B O A R D O F D I R E C T O R S M A R C H

Transcription

1 BOARD OF DIRECTORS M A R C H 1 3,

2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BOARD ROSTER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY County Member Alternate Orange: Shawn Nelson (Chair) Jeffrey Lalloway* Supervisor, 4 th District Mayor Pro Tem, City of Irvine 2 votes County of Orange, Chairman OCTA Board, Chair OCTA Board Gregory T. Winterbottom Public Member OCTA Board Todd Spitzer* Supervisor, 3 rd District County of Orange OCTA Board Riverside: Daryl Busch (Vice-Chair) Andrew Kotyuk* Mayor Council Member 2 votes City of Perris City of San Jacinto RCTC Board, Chair RCTC Board Karen Spiegel Council Member City of Corona RCTC Board Debbie Franklin* Mayor City of Banning RCTC Board Ventura: Keith Millhouse (2 nd Vice-Chair) Brian Humphrey Mayor Pro Tem Citizen Representative 1 vote City of Moorpark VCTC Board VCTC Board Los Angeles: Michael Antonovich Robert T. Bartlett Supervisor, 5 th District Metro Appointee 4 votes County of Los Angeles, Mayor Metro Board Don Knabe Supervisor, 4 th District County of Los Angeles Metro Board Paul Krekorian Councilmember, 2 nd District Metro Board Ara Najarian Council Member City of Glendale Metro Board Richard Katz Metro Appointee Borja Leon Metro Appointee [currently awaiting appointment] One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012

3 SCRRA Board of Directors Roster Page 2 San Bernardino: Larry McCallon James Ramos* Mayor Supervisor, 3 rd District 2 votes City of Highland County of San Bernardino, Chair SANBAG Board SANBAG Board Paul Eaton Mayor City of Montclair SANBAG Board Alan D. Wapner* Mayor Pro Tem City of Ontario SANBAG Board EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS San Diego Association of Governments: [CURRENTLY AWAITING APPOINTMENT] Contact: Linda Culp Principal Planner Rail Southern California Association of Governments: State of California: Art Brown Mayor, City of Buena Park Ryan Chamberlain Director, Caltrans District 12 Alternate: [CURRENTLY AWAITING APPOINTMENT] *Alternates represent either member Revised 02/27/15

4 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING FRIDAY, MARCH 13, :00a.m. or immediately following the Executive Management and Audit Committee meeting LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (METRO) BOARD ROOM ONE GATEWAY PLAZA, 3RD FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA AGENDA DESCRIPTIONS The agenda descriptions are intended to give notice to members of the public of a brief general description of items of business to be transacted or discussed. The posting of the recommended actions does not indicate what action will be taken. The Authority may take any action that it deems to be appropriate on the agenda item and is not limited in any way by the notice of the recommended action. The Chair reserves the right to discuss the items listed on the agenda in any order. A person with a disability may contact the Board Secretary s office at (213) or via holmank@scrra.net at least 72-hours before the scheduled meeting to request receipt of an agenda in an alternative format or to request disability-related accommodations, including auxiliary aids or services, in order to participate in the public meeting. Later requests will be accommodated to the extent feasible. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION The agenda, staff reports and supporting documentation are available from the Board Secretary, located at One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012, and on the Metrolink website at under the Meetings & Agendas link. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS AND ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Members of the public wishing to address the Board of Directors regarding any item appearing on the agenda or any item not on the agenda, but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board, may do so by completing a Speaker s Form and submitting it to the Board Secretary. All speakers will be recognized by the Chairman and will be considered under Item 4 (Public Comment). When addressing the Board, please state your name for the record. Please address the Board as a whole through the Chair. Please note comments to individual Board members or staff are not permitted when addressing the Board. A speaker s comments shall be limited to three (3) minutes. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Pledge of Allegiance One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012

5 Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 2 4. Public Comment REGULAR CALENDAR 5. At-Will Employment Agreement Chief Executive Officer Approval is needed for the At-Will Employment Agreement for the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The Ad Hoc Committee recommends the Board approve the At-Will Employment Agreement for the position of Chief Executive Officer. Funding is included in the FY Operating Budget and will be included in subsequent annual budgets. Page 1 6. Approval of Meeting Minutes February 27, 2015 Board of Directors Meeting Staff recommends the Board approve the minutes of the February 27, 2015 Board of Directors Meeting. Page Contract No. C Minor Site Modifications at Dispatch Operations Center Recommendation to Award El Engineering Corp Minor Site Modifications at the Dispatch Operations Center (DOC) are needed to ensure heightened protection from external street and adjacent site flooding that could occur in major flood events and to address City of Pomona requirements which were not included in the original project scope. Staff recommends the Board approve and authorize the Interim Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. C for Minor Site Modifications for the DOC to El Engineering Corp (El) the lowest and responsible bidder in the amount of $178,739 plus fifteen percent (15%) contingency of $26, for a total contract funding authorization not-to-exceed amount of $205, The award is subject to resolution of any protest timely filed. Page Contract No. MS TVM Maintenance Services Xerox Non-Competitive Award Continued maintenance activities to the existing fleet of ticket vending machines (TVM) and ticket office machines (TOM) are needed to ensure fare collection system reliability and sustainability. This performance-based contract is intended to provide improved service, increased availability, and extended coverage until the entire fleet is replaced within the procurement process. Staff recommends the Board authorize the Interim Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and award non-competitive Contract No. MS for TVM maintenance services to Xerox Transport Solutions, Inc. (Xerox) for a contract funding authorization of

6 Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 3 $6,000,000 for a base period of fifteen months from April 01, 2015 to June 30, 2016, with two one year options. This amount includes funding for ordinary maintenance in the amount of $4,000,000 plus $2,000,000 for extraordinary work and incentives. Funding for the TVM maintenance and support is available in the FY Operating Budget and included in the proposed FY Annual Budget. Funding for subsequent years will be requested through the Annual Budget Process. Page Contract No. SP Consultant Services Agreement to perform a Health Risk Assessment of the Central Maintenance Facility - Increase Contract Funding Authorization - Castle Environmental Consulting, LLC Continued services of a qualified Air Quality Consultant are needed for the Health Risk Assessment of the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF). The firm performed an analysis to identify health risks related to CMF operations, as well as other local sources. In addition to producing a robust technical document, the results of the analysis were presented by the firm to numerous stakeholders following the release of the HRA in November At this time, additional presentations are necessary and it is feasible that additional analysis may be requested. Staff recommends the Board authorize the Interim Chief Executive Officer to amend Contract No. SP with Castle Environmental Consulting, LLC, (Consultant) to increase contract funding authorization by an amount of $50,000 for a not-toexceed contracting funding authorization of $160,000. The current contract expires June 30, Funding for consulting services is included in the FY Operating Budget. Page Approval of Evaluation Criteria Request for Proposal No. L Federal Legislative Representation Services; and Request for Proposal No. L State Legislative Representation Services Proposed evaluation criteria was developed to initiate a competitive procurement (Request for Proposal) to retain a technically qualified firm(s) to provide Federal and State legislative representation and regulatory support services. Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed evaluation criteria, detailed in Attachments 1 and 2, specifying a weighting of eighty percent (80%) for technical qualifications and twenty percent (20%) for the cost to retain firm(s) to provide Federal and State Legislative Representation and regulatory support. The proposed evaluation criteria summarized below and detailed in Attachments 1 and 2 are consistent with the format and guidelines in the Board-adopted Contract Administration and Procurement Policies and Procedures, CON-7, Technical and Cost Criteria and Weights. The process of adopting evaluation criteria has no budget impact. Funding for these contracts will be requested in the annual budgets for subsequent years. Page 28

7 Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page State and Federal Legislative Update Staff provides an update on current legislative issues in State and Federal Government Affairs. The Board may receive and file this report. There is no immediate budget impact as a result of this update. Page Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act Work with Author Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act. On March 4, 2015, United States Senators Blunt, McCaskill, Thune and Nelson introduced a bill to extend the implementation deadline of Positive Train Control (PTC). The current deadline of December 31, 2015 was imposed by the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) of The Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act would extend the deadline to December 31, 2020 and allow the United States Secretary of Transportation to grant two 1-year extensions up to December 31, As introduced, the bill does not provide additional funding, incentives, or support for PTC implementation. Staff recommends that the Board take a WORK WITH AUTHOR position. There is no budgetary impact as a direct result of this item. Page Compensation Report FY Third Quarter (Second Partial) February 15, 2015 through March 16, 2015 At its April 11, 2014 meeting, the Board of Directors amended Human Resources Policy 2.1 to require staff to make quarterly and annual reports to the Board on compensation matters. The Board may receive and file this report. There is no immediate budget impact as a result of this status report. Page Antelope Valley Line Fare Enforcement Update In November 2014, Metrolink initiated a fare enforcement pilot project for the Antelope Valley Line. On December 4, 2014, the Metro Board committed additional funds to extend the fare enforcement program into calendar year This report is intended to provide the Board with an interim update on the expanded fare enforcement program for the first two months of calendar year The Board may receive and file this report. There is no budget impact as a result of this report. Page 43

8 Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page American Public Transportation Association Peer Review Panel Security Manpower Analysis The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) conducted a Security Peer Review in August 2014 for the Authority. The peer review panel was comprised of industry professionals with security expertise and leadership in directing security on commuter rail systems. A manpower analysis was performed at the recommendation of an APTA Peer Review in order to provide more thorough analysis of security and law enforcement needs and a basis for staffing level recommendations. The Board may receive and file this report. While the adoption of the security manpower analysis has budget implications, this can be addressed during the RFP for Security Guard services which is scheduled to be issued following the Board s approval of the Evaluation Criteria. The current Sheriff s contract will expire in June Should the Board direct staff to increase the number of Sheriff s, a budget amendment would need to be approved by all member agencies prior to increasing the headcount. Page Strategic Plan Update This report provides an update on the development of the Authority s Strategic Plan. The Board emphasized the need for a back to basics approach and operational strengthening. Therefore, the Strategic Plan is being composed to reflect two major types of strategies (1) operational fundamentals and (2) service growth and capital development. The Board may receive and file this report. There is no budget impact as a result of this status report. Page Contract No. H Procurement of a Mobile/Online Ticketing Platform & System Maintenance Recommendation to Award Installation of a mobile online ticketing application will provide Authority customers the flexibility to acquire their boarding passes via a mobile or computer device. Staff recommends the Board approve and authorize the Interim Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. H Procurement of a Mobile/Online Ticketing Platform & System Maintenance. 18. Interim Chief Executive Officer s Authority Update 19. Chair s Comments 20. Board Members' Comments

9 Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 6 CLOSED SESSION 21. Closed Session a. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section (d)(1) - The Estate of Alana Kerr, et al. v. Southern California Regional Rail Authority, et al.; Riverside County Superior Court case no. RIC b. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section (d)(2) (1 potential case) 22. ADJOURNMENT

10 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 6, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 ITEM 5 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Ad Hoc Search Committee Directors Daryl Busch, Larry McCallon and Keith Millhouse At-Will Employment Agreement Chief Executive Officer Issue Approval is needed for the At-Will Employment Agreement for the position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO). Recommendation The Ad Hoc Committee recommends the Board approve the At-Will Employment Agreement for the position of Chief Executive Officer. Alternative The Board may modify the terms of employment. Background The position of Chief Executive Officer was posted and advertised from January 12, 2015 through February 11, Twenty (20) resumes were received for the position and the top three (3) candidates were interviewed by the Board on Friday, February 27, The Ad Hoc Committee recommends the Board approve the At-Will Employment Agreement for Arthur T. Leahy to be effective on April 13, 2015 through April 13, 2018 with an annual base salary of $330,000. Mr. Leahy will be eligible for the benefit package as described in the Employment Agreement in Exhibit A. Budget Impact Funding is included in the FY Operating Budget and will be included in subsequent annual budgets. Prepared by: Submitted by: Patricia Francisco, Director, Human Resources Ad Hoc Search Committee Members: Directors Busch, McCallon and Millhouse One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

11 Exhibit A 2

12 Exhibit A 3

13 Exhibit A 4

14 Exhibit A 5

15 Exhibit A 6

16 Exhibit A 7

17 Exhibit A 8

18 Exhibit A 9

19 Exhibit A 10

20 Exhibit A 11

21 Exhibit A 12

22 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY MINUTES OF THE SCRRA BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGULAR MEETING February 27, 2015 ITEM 6 BOARD MEMBERS/ALTERNATES IN ATTENDANCE: Votes OCTA: SHAWN NELSON (Chair) 1 (2 votes) GREGORY WINTERBOTTOM 1 RCTC: DARYL BUSCH (Vice-Chair) 1 (2 votes) KAREN SPIEGEL 1 Andrew Kotyuk Deborah Franklin VCTC: KEITH MILLHOUSE (2 nd Vice-Chair) 1 (1 vote) Brian Humphrey METRO: MICHAEL ANTONOVICH 1 1 (4 votes) PAUL KREKORIAN 1 ARA NAJARIAN 1 Richard Katz 1 Robert Bartlett Borja Leon SANBAG: LARRY McCALLON 1 (2 votes) PAUL EATON 1 Alan Wapner EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS State of California Shirley Choate 2 SCAG Art Brown STAFF/PRESENTERS: DON O. DEL RIO, General Counsel RODERICK DIAZ, Interim Chief Planning and Project Delivery Officer GEOFFREY FORGIONE, Associate General Counsel FRED JACKSON, Director, System Safety and Security SAM JOUMBLAT, Interim Chief Executive Officer / Chief Financial Officer GARY LETTENGARVER, Chief Operations Officer LIA McNEIL-KAKARIS, Assistant Director, Contracts and Procurement MARGARET GONSALVES, Department Assistant, Executive Office KARI HOLMAN, Assistant to the CEO/Board Secretary 1 Director Antonovich arrived during the discussion of Item No Director Chamberlain was not present. Shirley Choate represented the State of California in his absence. One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

23 SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 27, 2015 Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Page 2 Meeting minutes are prepared in a format that corresponds with the Board Meeting Agenda, which is incorporated by reference with these minutes. SCRRA Board Agendas are available online at under the Meetings and Agendas link or from the Board Secretary at (213) Call to Order The February 27, 2015 SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting was called to order by Chair Nelson at 10:00 a.m. at the Metro Board Room, One Gateway Plaza, 3 rd Floor, Los Angeles, CA Pledge of Allegiance Director McCallon led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. Roll Call The Board Secretary called roll to confirm a quorum of the Board was present. 4. Public Comment At this time, Chair Nelson inquired if any members of the public wished to address the Board. There were no requests to speak; therefore the Public Comment period was then formally closed. Regular Calendar 5. Approval of Meeting Minutes February 13, 2015 Board of Directors Meeting ACTION: Upon a motion by Director Katz and seconded by Director Eaton, the Board approved the minutes of the February 13, 2015 Board of Directors Meeting. There was no opposition and the motion passed unanimously. 6. Contract No. SP Marketing and Communications Support Services Exercise First Year Option and Increase Contract Funding Authorization Lia McNeil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contracts and Procurement provided a brief background on this item as detailed in the staff report and requested approval of staff s recommendation. Upon a motion by Director McCallon and seconded by Vice-Chair Busch, the Board approved staff s recommendation. There was no opposition and the motion passed unanimously. ACTION: The Board authorized the Interim Chief Executive Officer to exercise the first year option to extend the period of performance from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, and increase contract funding authorization by $500,000 for a new annual not-to- 14

24 SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 27, 2015 Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Page 3 exceed contract funding authorization of $3,300,000 for the bench of Marketing Communication and Support Services with: SP353A-12 Creative Productions; SP353B-12 Sensis; SP353C-12 RK Venture. 7. Purchase Order H Global Positioning System Equipment & Services Recommendation to Award Zonar Systems, Inc. Lia McNeil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contracts and Procurement provided a brief background on this item as detailed in the staff report and requested approval of staff s recommendation. Upon a motion by Director Katz and seconded by 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse, the Board approved staff s recommendation. There was no opposition and the motion passed unanimously. ACTION: The Board authorized the Interim Chief Executive Officer to award Purchase Order No. H to Zonar Systems, Inc. in accordance with Contracts Administration & Procurement Policy CON-20, Cooperative Procurement, under Cooperative Agreement Pennsylvania Education Purchasing Program for Microcomputers (PEPPM) 2015 Product Line Bid California, to supply 27 GPS devices and provide tracking and monitoring services for the Authority s 182 nonrevenue vehicles for a period of three (3) years, not-to-exceed purchase order authorization of $120, This amount includes equipment purchase of $9,551.74, and annual tracking service of $37, Purchase Order PO for Continuous Welded Rail Procurement Recommendation to Award L.B. Foster Chair Nelson inquired if members of the Board had any questions regarding this item. No additional comments or questions were received. Upon a motion by Director McCallon and seconded by Director Winterbottom, the Board approved staff s recommendation. There was no opposition and the motion passed unanimously. ACTION: The Board authorized the Interim Chief Executive Officer award Contract Purchase Order PO for the procurement of CWR to the single responsive and responsible bidder, L.B. Foster for a total amount of $2,902,800 for a one-time procurement. This award is not subject to resolution of protest as no other bids were submitted. 15

25 SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 27, 2015 Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Page 4 9. Approval to Enter into Contract for Advisor and Brokerage Services for Diesel Fuel Management and Hedging Chair Nelson inquired if members of the Board had any questions regarding this item. No additional comments or questions were received. Upon a motion by 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse and seconded by Director Eaton, the Board approved staff s recommendation. There was no opposition and the motion passed unanimously. ACTION: The Board authorized the Interim Chief Executive Officer to enter into contracts for Brokerage and Advisor Services as follows: Contract No. SP RBC Wealth Management (RBC) in the amount of $15,000. Contract No. SP Linwood Capital LLC (Linwood) in the amount of $110,000. The period of performance for both contracts will be for one year with an additional year option. 10. System Safety Update Fred Jackson, Director, System Safety and Security, delivered a presentation that reviewed the system-wide security statistics for year-to-date Director Franklin inquired if there was a possibility to work with state legislature to increase fines to persons who violate grade crossing rules. Fred Jackson responded that the Authority had made efforts regarding this effort in the past. He noted that staff served on the Southern California Regional Rail Safety Team as well as Operation Lifesaver. He noted that staff would work with those groups along with the Government Relations department to address the Director s comments. Director Franklin suggested that all grade crossings be clearly marked with the fine amount if violated. A copy of the presentation is available upon request from the Board Secretary. ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 11. Pulse of Metrolink January 2015 Gary Lettengarver, Chief Operations Officer, delivered a presentation on year-overyear metrics for train operations. He noted that the on-time performance for February month-to-date was at 94.88%. A copy of the presentation is available upon request from the Board Secretary. ACTION: The Board received and filed this report. 16

26 SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 27, 2015 Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Page Interim Chief Executive Officer s Authority Update Sam Joumblat, Interim Chief Executive Officer / Chief Financial Officer discussed the following: Positive Train Control (PTC) status announced that the Authority would be the first commuter agency in the nation to operate PTC in Revenue Service Demonstration. This demonstration will be on the San Bernardino Line beginning March 2015, and would validate the Authority s PTC system functionality, successful integration and testing of the complex system components. The Authority expected to submit the PTC Safety Plan to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) by July 1, 2015 in order to achieve FRA System Certification before the end of 2015, which would be ahead of the current Federal mandate. Tuesday, February 24, 2015 train derailment in Oxnard highlighted the teamwork that helped to successfully minimize the disruption in service while managing the crisis. Thanked Chairman Nelson who came to the Gateway offices for the entire day and provided leadership in his absence. Also thanked staff for their hard work and announced that the investigation was now being handled by the National Transit Safety Board (NTSB). The Authority would continue to provide their full support to the NTSB. 13. Chair s Comments Chair Nelson remarked that after learning of the Oxnard derailment, he assisted staff at the Gateway offices and was able to experience first-hand what worked and did not work during a time of crisis. He stated that he was proud of how the Authority responded and thought that the outcome was positive in light of the circumstances. It was noted that communications to the Board needed improvements and suggested a real-time, cloud-based message board for Board members which could be updated continually. Some type of online communication would allow the Board to keep abreast of the situation without interrupting the safety focus from staff. He encouraged Sam Joumblat, Interim Chief Executive Officer, to direct staff to look into setting up a message board. 14. Board Members' Comments Director Katz commented that the technology for the conference bucket line system was outdated and agreed with Chair Nelson s suggestion of an online message board format. He thanked the first responders and staff for their efforts during the crisis. He was proud of the investment made by the Authority to include the Crash Energy Management (CEM) technology on the Rotem cars. He noted that the longest serving Metrolink engineer was injured in the incident and would be on the minds of the Board and wished him a speedy recovery. Chair Nelson stated that there was a unanimous sentiment from the entire Board to all that were affected by the incident. After spending the day at the offices, he was proud to see how staff worked. 17

27 SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 27, 2015 Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Page 6 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse stated that he spoke with the Amtrak representative in charge of crews and offered the Board s collective support for the injured train engineer. He commended the Oxnard Fire and Police departments, and Authority staff who responded to the incident for their professionalism. He specifically called out R.T. McCarthy, Director of Operations; Gary Lettengarver, Chief Operations Officer; and Fred Jackson, Director, System Safety and Security as top notch railroaders. Without commenting on the NTSB investigation, 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse wanted to offer a few suggestions for consideration: Seatbelts the Authority should review pros and cons and would wait for NTSB to evaluate as well. First Aid Kits should be more visible and easy to access. Safety announcements pre-recorded safety announcements for passengers to have a better understanding of where emergency items and exits are located and how to react at times of emergency. Seat Removal - two seats behind cab car operator s entrance could block exit and should be looked at to be removed. 2 nd Vice-Chair Millhouse also mentioned a previous incident involving Rotem cars and a dump truck and noted that the Rotem CEM cars absorbed most of the impact, were barely damaged, and did not derail. Director Najarian acknowledged the makers of the Hyundai Rotem cars for providing a quality product. CLOSED SESSION The Board convened into Closed Session at 10:34 p.m. to discuss Item No. 15 a., b. and c., and reconvened in Open Session at 12:42 p.m., at which time Counsel indicated there were no reportable actions from Closed Session. 15. Closed Session a. PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT APPOINTMENT - Pursuant to Government Code Section Title: Chief Executive Officer b. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS Pursuant to Government Code Section Agency Designated Representatives: Directors Daryl Busch, Keith Millhouse and Larry McCallon Title: Chief Executive Officer c. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section (d)(1) - The Estate of Alana Kerr, et al. v. Southern California Regional Rail Authority, et al.; Riverside County Superior Court case no. RIC

28 SCRRA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes February 27, 2015 Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Page 7 d. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL Anticipated Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section (d)(2) (1 potential case) 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for consideration by the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 12:42 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Kari Holman, Assistant to the CEO/Board Secretary 19

29 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 6, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 ITEM 7 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Interim Chief Executive Officer Contract No. C Minor Site Modifications at Dispatch Operations Center Recommendation to Award El Engineering Corp Issue Minor Site Modifications at the Dispatch Operations Center (DOC) are needed to ensure heightened protection from external street and adjacent site flooding that could occur in major flood events and to address City of Pomona requirements which were not included in the original project scope. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board approve and authorize the Interim Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. C for Minor Site Modifications for the DOC to El Engineering Corp (El) the lowest responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $178,739 plus fifteen percent (15%) contingency of $26, for a total contract funding authorization amount not-to-exceed $205, The award is subject to resolution of any protest timely filed. Alternative The Board may reject all bids received and direct staff to re-issue the Invitation for Bid (IFB). Background The DOC was designed and built to withstand site flooding based on the Engineer s determination that the site was in an area of low flood vulnerability. After observing the nearly completed site during intense rain events in late November and early December 2014, it was determined that the site may be vulnerable to street flooding from Garey Avenue and to runoff from adjacent properties. Accordingly, minor site modifications should be performed as soon as possible to address those vulnerabilities. Since this facility will function on a 24-hour basis seven days a week (24/7) and serves a mission critical function, the Authority has determined that heightened and redundant protection against flooding is prudent. The proposed Minor Site Modifications include: Steepening the Garey Avenue driveway entrance, One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

30 Contract No. C Minor Site Modifications at Dispatch Operations Center Recommendation to Award Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 2 Adding drain lines and redundant catch basins, Constructing low walls, and Constructing small barriers to redirect the flow of runoff from the street or adjacent properties. In addition to the Minor Site Modifications and to prevent external site flooding, the City of Pomona imposed minor site requirements not included in the original scope of conditional use permit under the Design/Build Contract No. DB100R-12 when the project was in the late stages of completion. These minor changes include fencing with screens and landscaping. The City of Pomona will need to approve the changes to the driveway and landscaping within the public right-of-way. Staff s position was that a much more favorable price and schedule can be achieved through the competitive bid process as opposed to negotiating a sole source Change Order under Contract No. DB100R-12 with the Design/Build Contractor. Staff anticipates resolving the cost for this site modification during the close-out of the Design/Build contract. Procurement Method Staff issued an Invitation for Bid (IFB) for the Minor Site Modifications at the DOC on February 11, The solicitation was posted on the Metrolink website, advertised in publications in the five member counties and notices were sent directly to firms registered on the Metrolink website. Thirty six (36) firms downloaded the solicitation. Nine (9) firms participated at the pre-bid meeting and job walk. Seven (7) bids were received and publicly opened on March 2, The bid results are listed below: Firm Bid Amount El Engineering Corp $178,739 Lucas Builders, Inc. $206,000 Gentry Brothers, Inc. $248,708 Los Angeles Engineering, Inc. $259,800 Carbon Activated Corporation $273,400 USS Builders, Inc. $281,200 Griffith Company, Inc. $324,423 The Engineer s estimate prepared by the design consultant prior to bid receipt was $232,

31 Contract No. C Minor Site Modifications at Dispatch Operations Center Recommendation to Award Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 3 After completing the bid evaluation, El was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The bid comparison indicated that the Engineer s estimate overestimated the complexity of the work and the bidding environment was more competitive than assumed. The bid submitted by El was 23.1% lower than the Engineer s estimate and $27,261, or 13.2% below the second lowest bidder. El s price was found to be reasonable. El has performed similar work for City of Pomona and Pomona Unified School District. References checked indicated that El s construction work was satisfactory. In accordance with the Board-adopted Contract Administration and Procurement Policies and Procedures CON-27, Contingency Funds, a contingency may be requested at the time the Board is considering award of the contract. Staff recommends inclusion of a fifteen percent (15%) contingency of the successful bid amount, which is below to the statutory limits of 25% for contingency funds on public work projects. The requested 15% contingency will be for unanticipated events within the defined project scope to address any unknown condition of the site s underground. Therefore, staff recommends the Board approve and authorize the Interim Chief Executive Officer to award Contract No. C to El Engineering Corp, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $205, Budget Impact Funding for the Minor Site Modifications at the DOC is available through a combination of FY Operating and local Capital Budgets. Prepared by: Sonny Ibrahim, Sr. Contract & Compliance Administrator Darrell Maxey, Sr. Director of PTC Lia Mc-Neil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contracts and Procurement Sam Joumblat Interim Chief Executive Officer 22

32 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 06, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 ITEM 8 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Interim Chief Executive Officer Contract No. MS Ticket Vending Machine and Central Maintenance System Maintenance Non- Competitive Award Xerox Transport Solutions, Inc. Issue Continued maintenance activities to the existing fleet of ticket vending machines (TVM) and ticket office machines (TOM) are needed to ensure fare collection system reliability and sustainability. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board authorize the Interim Chief Executive Officer to negotiate and award non-competitive Contract No. MS for TVM maintenance services to Xerox Transport Solutions, Inc. (Xerox) for a contract funding authorization of $6,000,000 for a base period of fifteen months from April 01, 2015 to June 30, 2016, with two one year options. This amount includes funding for ordinary maintenance in the amount of $4,000,000 plus $2,000,000 for extraordinary work and incentives. Alternatives The Board may: 1) Decline to approve the contract; or 2) Modify the amount of authorization requested; or 3) Request staff to extend the current Contract No. MS with Xerox Background TVM maintenance services have been provided by Xerox (formerly ACS Transport Solutions, Inc.) under Contract No. MS awarded by the Board as a non-competitive procurement since December 2001 to provide for operation and maintenance of the upgraded fare collection system. The contract was not performance based, and has been amended fourteen times over the years to exercise contract options and increase TVM support for a not-to-exceed contract funding authorization of $36,901,053. This contract expires March 31, One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

33 Contract No. MS Ticket Vending Machine and Central Maintenance System Maintenance Non-Competitive Award Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 2 Xerox is the single source available to maintain the Authority s fleet of ticket vending machines, ticket office machines and validators due to the proprietary nature of the software and key components within the machines. Contract No. MS incorporates performance based criteria and includes several key requirements that were not part of the current contract with Xerox, as follows: Performance based delivery of service that requires a minimum of 95% availability. This includes incentives for exceeding the 95% availability and disincentives for falling below the 95%. Support hours increased from five days a week in the existing contract to seven days a week, 365 days a year, with expanded hours from 5:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. PST daily. The new contract adds 4 vendor personnel to support the service two in the Authority s service area and two in Xerox s East Coast facility to rebuild spare parts. Additional Xerox East Coast resources to begin monitoring the availability of the fleet and dispatch calls remotely starting at 4:00 a.m. EST. The vendor being responsible for replacing parts that are at the end of their lives. This performance-based contract is intended to provide improved service, increased availability, and extended coverage until the entire fleet is replaced within the procurement process. Contract No. MS allows for the reduction of the monthly maintenance fees in blocks of twenty TVMs as they are replaced on the platforms with new TVMs. When all of the TVMs, TOMs and validators are removed, and the monthly billing is closed, the contract will be terminated. Procurement Approach This recommendation for award is in accordance with Contract Administration and Procurement Policies and Procedures CON-19, Sole Source and Non-Competitive Negotiated Procurements, permitting award when the purchase is available from only a single source. In accordance with CON-5, Cost and Price Analysis, a cost analysis conducted indicated that the rates provided by Xerox are fair and reasonable when compared with the current contract. The monthly spend under the current contract averages $245,000 a month for ordinary maintenance five days a week. The new contract will average $258,000 a month for a seven-days a week maintenance. Therefore, staff recommends the Board approve and authorize the Chief Executive Officer to award Non-Competitive Contract No. MS for TVM maintenance services to Xerox 24

34 Contract No. MS Ticket Vending Machine and Central Maintenance System Maintenance Non-Competitive Award Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 3 for a contract funding authorization amount not to exceed $6,000,000 for the base period of fifteen months, with two one-year options. Budget Impact Funding for the TVM maintenance and support is available in the FY Operating Budget and included in the proposed FY Annual Budget. Funding for subsequent years will be requested through the Annual Budget Process. Prepared by: Russell Case, Director, Fare Collection Services Gary Lettengarver, Chief Operating Officer Lia McNeil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contracts & Procurement Sam Joumblat Interim Chief Executive Officer 25

35 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 6, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 ITEM 9 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Interim Chief Executive Officer Contract No. SP Consultant Services Agreement to perform a Health Risk Assessment of the Central Maintenance Facility - Increase Contract Funding Authorization - Castle Environmental Consulting, LLC Issue Continued services of a qualified Air Quality Consultant are needed for the Health Risk Assessment of the Central Maintenance Facility (CMF). Recommendation Staff recommends the Board authorize the Interim Chief Executive Officer to amend Contract No. SP with Castle Environmental Consulting, LLC, (Consultant) to increase contract funding authorization by an amount of $50,000 for a not-to-exceed contracting funding authorization of $160,000. The current contract expires June 30, Alternatives The Board may modify the amount of the contract funding authorization. Background At its July 2013 meeting, the Board awarded Contract No. SP to the environmental firm of Castle Environmental Consulting, a California Limited Liability Company in an amount of $110,000 to perform certain services. Castle Environmental Consulting has significant experience working on some of the largest transportation projects in Southern California that involve highly complex air quality issues, including health risk assessments (HRA) and other environmental studies for rail facilities. Under the previous authorization, Castle Environmental Consulting performed numerous tasks including the development of a HRA protocol, based upon a California Air Resources Board (CARB) template, for the CMF rail yard that included the incorporation of many unique community requests. The firm performed an analysis to identify health risks related to CMF operations, as well as other local sources. In addition to producing a robust technical document, the results of the analysis were presented by the firm to numerous stakeholders following the release of the HRA in November At this time, additional presentations are One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

36 Contract No. SP Consultant Services Agreement to perform a Health Risk Assessment of the Central Maintenance Facility - Increase Contract Funding Authorization Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 2 necessary and it is feasible that additional analysis may be requested. Consequently, additional funding authorization is needed to support ongoing outreach and consulting. Budget Impact Funding for consulting services is included in the FY Operating Budget. Prepared by: Jennifer Cohen, Government and Regulatory Affairs Manager Jeff Lustgarten, Director, Public Affairs Lia McNeil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contracts and Procurement Sam Joumblat Interim Chief Executive Officer 27

37 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 6, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 ITEM 10 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Interim Chief Executive Officer Approval of Evaluation Criteria Request for Proposal No. L Federal Legislative Representation Services; and Request for Proposal No. L State Legislative Representation Services Issue Proposed evaluation criteria was developed to initiate a competitive procurement (Request for Proposal) to retain a technically qualified firm(s) to provide Federal and State legislative representation and regulatory support services. Recommendation Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed evaluation criteria, detailed in Attachments 1 and 2, specifying a weighting of eighty percent (80%) for technical qualifications and twenty percent (20%) for the cost to retain firm(s) to provide Federal and State Legislative Representation and regulatory support. The proposed evaluation criteria summarized below and detailed in Attachments 1 and 2 are consistent with the format and guidelines in the Board-adopted Contract Administration and Procurement Policies and Procedures, CON-7, Technical and Cost Criteria and Weights. Alternative The Board may modify and approve different proposal evaluation criteria. Background There are significant policy, regulatory and funding decisions that are made in Sacramento and Washington DC that can impact the Authority. These decisions are made in a fast moving political and legislative environment that is constantly changing. Having a legislative advocacy team and regulatory support in place is crucial for the agency to successfully obtain its fair share of funding dollars and agilely support and counter legislative or regulatory policies that could have impact on the Authority. The Authority s advocacy team must be able to facilitate maintaining and building the Authority s relationships with the Legislative delegation as well as leadership in the United States Congress, California Legislature, and regulatory agencies. One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

38 Approval of Evaluation Criteria Request for Proposal No. L Federal Legislative Representation Services; and Request for Proposal No. L State Legislative Representation Services Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 2 The State and Federal advocacy contracts currently in place are set to expire on December 31, The Authority must initiate a new Request for Proposal (RFP) process to have an advocacy team in place by the start of the 2016 State and Federal Legislative session. The current advocacy contracts were competitively procured in At the time, the Board approved one-year contracts with three, one-year options. The last option was exercised in November 2014 and will expire at the end of By competitively procuring these services, the Authority intends to award contracts to a bench of qualified firms who will provide Federal and State Legislative representation and regulatory support. Federal On the federal level, the November 2014 election maintained a Republican majority in the House and a new Republican majority in the Senate. Nonetheless, the California delegation remains dominated by two US Senators that are Democrats and a House delegation that is comprised predominantly of Democrats. Leadership roles in both houses will be held by Republicans until at least The President is currently a Democrat, but the presidency will be up for election in will likely be a competitive election for both parties and will inevitably result in additional changes. In this environment, it will be critical to have an advocacy team that can provide the technical and strategic acumen to position the agency to be successful in achieving its goals, regardless of which political parties maintain leadership roles. Staff anticipates transportation legislation will maintain its high profile and continue to be addressed in the near future. Therefore, it is also crucial that the advocacy team have insight and connections to the legislators that will be shaping that legislation. The Authority is also at a critical point in its Positive Train Control (PTC) implementation and is poised to be the first passenger rail to have a fully implemented system by the end of The new advocacy team will need to continue to push and preserve support for nationwide implementation as well as support known and unforeseen needs in on-going operation of PTC. Future PTC advocacy is likely to require support for protecting the investments and rewarding/incentivizing early investments and adopters. Consequently, the Authority must have regulatory support to provide technical advice on policies being issued by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and other regulatory agencies as well as with legislators that will be drafting relevant legislation. State On the State level, the Governor continues to try to stabilize the state s finances and find additional revenues to support the state s infrastructure needs. High speed rail (HSR) construction remains a priority for the Governor and funding from cap and trade revenues was approved by the legislature in Securing cap and trade revenues for investments in the book-ends of the HSR project as well as investments in commuter rail will be important advocacy needs in the years to come. Protecting existing transportation funding in 29

39 Approval of Evaluation Criteria Request for Proposal No. L Federal Legislative Representation Services; and Request for Proposal No. L State Legislative Representation Services Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 3 the state budget is another on-going need. The Authority must have a team in place that can effectively advocate on behalf of passenger rail needs and specifically the Authority s needs in Southern California. Strong relationships with staff and elected officials in the Governor s office, the legislature and the regulatory agencies are essential. Evaluation Criteria: a. Qualifications of Firm and Key Staff 30% b. Understanding / Approach to Services and Project Organization 35% c. Interview 15% d. Cost 20% The period of performance of the resulting contracts is proposed to be for two years with three one-year options to be exercised at the Authority s discretion. These contracts are aligned with the calendar year in order to allow for continuity of advocacy through the legislative session. Attachments A and B outline the current advocacy firms roles and annual contract amounts. Budget Impact The process of adopting evaluation criteria has no budget impact. Funding for these contracts will be requested in the annual budgets for subsequent years. Prepared by: Jennifer Cohen, Government and Regulatory Affairs Manager Andrew Conriquez, Senior Contract and Compliance Administrator Lia McNeil-Kakaris, Assistant Director, Contracts & Procurement Sam Joumblat Interim Chief Executive Officer 30

40 Approval of Evaluation Criteria Request for Proposal No. L Federal Legislative Representation Services; and Request for Proposal No. L State Legislative Representation Services Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 4 Attachment A CURRENT FEDERAL ADVOCACY TEAM S FOCUS AND CONTRACT AMOUNT ADVOCACY FIRM On Retainer Potomac Partners DC Rick Alcalde (Lead) Dan Feliz Kadesh & Associates, LLC Mark Kadesh (Lead) Chris Kierig FOCUS House Republican Leadership specifically Chairman Bill Shuster, Sub-Committee on Rail Chairman Jeff Denham and SCRRA delegation. US Senators, specifically Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, CA House of Representatives Democrats and SCRRA delegation. ANNUAL NTE AMOUNT $124,000 $124,000 Chamber, Conlon & Hartwell, LLC Don Norden Katie Kachel On Call Carpi, Clay & Smith David Wetmore (Lead) Eric Swedlund Tyler Kruzich RJ Lyerly Ken Carpi Regulatory issues and technical support. Relationship with rail industry stakeholders. Contract is task order basis to provide specific task support with Southern California/California delegation. $64,000 $20,000 Total $332,000 31

41 Approval of Evaluation Criteria Request for Proposal No. L Federal Legislative Representation Services; and Request for Proposal No. L State Legislative Representation Services Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 5 Attachment B CURRENT STATE ADVOCACY TEAM S FOCUS AND CONTRACT AMOUNT ADVOCACY FIRM Smith, Watts and Martinez LLC with Shaw Yoder Antwih Mark Watts (SW&M Lead) Andrew Antwih (SYA Lead) FOCUS As a team, fulfill the scope of services including advocate before the bi-partisan State Legislature, the Administration and State agencies to implement the legislative and funding priorities adopted by the Board of Directors. Advocate with SCRRA's Legislative delegation and agencies including the State Transportation Agency, California Transportation Commission (CTC), California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB). Protect transportation funding and maximize commuter rail s funding eligibility. ANNUAL NTE AMOUNT $124,000 32

42 Approval of Evaluation Criteria Request for Proposal No. L Federal Legislative Representation Services; and Request for Proposal No. L State Legislative Representation Services Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1 Request for Proposal No. L Federal Legislative Representation Services Proposed Evaluation Criteria Proposers will be evaluated on the following criteria: 1) Qualifications of Firm & Key Staff 30% a. Demonstrated general experience and qualifications of firm in providing 10% Federal lobbying in the public sector and experience working with transit commuter rail, intercity rail and areas relevant to the Authority; Qualifications and experience of key personnel, extent and relevance of experience with the Authority needs 10% b. Demonstrated firm s and key staff s capability of strong relationships with members of the Southern California delegation and key members in Leadership positions in the House, Senate, Administration and officials from Federal agencies such as FRA, USDOT, FTA and FCC. c. Demonstrated firm and key staff s ability to provide political, strategic and technical advice on legislation and policies that impact Metrolink 2) Understanding / Approach to Services and Project Organization 35% a. Demonstrated understanding of the Scope of Services and its components 5% b. Submitted a plan detailing proposed strategy for dealing with new appropriations process and demonstrated its ability to obtain funding for clients in the new environment of Congress by providing examples of 5% strategy plans developed for other clients similarly situated c. Demonstrate ability to work with our member agency lobbyist(s) and other 10% commuter rail representatives 5% d. Proposed organization of services team, location of resources and approximate hours per month to work on Metrolink issues including their availability for SCRRA assignments. 10% e. Proposed staffing management plan/approach including ways of keeping Metrolink apprised of emerging issues 3) Interview 15% 10% a. Presentation by proposed key staff b. Effectively communicate strategic approach and vision for goal achievement c. Responsiveness to questions 4) Cost Cost in relationship to other proposers 5% 5% 5% 20% 33

43 Approval of Evaluation Criteria Request for Proposal No. L Federal Legislative Representation Services; and Request for Proposal No. L State Legislative Representation Services Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 2 Request for Proposal No. L State Legislative Representation Services Proposed Evaluation Criteria Proposers will be evaluated on the following criteria: 1) Qualifications of Firm & Key Staff 30% a. Demonstrated general experience and qualifications of firm in providing 10% State lobbying in the public sector and experience working with transit commuter rail, intercity rail and areas relevant to the Authority; Qualifications and experience of key personnel, extent and relevance of experience with the Authority needs 10% b. Demonstrated strong relationships with members of the Southern California delegation and key members in Leadership positions in the Assembly and Senate. Demonstrate relationships with the Administration and officials from State agencies such as PUC, CTC, CARB, Caltrans and CALEMA. c. Demonstrated firm and key staff s ability to provide political, strategic and technical advice on legislation and policies that impact Metrolink 2) Understanding / Approach to Services and Project Organization 35% a. Demonstrated understanding of the Scope of Services and its components 5% b. Submitted a plan detailing proposed strategy for dealing with the budget 5% process, bonds strategy and demonstrated its ability to achieve the clients goals providing examples of strategy plans developed for other clients 10% similarly situated c. Demonstrate ability to work with our member agency lobbyist(s) and other commuter rail representatives 5% d. Proposed organization of services team, location of resources and approximate hours per month to work on Metrolink issues including their 10% availability for SCRRA assignments. e. Proposed staffing management plan/approach including ways of keeping Metrolink apprised of emerging issues 3) Interview 15% 10% a. Presentation by proposed key staff b. Effectively communicate strategic approach and vision for goal achievement c. Responsiveness to questions 4) Cost Cost in relationship to other proposers 5% 5% 5% 20% 34

44 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 6, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 ITEM 11 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Interim Chief Executive Officer State and Federal Legislative Update Issue Staff provides an update on current legislative issues in State and Federal Government Affairs. Recommendation The Board may receive and file this report. Alternative The Board may choose to act upon the information provided. Background Each month staff provides a summary of recent developments emerging from the California State Legislature and United States Congress that are of interest to the Authority. Federal The Federal Surface Transportation Authorization expires May 31, United States Department of Transportation Secretary Foxx has been touring the country discussing the importance of a long-term bill. House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Bill Shuster has also indicated that he won t accept a short-term bill. However, ranking member Peter DeFazio has indicated that achieving a long-term bill is unrealistic and that another short-term bill of some duration is likely to be moved. Meanwhile, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairman, Jim Inhofe indicated that he does not want a short-term bill. Staff will provide an update on the latest efforts regarding reauthorization and legislation of note to the Authority at a future date. One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

45 State and Federal Legislative Update Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 2 State The California State Legislature s deadline to introduce new legislation in 2015 was February 27, A large number of bills have been introduced this year and staff is in the process of reviewing legislation. Bills of note will be brought to the Board for consideration and positions at future meetings. Budget Impact There is no immediate budget impact as a result of this update. Prepared by: Jennifer Cohen, Government & Regulatory Affairs Manager Devon Ryan, Government Relations Administrator Sam Joumblat Interim Chief Executive Officer 36

46 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 6, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 ITEM 12 TO: FROM: Board of Directors Interim Chief Executive Officer SUBJECT: Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act Work with Author Issue Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Board take a WORK WITH AUTHOR position. Alternative The Board may opt to adopt an alternative position. Background On March 4, 2015, United States Senators Blunt, McCaskill, Thune and Nelson introduced a bill to extend the implementation deadline of Positive Train Control (PTC). The current deadline of December 31, 2015 was imposed by the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) of The Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act would extend the deadline to December 31, 2020 and allow the United States Secretary of Transportation to grant two 1-year extensions up to December 31, As introduced, the bill does not provide additional funding, incentives, or support for PTC implementation. At its October 11, 2013 meeting, the Board adopted an OPPOSE position to S.1462, the Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act of That legislation introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) was very similar to this legislation, providing a blanket extension to December 31, At its May 9, 2014 meeting, the Board adopted the same position as the American Public Transit Association (APTA) that opposed a blanket extension but supports providing the Secretary of Transportation with authority to extend the deadline on an individual basis. As the national passenger rail leader for PTC innovation and implementation, many stakeholders are looking to Metrolink for a position on this legislation. While the Authority is poised to meet the 2015 deadline, the majority of Class 1 railroads will not be meeting One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

47 Railroad Safety and Positive Train Control Extension Act Work with Author Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 2 the deadline due to a variety of challenges. Having had its own challenges, Metrolink can sympathize with these hurdles and has previously recognized the need for extensions on an individual basis. Staff recommends working with the authors of the legislation so as to attempt the following amendments: 1. Uphold technology standards RSIA does not prescribe a specific technology, but requires all PTC systems to prevent: a. Train to train collisions b. Overspeed c. Incursions into established work zone limits d. The movement of a train through a misaligned switch An alternative technology that lacks those components is really not considered PTC, and should not be acceptable. 2. Maintain interoperability requirements Interoperability, or the ability to seamlessly interface with other railroads, is fundamental. Without it, the protective characteristics of PTC would be significantly weakened. 3. Support and incentivize rapid implementation railroads should be encouraged to implement PTC sooner rather than later, regardless of the length of an extension. Resources to support implementation should be made available and with incentives to encourage rapid implementation. 4. Provide credit to early adopters recognition should be made for railroads that made timely and early investments to meet the original deadline. They should be eligible for reimbursement should federal funding be made available and/or provided preferential treatment in competitive opportunities. Budget Impact There is no budgetary impact as a direct result of this item. Prepared by: Jennifer Cohen, Government and Regulatory Affairs Manager Sam Joumblat Interim Chief Executive Officer 38

48 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 6, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 ITEM 13 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Interim Chief Executive Officer Compensation Report FY Third Quarter (Second Partial) February 15, 2015 through March 16, 2015 Issue At its April 11, 2014 meeting, the Board of Directors amended Human Resources Policy 2.1 to require staff to make quarterly and annual reports to the Board on compensation matters. Recommendation The Board may receive and file this report. Alternatives The Board may direct staff to make changes to various transactions in the report. Background In accordance with amended HR Policy 2.1, the Board requires the Director of Human Resources to report all salary placements for new hires, promotions, demotions, reclassifications and other changes in employee compensation to the Board on a quarterly basis. Attachment A is a summary of the transactions that occurred during the Third Quarter for the period February 15, 2015 through March 16, Attachment B is a more detailed report. There are ten (10) new compensation changes during this period. Two (2) of the four (4) promotions require salary placement at the range minimum consistent with Human Resources Policy and Procedures 2.1, Section 1.5 Promotions. Budget Impact There is no immediate budget impact as a result of this status report. One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

49 Compensation Report FY Third Quarter (Second Partial) February 15, 2015 through March 16, 2015 Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 2 Prepared by: Patricia Francisco, Director, Human Resources and Irene Shapiro, Manager, Human Resources Sam Joumblat Interim Chief Executive Officer 40

50 ATTACHMENT A COMPENSATION REPORT SUMMARY - 3RD QUARTER FY 15 (Partial Report - 1/1/2015 through 3/16/2015) Category based on H.R. Policy 2.1 Requirements Total Number Salary Placement for New Hires 3 Salary Placement for Promotions 4 Salary Placement for Demotions 0 Salary Placement for Reclassification 0 Other changes in employee compensation Additional Compensation 0 Acting Pay or Return from Acting Pay 3 Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) 0 TOTAL TRANSACTIONS 10 41

51 ATTACHMENT B - COMPENSATION REPORT 3RD QUARTER FY 15 (Second Partial - 2/15/2015 through 3/16/2015) POSITION/CLASSIFICATION A. New Hire 1 Field Operations Manager 2 Inventory Control Analyst 3 Customer Engagement Representative EFFECTIVE DATE TYPE OF INCREASE OR SALARY PLACEMENT SALARY HISTORY RATE AMOUNT (Bi-Weekly Rate) 02/17/2015 Initial Compensation $4, /02/2015 Initial Compensation $2, /09/2015 Initial Compensation $17.25 PERCENT CHANGE FROM PREVIOUS SCRRA SALARY RATE B. Other Changes in Compensation 1 Training Compliance Administrator 2 Public Safety and Environment Manager 3 Manager, Customer Engagement - LAUS C. Promotion 1 Manager, Special Projects 2 Assistant Director, System Safety 3 Communications Coordinator 4 Manager, Corporate Accounts 02/15/2015 Acting Pay $3, % 02/14/2015 Return From Acting Pay $3, % 02/15/2015 Return From Acting Pay $3, % 02/15/2015 Promotion $4, % 02/15/2015 Promotion $3, % 02/15/2015 Promotion $ % 03/15/2015 Promotion $2, % RB-HR-100 Page 1 of 1 42

52 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 9, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 ITEM 14 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Interim Chief Executive Officer Antelope Valley Line Fare Enforcement Update Issue In November 2014, Metrolink initiated a fare enforcement pilot project for the Antelope Valley Line. On December 4, 2014, the Metro Board committed additional funds to extend the fare enforcement program into calendar year This report is intended to provide the Board with an interim update on the expanded fare enforcement program for the first two months of calendar year Recommendation The Board may receive and file this report. Background Initial Program The enhanced Antelope Valley Line fare enforcement program was originally commenced on October 31, 2014 and involved numerous elements, includes: Deployment of seven assistant conductors on all Antelope Valley Line service to perform daily ridership counts, regular fare checks, and issue citations on all trains Conducting street-carring (checking passengers for valid fare prior to boarding) at Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) with conductors, security staff and customer engagement representatives Increased security presence at intermediate stations to prevent short-buying (buying a ticket for a short distance than travelled) New signage at all stations informing riders of elevated enforcement activities Making multiple conductor announcements on all trains Undertaking sweeps at rotating intermediate stations along the line At the December 5, 2014 Board meeting, it was reported that the initial results of the effort were positive. In terms of prevented evasion, staff determined for the period of November 1, 2014 through November 20, 2014, the initial enforcement program resulted in the One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

53 Antelope Valley Line Fare Enforcement Update Transmittal Date: March 9, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 2 issuance of 230 citations and 507 turn aways (passengers without valid fare who were not allowed to board). Staff also received positive feedback from passengers who regularly ride that line, expressing their appreciation for the enforcement effort. Extended and Expanded Program While very successful, the initial fare enforcement effort only had sufficient funding for approximately one month. On December 4, 2014, Directors Antonovich and Krekorian brought a motion forward at the Metro Board of Directors meeting, seeking additional funds to allow for continuation of a full fare enforcement program on the Antelope Valley Line. As a result, Metro approved approximately $1.7 million in additional funding, allowing for the retention of eleven assistant conductors (an increase from the original seven) to continue the program during calendar year Once the funding was secured, Amtrak was able to fill the eleven positions by January 5. Additional measures were put into place to specifically address fare enforcement and security issues raised by the City of Lancaster. A fence was erected around the perimeter of the Lancaster Station platform, with two gates. Once the fence project was completed in January, Metrolink positioned security guards at each of the gates, only permitting passengers with valid tickets to access the station platform. Interim Enforcement Results The table below summarizes the results of the fare enforcement efforts undertaken by the assistant conductors on the Antelope Valley Line. Please note that the figures for January in each of the tables reflect data collected beginning on January 5, the first day when the assistant conductor program was fully staffed on the line. In addition to the assistant conductors, both Los Angeles County Sheriff s deputies and Metrolink security played an important role in the effort. Private security has continued to undertake street-carring efforts at LAUS. Sheriff s deputies have been conducting periodic street-carring at intermediate stations, as well as random ticket checks on various trains. The Totals table on the bottom of page 3 sums the fare enforcement activities by all three parties: conductors, security and sheriff. Staff has included for reference the number of passengers for the two-month period. Please note that the number of fares checked in the period was 389,820 is about 1.5 times the number of passengers of 260,254. This is due to the fact that some passengers tickets were checked more than once. 44

54 Antelope Valley Line Fare Enforcement Update Transmittal Date: March 9, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 3 The tables below summarize the efforts to date. Conductors/Assistant Conductors Jan-15* Feb-15 Total Fares Checked 122, , ,803 Citations Turn Aways Security Jan-15* Feb-15 Total Fares Checked 30,237 34,855 65,092 Turn Aways Sheriff Jan-15* Feb-15 Total Fares Checked 45,187 36,738 81,925 Citations Turn Aways Ejections The table below summarizes the overall outcome of the fare enforcement effort for the first two months of the calendar year. Totals Jan-15* Feb-15 Grand Total Fares Checked 197, , ,820 Passenger Counts 128, , ,254 Access Riders 20,264 21,141 41,405 PCA Riders 4,996 5,434 10,430 Citations Turn Aways ,165 Ejections *January data is for a partial month, from January 5 th, when the program was in full force, to January 31 st. Interim Access Services/PCA Data In addition to providing significant benefit to fare enforcement efforts on the Antelope Valley Line, the assistant conductors and other staff have allowed the Authority to obtain much more specific data regarding the extent to which the Line is utilized by either Access Services card holders or personal care attendants (PCAs). Overall, for the first two months of the calendar year, Access Services Riders and PCAs accounted for approximately 13 percent of the total fares checked on the Line. Anecdotally however, both Sheriff s deputies and assistant conductors have reported that 45

55 Antelope Valley Line Fare Enforcement Update Transmittal Date: March 9, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 4 some individual trains had as many as two-thirds of their riders either Access Services card holders or PCAs. Conclusions Overall, the fare enforcement pilot program on the Antelope Valley Line has been very successful to date and has provided valuable insights which can be applied across the system. Specifically, the additional assistant conductors have provided tremendous value in terms of both on-board fare enforcement as well as enhanced customer service and passenger communications. Previous fare enforcement efforts have not been able to provide this level of comprehensive detail, nor have they involved all trains on a particular line. For example, in an elevated fare enforcement program initiated in 2012, it was estimated that the Antelope Valley Line had an overall fare evasion range of percent over a three-month period. However, that was based on an estimate because not every train was farechecked as part of that effort. Similarly, enforcement efforts on other lines have been limited because they have only involved a single conductor. A single conductor is not able to check fares for an entire train and still undertake other safety-critical tasks. For example, in January of 2014, the total number of passenger fares checked by conductors on the Antelope Valley Line was approximately 87,000, compared to 122,000 passengers checked during January Additionally, no data was previously collected by conductors regarding turn aways. The assistant conductors also provide critical benefits from a safety standpoint. In addition to being able to support passenger communications during incidents, the presence of the assistant conductors also allow the conductors to focus on safety-critical tasks. For normal service, Metrolink has a single conductor responsible for an entire train which is low compared to other rail providers. Generally speaking, the limited number of conductors currently on individual trains contributes to fare enforcement and other operational challenges the Authority faces today. Amtrak trains typically have one conductor and at least two or three assistant conductors to serve six passenger cars, while Amtrak trains have fewer stops than Metrolink. Caltrain currently employs one conductor and one assistant conductor for its trains (five passenger cars). Metra (metropolitan Chicago area) employs two conductors per train set (five to eight cars). A program to implement assistant conductors on a permanent basis, system-wide was included as an optional item for the Board s consideration in the FY budget. Such a program would have multiple benefits, including the assistant conductors being: Dedicated to provide sustained on-board fare enforcement throughout the system 46

56 Antelope Valley Line Fare Enforcement Update Transmittal Date: March 9, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 5 Dedicated to provide accurate passenger counts on trains while the conductors can focus on safety-critical responsibilities Able to provide more reliable and consistent customer service and passenger communications, particularly during incidents, whereas the conductor has multiple responsibilities in addition to passenger communications Getting trained to become a conductor, which will allow for a more effective succession planning for conductor positions Providing a more comprehensive full fare enforcement effort, and effective passenger communications and customer service outreach requires a comprehensive program involving conductors, security staff, station security, Sheriff s deputies, and customer engagement representatives. The implementation of a long-term assistant conductor program will greatly assist the Authority in effectively achieving many of these longstanding goals. Budget Impact There is no budget impact as a result of this report. Prepared by: RT McCarthy, Director, Operations Fred Jackson, Director, System Safety and Security Eric Smith, Superintendent, Metrolink Operations, Amtrak Jeff Lustgarten, Director, Public Affairs Sam Joumblat Interim Chief Executive Officer 47

57 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 6, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 ITEM 15 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Meeting Interim Chief Executive Officer American Public Transportation Association Peer Review Panel Security Manpower Analysis Issue The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) conducted a Security Peer Review in August 2014 for the Authority. The peer review panel was comprised of industry professionals with security expertise and leadership in directing security on commuter rail systems. Recommendation The Board may receive and file this report. Background A manpower analysis was performed at the recommendation of an APTA Peer Review in order to provide more thorough analysis of security and law enforcement needs and a basis for staffing level recommendations. History of Board Presentations Related to Security The completion of the security manpower analysis follows a series of Board presentations and Authority decisions: July 11, 2014 Board Meeting Special Engagement Final Report Security Budget Processes and Transaction Detail #2014_05 The Board deliberated over the contents of final audit report. The Authority s prior Chief Executive Officer informed the Board that APTA had been invited to perform a Security Peer Review. July 25, 2014 Safety and Operations Committee Meeting Staff presented for review a draft of the Southern California Regional Rail Authority Resource Allocation Plan for Security. A proposal for security personnel was presented. The committee requested a more thorough understanding of how staffing levels are driven by need and the size of the Metrolink system. August 8, 2014 Board of Directors meeting staff presented the following items: Staff recommended the Board reject all proposals submitted for Request for Proposal (RFP) No. SP and Approval of Evaluation Criteria for RFP No. SP Security Guard Services for Metrolink Stations, Trains, and Layover Facilities this motion passed unanimously. One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor Los Angeles, CA

58 American Public Transportation Association Peer Review Panel Security Manpower Analysis Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 2 Contract No. SP Temporary Security Guard Services the Board approved staff s recommendation to award a contract, however amended the action to include a 30-day termination clause in the contract. Review of Southern California Regional Rail Authority Resource Allocation Plan for Security the Board received and filed this report. August 25 through 29, 2014 APTA Security Peer Review was performed. The panel recommended the Authority use a more formal manpower analysis model provided by Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). December 12, 2014 Board of Directors Meeting Security Peer Review Results and Strategy staff submitted the complete report from the recent APTA Security Peer Review to the Board. Security Manpower Analysis The manpower analysis is a spreadsheet model that performs a calculation of security staffing levels as they relate to variables specific to a transit system. Specifically, the manpower analysis model incorporates data related to: System size: number of train trips and number of stations and parking lots System use: ridership Security business practices: work schedule, rate of patrols, patrol allocation There are separate models for security and law enforcement (police/sheriff) resources that reflect specific business practices in the Authority s security and law enforcement contracts (Attachment A). Other parts of the model were adapted to Metrolink system characteristics. Assumptions were made that the deployment of Assistant Conductors on the Antelope Valley Line would reduce the need for security guards, and manpower requirements for Sheriffs on the Perris Valley Line will be calculated separately. The model for security resources generated a requirement for total full-time equivalent (FTE) security guards of 59 guards. This is higher than current contract staffing of 42 FTEs. The model for police resources generated a requirement for 41 police officers or Sheriff s deputies. This is higher than the existing staffing level of 32 Sheriff s deputies. These results are presented in Figure 1 and in Attachment A (with the criteria used in the model to determine staffing requirements). Figure 1. Comparison of Existing Staffing to Recommended staffing from the Manpower Analysis Existing Recommended from DART Manpower Model Security Guards 42 FTEs 59 FTEs Police Officers (Sheriff s Deputies) 32 FTEs 41 FTEs 49

59 American Public Transportation Association Peer Review Panel Security Manpower Analysis Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 3 Recommendations for security and law enforcement personnel in future years will be developed to reflect a gradual adjustment of staffing to meet industry standards. Also, adjustments will also be made to meet the needs of expansions to service including additional trips on the existing system and new line extensions such as the Perris Valley Line and Redlands Extensions. The security manpower analysis model will be periodically performed to assess staffing needs before new services are brought into revenue service. Budget Impact While the adoption of the security manpower analysis has budget implications, this can be addressed during the RFP for Security Guard services which is scheduled to be issued following the Board s approval of the Evaluation Criteria. The current Sheriff s contract will expire in June Should the Board direct staff to increase the number of Sheriff s, a budget amendment would need to be approved by all member agencies prior to increasing the headcount. Prepared by: Fred Jackson, Director, System Safety and Security Henning Eichler, Manager, Research and Planning Sam Joumblat Interim Chief Executive Officer 50

60 American Public Transportation Association Peer Review Panel Security Manpower Analysis Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 4 Attachment A SECURITY GUARD MANPOWER MODEL FTE Requirements: 59 Guards System Parameters Train Service (for all rail modes) Weekday train trips Saturday train trips Sunday train trips Ridership Average weekday ridership Average Saturday ridership Average Sunday ridership Stations and Parking Lots (for all rail modes) Number of passenger stations with Security Guards Number of parking lots adjoining stations Number of parking lots not adjoining stations Field Staff Work Schedule (field time that doesn't include times for briefings, travel, reports, etc.) Number of hours in field per day for staff working 5 8-hour days per week Time Off Average annual hours off for vacation/holiday Average annual hours off for sick leave/other Average annual guard days not in field due to training, reports, court, etc. Average annual FEO days not in field due to training, etc. Percentage of active PO time vs. meals, breaks, etc. (Enter 100 if meal/break/etc. gaps do not need fill-in coverage) Field Deployment Fare Inspection Target percent of passenger to be checked when FEOs on duty Target percent of passenger to be checked when FEOs not on duty Percentage of weekly ridership when FEOs not on duty Percent of field time actually inspecting fares on trains Average time to check each passenger Average percentage of fare violations Average time to handle each fare evasion event 137 trips 36 trips 30 trips 41,294 passengers 12,893 passengers 9,859 passengers 4 stations 3 lots 0 lots 8 hours 56 hours 40 hours 0 days 0 days 88 percent 0 percent 0 percent 0 percent 33 percent 0.2 minutes 2.5 percent 5 minutes 51

61 American Public Transportation Association Peer Review Panel Security Manpower Analysis Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 5 Police Officer Incident Handling Average daily number of non-fare evasion events requiring PO Average time to handle each event (incl. response and reports) Average percent of time requiring double PO coverage Train Patrol Target percent of trains with PO aboard for at least part of trip Average duration of each train patrol Roving Patrols Number of times per day that each station should be patrolled Average time to patrol each station Parking Lot Patrols Avg. number of times per day that each lot should be patrolled Average time to patrol each parking lot LA Union Station Number of patrol zones Average number of guards in each zone Average hours per day of patrol coverage (0-24) Number of roaming emergency response guards Other stations and facilities Number of stations/facilities with 1 guard per shift Number of these sites that require two guards Number of hours per week of coverage at each of these sites HOV Patrol Target coverage, HOV miles per officer Number of HOV miles to cover Number of shifts per day of coverage Number of hours per shift of coverage Number of days per week of coverage Additional Factors Okay to short other patrols during HOV monitoring periods? (Y/N) If "Y" to above question, okay to short by what percentage? Average travel time between stations/parking lots Percent of PO station-station journeys by car vs. by train patrol Hours per day to patrol/visit O&M Facilities (incl. driving time) 0 events 0 minutes 0 percent 8 percent 120 minutes 0 times 0 minutes 0 times 30 minutes 1 zones 6 officers 16 hours 2 officers 7 sites 1 sites 130 hours 0.00 miles/officer 0.00 miles 0.00 shifts 0.00 hours 0.00 days N "Y" or "N" percent 10 minutes 50 percent minutes 52

62 American Public Transportation Association Peer Review Panel Security Manpower Analysis Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 6 SHERIFFS MANPOWER MODEL FTE Requirements: 41 POs System Parameters Train Service (for all rail modes) Weekday train trips Saturday train trips Sunday train trips Ridership Average weekday ridership Average Saturday ridership Average Sunday ridership Stations and Parking Lots (for all rail modes) Number of passenger stations Number of parking lots adjoining stations Number of parking lots not adjoining stations Field Staff Work Schedule (field time that doesn't include times for briefings, travel, reports, etc.) Number of hours in field per day for staff working 4 10-hour days per week Number of hours in field per day for staff working 5 8-hour days per week Time Off Average annual hours off for vacation/holiday Average annual hours off for sick leave/other Average annual PO days not in field due to training, reports, court, etc. Average annual FEO days not in field due to training, etc. Percentage of active PO time vs. meals, breaks, etc. (Enter 100 if meal/break/etc. gaps do not need fill-in coverage) Field Deployment Fare Inspection Target percent of passenger to be checked when FEOs on duty Target percent of passenger to be checked when FEOs not on duty Percentage of weekly ridership when FEOs not on duty Percent of field time actually inspecting fares on trains Average time to check each passenger Average percentage of fare violations Average time to handle each fare evasion event 167 trips 48 trips 42 trips 41,294 passengers 12,893 passengers 9,859 passengers 55 stations 53 lots 0 lots 8 hours 6 hours 210 hours 100 hours 15 days 5 days 100 percent 30 percent 0 percent 0 percent 33 percent 0.2 minutes 2.5 percent 5 minutes 53

63 American Public Transportation Association Peer Review Panel Security Manpower Analysis Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 7 Police Officer Incident Handling Average daily number of non-fare evasion events requiring PO Average time to handle each event (incl. response & reports) Average percent of time requiring double PO coverage Train Patrol Target percent of trains with PO aboard for at least part of trip Average duration of each train patrol Station Patrol Number of times per day that each station should be patrolled Average time to patrol each station Parking Lot Patrol Avg. number of times per day that each lot should be patrolled Average time to patrol each parking lot Zone Patrol Number of patrol zones (including downtown) Average number of POs in each zone Average hours per day of patrol coverage (0-24) Number of "deep night" shifts per night Dedicated Patrol Number of stations/facilities that need full-time PO presence Number of these sites that require two POs Number of hours per week of coverage at each of these sites HOV Patrol Target coverage, HOV miles per officer Number of HOV miles to cover Number of shifts per day of coverage Number of hours per shift of coverage Number of days per week of coverage Additional Factors Okay to short other patrols during HOV monitoring periods? (Y/N) If "Y" to above question, okay to short by what percentage? Average travel time between stations/parking lots Percent of PO station-station journeys by car vs. by train patrol Hours per day to patrol/visit O&M Facilities (incl. driving time) 10 events 30 minutes 10 percent 30 percent 120 minutes 1 times 10 minutes 1 times 10 minutes 0 zones 0 officers 0 hours 0 shifts 1 sites 1 sites 126 hours 0.00 miles/officer 0.00 miles 0.00 shifts 0.00 hours 0.00 days N "Y" or "N" percent 10 minutes 50 percent minutes Definitions PO Police Officer FEO Fare Enforcement Officer HOV High Occupancy Vehicle 54

64 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY TRANSMITTAL DATE: March 6, 2015 MEETING DATE: March 13, 2015 ITEM 16 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Board of Directors Interim Chief Executive Officer Strategic Plan Update Issue This report provides an update on the development of the Authority s Strategic Plan. Recommendation The Board may receive and file this report. Background Phase II of the Strategic Plan document is in progress. The Board emphasized the need for a back to basics approach and operational strengthening. Therefore, the Strategic Plan is being composed to reflect two major types of strategies (1) operational fundamentals and (2) service growth and capital development. Operational Fundamentals Development of operational fundamentals has progressed in several separate work efforts. Consultant team (Parsons Brinckerhoff) has elaborated on the previously presented core institutional needs and is working with staff to develop goals and objectives associated with them. Governance Ad Hoc Committee presented its final report with ideas for consideration by the Board at the December 12, 2014 meeting. While many of these require Board policy decisions, several suggestions are already being pursued, such as the development of a Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), the pursuit of several grant funding opportunities, the assessment of long-term rehabilitation needs, and increased transparency with the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and partners. Staff was invited to participate in two workshops related to the Authority s mission and vision in late January. Based on the comments offered by a broad crosssection of staff from all departments and by a smaller working group, refinements to the mission and vision statements were proposed: One Gateway Plaza, 12 th Floor, Los Angeles, CA

65 Strategic Plan Update Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 2 o Mission Statement: To provide safe, efficient, dependable, and on-time transportation service that offers outstanding customer experience, and enhances the quality of life. o Vision Statement: To be Southern California s preferred transportation system built upon safety, reliability, customer service, leading-edge technology, and seamless connectivity. Additional engagement with staff will focus on the development of goals and objectives that relate to the guiding principles of the Strategic Plan i.e., Discipline/Focus, Connectivity, Coordination/Collaboration, Customer Value, and Transparency. Service Growth and Capital Development Strategies The team is completing an analysis of scenarios that represent different approaches to service growth for the medium and long-term future assuming unconstrained resources. Eventually, the Strategic Plan would focus on a more limited set of projects as determined by the funding constraints of Metrolink and its member agencies. These scenarios also assume that in order for growth to occur, systemwide rehabilitation needs should be met to bring the Metrolink system to a state of good repair. The proposed service scenarios include: No-Service Growth Scenario assumes existing service plus the Perris Valley Line and Redlands extensions only Enhancement of Existing Network Scenario more trains on existing lines, as proposed by a staff working group in consultation with the member agencies (Attachment A) Service Overlay Scenario additional service on selected segments of the existing and committed rail network, (e.g., Chatsworth to Union Station, Santa Clarita to Union Station, Union Station to Laguna Niguel, Union Station to San Gabriel Valley, Rancho Cucamonga to Redlands) High Speed Rail (HSR) Service Integration Scenario Metrolink feeder service connecting to the Initial Operating Segment (IOS) of the California HSR system with major intermodal connections at Burbank and lines connecting through Los Angeles Union Station The evaluation of these scenarios has progressed on three fronts (1) operational analysis, (2) capital requirements and cost analysis, and (3) ridership forecasting. The team has completed operations analysis of all scenarios. Based on the operations analysis, a series of potential capacity improvements were identified (Attachment B) across the Metrolink system. Priorities for these are being identified. Cost estimates for each of these capital improvements are being developed and staff will inform the Board of any recommendations for investment in the SRTP. 56

66 Strategic Plan Update Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 3 The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is currently completing ridership forecasts for the various scenarios. These forecasts will help identify fleet and station parking requirements and give an indication of the relative benefits of each service scenario. We are also performing a high-level assessment of service enhancements and extensions to areas not currently served by Metrolink, including both areas inside our service area (such as Ontario Airport) and outside of our existing service area (such as Santa Barbara and San Diego). This assessment is designed to provide a general sense of the demand in those corridors. Finally, in December 2014, a second round of public surveys was undertaken to solicit input on scenarios for growth. Feedback has emphasized a desire for increased frequency (including midday and evening service) on the existing Metrolink system. Other Parallel Efforts The Authority is pursuing other parallel-related planning efforts that could be reflected in the final Strategic Plan and associated SRTP: Fleet Planning Investment in locomotives and rail cars are being pursued in proposals and separate items presented to the Board. Grant funding to support investment options is also being pursued. A summary of all of these activities will be presented in a Rail Fleet Management Plan (anticipated completion spring 2015). This Rail Fleet Management Plan will update and eventually replace the Locomotive and Equipment Fleet Plan ( ) adopted at the January 13, 2012 Board meeting. Next Steps Transit Asset Management Plan A separate consultant team (CH2M Hill) has begun analysis and development of a Transit Asset Management Plan. This effort will identify short-term and long-term investment needs to support a state of good repair for the Metrolink system. Policy Development Policies that support Strategic Plan guiding principles are being pursued. For example, a set of Principles for Project Cost Sharing was developed in consultation with member agencies and adopted by the Board at its February 13, 2015 meeting. The development of the Strategic Plan and SRTP will involve the completion of cost estimation, ridership forecasting, and overall performance evaluation of service scenarios. Importantly, the next steps involve continued consultation with internal and external stakeholders. Staff has incorporated additional time to allow new Authority leadership to provide input to both the Strategic Plan and SRTP. Additional updates will be provided to 57

67 Strategic Plan Update Transmittal Date: March 6, 2015 Meeting Date: March 13, 2015 Page 4 the Board. The Strategic Plan and SRTP are proposed to be presented to the Board by June Budget Impact There is no budget impact as a result of this status report. Prepared by: Roderick Diaz, Interim Chief Planning and Project Delivery Officer Ron Mathieu, Sr. Public Project Specialist Sam Joumblat Interim Chief Executive Officer 58

68 North Goleta Future Station Goleta S A N TA BARBARA COUNTY Santa Barbara ES n Sta tio US CM ed ica l tre et Tra nsi Ne tc w en Fu Yo ter tur rk e S St tat re Re ion et d Fu land tur s e Ce nte r Fu tu re Sta tio n Carpinteria University Ontario Airport Future Station Future Station San Jacinto Future Station Hemet Newport Road Future Station Winchester Road Future Station Future Station Clinton Keith Road Future Station Winchester Road-Temecula Future Station SERVICE FREQUENCY (Minutes) Level 1 (60 Min Peak / 60 Min Off-Peak or Less) Level 2 (30 Min Peak / Min Off-Peak) Level 3 (20 Min Peak / Min Off-Peak) Level 4 (15 Min Peak / Min Off-Peak) Level 5 (10-12 Min Peak / Min Off-Peak) 59 ATTACHMENT A S2 -High-Speed Enhancement Overlay Base -ofno-growth Additional Rail ofservice Existing Scenario Service Integration Network Patterns