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%