) ;oats for Replacement Vans (2) dal Vehicle Capital Costs 1997 1998 estimate Budget v 1 1999 702,000 964,900 1,133,453 207,592 186,487 205,608 2000 2001 2002 0 0 0 1,307,725 1,509,280 1,741,911 226,680 249,920 275,538 0 0 0 0 0 2003 n 2,010, 356 303,780 n 2004 2,320,068 318,966 0 909,592 1,151,387 1,339,062 1,534,405 1,759,200 2,017,449 2,314,136 2,639,034 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 909,592 1,151,387 1,339,062 1,534,405 1,759,200 2,017,449 2,314,136 2,639,034 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3sumpta®na Direct Staff Cost/ Hour (1997) Direct Manual Cost/ Hour (1997) Overhead Cost/ Hour (1997) Total Cost/Hour (1997) (excluding depreciation) Cost/vehicle (1997) .) Real Growth Inflation Rate 50.00 569.56 513.44 583.01 50 2.0% 3.0% Source: 1997 Direct Staff Costs/Base Service Hours Source: 1997 Direct Manual Costs/Base Service Hours Source: 1997 Overhead Costs/Base Service Hours Source: 0 Table 14 Yakima Transit Capital Projects (Excluding Buses) 1.997 1.998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ADMINISTRATION TION AND Office Equipment 0 0 10,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Facility imptuvemeute 397,166 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 397,166 0 10,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 3+1,7 ,4,1,31 SUPPORT VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT Support Vehicles 43,378 34,000 20,000 55,000 0 34,000 0 0 Shop Equipment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Subtotal 43,378 34,000 20,000 55,000 0 34,000 0 0 OTHER CAPITAL FAC1L1T1F Transfer Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Base Facility Improvements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Park & Ride Facilities 0 Bus Shelters 0 0 15,000 16,000 17,000 0 0 0 Turn -outs & Turn-arounds 0 22,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 Miscellaneous 0 165,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 187,500 15,000 16,000 17,000 0 0 0 Subtotal CAPITAL PItJIECr SUMMARY TOTAL 440,544 221,500 45,000 86,000 32,000 49,000 15,000 15,000 ASSUMPTIONS (1) Inflation rate 3.0%