Docstoc

SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT

Document Sample
SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT Powered By Docstoc
					         SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT
                  BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA
                         AGENDA REVIEW/WORK SESSION
                                OCTOBER 8, 1999
                      SCMTD ENCINAL CONFERENCE ROOM
                        *370 ENCINAL STREET, SUITE 100*
                            SANTA CRUZ, CALIFORNIA

SECTION I: OPEN SESSION - 8:30a.m.

1.      ROLL CALL

2.      ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION REGARDING CLOSED SESSION


SECTION II: CLOSED SESSION**

1.      APPROVAL OF CLOSED SESSION MEETING MINUTES


SECTION III: RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION – Immediately After Closed
Session

3.      ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

        a. Letter from Vic Hendrix
        b. Letter of September 16, 1999 from Jim Bosso, Santa Cruz Transportation,
           Inc.

4.      LABOR ORGANIZATION COMMUNICATIONS

5.      METRO USERS GROUP (MUG) COMMUNICATIONS

6.      METRO ACCESSIBLE SERVICES TRANSIT FORUM (MASTF)
        COMMUNICATIONS

7.      ALTERATIONS TO THE AGENDA

                                        CONSENT AGENDA

8.      Approve Minutes of Special Board of Directors Meeting of 9-10-99 and Board of
        Directors Meeting of 9-17-99
        Minutes: Attached

9.      Accept and File Preliminary Approved Claims
        Report: Attached


* Please note: Location of Meeting Place
** Closed Session Items will not be discussed at the Agenda Review/Work Session and will be sent under
    separate cover.
Special Board Meeting Agenda
Agenda Review/Work Session
October 8, 1999
Page 2


10.      Passenger Lift Report
         Report: This report has been deleted this month.

11.      Deny Claims of: Eduardo Pena; Neil Lindberg
         Claims: Attached


12.      Accept and File Minutes of MASTF Committee Meeting of 9-16-99
         Minutes: Attached

13.      Accept and File Minutes of MUG Committee Meeting of 9-15-99
         Minutes: Attached

14.      Accept and File Monthly Budget Status Report for July and August 1999 and
         Approve Budget Transfer
         Presented by: Elisabeth Ross, Finance Manager
         Report: (To be Included in Add-On Packet)

15.      Accept and File August Status Report on Highway 17 Express Bus Service
         Presented by: Mark Dorfman, Assistant General Manager
         Staff Report: Attached

16.      Accept and File July Status Report on ADA Paratransit Program
         Presented by: Mark Dorfman, Assistant General Manager
         Staff Report: Attached

17.      Notification Regarding Board’s Action in Closed Session on August 20, 1999
         relating to the Claim of Julie Arias
         Presented by: Margaret Gallagher, District Counsel
         Staff Report: Attached

                                               REGULAR AGENDA

18.      Consider Resolution of Support for Assemblyman Fred Keeley
         Presented by: Leslie White, General Manager
         Resolution: Attached

19.      Consider Award of Workers’ Compensation Administrator Contract and Renewal
         of Excess Insurance Contract
         Presented by: Paul Chandley, Human Resources Manager
         Staff Report: Attached

20.      Consider Response to County of Santa Cruz Health Services Agency
         Presented by: Mark Dorfman, Assistant General Manager
         Staff Report: Attached
J:\USERS\ADMIN\filesyst\A\Agendas\specl101599.doc
Special Board Meeting Agenda
Agenda Review/Work Session
October 8, 1999
Page 3



21.      Consider Transit Center Tenant Selection Criteria
         Presented by: David Konno, Manager of Facilities Maintenance
         Staff Report: Attached

22.      Consider Request for Public Art Coordination for Metro Base
         Presented by: Mark Dorfman, Assistant General Manager
         Staff Report: Attached

23.      Consider Approval of Holiday Shopper Shuttle
         Presented by : Bryant Baehr, Manager of Operations
         Staff Report: Attached

24.      Consider Response to Jim Bosso’s Letter of September 16, 1999.
         Presented by: Kim Chin, Manager of Planning and Marketing
         Staff Report: Attached

25.      Consider Amending the Bylaws, Adding Additional Monthly Board Meeting, and
         Deleting Monthly Policy/Finance and Personnel/Special Projects Committees.
         Presented by: Margaret Gallagher, District Counsel
         Staff Report: Attached

26.      Consider Approval of Service Changes for Winter 1999 and Spring 2000.
         Presented by: Kim Chin, Manager of Planning and Marketing
         Staff Report: Attached

27.      Consider Authorization to Renew Contract for Paint and Body Services.
         Presented by: Mark Dorfman, Assistant General Manager
         Staff Report: Attached

28.      Consider Award of Bus Shelter Contract
         Presented by : Mark Dorfman, Assistant General Manager
         Staff Report: Attached

                                                    ADJOURN




J:\USERS\ADMIN\filesyst\A\Agendas\specl101599.doc
Special Board Meeting Agenda
Agenda Review/Work Session
October 8, 1999
Page 4



                                               NOTICE TO PUBLIC

Members of the public may address the Board of Directors on a topic not on the agenda but
within the jurisdiction of the Board of Directors or on the consent agenda by approaching the
podium during consideration of Agenda Item #1 “Oral and Written Communications”, under
Section III. Presentations will be limited in time in accordance with District Resolution 69-2-1.

Members of the public may address the Board of Directors on a topic on the agenda by
approaching the podium immediately after presentation of the staff report but before the Board
of Directors’ deliberation on the topic to be addressed. Presentations will be limited in time in
accordance with District Resolution 69-2-1.

When addressing the Board, the individual may, but is not required to, provide his/her name
and address in an audible tone for the record.

The Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District does not discriminate on the basis of disability.
The Santa Cruz City Council Chambers is located in an accessible facility. If you wish to attend
this meeting and require special assistance in order to participate, please Dale Carr at 426-
6080 at least 72 hours in advance of the Board of Directors meeting.




J:\USERS\ADMIN\filesyst\A\Agendas\specl101599.doc
September 11,1999

Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
370 Encinal, Suite 100
Santa Cruz, CA
95062

Dear District Members,

Once again I find it necessary to write directly to you about a basic
service concern: the lack of on-time departures. I first noticed this
system wide practice in late July and began reporting my concerns to
on-site supervisors and as incident reports to the telephone
information agents. These reports were complete with bus numbers,
times, routes, sites and in some cases, driver numbers. To date this
practice of late departures continues.

It seems incredible to have to go over basic territory once again with
our local mass transit agency. Mass transit is desperately needed to
resolve our community’s need for transportation and healthy air.
Consistently the public reports that the reason they do not use public
transit are system inconvenience and unreliability. We only have to
look at San Francisco MUNI to see the truth of this and the effects,
social and political, of mass transit’s inability to be reliable and
convenient. On-time departures are at the heart of reliability. The
world works on schedules and few can see why Metro should be
exempted. On-time departures allow bus connections from one line to
another that give the word “system” real-world meaning.

Late departures are more common than not from the Watsonville
center. I now experience it often at the Santa Cruz center. I once
waited for ten minutes after the departure time for a IH to arrive and
then the driver had to take a break before he left. When late
departures are reported to drivers or supervisors the response always
involves flight from responsibility. There is no denial of the late
departures, rather they are always some one else’s fault. The most
popular displacement of responsibility is what I call “Metro time”.
Somehow Metro works on a different clock than the rest of the world.
It is insultingly arrogant to claim that the whole rest of the world is
wrong. The most recent excuse that I have gotten at Watsonville
center is the construction going on in the area. But the late
departures preceded the construction and the busses are at the aisle
on time, it is the drivers that are choosing when they will leave.

When reporting to supervisors and the traditional reporting mechanism
came to naught, I called Brian Bayer’s office. The woman that
answered his phone reported that he was not in his office but failed to
ask if should could take a message. On a second call, when I asked for
a mailing address for your office I was first asked what I wanted to
send and then put on hold for an unbelievably long time before these
people could come up with an address. These people were hostile and
need to be reminded that they are on the public payroll and that it is
their job to provide the public with reasonable service. What we have
at Metro is classic bureaucratic self-inflation, obstructionism and
condescension. It is your job to correct these counter-productive
attitudes and get to the job of reliable, convenient, on-time service.

I will be anxiously looking for improvement in on-the-street service.

Thank you for you time.


Vie Hendrix /
15 West Lake, # 226
Watsonville, CA, 95076
(831) 728-8984
                Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District

Minutes-Board of Directors                                          September 10, 1999

The Board of Directors of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District met in a Special
Agenda Review/Work Session on Friday, September 10, 1999, at 8:30a.m. at the
District Administrative Office, 370 Encinal Street, Santa Cruz, CA

Director Rotkin called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.

SECTION I: OPEN SESSION

1.   ROLL CALL:

     DIRECTORS PRESENT:                            DIRECTORS ABSENT:
     Jeff Almquist                                 Bruce Arthur
     Katherine Beiers                              Jan Beautz
     Tim Fitzmaurice                               Bart Cavallaro
     Bruce Gabriel
     Michelle Hinkle
     Mike Keogh
     Oscar Rios
     Mike Rotkin

     STAFF PRESENT:
     Bryant Baehr, Operations Manager
     Paul Chandley, Human Resources Manager
     Kim Chin, Planning & Marketing Manager
     Mark Dorfman, Assistant General Manager
     Linda Fry, Service Planning Supervisor
     Terry Gale, MIS Manager
     Margaret Gallagher, District Counsel
     David Konno, Facilities Maintenance Manager
     Tom Stickel, Acting Fleet Maintenance Manager
     Judy Souza, Base Superintendent
     Leslie R. White, General Manager

2.   ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATION REGARDING CLOSED SESSION


3.   ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Jeff LeBlanc stated that the Route 4 only comes by on the hour and that members of
the public to want to attend the meeting would be here a half hour early or half hour late
and wanted to bring it to their attention.
Minutes-Special Meeting
Agenda Review/work Session
September 10, 1999
Page 2

Ian McFadden stated that there is an 8:16 a.m. Route 4 bus that people can take to get
to the meeting.

Director Rotkin stated that no decisions would be made at this meeting, except to refer
items to staff if questions or additional information is needed. He will ask if anybody has
questions about any items on the agenda.

ITEM 30 WAS MOVED OUT OF ORDER

30.    CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT BID FOR FAREBOXES AND TO
       DENY BID PROTEST

Summary:

Staff is recommending that the Board of Directors reject the bid of Agent Systems and
to recommend a new procurement.

Discussion:

Director Rotkin stated that there is a request from John Antracoli, from Bergeson,
Eliopoulos, Grady, LLP, who is representing Agent Systems regarding the bid protest
which is Item #30, be taken out of order. Director Rotkin stated that staff give their
presentation first.

Mark Dorfman stated that on June 1, 1999, the District issued an Invitation for Bid (IFB)
for the purpose of a farebox system. A pre-bid conference was held on June 16, 1999.
Two bids were received on July 2, 1999. Agent Systems and GFI both submitted bids.
Agent Systems was the lowest bidder and they feel that they have met the majority of
the specifications. Mr. Dorfman stated that Agent Systems has a system that not only
accepts a dollar bill, but validates the dollar bill. So, it is similar in nature to some of the
dollar bill accepting machines that you see and use in like in candy machines, the
laundromat, etc. It looks at the piece of paper and determines whether it is a valid piece
of currency. If it is not valid it will spit it back out. One of the issues of concern is that if
you have a passenger who inserts a dollar bill and you have a group of people waiting
to board the bus and the validating farebox keeps spitting the dollar bill out. A validating
farebox has to read the bill, characterize it as a valid bill, and then proceed to the next
person. On August 5, 1999, Agent Systems was notified that their bid was not
responsive to the District’s specifications. The District also looked at GFI’s bid and
found that it did not comply with all of the requirements. Mr. Dorfman stated that in the
bid documents it says that the District has the right to reject all bids and is operating
under its authority, and staff is recommending that all bids.
Minutes-Special Meeting
Agenda Review/work Session
September 10, 1999
Page 3

The District is proposing that the procurement be re-bid and come up with some type of
test. For example, get models of fareboxes, put them in a bus, take random dollar bills,
look at the condition of the bills that use used everyday as opposed to getting crisp
dollar bills, look at coin acceptance, dollar bill acceptance and come up with a standard
of what would be considered acceptable in terms of boarding time, and putting
something like that in a new bid and use that as a qualification measure.

Les White stated in the pre-bid process Agent Systems requested that we accept the
validation system with a non-translucent inspection plate equal to that of the other
manufacturer that did not have a validating system. We rejected Agent Systems
request and the District does not want a validator to stand in for the inspection plate. If
the Board were to say we would accept the validator as being equal, it is important that
the Board be aware that the other manufacturer also makes a validating box. If they
were aware at that time that they could have bid on a validating box, rather than an
inspection plate box, they may have chosen to do that. If the Board were to accept this
protest and accept the validator as equal, the District will then get a protest from the
other bidder, had they known that a validator was acceptable in place of inspection
plate, they would have bid that box rather than this box. A pre-qualification test of
equipment to show that both boxes can do what the manufacturers indicate that they
can do, as far as expeditious boarding and validation of revenue is the best way to level
the playing field for all parties involved.

Mr. John Antracoli, an attorney in San Jose has been retained by Agent Systems to
represent them in this matter. His client is ready, willing and able to come out here and
demonstrate their farebox. The bill collector is not the same technology that you see in
Coke machines, or candy machines or vending machines. This is the same type of
technology that casinos use. Casinos have the same interest in having no counterfeit
bills collected, but they also don’t want to reject them, because they want you to put that
money into the slot machine or into the vending machine. This is not the first time Agent
Systems and GFI Genfare have competed against each other on a bid. In Central
Oklahoma Transit and Parking Authority in Oklahoma City, after having a demonstration
and looking at all the considerations, decided to go with the Agent Systems. The
validating farebox is the newer and latest technology. They are in revenue service with
20 fareboxes in Oklahoma City. With respect to the issue on the registering versus the
validating farebox, the validating farebox is the newer technology; it is also a more
expensive technology. His client did not fully expect to be the low bidder on this project
they thought that GFI Genfare would do a registering farebox. GFI Genfare also has a
validating farebox. He stated that District staff is proposing is a re-procurement and a
substantial delay in getting the fareboxes, you’re looking at least another year.

Mr. Antracoli stated that Agency has submitted a bid protest, but has not received any
detailed response from staff as to that protest. They submitted a public records act
request, but it has not been responded to in the time required by the Government Code.
He does not believe that Agent has received a fair hearing.
Minutes-Special Meeting
Agenda Review/work Session
September 10, 1999
Page 4


Ian McFadden, UTU, stated he has grave concerns about the idea of a validating
farebox on the Route 71, especially in the mornings where you pick up 150 passengers
in Watsonville and Santa Cruz who each put three dollars in. They don’t want to see any
one of those bills rejected if it is a valid bill.

An operator will be able to look in the clear glass and see whether it is a real dollar bill
or not a real dollar bill.

 He stated that for an area of our size we are one of the largest transit districts as far as
volume of passengers and not to be put in a position of having to deal with a box
rejecting dollar bills. If the Board decides to allow them to come in and demonstrate, we
certainly would want to be there. Because the drivers are the ones that are going to be
bearing the brunt of the anger of our passengers if the bus is delayed, because the
farebox is rejecting dollar bills throughout the day.

Mr. Antracoli added that in Ann Arbor Michigan, they have quite a large passenger load
in their system. Ann Arbor Michigan right now is taking out the GFI Genfare boxes and
replacing them with Agent Systems validating fareboxes.

Director Fitzmaurice asked if this item should be discussed in Closed Session. He felt
that the statements that Mr. Antracoli has made suggest that they do not want to go
through another procurement.

Margaret Gallagher, District Counsel stated that the issue of whether or not the Board
should reject the bid is an Open Session determination that the Board has to make.
With regard to any threats of litigation that Agent Systems is making or proposes to
make, that is a Closed Session item. So that the matter could be heard in Closed
Session with regard to the perspective of this matter is to potential litigation.

ACTION: MOTION: Director Fitzmaurice              SECOND: Director Almquist

Refer this item for discussion to Closed Session next week before the next regular
Board meeting.

Director Almquist asked if an operator override the system when he wants to get the
passenger on the bus, and how much ‘bad’ money do we actually collect in a given
year. He stated if we are collecting less than $1,000 of bad bills, why bother with a
validating system.

Les White stated that Agent did represent to them that you could turn the validator
feature off. The difficulty is, that with other fareboxes you have a translucent inspection
plate where the operator can see the bill, so if the bill comes down, it is the operators
judgement as to whether or not it is a valid bill or not a valid bill, and then they could
Minutes-Special Meeting
Agenda Review/work Session
September 10, 1999
Page 5

drop it down subsequently. With a validating system, the machine determines that. If
you override the validator, because it is a solid metal plate, the operator sees nothing.

Our difficulty is that in our current operating situation, you get bills folded multiple times
and slide them through the slot. The average technique is, at a substantial level, tearing
the bill in half, fold it, fold it, stick one half in for the first trip, one half in for the second
trip, and you’ve ridden for 50 cents. In an override situation, if the operator was having
a problem with the farebox, you overrode the validator, you would put the half bill in, you
could slide it in quickly, you have no validator, no inspection plate capability to see that
it is only a half bill and you are in the same circumstance you were before.

Les White stated that its far more than $1,000 a year. We have people that spend an
inordinate amount of time trying to match up serial numbers so that they can go down
and redeem them at the bank. If you don’t match them up in some way, the bank won’t
accept them, they become nothing more than useless paper.

Director Rios asked what would be the proper procedure to get them to present their
farebox?

Les White stated that what staff is recommending is that if we want to have a test as to
whether or not a validator is or is not problematic, Agent Systems would submit that it is
not problematic. Allow both companies to come forward and demonstrate the machines
that they would propose for the bid, and then re-bid the procurement based on that pre-
qualification. That would be staff’s recommendation. What Agent Systems is indicating,
is to just let them come in and demonstrate their box irrespective of the other company.
If the District does that and amends the specification in a post-award setting, to allow
validating as opposed to registering, then you very likely are going to have GFI Genfare
coming in offering the same kind of objection.

John Mellon, VMU, stated that with the Agent farebox, without the visible window, if
something should go wrong with the farebox, circuit board got out, you will do not have
any way of validating that dollar bill so people can put anything they want in the farebox

Patti Korba asked if the driver turns the validator off, do the passengers know its been
turned off.

Les White stated that there would be nothing visible that would show that, but obviously
the first person that puts something phony down the farebox would past the word.

4.     LABOR ORGANIZATION COMMUNCATIONS


5.     METRO USERS GROUP COMMUNCATIONS
Minutes-Special Meeting
Agenda Review/work Session
September 10, 1999
Page 6


6.    METRO ACCESSIBLE SERVICES TRANSIT FORUM (MASTF)
      COMMUNICATIONS


7.    ALTERATIONS TO THE AGENDA

                                CONSENT AGENDA

8.    APPROVE MINUTES OF SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF 8-
      13-99 AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF 8-20-99;
9.    ACCEPT AND FILE PRELIMINARY APPROVED CLAIMS;
10.   ACCEPT AND FILE PASSENGER LIFT REPORT;
11.   DENY CLAIMS OF: JACQUELINE GUYETT; ALLSTATE INSURANCE;
12.   ACCEPT AND FILE MINUTES OF MASTF COMMITTEE MEETING OF 8-19-
      99;
13.   ACCEPT AND FILE MINUTES OF MUG COMMITTEE MEETING OF 8-18-99;
14.   ACCEPT AND FILE MONTHLY STATUS REPORT ON HIGHWAY 17
      EXPRESS BUS SERVICE;
15.   ACCEPT AND FILE MONTHLY STATUS REPORT ON ADA PARATRANSIT
      PROGRAM;
16.   CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL OF ASSETS;


                              REGULAR AGENDA
17.   EMPLOYEE ANNIVERSARY AWARDS


18.   CONSIDER SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS FOR FY 99-00

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board approve the service improvements for FY 99-00.

Discussion:

Kim Chin, Manager of Planning & Marketing presented an overview of the service
improvements. At the February Board Workshop, the District presented the Board with
a 5-year plan that contained a number of things. One of them is proposed service
improvements each year at the rate of about $150,000 a year. For this fiscal year the
District budgeted $150,000 for service improvements to existing service. In addition,
the Transportation Commission at their last meeting in September approved an
Minutes-Special Meeting
Agenda Review/work Session
September 10, 1999
Page 7

additional $150,000 for service improvements to transit. The total amount of money
available for this fiscal year is $300,000.

The Service Review Committee came up with four different goals that they wanted to
achieve in terms of service improvements. The four goals that they came up with are:
1) to reduce overloads and passenger pass-bys; 2) respond to request for new service
to unserved trip attractors; 3) refine existing service to enhance effectiveness and
efficiency; and 4) add service to existing routes to provide baseline service for
commuters and transit dependents. The Service Review was able to come up with very
specific recommendations for both winter and spring. A wish list was also developed
that did not receive as high a priority as the ones that were recommended for both
winter and spring. These are called the unfunded service improvements. The total
annualized cost for these service improvements in winter is $114,900.

For spring, we have two goals, one is to refine existing service so that we can run more
efficiently and more effectively and then secondly we wanted to add service to existing
routes. So the annualized cost for spring is $70,600. We also have a recommendation
for what we call supplementary service improvements and they basically contain two
components. The first one is service improvements to the Bonny Doon, 5 hours of
weekday service to that community, but we also add 5 hours of weekday service to the
Lompico area. We were able to receive additional funding from the Transportation
Commission.

Attachment B lists the unfunded service improvements. The unfunded improvements
basically targets reducing overloads which continues to be a number one priority for the
system and also to add service to existing routes and to provide customers with more
opportunity and choices. The improvements that we have for this fiscal year we’ve got
an approved budget amount of $150,000 annualized. We have received additional
funding from the Transportation Commission of $150,000 so we’ve got about $300,000
towards those improvements and the recommendations that we are making for winter
and spring together with the supplementary is within the budgeted amount of $300,000.

Linda Fry gave a brief overview of service improvements proposed for implementation
in December with the winter bid, which is Attachment 18-A-1. The total cost for all of
those improvements annualized are $114,900. Ms. Fry also gave a brief overview of
the spring service improvements, which is Attachment 18-A-2 and 18-A-3.

Ian McFadden stated that he would like to compliment Les for being aggressive and
going after the additional $150,000 from the Transportation Commission. Obviously we
have a lot of service needs that are important that we want to do. He does have a
concern because as far as the supplemental issues. The Service Review Committee
has not had the opportunity to meet and discuss how the additional $150,000 is going to
be spent, because the first he read about it was in the Board packet.
Minutes-Special Meeting
Agenda Review/work Session
September 10, 1999
Page 8

Les White stated that it can be sent back to the Service Review Committee and have it
go through the whole process, that’s not a problem.

Linda Fry stated on there are no cost projects on Attachment A which include the UC
Westside, the Route 1 shuttle service which is not shown in Headways, because the
schedule may change during the bid according to need, a Westside shuttle trip will be
substituted for other service at 5:00 p.m. The Route 51 Soquel/Clares, UTU has
proposed substituting the routing of Route 59 Capitola/Soquel for the less-used Route
51. Holiday service, service on Presidents’ Day will be restored in accordance with the
recent agreement with UTU. If additional service becomes available the next service
improvement on the list is to restore Memorial Day at a cost $28,000.

DIRECTOR ROTKIN LEFT THE MEETING.

DIRECTOR ALMQUIST CHAIRED THE MEETING

19.   CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A POLICY FOR THE PROVISION OF COURTESY
      STOPS

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board consider adoption of a policy clarifying the provision of
courtesy stops on the fixed route service system.

Discussion:

Les White stated that when he first came to Santa Cruz Metro in 1997, one of the issues
that was presented to him was the lack of clarity regarding the practice of providing
courtesy stops along the fixed-route network. The policy with regard to fixed-route
courtesy stops was outlined in the Metro Operator Handbook and the Headways
publication. The concern he heard most related to the lack of guidelines, which would
provide consistency in the provisions of courtesy stops. This lack of guidelines resulted
in passengers and bus operators feeling unsure of what was expected. There were
concerns expressed to him by some individuals that there was not a clear statement by
the District with regard to operator liability when a courtesy stop was being provided.
Concern was also expressed that the provision of courtesy stops might violate
accessibility standards established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Les White
requested comments and recommendations from the UTU, MASTF, MUG and the three
chapters of the SEIU and after receiving those comments and recommendations
referred them to the BSAC committee for consideration. BSAC then provided a
recommendation with regard to courtesy stops so that policy revision could be
developed.
Minutes-Special Meeting
Agenda Review/work Session
September 10, 1999
Page 9

The provisions of the proposed Courtesy Stop Policy if adopted, would be included in
the Bus Operator Handbook and the Headways publication. The adoption of the
Courtesy Stop Policy is intended to clarify current practices at Metro in such a way as to
improve the reliability and predictability factors which constitute the foundation of a
successful impact on the Metro operations.

DIRECTOR ROTKIN ENTERED THEMEETING

Director Gabriel asked what the difference was between MASTF and MUG motions.

Les White stated that MUG’s recommendation were essentially what you see here with
some refinements. It didn’t have time specific limitations on emergent stops, but it
wants to categorize courtesy stops in two types of stops, one designated that would be
transitioned into permanent stops, the other one circumstantial unusual situations. The
recommendation we received from MASTF was that because of differing topography it
would be possible for a bus operator to safely allow a person that did not have a
disability to get off in a location, whereas a person who was a wheelchair user could not
get off as a courtesy stop and that that action would be inherently discriminatory, and
therefore, the courtesy stop policy should be no courtesy stop period.

20.   CONSIDER AMENDING THE BYLAWS, ADDING ADDITIONAL MONTHLY
      BOARD MEETING AND DELETING MONTHLY POLICY/FINANCE &
      PERSONNEL/SPECIAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board consider amending the bylaws, adding additional
monthly Board meeting and Deleting monthly Policy/Finance and Personnel/Special
Projects Committees.

21.   CONSIDER AMENDING RECORDS RETENTION POLICY

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board consider adoption of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan
Transit District amended Records Retention Schedule.

22.   CONSIDER RANKING OF ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING
      CONSULTANT PROPOSAL FOR METRO BASE

Summary:

Staff recommends Board approval of the ranking order for the Architectural &
Engineering Consultant for the Metro Base proposal.
Minutes-Special Meeting
Agenda Review/work Session
September 10, 1999
Page 10


Discussion:

Director Rotkin stated that staff and a couple of Board members traveled down to look
at other Transit District facilities in Southern California, two of which are among the
bidders that we have for our construction of our project. He stated that a meeting will be
taking place next Thursday to interview the applicants. There the three applicants who
will be interviewed and the committee will be bringing a recommendation back to the
Board on Friday for consideration.

23.   CONSIDER REQUEST FROM COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ HEALTH
      SERVICES AGENCY

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board consider allowing Community Mental Health to be
able to purchase bulk tickets for ADA paratransit service.

Discussion:

Director Rotkin stated that there was a request to purchase bulk tickets for the ADA
paratransit service. Community Health in the past has purchased rides on Lift Line and
not the ADA paratransit program in which case this is not an issue of District concern, or
Lift Line sold tickets to them against the policy of not providing agency trips. Ms.
Jacobs states in her letter that their clients are on SSI and their income is limited.

24.   CONSIDER REQUEST FROM RUDOLPH F. MONTE FOUNDATION

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board consider providing special shuttle service to the 1999
Fireworks fundraiser as requested by the Rudolph F. Monte Foundation with the $5,000
grant from the SCCRTC.

25.   CONSIDER TRANSIT CENTER TENANT SELECTION CRITERIA

Summary:

Staff requests guidance from the Board in establishing either a general tenant selection
criteria or a site specific tenant selection criteria.
Minutes-Special Meeting
Agenda Review/work Session
September 10, 1999
Page 11

Discussion:

Director Rotkin stated that we are not making a selection but the criteria by which we
would base who’s not acceptable and who is and what are the criteria for those kinds of
decisions. And today, again, we’re not going to debate those criteria but if there are
other information that staff should bring back to us so that we can have a full discussion
at our Board meeting about this criteria.

26.    CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SUB-AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 93065-C STP

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board approve the extension of Sub-Award Agreement
93065-C for the purchase of bike rack/bus benches for an additional six months to allow
for the construction of the project.

27.    CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION TO USE RTCC BID FOR PURCHASE OF
       PETROLEUM & LUBRICATION PRODUCTS

Summary:

Staff requests that the Board authorize the General Manager to execute a contract
based upon bids received by the Regional Transit Coordinating Council (RTCC) for
Petroleum and Oil Products.

28.    CONSIDER SETTLEMENT WITH DISCOVERY CHARTERS FOR
       SETTLEMENT ON BUS #8104

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board authorize the General Manager to accept the offer of
$36,1000 in cash from Discovery Charters and the bus (estimated scrap value of
$5,000) in settlement of the District’s claim on the bus that was totaled.

Discussion:

Director Rotkin stated that this item be discussed in Closed Session before discussing
this in Open Session.

29.    STATUS OF HIGHWAY 17 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

This report is for informational purpose only.
Minutes-Special Meeting
Agenda Review/work Session
September 10, 1999
Page 12

31.    CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL TDA CLAIM FOR FY
       99-00

Summary:

Staff recommends adoption of attached resolution authorizing the General Manager to
submit a claim of the SCCRTC for a special one-time allocation of $150,000.

Les White stated that the staff will rewrite the report and present the changes at its
regular Board of Directors meeting next Friday.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,



DEBBIE GUERRERO
Acting Administrative Service Coordinator
        SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT
Minutes-Board of Directors                                           September 17, 1999

The Board of Directors of the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District met on
Friday, September 17, 1999, at the City Hall Council Chambers, 809 Center
Street, Santa Cruz, California.

Chairperson Beautz called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m.

SECTION 1: OPEN SESSION

STAFF PRESENT:
Mark Dorfman, Assistant General Manager
Margaret Gallagher, District Counsel
Leslie White, General Manager
Bryant Baehr, Operations Manager

1. ROLL CALL:

     DIRECTORS PRESENT:                                   DIRECTORS ABSENT:
     Jan Beautz, Chair                                    Bart Cavallaro
     Jeff Almquist                                        Michelle Hinkle
     Bruce Arthur
     Katherine Beiers
     Tim Fitzmaurice
     Bruce Gabriel
     Mike Keogh
     Oscar Rios
     Mike Rotkin

2.   ORAL COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING CLOSED SESSION

None.

SECTION II: CLOSED SESSION

Chairperson Beautz adjourned to Closed Session at 8:30 a.m. and reconvened
to Open Session at 9:35 a.m.

SECTION III: RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION

     DIRECTORS PRESENT:                                 DIRECTORS ABSENT:
     Jan Beautz, Chair                                  Michelle Hinkle
     Jeff Almquist
     Bruce Arthur
     Katherine Beiers
     Bart Cavallaro

J:\USERS\ADMIN\filesyst\M\Minutes\Board\1999\0917.doc
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 2


     Tim Fitzmaurice
     Bruce Gabriel
     Mike Keogh
     Oscar Rios
     Mike Rotkin

     STAFF PRESENT:
     Bryant Baehr, Operations Manager
     Paul Chandley, Human Resources Manager
     Kim Chin, Planning & Marketing Manager
     Linda Fry, Service Planning Supervisor
     Marilyn Fenn, Supervising Accountant
     Terry Gale, MIS Manager
     Margaret Gallagher, District Counsel
     David Konno, Facilities Maintenance Manager
     LeAna Olson, Human Resources Analyst
     Tom Stickel, Acting Fleet Maintenance Manager
     Judy Souza, Base Superintendent
     Leslie White, General Manager

3.   ORAL/WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Chairperson Beautz stated that the following letters were received under
Oral/Written Communications:

        a. Letter from David & Brenda Wright-Lane
        b. Letter from Bergeson, Eliopoulos, Grady & Gray, LLP representing Agent
           Systems, Inc.
        c. Letter from Maureen O’Brien Regarding Highway 17 Express Service
        d. Letter from Thom Onan, Central Coast Center for Independent Living
        e. Letter to Les White from California Grey Bears, Inc.

4.   LABOR COMMUNICATIONS

None.

5.   METRO USERS GROUP (MUG) COMMUNICATIONS

Director Gabriel stated that the Metro Users Group met on Wednesday and
continue their discussion regarding Metro Base. Last month, a recommendation
was made that the city council members who sit on the Board support Metro
Base. MUG voted to co-sponsor a forum for the Transportation Think Tank on
Metro Base.
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 3



6.    METRO ACCESSIBLE SERVICES TRANSIT FORUM (MASTF) COMMUNICATIONS

Brad Neily stated that a motion was made at the MASTF meeting and would like
to bring this up on Item 19.

7.   ALTERATIONS TO THE AGENDA:

By consensus, the following changes were made to the agenda:

CLOSED SESSION:
ADD NEW ITEM #2:        CONFERENCE WITH DISTRICT COUNSEL REGARDING THE
                        FOLLOWING:

                        a EXISTING LITIGATION:

                             (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a))

                             Claim of Rosendo & Lourdes Martinez; Claim of
                             Alberto C. & Elsa Barragan

                        b. POTENTIAL LITIGATION:
                           (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b))

                                1. Agent Systems Against SCMTD
                                2. Claim of SCMTD vs. Discovery Charters

CONSENT AGENDA:

ADD TO ITEM #10:        Passenger Lift Report
                        (Add Report)

ADD TO ITEM #15:        Accept and File Monthly Status Report on ADA
                        Paratransit Program
                        (Add Report)

REGULAR AGENDA:

DELETE ITEM #28:        Consider Settlement with Discovery Charters for
                        Settlement of Bus #8104.


ADD TO ITEM #18:        Consider Service Improvements for FY 99-00
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 4


                        (Replace Staff Report with Revised Staff Report and
                        Attachments)

ADD TO ITEM #31         Consider a Resolution Authorizing a Special TDA Claim
                        for FY 99-00
                        (Replace Staff Report with Revised Staff Report)

CONSENT AGENDA

Approve Consent Agenda Items 8 through 16

      8.    APPROVE MINUTES OF SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF 8-
            13-99 AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF 8-20-99;
      9.    ACCEPT AND FILE PRELIMINARY APPROVED CLAIMS;
      10.   ACCEPT AND FILE PASSENGER LIFT REPORT;
      11.   DENY CLAIMS OF: JACQUELINE GUYETT; STATE FARM INSURANCE;
      12.   ACCEPT AND FILE MINUTES OF MASTF COMMITTEE MEETING OF 8-19-
            99;
      13.   ACCEPT AND FILE MINUTES OF METRO USERS GROUP MEETING OF 8-
            18-18-99;
      14.   ACCEPT AND FILE MONTHLY STATUS REPORT ON HIGHWAY 17 EXPRESS
            BUS SERVICE;
      15.   ACCEPT AND FILE MONTHLY STATUS REPORT ON ADA PARATRANSIT
            PROGRAM;
      16.   CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL OF ASSETS

ACTION: MOTION: Director Rotkin                  SECOND: Director Keogh

The motion passed with Directors Beiers and Fitzmaurice abstaining and Directors
Cavallaro and Hinkle absent.

                               REGULAR AGENDA

17.   EMPLOYEE ANNIVERSARY AWARDS

Summary:

The Board of Directors formally recognized the following employees for their
years of service.


                                  TENTH YEAR

              A. John Daugherty, Accessible Services Coordinator
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 5



                                 TWENTY YEARS

                          Michael Steber, Bus Operator

                               TWENTY-FIVE YEARS

                 Roy Brogdon, Supervisor of Revenue Collection

18.   CONSIDER SERVICE IMPROVEMENTS FOR FY 99-00

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board of Directors approve the service
improvements for FY 99-00. Kim Chin, Manager of Planning & Marketing stated
that the Board approved $150,000 in service improvements for FY 99-00. At the
Special Board workshop meeting, staff presented the Board action, which was
originally to approve both the winter and spring 2000 service improvements.
Subsequent to that we had received additional funding from the SCCRTC in the
amount of $150,000. Staff is modifying the staff report in terms of the Board
action today. Mr. Chin provided a brief outline of the staff report. When the
Service Review Committee looked at all the needs, we tried to provide a frame
work for the types of improvements that we would be recommending. The first
task of the Service Review Committee was to develop four goals. The four goals
are: 1. Reduce the overloads in the current routes and reduce the number of
passbys; 2. Responsive to requests for new service from members of the public;
3 Refine the service to ensure that we run effectively and efficiently; and 4. Add
service to existing routes to provide better baseline service for commuters and
other transit users.

The Service Review Committee basically had the chance to develop three
components. The first is the Winter FY 99-00 Service Changes. The committee
was also able to develop a list of service recommendations for the Spring 2000
period. A list was developed for unfunded projects. After the Service Review
Committee met to develop these goals, the District received additional funding
from the SCCRTC. What is being proposed is that the Service Review Committee
continue to meet and to look at the original recommendation for Spring as well
as the unfunded list for final recommendation that will be brought back in
October. The Board action that is being requested today is to two parts. First, to
approve the Winter service improvements for this year and to direct staff to bring
back a set of service improvements for the Spring service improvements as well
as supplementary service improvements. The supplementary service
improvements focus on two areas. The first area is to provide additional service
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 6


to Bonny Doon/Davenport area, five hours of weekday service and to the
Lompico and South Felton area, five hours of weekday service.

The goals for the Winter service change is to reduce overloads, respond to new
requests and add service to existing routes. The total for the service changes on
annualized dollars would total $114,900. This is within the budgeted amount.
The winter goals do include two improvements, one for the Bonny
Doon/Davenport area, to add a mid-day route to the Bonny Doon/Davenport
at a cost of $26,000. Over the last four or five months, there has been a great
deal of success working with Bonny Doon and Davenport residents and also with
Lompico residents to identify with the kind of changes they would like to see.
The first service recommendation for Bonny Doon is the result of that cooperative
process.

In addition, we are proposing two trips to Scotts Valley High School, a late night
11:45 p.m. to the Route 71, add two a.m. trips to the Route 91, and add early
a.m. trip to the Route 66. Lastly, the Committee added a one weekday trip
between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. for the Routes 33 and 34 Lompico/South Felton
areas. In addition to the Service Review Committee deliberations, staff was also
able to meet with UCSC and had the opportunity to geo code the locations of
staff, faculty and students. We are able to plan a trial westside shuttle route
which begins on September 20, 1999, when school starts. This will operate on a
trial basis to see how the public and students and faculty respond to this. In
addition to this, the shuttle is listed on the unfunded list, so if it is successful, will be
able to have this route compete with the other routes as well.

Discussion:

Director Roktin stated that the University has agreed to have a direct mail
announcement to all staff and faculty on campus regarding the new route. He
hopes that the University will receive a good response to the alternative to
driving vehicles on campus.

Kim Chin, stated that UCSC has distributed a flyer to publicize the Westside
shuttle. He also stated that the District will be monitoring the ridership on the that
route.

Director Rotkin stated that there will be a notice mailed to all the homes along
this route suggesting that they ride the bus.

Mr. Chin also stated that Attachment B includes the recommended service
changes for the Spring bid including supplementary changes for Bonny
Doon/Davenport and Lompico and also a wish list for FY 99-00 and FY 00-01.
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 7



Director Fitzmaurice asked what is a supplementary service change.

Mr. Chin stated that these are changes that came about as a result of
recommendations that became possible in light of the additional funding from
the SCCRTC.

Director Fitzmaurice asked if they come after the spring list does that mean they
are part of the spring bid.

Mr. Chin stated that the original supplementary improvements are part of the
winter/spring group. There was no date specific, because it was their plan to go
back to Bonny Doon/Davenport and Lompico to try and work with them and
see when they would like the service and in what form. To answer your question,
the supplementary improvements would be reviewed again by the Service
Review Committee and make a recommendation to the Board as to whether it
should be included in the Spring service change and later on. Its part of a pool
of candidates that the Service Review Committee will evaluate and make a
recommendation to the Board.

Les White asked if the Service Review Committee wanted to, could they with all
parties agreeable including UTU with a 46-day notice, could you accelerate that
to the Winter bid.

DIRECTOR BEIERS LEFT THE MEETING

CHAIRPERSON BEAUTZ OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING

Gregg Palin, Davenport Resource Center, stated that this was a very good day
for us with a 12:30 p.m. recommendation for a bus via Bonny Doon and
Davenport. I would like to urge you to vote in the affirmative for putting that
particular service onto the Winter schedule. Secondly, as to the supplementary
$60,600, we have gone through the process at least in Davenport and Bonny
Doon, we have involved in this process for about two years. We have come
before the Board and we have already devised a menu of options that would
take up a considerable portion of the $60,600. It is already on the agenda, it is
on one of the supplementary items. These items have been considered already.
They have been considered by Metro and have gone through the union. I am
urging you to also pass the supplemental $60,000 for Davenport and Bonny
Doon Routes 42. Three of the items that they asked for are the 8:00 p.m.
weekdays, 5:45 a.m. weekend mornings and 8:00 p.m. weekends evenings.
We have done all this work and has gone on for two years. I came before the
Board one year ago. Why don’t we take this step today and then get on with
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 8


the actual business of trying to put these buses into service. We will work very
closely with Metro management who have been exceptionally helpful and
guiding us through this process. We are not set in our ways in any way. We want
to continue to work and continue to build ridership as well. Bryant Baehr, Kim
Chin, Les White and Linda Fry have been particularly helpful within this process. I
would like to also say that the union has been very helpful throughout,
particularly in the initial stages when they were trying to figure out the rules of the
road that they would have to go by and have been very, very, helpful.

Myra Perez, Davenport resident, stated that she is here because I have siblings
who do ride the bus. I also know a lot of people from Davenport and I am here
to represent most of the people that live in the ranches who are fieldworkers. My
concern is for them that they don’t have any buses early in the morning on
Sundays which is the day they are off. And that is the time they have to go to
Santa Cruz and get their food. What they do, they take the bus as soon as they
take their bike, they go to Santa Cruz to go to Safeway and get their groceries. I
think it is little too dangerous because it is six o’clock in the evening and by the
time they get back to Davenport it is probably nine or ten o’clock. If they don’t
ride their bike they have to wait until the ten o’clock to get to Davenport and
get up at 4 o’clock in the morning to go to work.

Kanuta, Davenport resident, stated that there are women living in the ranches
and have kids and need to take them to school or to the doctor, they don’t
have a ride. They have to be looking at either going to the Resource Center.
The Resource Center doesn’t have much time to be taking them all the time.
We would really appreciate it if you can help us.

Anna Duran, is one of the moms who lives in one of the ranches, she would
really appreciate it if they can get a bus during the evenings, somewhere
around 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. in the evening. She would be able to go to Safeway
and buy her groceries.

Marilyn Fravel, Davenport resident, stated that Davenport started a town
planning process about 11 month. She stated that they have held 11 meetings
and were divided into committees to look at the future of their town. The town
planning group is totally behind this proposal for Davenport and the Bonny Doon
area. It is very efficient and a very effective way to deal with the transportation
needs on the North coast. We are expecting a lot more people who are going
to be coming up there. They want to encourage people in their town to use
public transportation. A town planning meeting was held this week on
September 14, 1999. There was unanimous approval and support for this
proposal. Would like to them to move forward and make their decision today.
One of the items that came up at the meeting, was there are a lot of teenagers
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 9


who are not able to drive. Would like to see an opportunity for them to come
back and forth to town rather than the limitations they have now.

Charlotte Lyons, Bonny Doon resident, thanked the Board for their consideration
and the 12:30 p.m. bus. This helps moms with children. She stated that she has a
letter from one of the commuters who rides the 7:00 a.m. bus every morning.
The letter is from Michael Bryant, KUSP. The letter states: “Dear SCMTD Board,
my work schedule is the typical Monday through Friday, 8:00-5:00 p.m. With my
schedule I cannot be late for the 5:30 p.m. or I am stuck in town and don’t
return home until almost midnight on the bus or I am forced to hitchhike. My
employer would often requests that I work overtime. I would appreciate your
consideration regarding the addition of another evening run. I am sure other
Bonny Doon/Davenport riders who work in Santa Cruz would agree, perhaps it
may gain a greater core group of regular Monday through Friday riders. Thank
you for your consideration, Michael Bryant.” Ms. Lyons stated that she really
appreciates the 12:30 p.m. bus. It helps a lot of people in terms of job flexibility.
If there was an 8:00 or 8:30 p.m. bus, it will help the people in Davenport as well
as Bonny Doon work overtime.

Bob Lee, stated that he is here with his wife. They retired to Davenport 12 or 14
years ago. He never thought much at the time about needed transportation.
He would like for the Board to approve the list.

Chris De August, Swanton Road resident, stated that he just wanted to
congratulate the job that everybody has done and strongly urges the Board of
approve what they are suggesting. There is more that can be done, please
take that into consideration and also stated that he is a business owner and felt
that he would have a little bit better time hiring employees if there were more
bus transportation. They are a long way from town and it would work in the
reverse also. Thank you very much.

Maggie McClendon, I just wanted to express my gratitude and thanks for the
service that we get in Bonny Doon. When we first moved up there, there was no
bus at all and everybody thought there would be. Whatever comes up I am
grateful.

Gregg Palin stated that he would like to thank the Board for their time and
patience in this matter.

Ian McFadden, UTU, stated that one of the things he would like to talk about is
that at the Policy/Finance meeting may have been misconstrued by some. His
concern is over the process that was happening so quickly that he did not feel
that enough input was being done. What had not gone to the Service Review
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 10


Committee was not anything to do with any specific proposals that were made
in the staff report. As far as the Davenport, Bonny Doon and Lompico, I have
said many times in Service Review and I believe a couple of times here after the
earthquake, they took proportionately much higher hit than anybody else did. I
certainly have nothing but support for getting more service back to them. I can
remember sitting in the audience when Mr. Keeley was the Chair, when we
were cutting service and Mr. Keeley was very adamant that when we enable
the Transit District that we had a commitment to rural services as well as urban
service. He was very concerned to see the cuts happening in the Lompico
area and in the North Coast area. Obviously, we do support the staff
recommendation for winter. I think that more service could probably be done in
the winter bid as people have asked. I think that we do have some equipment
issues that we are going to have to work out. I think that they can be done. UTU
also supports the additional $60,000 supplemental. We did support that
particular aspect of the North Coast project in the supplemental plan. We just
want to have an opportunity to determine where all of this service goes and
hopefully we will have a chance to do that before October 11th when the
Highway 17 comes in. I just wanted to make those few comments.

Mardi Wormhoudt, Third District Supervisor, thanked the Board for listening to
everyone. It so hard for people to get here and several people had to get up
and leave before we got to public testimony, they were late to work. She stated
that she had the original Attachment A, which then was revised as Attachment
B this morning. So she had been looking at an earlier document and she
thought that the Board was going to approve the Bonny Doon/Davenport,
Lompico, or at least act on it, and supplementary services with the additional
Spring improvements today, and I understand that you now have a
recommendation to hold that off until October. I guess my plea to you was
going to be if you could please allocate the funds for Lompico and
Davenport/Bonny Doon and the supplementary today. Then let your committee
meet and work on what the specific components of that should be. I know
there were concerns on the part of UTU about the very best way to spend the
money and your service committee needs to review it. Its so hard for people to
get here. People from Davenport this morning, their car broke down.
Fortunately, your Closed Session ran over, because they would have missed the
public hearing on this. New arrangements were made for them, but the irony of
having no bus service is that its even hard to get to a Transit District meeting and
state your needs. And the needs are really very great up there. We are talking
about parents who really worry about their kids hanging out at the Metro Center
all day, because they can’t get a bus home. We are talking about people who
can only buy affordable goods at the flea market on a Sunday and have no
way to get there. You have heard people’s needs to go shopping, the needs
for employment is very critical. As we come to the ten year anniversary of the
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 11


earthquake, it seems like a really important time to try and restore some of what
people had in the way of service before then. If there is any way you can let
people know that this money is appropriated today. If it can’t be implemented
until Spring, people will make through another winter and if the fine tuning has to
be done that’s great at least people knew that that much has happened. They
can go away today feeling that we had that progress.

Les White stated if you direct us to add those two supplemental pieces, the
Lompico and Davenport as part of the winter bid and the Board approves this,
the only thing that will come back is for information purposes only would be the
configuration of the running times and actual schedules, but that service
commitment would be there.

Ms. Wormhoudt stated that if there is any way that could happen, she knows
that people would really appreciate it and to get to work on time next month
and not have to worry about cars breaking down.

Steve Nelson, President, Lompico Community Center, stated that he spoke to
the Board last month and addressed needs in Lompico. He brought a few of
the kids that he wants the Board to hear from.

Ben Nelson, Lompico resident, stated that he was going to read a letter from
William Dayton who could not make it to the meeting. “Dear Board Member, I
am 14-years old and currently enrolled at San Lorenzo Valley High School. As I
have jazz band in zero period at 7:05 a.m., does not work out for me to take the
6:46 a.m. bus that currently runs to Lompico to school. As it gets me there too
late to be able to get to class and set up. Other students who do not want to
be late to school have to get up an hour earlier to take this bus, because the
second bus only takes them to Felton Faire. This is not enough time to walk to
school from there. The main reason I am riding this letter to you is to thank you
for considering additional bus services from school. I would like you to notice
that people who play sports cannot use the bus immediately after school to our
area, because our sport activities are generally after school, perhaps the new
bus could leave school around 6:30 or 7:00 p.m. Once again, I would like to
thank you for considering another bus to Lompico and the possible change in
time in the morning.”

Blake Bellaires, San Lorenzo Valley High School student, stated that he been a
student from Junior High to the present. He is also a resident in Lompico and has
lived there for seven years and taken the bus for seven years. The bus
transportation seems to be a little off time. Its good, but one bus is too early and
one bus is at 6:46 a.m. and you get to school about 7:10 or 7:15 a.m., school
does not start until 8:00 a.m. You have 45 minutes sometimes one hour if you
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 12


don’t have a first period to hang around. The second bus is at 7:48 a.m., and
that gets you to school at 8:15 a.m., sometimes its runs late, but it makes you late
for your class. So you either get there early and sit around for school or get there
late and deal with being tardy. I’d hope to recommend like a 6:30, 7:30,
possibly 8:30 a.m. The 7:30 a.m. would get us to school about 7:45 or 7:50 a.m.
ten to fifteen minutes before school starts. It give the kids just enough time to do
what they have to do before they go to class. A lot of different activities
happen before school that are not supposed to happen. Certain students
smoke and hang out in place they are not suppose to. And if they didn't have
that extra hour to do nothing, they probably wouldn’t do it, they would just get
off the bus and go to class. In the afternoon, there is a 2:15 p.m. bus that leaves
the high school and a 2:55 p.m. School ends at 2:45 p.m., give you ten to fifteen
minutes to get to the bus.

A lot of students including myself being a senior, we have SATs tests, other stuff
after school, we don’t have time to do SATs in 15 minutes and catch that bus to
get home. I have been riding my bike for the last three weeks to and from
school, because I don’t want to take the 6:48 a.m. bus. I leave my house at 7:30
a.m. and I usually ride the bike home, because I have activities after school. I
would also be enrolled in the jazz band, but the bus gets there a little bit too late
and I miss the first 15 or 20 minutes of class. That class is not a regular class so
you don’t get regular credits for it. The class is only 45 minutes long, that is not
enough time to be able to do my experience and do what I like doing which is
music. I would also be interested in sports, but I have no transportation home.
My dad works 7 days a week, my mom is a stay home mom, but we currently
have problems with the car. Most of my friends don’t drive, so we can’t get
rides from people, with the new law six months before you can drive with
anybody else in your car makes it a bit more difficult to find rides. I would be
really interested in more bus transportation.

Also over weekends there is no bus transportation in Lompico. I work with many
different people over the weekend and I usually ride my bike to Felton Faire and
its probably 2 miles from my house, doing that in the morning before I go to work
and then do it again at the end of the day. If I could, I’d rather take the bus
instead of working all day and riding the bike home. I would really appreciate
any effort to more bus schedules possibly a little bit time difference moving the
6:46 a.m. and 7:46 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. Also for late start days, today
was a late start day for the high school. We don’t start until 9:20 a.m. The latest
bus I can take to get to school is 8:00 a.m., but I still have an hour to wait rather
it’s a late start or normal day anyway. I would appreciate anything you can do,
any efforts for more bus schedules. One of my friends was going to come to the
Board meeting, but it was too short of notice.
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 13


Susan Nelson, read a letter from Pam Kruger, who is helping direct the Teen
Center in Felton. She has spoken with her at length. Because there is no later
bus from Lompico or Forest Lake area, kids cannot do after school activities
unless they have someone who will give them a ride. That is a big concern
because the Teen Center is open from 2:00 p.m to 6:00 p.m. The letter reads:
“As you most of you are well aware there is only one Metro bus run immediately
after school to the Lompico/Zayante area. This situation excludes many junior
andhigh school aged youth from participating in important after school activities
such as sports, drama, music and teen center. Many parents from that area
have stopped by the teen center to ask us to help on this issue since they really
need a safe place for their children in those high risk after school hours.
Research shows that the highest risk behavior such as drug and alcohol
experimentation in youth, violence by and against youth, risky sexual behavior,
exposure to people who prey on and exploit our children happens to the
greatest degree during unsupervised hours from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., when
most parents are at work and young teen are left on their own. The situation is
especially acute for families in the Zayante/Lompico areas of our county since
many do not have the options of enrolling their children in after school activities
or in a supervised program such as the teen center, because they do not have
a later transportation option for getting home. We beseech you to remedy this
high risk situation and provide expanded bus service to these areas
immediately. It will make a certain and significant impact on the quality of life
for many youth and family.”

Ms. Nelson stated that she knows that Blake rides his bike. She asked if the Board
has ever driven Zayante or Lompico Roads. There is no bike lanes or shoulders.
There are no lights. It is not safe to ride your bike. She stated that as an adult
driving back and forth, she has picked up kids hitchhiking because they have no
transportation. That is their alternate to getting a ride home. She thanked them
for their support and hope to continue them in this effort.

Roxanne Nichols, Lompico student, stated that she does not go to the SLV high
school, she attends an Independent Program, she only goes to school once a
week, for an hour. Once she gets out of school and ready to go home there is
no bus to get home. She hitchhikes to get home, usually it take two or three
cars. She has been in a couple of really sticky situations where she has had to sit
on guys laps. She stated that its really scary, but she has no other choice. Her
father works in Scotts Valley and there is nothing he can do, if he leaves work he
will get fired. There is no other way to get home, if there was a bus, I would
definitely take it. I am a broke teenager, but I can pull a dollar out of my dad
easy. He’d much rather have me do that than hitchhike. I would go to the teen
center, I have heard some good things about it, some of my friends work there,
there’s just no way to get there and no way to get home. The buses that are
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 14


there are great, but I have to be at school at 8:00 a.m. usually done by 8:30 a.m.
or 9:00 a.m. I don’t want to hang around school for how many hours until 3:00
p.m. until the buses come. That is not something I would want to do. I have
seen a lot of kids hitchhiking including myself, its bad, there’s a lot of bad things
that go on. It is just not cool, so if there were buses I would be very, very
thankful.

Steven Nelson, stated that for the last nine years we no service in Lompico. Our
kids have to do this.

Director Rios stated that the Board understands their pain.

Chairperson Beautz stated that we all understand that we don’t want kids out
hitchhiking. It is not a safe thing, its something people did years ago, but it
certainly changed over the years. They all understand their concern.

Steven Nelson stated that the Board has the power to make these changes. He
encourages the Board to approve this service.

Candice Ward, UCSC, stated that in regard to the request for the Route 1 service
on the Westside, she wanted to give additional background on that. Directors
Rotkin and Fitzmaurice did point out that UCSC has been doing geographic
information systems plotting on the Westside population of staff and faculty and
students and has shown significant population that would use the service. Also
prior to last year’s academic school term, several bus operators thought that it
would be a good idea to try running some of the supplemental Route 1 buses
that are just out there to pick up the overloads through the Westside. That
service runs several trips a day last year and currently it will start again on
Monday. There has been good ridership on that route and UCSC has been their
best to try and market it with the flyer. She will put an ad in the City on the Hill
Press newspaper and as Director Rotkin stated UCSC will be sending a direct
mailing to the residents in that area, it will be promoted in that way and would
like the Board to support that service on a regular basis.

CHAIRPERSON BEAUTZ CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING

Director Almquist stated that he would like to thank Mr. Palin and Mr. Nelson,
particularly for organizing their communities to bring the Davenport and
Lompico service request forward.

ACTION:      MOTION: Director Almquist       SECOND: Director Gabriel
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 15


Approve the staff recommendation on Attachment A for Winter service,
Attachment B-1 and B-2 for specific spring service and allocate $60,625 for five
hours of service each to the Bonny Doon/Davenport and to the Lompico/South
Felton area and a request that staff move specific route improvements in those
two areas as quickly as possible on the Winter bid and ask for the cooperation of
UTU in making that happen and then if anything that cannot be done by the
Winter bid, get on to the Spring bid.

Director Rotkin stated that he supports the motion. He thinks that it is important
to provide the service that was requested this morning to areas that do not
receive rural service effectively that really make a huge difference in a relatively
small number of people’s lives, but big differences in their lives. At the same
time, the Transit District does have to recognize that in urban routes, such as
Route 1 to the university, they have the potential for serving not necessarily
transit dependent people in the sense that they have no choice but to take the
bus, but because hundreds of people who might take a bus who are currently
clogging our streets, causing what is the biggest problem that exists in the City of
Santa Cruz, in terms of the quality of life, which is circulation issues. I want to put
on the agenda the importance of thinking about the urban service routes in
particular the university route, where we can take people who are not transit
dependent. People who have a choice, are currently clogging our streets and
polluting our air by driving their cars, get them out of their cars and leaving the
things like parking garages on campus that have environmental consequences,
making the passage of streets at least in the City of Santa Cruz, Bay Street, High
Street, virtually impossible every after noon and some in the mornings.

I understand that there is a real need here and again, I don’t think anybody can
argue that there need is greater than the people from Davenport or the kids
that we heard from Lompico, but there is a real need there and the community
needs them to get on the bus as much as they need to get on the bus, because
of the numbers that we are talking about here, literally we can have thousands
of people on the bus.

Particularly, since the need is not necessarily just more buses on Route 1 riding all
day long, but express routes like the one we are talking about for zero cost here,
initially on the Westside. If we are really going to make this a successful route
and get students out of their cars, have them stop parking on the Westside of
Santa Cruz etc., recognizing this need and using future supplemental funding
from the SCCRTC or funds that we begin to generate where more successful or
part of the $2.1 million we will save when we build our new transit facility. Those
funds need in least in part to be directed toward these urban service routes that
we are not funding this morning.
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 16


Director Gabriel stated that he has rode with many of the people who have
testified here today. He saw the sense of community and after the 1990 service
cuts, he saw old friends who were devastated by the service cuts. His first term
on the Board, he lobbied for the Route 42 service. He lobbied with no support
from the public. And at the time the service was to cost $16,000 and he said the
service would pay for itself. Now the service pays for itself, the Route 42 service is
filled fairly close most of the time. The statements from the people here today
tells me that we install the service as the motion directs. Service will be used
and that is the point, the point is you provide the service, it was used, it will come
back.

Director Keogh stated that we cannot forget Watsonville, lets know forget the
people who 12 months out of the year are dependent who stand are subjected
to passbys. He is interested in Routes 71 and 91 being augmented with the
winter routing but we have a real demand and more importantly an increased
potential demand in my opinion.

Director Arthur stated that he wholeheartedly supports the motion. What would
be helpful to him and felt that he should have researched this prior to the
meeting would a chronology of how the service to the North Coast was
deleted. He felt that the Transit District needs to get on with the business of
improving service to newer areas, but to do that in the face of people who have
had service taken away and then not restored is not right either. We really
should make it a priority to the people who had this service taken away with the
hopes that it would be coming back and then see resources going to new
service and their service is not getting restored just doesn’t seem to be fair. If
there is some way that this information can compiled.

Les White stated that his suggestion is that he might ask Board members who
were here that made those decisions.

Chairperson Beautz stated that she was the Chair on the committee at that time
and the way it was done it was very difficult to cut 30%. We met in a room that
at the Transit District and we locked the door and had 12 hour meetings and
had somebody from every community in the room, a representative of UTU, a
representative of SEIU, a representative from the Office of Education so you
could not really sit in that room and say, “Hey, we’re just going take all the
service from Bonny Doon, those buses are not ridden much”. We cut
everybody’s service, in some areas, the rural areas had lots to begin with, but
we made a real commitment to not completely cut it, because when you are
cutting 30% you can get into things like we’re just going serve an urban area, we
won’t have any rural services. It was not easy, but we had some buses with 3
people on them and you can’t do either. Some of the areas were cut
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 17


completely, but the ones where there was ridership we attempted not to do
that. But it was about the only process we could do, think now if you had to cut
service by 30%, its very difficult, but it was the committee that represented every
area and represented a lot of interest groups in the County and it wasn’t done
by the staff as much as it was done by that committee.

Director Arthur stated that he can not imagine having to do that, it was
probably one of the most difficult things you had to do and I don’t fault the
Board for doing it, it had to be done. His concern is to go back and reinstate
some of that service prior to possibly starting some new service in another area.

Director Fitzmaurice wanted to thank the people who came out to testify. It was
extraordinary and the effort is extraordinary and through the whole process
because there was plenty of opportunity for absolute outrage and
demonstrativeness and people have been extremely cooperative with trying to
actually make progress on this. And I think what were doing is saying lets make
some more progress by considering what kinds of services make the most sense
and lets do it in a fairly assertive way. I don’t see it as in total opposition to what
we want to do with the university service. We need to think about what the
program needs to be right now and that includes improving university service as
well. We need to have the right bus for people to get to the university to go to
work and to school and we are not doing that precisely right now. The fact that
we can add some service and help people to get to work out there is good. He
is happy that the Board is looking somewhat assertively at this particular
proposal.

Director Rios also supports the motion. He stated that he was here when they
made the cuts and it was very difficult to cut service. At the same time, he
agrees with Director Rotkin that we have to also look at the buses that are full
right now and leaving people behind. But because he also understand that the
needs the rural areas have he is in total support of this motion. When the District
had to cut 28% a few years ago a lot of people were very disappointed. One of
the things that need to be looked into more is in the rural areas, particularly
some of the areas where the big buses have a hard time getting in there, we
should be looking into smaller size buses. We have talked about that, shuttles,
and smaller buses in Watsonville. We don’t want to see big buses with only three
people and that is the criticism that the Board has received in the past. We
heard what the young people said, the danger they face, we heard and saw
the expression of the gentleman of how hard he felt about having these kids
hitchhike. I don’t think none of us want to see any of our kids hitchhike
anyplace. I am in total support and I think we should monitor it. As we proceed
to implement this service and what it is the best way, I am really glad that the
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 18


union is working with us in trying to adjust it and to all the people who came out
this morning. Thank you.

Director Cavallaro stated that there were four Board members left of the eleven
members going through that period of time when cuts were made. He wanted
to remind the Board members with representation of the Bonny Doon area as
well as the Lompico area those routes were on there for a very, very, very, long
time with very minimal ridership. It is in a real favorable light that we are able to
rebuild the system to basically a new system and looking at all the needs of the
services, not just putting back what was there, because what was there may not
relate to what is the need for today. And as the Davenport community grows
and has different needs and once small youngsters of that period ten years ago
or the teenagers today have more needs and more wants as well as Lompico, I
think it is important to be able to bring teenagers to these teen centers to have a
place that they can utilize their energy instead of just of hanging out and
possibly going the wrong way from things. He also made a comment to the
Board of Directors who do sit on the Commission where we do get a lot of the
pass through funding. Over the years and many years our funds have eroded,
the dollars themselves have been increased. The percentage of what we do
get has been less and less. As the SCCRTC has taken on more and more
responsibilities of having to fund more programs that are somewhat
transportation or safety oriented, it does take away from funds that put the
money on the street to ridership.

Chairperson Beautz stated that what we see where we can respond to things
immediately that extra $150,000 is asked for. You see an immediate response
whereas a lot of us are frustrated with some of the transportation issues we are
looking at that are five, ten, fifteen years before implementation. I also
appreciate that the Commission gave us the extra money.

The motion passed unanimously with Directors Beiers and Hinkle absent.

DIRECTOR RIOS LEFT THE MEETING
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 19



19.   CONSIDER ADOPTION OF A POLICY FOR THE PROVISION OF COURTESY
      STOPS

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board consider adoption of a policy clarifying the
provision of courtesy stops on the fixed route service system.

Discussion:

Les White stated that when he first came to Santa Cruz Metro in 1997, one of the
issues that was presented to him was the lack of clarity regarding the practice of
providing courtesy stops along the fixed-route network. The policy with regard
to fixed-route courtesy stops was outlined in the Metro Operator Handbook and
the Headways publication. The concern he heard most related to the lack of
guidelines, which would provide consistency in the provisions of courtesy stops.
This lack of guidelines resulted in passengers and bus operators feeling unsure of
what was expected. There were concerns expressed to him by some individuals
that there was not a clear statement by the District with regard to operator
liability when a courtesy stop was being provided. Concern was also expressed
that the provision of courtesy stops might violate accessibility standards
established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Les White requested
comments and recommendations from the UTU, MASTF, MUG and the three
chapters of the SEIU and after receiving those comments and recommendations
referred them to the BSAC committee for consideration. BSAC then provided a
recommendation with regard to courtesy stops so that policy revision could be
developed.

The provisions of the proposed Courtesy Stop Policy if adopted, would be
included in the Bus Operator Handbook and the Headways publication. The
adoption of the Courtesy Stop Policy is intended to clarify current practices at
Metro in such a way as to improve the reliability and predictability factors which
constitute the foundation of a successful impact on the Metro operations.

District Counsel has had conversations with Brad Neily, Chair of MASTF, who
offered three additional comments; Firstly, That time schedule adherence not
be used to single out a particular category of people for which courtesy stops
would not be made. Specifically if there were four people on the bus, three
were not wheelchair users, one was, the operator is running behind schedule,
they would let the three people who do not use wheelchairs off the courtesy
stops, but not allow the wheelchair user off because of additional time, that that
not be allowed. Clearly that is the intendion of this policy. That the only reason
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 20


that a courtesy stop would not be made would be for the purpose that a bus
cannot safety stop and let someone off with regard to traffic. Secondly,
operators should not have a double standard with regard to people using the
bus saying that they would super impose their judgement for a person with a
particular disability over a person who did not have a disability. In other words, it
is safe for me to let you off, but its not safe for me to let someone else off. That
would be determined by the individual if it was physically safe to stop the bus
from a traffic operational standpoint, irrespective of the neighborhood or
whatever the individual wanted off that’s their choice not the operator’s choice.
Thirdly, the policy before implementation be reviewed and submitted to the
Federal Transit Administration for review to ensure that there is not a conflict with
this policy and the Americans with Disabilities Act. We have been in contact
with the FTA on a verbal basis. I think that all three suggestions are excellent
ones and my recommendation to the Board is that if you adopt the Courtesy
Stop provisions, but prior to implementation direct staff to submit them for
comments to the FTA, bring those comments back to the Board for action
before final implementation is made.


Les White stated that currently, it is purely discretionary where some bus
operators for reasons that they have that do not make courtesy stops period.
They will just tell you they do not make courtesy stops. Even though the
Operators Manual provides for it that we talk about it, we just don’t do it. The
question you are asking is if you want to get off and it is safe for the bus to stop
and the driver refuses to stop, is that unlawful imprisonment. I think that goes to
the question of whether or not you have a courtesy stop policy in place.
Currently, we have a series of accumulative past practices that allow a wide
variance of discretion and so somebody could make that case, no one ever
has, but they could. If the Board adopted a policy that said we only access
and discharge at fully accessible sign bus stops, at that a posted policy, no they
wouldn’t have much of a case. If you are going to provide any kind of courtesy
stop capability the you have to provide a policy that implies uniform
application, so if it a designated stop because its being transitioned to
becoming a permanent stop there’s way to deal with that. And if there are
circumstances somebody sitting next to me for one reason that I have to get
away from them and off the bus, that is a special circumstance.

DIRECTOR RIOS ENTERED THEMEETING

Brad Neily, MASTF, stated that he read a motion that was made yesterday
concerning the Courtesy Stop recommendation that is before the Board.
“MASTF recommends to the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Board of
Directors that the proposed courtesy stop recommendation be reviewed by the
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 21


U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration Offices of Civil
Rights for ADA, Section 504 Compliance.” He stated that there is considerable
concern about this policy. For some of the Board members who may not be
familiar, this was a practice that began in sometime in 1978, where drivers would
stop where they could and let people on and off. Now we are at a point where
we are deciding whether or not to basically institutionalize that practice. When
it comes to people with disabilities there are two concerns. Safety has been
used as a reason to exclude people with disabilities from participating in a
program or benefit or service. You are asking somebody to make a judgment
call based on their knowledge of a disability or not, maybe its based on their
stereotypes of disability or not. For someone without a disability to pull over and
make sure that the bus can pull over, its not a big deal, it pretty straight forward.
You can either do it or you can’t. It takes 30 seconds or so for somebody to get
off. But when it involves someone with a disability who uses a wheelchair for
example, gray areas begin to creep into that decision making process. I have
mentioned that one of the concerns that has come out before has been the
issue of time. We have had people with disabilities in wheelchairs report that
they couldn’t get off when they made a courtesy stop request. It does happen,
because of the time factor that would be involved in disembarking a ramp, and
drivers are expected to meet timepoints along the routes. There is concern
about that aspect of the policy. Another concern about the aspect of the
policy is about the idea of the concept of designated courtesy stops.

The aspect of the ADA says that if a bus stops in your control of establishing one
as a District, then you need to meet certain accessibility criteria. This policy does
not really address that clearly and for these reasons, is the reason that MASTF is
asking and as now General Manager Les White is also recommending, that we
have this policy reviewed by the Department of Transportation Civil Rights for
compliance, I think some of these issues still need to be addressed adequately.

Wally Brondstatter, UTU stated that they are in full support of the majority of all of
the provisions that was outlined, including all the new ones that Les White
pointed out. We do have concerns about the designated courtesy stops where
we’re going to have a list in our driver pouches. It makes it very difficult to have
a bunch of lists, which we already have in our pouches in order to have all these
paperwork up on our dash and try to figure out which stops is going to be which
and what stops to call out and what time we’re suppose to be here. So, as you
can see in our 19-B-1 in our recommendation that we were moving toward a
temporary type of bus stop that we currently use like up on Scotts Valley where it
was a pole and post. And the reason being that it would allow people to know
that there’s a stop there, we would alert the business, the homeowner, that a
potential stop was going in there. We also made the recommendation that
these be on a very short limited duration while the Bus Stop Advisory Committee
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 22


would look to bring these stops up to full compliance with pads, accessibility
issues, sign, bench. So our biggest concern is allowing the public to know where
the stop is. If they’re in the drivers pouches and they’re out on the road, you
won’t know that that is a designated courtesy stop.

John Daugherty, Accessible Services Coordinator stated that he wanted to offer
a bit more background about this and offer at least one riders perspective. He
does rely on transit. I want to frame my comments in terms of “that was then
and this is now.” Back then, before today and before you’re looking at the
policy recommendations before you, courtesy stops were made at the drivers
discretion. Our public, if they wanted to know what a courtesy stop was, their
most ready guide was language that’s been in the Headways for years.
Currently its on Page 18 of our new Headways under “Travel Tips,” it reads
“Courtesy stops are made at the drivers discretion when the unmarked spot is
considered safe.” That was then. As a rider, I did see a driver use his discretion
on occasion to say that someone who could get off the bus within a few
seconds yes, and then either try to discourage or turn down the request of
someone who had a mobility aide to get off the bus. I saw discretion applied in
that manner. Drivers have concerns of running the buses on time, they have the
safety concern of the bus. Their regard is for the safe operation of the bus and
the safety of all the passengers. But there has been discrimination as far as what
some people with disabilities experience. I am a person with a disability and
others including myself have also benefited from a courtesy stop on occasion.

A few years ago it was pointed out that courtesy stops were in fact used in lieu
of a bus stop construction program. That was then. The District has made a
serious commitment to the construction of bus stops. This is now, and this helps
alleviate a lot of the concerns because the best way to be is to have an
accessible bus stop. You can talk about compliance and running things by the
Department of Transportation which Les and Brad have both supported, but
what does that mean. That means that a stop, which is a public facility under
the law, our bus stop, is a place where you can deploy the passenger lift safely,
all the way. It’s a place that’s fairly level so that when one of our customers gets
off they’re not likely to fall into a ditch or ravine. It’s a place where there’s going
to be some kind of pathway or safe egress to a public way. In other words, an
accessible stop doesn’t just benefit the person with the mobility aide. It’s a
public facility that benefits all of our public and that’s what we’re looking at.
We’re building more of them, there’s a commitment to build some further. This is
now. I have to say there is a concern about the existing policy, but you are
looking at a chance to move forward on it. I wanted to thank you for this
opportunity to speak on this forward moving proposal.
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 23


Ernestina Saldana Neilly, stated tha the main point in that policy as is right now
applied is to the discretion of the driver. We all use our discretion according with
our personal experiences and that means that for Mr. X who was working the
last three months to leave me in this street was okay, but Mr. Y who is changing
because the drivers change every three months, it’s not okay. I have been
personally denied services. I have been told you can not ride the bus with your
child. I have been told from one day to another, I’m sorry your scooter cannot,
when the last two months I have been using the bus and there was no problems.
I have great experience with the drivers on 69W. Every time they take me they
are so gentle, nice, they are real persons. And I have had very bad
experiences. And the fact is that when you are applying a policy, any kind of
policy, based in your personal thoughts, that’s discriminatory. Its going to leave
somebody out of the picture, and if you are using this policy, just according with
the judgment of the driver, with no more guidelines, because there are no
guidelines.

In answer to your question, I just want to relate a little piece of the scene I was
able to witness several months ago. I was on the bus, just myself and another
person. The driver was apparently just English speaking and this guy starts ringing
the bell, he wants to get out of the bus at a certain spot in Watsonville. The bus
driver says this is not a bus stop and the guy could not understand, he kept
ringing. Finally, I told the guy he was going to need to go all the way to Metro
Center because the 69W doesn’t have a stop right here by this market. We
went all the way here, and I told him do you know how to get back and he said
no. This is my very first trip on the bus. He stated that his sister took him to Santa
Cruz to apply for a job and she told me just to get on this bus and ring the bell
and that the driver would leave me here. I had to wheel him all the way to
Main Street and told him you go this way and you will be able to find the street.
A policy that has no guidelines can not satisfy every body. The fact that as I was
telling someone not too long ago, I have been left in a spot because the driver
says I’m sorry you can not get on the bus.

Manuel Martinez, Transit Supervisor, PSA stated that the portion of this proposed
policy that he would like to comment on is the proposed designated stop
without any signage on it. As a member of the group that will be responsible for
administering and issuing information to the operators, he would like to echo
UTU’s feeling on that. There is an awful lot of information that is already given to
the operators that is expected to keep in mind and follow what is already in the
pouch. In addition to that, there’s a lot information that will have to be
maintained and upkept at our office to be able to supply that information to the
operators. What we would like to see is a designated courtesy stop with some
sort of signage that would make it easier on the operator and easier on the
passengers that are using the service.
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 24



Ian McFadden stated that they support the proposal with the exception of the
designated courtesy stop. We would like a temporary stop sign put up there,
and that sort of lets everybody know what’s going on.

ACTION:       MOTION: Director Gabriel      SECOND: Director Rios

That the Board of Directors approve the policy for submittal to FTA for review and
have the comments from FTA submitted to the Board before implementation of
the policy.

The motion passed with Director Fitzmaurice voting no and Director Hinkle
absent.

DIRECTOR KEOGH LEFT THE MEETING

20.   CONSIDER AMENDING THE BYLAWS, ADDITING ADDITIONAL MONTHLY
      BOARD MEETING AND DELETING MONTHLY POLICY/FINANCE AND
      PERSONNEL/SPECIAL PROJECTS COMMTITEES

Summary:

Staff is recommending that the Board consider amending the Bylaws, Adding
Additional Monthly Board Meeting and Deleting Monthly Policy/Finance and
Personnel/Special Projects Committees

Discussion:

Director Rotkin stated that we try another month studying trying this method of
approaching the committee meeting, but that we not formalize it in the bylaws.
He stated that it is working well, but give it another month before we amending
the bylaws

ACTION:       MOTION: Director Rotkin             SECOND: Director Gabriel

The motion passed with Directors Hinkle and Keogh absent.
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 25


21.   CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AMENDING RECORDS RETENTION POLICY

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board consider adoption of resolution amending the
Records Retention Policy.

ACTION:       MOTION: Director Rotkin          SECOND: Director Rios

The motion passed with Directors Hinkle and Keogh absent.

DIRECTOR KEOGH ENTERED THE MEETING

22.   CONSIDER RANKING OF ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANT
      PROPOSALS FOR METROBASE

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board approve the ranking order for the
Architectural & Engineering Consultant Proposals for Metro Base.

Discussion:

Mark Dorfman stated that a review committee met yesterday and interviewed
the three firms shown on the list. Each firm came in and made a presentation.
The committee comprised of both Board members and staff and staff from
Valley Transit Authority who works on their projects. Each firm had a one-hour
presentation which was an explanation of the firm and their proposal to the
District and 45 minutes on a series of questions. As a result of that process, staff is
recommending that the Board approve a ranking. This recommendation is 1)
WaterLeaf Architecture and Interiors, LLC; 2) Parsons Brinckerhoff; and 3)RNL
Design.

The next step in the process, should the Board approve this ranking, is for staff to
enter into negotiations with the number one firm. We look at qualifications
based on review. If the Board approves this, we open up the envelope and
look at their price proposal. We then negotiate their price proposal. If we are
able to reach a satisfactory conclusion to those negotiations we will bring back
a contract to the Board for their action. Should negotiations break down, we
would then go to the second ranked firm. That is the reason for a one, two,
three ranking.
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 26


Mark Dorfman stated that Jeff Almquist, Mike Rotkin, Mike Keogh, Katherine
Beiers, Les White, Robert Scott and himself sat on the committee. Chairperson
Beautz was not able to attend the interviews.

Director Beiers stated that the committee spent an hour and a half interviewing
and asking question to each the firms. In addition, she stated that last week,
several Board members and staff went to the Los Angeles area and visited
transit agencies to look at their facilities.

ACTION:       MOTION: Director Rotkin        SECOND: Director Beiers

That the Board of Directors adopt the ranked order as proposed by the Interview
Committee.

The motion passed with Director Hinkle

23.   CONSIDER REQUEST BY COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board of Directors consider allowing Community
Mental Health to be able to purchase bulk tickets for ADA paratransit service.

Discussion:

Chairperson Beautz asked that this item be tabled until next month.

24.   CONSIDER REQEUST FROM RUDOLPH F. MONTE FOUNDATION

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board of Directors consider providing special shuttle
service to the 1999 Fireworks fundraiser as requested by the Rudolph F. Monte
Foundation with a $5,000 grant from the Santa Cruz County Regional
Transportation Commission.

ACTION:       MOTION: Director Fitzmaurice        SECOND: Director Arthur

Approve the special shuttle service to the 1999 Fireworks fundraiser as requested
by the Rudolph F. Monte Foundation with a $5,000 grant from the Santa Cruz
County Regional Transportation Commission.

The motion passed with Director Hinkle absent.
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 27


25.   CONSIDER TRANSIT CENTER TENANT SELECTION CRITERIA

Summary:

Staff requests guidance from the Board of Directors in establishing a general
tenant selection criteria or a site specific tenant selection criteria.

Discussion:

Chairperson Beautz asked that this item be tabled until next month.

26.   CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SUB-AWARD AGREEMENT NO. 93065-C STP

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board of Directors approve the extension of Sub-
Award Agreement #93065-C STP for the purchase of bike rack/bus benches for
an additional six months to allow for the completion of the project.

ACTION:       MOTION: Director Fitzmaurice        SECOND: Director Rios

The motion passed with Director Hinkle absent.

27.   CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION TO USE RTCC BID FOR PURCHASE OF PETROLEUM
      AND LUBRICATION PRODUCTS

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board authorize the General Manager to execute a
contract based upon bids received by the Regional Transit Coordinating
Council (RTCC) for petroleum and lubrication products.

ACTION:       MOTION: Director Gabriel            SECOND: Director Almquist

The motion passed with Director Hinkle absent.

28.   DELETED
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 28



29.   STATUS OF HIGHWAY 17 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Summary:

This report is for information only. No Board action is required.

30.   CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION TO REJECT BID FOR FAREBOXES AND TO DENY
      BID PROTEST

Summary:

Staff requests Board authorization to reject IFB #98-46, Purchase of Fareboxes
and to deny the protest of Agent Systems.

Discussion:

ACTION:       MOTION: Director Gabriel        SECOND: Director Arthur

That the Board of Directors reject the bid of Agent Systems and issue a new
procurement.

Director Fitzmaurice stated that the motion ought to be more specific to the last
point on the summary issues and reject the bid and a new procurement.

ACTION:       MOTION: Director Gabriel        SECOND: Director Fitzmaurice

That the Board of Director reject the bid of Agent Systems.

John Antracoli, attorney representing Agent Systems, understands that his client
was the lowest responsive bidder on the project. I have sent correspondence
regarding the issue of responsiveness, including my letter of this week to Ms.
Gallagher. He urges the Board to provide Agent Systems with the opportunity to
demonstrate the responsiveness of its product to the requirements of the needs
of the District and to the requirements of the plans and specifications. He would
like for the Board to table this matter for another month and during that month
allow Agent Systems and the other bidder, GFI Genfare to come before the
Board, a select committee of the Board, the staff or any combination thereof to
demonstrate their products and to demonstrate the responsiveness of the
product. He felt that he does not think a re-procurement is really in the best
interest of the District. I thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you
here today.
Minutes-Board of Directors
September 17, 1999
Page 29



ACTION:     MOTION: Director Rotkin         SECOND: Director Almquist

That the Board of Directors reject all bids and open up a new bidding process
and that before the opening of new bids, set up a system that would allow
Agent Systems and others an opportunity to demonstrate what they think they
have in the way of a farebox, so that specifications be drafted to meet the
needs of the District before going out to bid.

The motion passed with Director Hinkle absent.

31.   CONSIDER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A SPECIAL TDA CLAIM FOR FY 99-00

Summary:

Staff recommends that the Board authorize the General Manager to submit a
claim to the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission for a
special one-time allocation of $150,000.

ACTION:     MOTION: Director Almquist            SECOND: Director Rotkin

Authorize the General Manager to submit a claim to the Santa Cruz County
Regional Transportation Commission for a special one-time allocation of
$150,000.

The motion passed with Director Hinkle absent.

Les White thanked the Board members who serve on the Commission.

There being no further business, Chairperson Beautz adjourned the meeting at
11:45 am.

Respectfully submitted,



DEBBIE GUERRERO
Acting Administrative Service Coordinator
                                                                                                                                                  T .,T’
                                                                                                                                                  -.rxr;   I.0 i
                                                                                                                                                           :,IT”;i :   qq   Tiip~   i:‘::q:;

-----.------------.----.----.---.---   ------.    -1--------.----   .---.._ --.--.----^.--   ---.   -------.1.--   ------   --.--------------- -.--. ---.--.---------.-.“---- -..-.




                                                 .-
.
,?I?’   “,‘.-! > =
     ,..?.l.7. !.:
  __,_. -, _-
                                                  Santa Cruz Metropolitan
                             GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM     Transit District
                                RECOMMENDED ACTION


 TO:            Board of Directors

 FROM:          District Counsel

 RE:            Claim of Eduardo Pena                  Received 8120199
                Claim # 99-0020                        D O 1 3/l 6199


 In regard to the above-referenced claim, this is to recommend that the Board of Directors take the
 following action:


 x         1.   Deny the claim.

 -         2.   Deny the application to tile a late claim.

 -         3.   Grant the application to file a late claim.

 -         4.   Reject the claim as untimely filed.

 -         5.   Reject the claim as insufficient.

 -         6.   Approve the claim in the amount of $                 and reject it as to the balance,
                if any.




                Margaret Gallagher ’
                DISTRICT COUNSEL


 I, Dale Carr, do hereby attest that the above claim was duly presented to and the
 recommendations were approved by the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District’s Board of
 Directors at the meeting of October 15, 1999.



 Dale Carr                                              Date
 Recording Secretary


370 Encinal Street, Suite 100, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 426-6080 FAX (831) 426-6117
                          METRO OnLine at http://www.scmtd.com
TO:       BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District

ATTN:     Secretary to the Board of Directors



1.




2.

3.




4.




5.


6.


7.




COMPANY RE$RESENTATIVE’S SIGNATURE

Note: Claim must be presented to the Secretary to the Board of Directors, Santa Cruz
Metropolitan Transit District
SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT
                    OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COUNSEL



DATE:        September 21,1999

TO:          Debbie Guerrero

FROM:        Robyn Ziegler

SUBJECT:     October 1999 Board Meeting

Enclosed you will find:
                    Claim of Eduardo Pena for above-entitled matter


             File original; return file-endorsed copy in envelope provided.

             Retain for your records; telephone if you have any questions.

             For your review and comment.

             Upon your review, please contact Rita Wadsworth for an
             appointment with me.

             For your review and, if accurate, signature.

             For your information.

-X-          Other: Please add this claim to the Board’s October 1999 Agenda.
             Thanks.
/                                                                                                            \
                                                                                                                 I
                                                       Santa Cruz Metropolitan
                                  GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM     Transit District
                                     RECOMMENDED ACTION


     TO:             Board of Directors

     FROM:           District Counsel

     RE:             Claim of Neil Lindberq                 Received 9/l O/99
                     Claim # 99-0021                        D O 1 4125199


     In regard to the above-referenced claim, this is to recommend that the Board of Directors take the
     following action:


     x          1.   Deny the claim.

     -         2.    Deny the application to file a late claim.

     -         3.    Grant the application to tile a late claim.

     -         4.    Reject the claim as untimely filed.

     -         5.    Reject the claim as insufficient.

     -         6.    Approve the claim in the amount of $                 and reject it as to the balance,
                     if any.



                                                                    Date: September 22, 1999
                     Margaret Gallagher
                     DISTRICT COUNSEL


     I, Dale Can-, do hereby attest that the above claim was duly presented to and the
     recommendations were approved by the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District’s Board of
     Directors at the meeting of October 15, 1999.



     Dale Cart-                                              Date
     Recording Secretary


    370 Encinal Street, Suite 100, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 426-6080 FAX (831) 426-6117
                              METRO OnLine at http://www.scmtd,com
                                                                 I                                   I
TO:       BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District

ATTN:      Secretary to the Board of Directors
           370 Encinal Street, Suite 100
           Santa Cruz, CA 95060

1.      Company Representative’s Name/Claimant’s Name:
                                                                                I-                       CI
        Claimant’s Address/Post 0

        Claimant’s Phone Number:
2.      Address to which notices ar




                                               s or .employees causin



                               ture loss, if known . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

        Basis of above computatio




COMPANY REPRESENTATI                                                                                          !

Note: Claim must be presented to the Secretary to the Board of Directors, Santa Cruz
Metropolitan Transit District
SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT
                    OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT COUNSEL



DATE:        September 14,1999

TO:          Debbie Guerrero

FROM:        M a r g a r a 1, gher, District Counsel
                     f&L
SUBJECT:     October 1999 Board Meeting

Enclosed you will find:
                    Claim of Neil Lindberg for above-entitled matter

             File original; return file-endorsed copy in envelope provided.

             Retain for your records; telephone if you have any questions.

             For your review and comment.

             Upon your review, please contact Rita Wadsworth for an
             appointment with me.

             For your review and, if accurate, signature.

             For your information.

-X-          Other: Please add this claim to the Board’s Agenda for its October
             meeting. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
                   METRO ACCESSIBLE SERVICES TRANSIT FORUM (MASTF)
                     (* An official Advisory group to the Metro Board of Directors
                                    and the ADA Paratransit Program)

                                                 MINUTES

The Metro Accessible Services Transit Forum met for its monthly meeting
on Thursday September 16, 1999 at the Louden Nelson Community Center,
301 Center Street, Santa Cruz CA.

MASTF MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Bugental, Ted Chatterton, Mike Edwards, Glen Eldred,
Kasandra Fox, Ed Kramer, Deborah Lane, Jeff Le Blanc, Yolanda Lennon, Bonnie McDonald, J.J.
Nash, Brad Neily, Thorn Onan, Dennis Papadopulo, Laura Scribner, Lesley Wright.

METRO STAFF PRESENT:
John Aspesi, Fleet Maintenance Supervisor
Bryant Baehr, Operations Department Manager
Kim Chin, Manager of Planning and Marketing
John Daugherty, Accessible Services Coordinator
Jim Hobbs, S.E.I.U. Representative
David Konno, Facilities Maintenance Department Manager
Steve Paulson, U.T.U. Representative

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:
Bruce Gabriel

*** MASTF MOTIONS RELATED TO THE METRO BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MASTF recommends to the SCMTD Board of Directors that the proposed “Courtesy Stop
Recommendation” be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration, Office of Civil Rights for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504
compliance.

RELEVANT ATTACHMENTS: None.

*MASTF MOTIONS RELATED TO METRO MANAGEMENT

MASTF recommends to SCMTD management that the proposed courtesy stop policy be amended with
the following addition:

Each designated courtesy stop shall be improved to meet at least minimum district and ADA access
standards within two and one half years of the time it is officially established as a designated courtesy
stop. If a bus stop has not been so improved at the end of this time, it shall be removed from the list of
designated stops.

An exception to this rule may be considered in a case where it can be shown that circumstances
substantially beyond the transit district’s control have delayed the installation of a fully compliant stop.
In such a case, it must be demonstrable that the district has made every reasonable effort to make the
required improvements in a timely manner. If such good faith effort can not be established, the stop
shall receive no extension and shall be removed from the list.
MASTF Minutes
September 16, 1999
Page Two

I.      CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTIONS

Chairperson Brad Neily called the meeting to order at 2:07 p.m.

II.     APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 19,1999 MASTF MINUTES

Scott Bugental noted that the results of voting for a MASTF Motion appear not to be included in the
Minutes. John Daugherty explained that the Minutes indicate whether a Motion passes unanimously
(with the placement of the initials “PU” after the Motion) or that there was a split vote and the Motion
carried (with the initial “C” after the Motion).

Dennis Papadopulo noted that he was not present at the August 19th meeting.
He pointed out that his name should not have been placed after the “Bus Stop Improvement Committee
Report” on Page 10.

MASTF MOTION: That the August 19,1999 MASTF Minutes be approved as corrected.
M/S/PU: Fox, Edwards

III.    AMENDMENTS TO THE AGENDA

None.

IV.     ORAL COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Daugherty announced that the meeting room is available until 4:30 p.m. to accommodate a brief
MASTF Executive Committee session after the meeting.

Mr. Daugherty also shared three information items with the group. First, he noted that a new edition of
Headways was in effect today. The front-page story of this edition is that METRO is hiring new
employees. Copies of Headways were available on a table in the meeting room.

Second, Mr. Daugherty indicated that MASTF had received an invitation to participate in the Low
Vision Expo taking place at the Louden Nelson Community Center on October 2, 1999 from 9:00 a.m.
to 3:30 p.m. The Doran Center for the Blind & Visually Impaired sponsors this annual event. Mr.
Daugherty circulated a flyer (“Attachment A”) that contains more details about the event.

Lastly, a flyer distributed by the Central Coast Center for Independent Living (CCCIL) that invites
participants to join a teleconference on September 22, 1999 was described. Participants who join the
teleconference (in groups with at least four persons at each telephone) will discuss legal requirements
for access to Over-the-Road Buses. Noted advocate Marilyn Golden will describe highlights of the
critical legal elements.

Bruce Gabriel noted that he was speaking to the group today as a METRO Board member. Mr. Gabriel
requested that MetroBase (formerly the Consolidated Operations Facility) be placed on the October
MASTF meeting agenda.

The goal of the MetroBase project is construction of a new facility at the old Lipton plant site on the
westside of Santa Cruz. It will allow METRO to consolidate its operations (such as bus fueling) and
MASTF Minutes
September 16, 1999
Page Three

reduce costs for facilities. Mr. Gabriel stated that it is “imperative” that MASTF join other groups -
including the Metro Users Group (MUG) - in support of the project. He suggested that MASTF could
support a public forum on MetroBase being organized by a transportation think tank and scheduled
during next January. He also encouraged individuals to address the Santa Cruz City Council and explain
the importance of MetroBase to riders of the bus service.

Program Manager Bonnie McDonald introduced the Linkages program to the group. She explained that
Linkages - the newest program offered through Senior Network Services -helps functionally impaired
adults of all income levels to link up with existing services that allow them to live without unnecessary
placement in a skilled nursing facility. She distributed a brochure (“Attachment B”) and noted that
clients are not charged a fee for Linkages services.

Mike Edwards reported that he has enrolled in the Assisted Computer Use class at Cabrillo College.
Unlike other classes offered to persons with disabilities, he noted, this course is set up to provide almost
one student to one teacher instruction. He added that the class is available on a trial basis and that
interested persons should consider signing up for its spring semester version.

Mr. Bugental announced that Shared Adventures is sponsoring an Abilities Expo at Louden Nelson
Community Center on Sunday October 1 Oth. Live music, family entertainment and information booths
staffed by community organization supporters are features of this free event that takes place from 12
noon to 5 p.m.

V.     ONGOING BUSINESS

5.1    Paratransit Update

4      ADA Paratransit Report (Scott Buaental)

Mr. Bugental reported that he had researched the issue of hours of service for Paratransit that was
brought up during the MASTF meeting last month. He discovered that the original contract between
METRO and Lift Line for providing Paratransit service did specify that there would be later Paratransit
service along three “corridors” where bus service is provided. Mr. Bugental recalled two of the
corridors: The Route 71 corridor between Watsonville and Santa Cruz and the Route 1 corridor between
Santa Cruz downtown and the University. He noted that late night (past lo:30 p.m.) Paratransit service
had not been booked for customers since he was hired. “We’re correcting that now”, Mr. Bugental
added.

Mr. Bugental also reported that he was discussing the language for signs that would inform Paratransit
riders whom to contact with feedback on service with CCCIL staff. He was also studying the use of
Kudo Cards by Paratransit users. Laura Scribner and Jeff LeBlanc noted that gathering rider feedback
was long overdue. Mr. Neily suggested that proposed language for signs be brought back to MASTF.

Mr. Bugental asked if there were any comments on the Mid Contract Review that he shared with the
group last month. No comments were brought forward during the meeting.

b)     Transportation Advocacy (Thorn Onan)
MASTF Minutes
September 16, 1999
Page Four

Thorn Onan observed that he had received “not too many” complaints about Lift Line service since he
began work as a transportation advocate. But consumers have asked him more questions about
transportation. He noted that his job is “evolving.”

Deborah Lane described a system of “fixed route” paratransit service that she has learned of in Laguna
Beach, California. She said that groups of Paratransit users are transported in each Paratransit vehicle
along fixed routes that serve grocery stores, doctor offices and hospitals. She stated that the Laguna
Beach approach appeared to be an efficient way to serve paratransit users. Kim Chin noted that he was
familiar with the “route deviated” services in Laguna Beach. He explained that the vehicles carried
passengers along fixed routes and were able to deviate from the routes to accommodate Paratransit trips
within certain corridors.

Mr. Chin also reported that METRO was reviewing its information brochures to update their
information. He noted that the ADA Paratransit brochure was being revised to include notification that
CCCIL was available to receive feedback from Paratransit users.

5.2    Ad Hoc Outreach Committee Report

a) County Fair Announcement

Mr. Daugherty announced that time slots were still available for volunteers to join METRO employees
at the METRO information table and bus exhibit at the Fair. He noted that the time slots were in two-
hour increments between 12 noon and 8 p.m. on Friday through Sunday. Interested volunteers should
contact Donna Canales at 425-8600 or 425-4664. He added that hourly shuttle service between the
Fairgrounds and the Watsonville Transit Center would operate on Saturday and Sunday.

b) MASTF Meeting in Watsonville

No report.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

5.3    Training and Procedures Committee Report (Lesley Wright)

Lesley Wright described the sensitivity training session for new bus operators that had taken place on
Tuesday September 1 qfh. She stated that MASTF members shared personal experiences with the new
operators to show how METRO affects their lives. Cam Pierce and Sharon Barbour shared information
on living with epilepsy. Ms. Wright also noted that she and Mr. Daugherty shared information on
securement issues. She added that she and Dennis Papadopulo would be participating in fieldwork with
the new operators during Friday and the weekend to assist operator training on securement procedures.

5.4    Bus Service Committee Report (Mike Edwards)

Mr. Edwards asked, “What happened to the “Please Move to the Rear” signs?” Mr. Baehr responded
that the signs were ready to be installed. Mr. Baehr noted that the signs would support the instructions
given by a bus operator to passengers boarding buses that are often crowded.
MASTF Minutes
September 16, 1999
Page Five

Mr. Papadopulo asked if priority-seating signs were being installed on newer buses. Mr. Daugherty
noted that the signs - which indicate that the front seats in every bus are reserved for seniors and persons
with disabilities -- were often hard to locate on the new buses. Mr. Baehr and John Aspesi responded
that the signs on the new buses were located at seat level.

a.1    Metro Users Group (MUG)

Mr. Edwards reported that the prospect of allowing bicycles inside buses serving Routes 33 and 34 was
discussed. Mr. Baehr explained that MUG members were exploring whether to add those routes to the
short list (40,41 and 42) that allows placement of bikes in the wheelchair securement areas.

Mr. Baehr described the placing of bicycles inside buses as a “confrontation” issue between wheelchair
users and bike users. Other comments during discussion included: J.J. Nash and Ms. Wright expressed
concern that the placement of bikes inside buses could easily spread to other routes. Jeff LeBlanc and
Steve Paulson questioned whether there was sufficient demand from bike riders to consider allowing
bikes inside Route 33 and 34 buses. Mr. Neily stated he had a “wait and see attitude” on the issue.

Mr. Chin described bus service improvements that were being presented to the METRO Board
tomorrow. He noted that METRO faced a “windfall situation” since $150,000 had become available
through the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (for a total of $300,00) to plan for
service improvements that could begin on December gth. Proposed service improvements included
additional service for Bonny Doon, Davenport and Scotts Valley. He added that the Board would
review a larger package of service improvements during October that could take effect in the spring.

Mr. Chin also stated that MASTF input was sought on future proposed service improvements. He noted
that the Bus Evaluation Study consultant would be available next month to meet with the MASTF
group.

5.5    Bus Stop Improvement Committee Report (Dennis Papadopulo)

a.>     Bus Stop Advisorv Committee (BSAC)

Mr. Papadopulo distributed copies of a handout (“Attachment C”) that assesses and prioritizes the need
for shelters at bus stops.

5.6    U.T.U. Report (Steve Paulson)

Mr. Paulson shared that he had participated in training for veteran bus operators that had occurred
yesterday. He stated that the video shown to the group - The Ten Commandments on Communicating
with People with Disabilities -- was an “excellent addition” to the training. He added that other
trainings were being set up to facilitate METRO bringing the Highway 17 Express service in house by
October 11 th. Mr. Chatterton asked if supervisors participated in the trainings. Mr. Baehr and Mr.
Paulson responded that supervisors were required to participate in trainings as a condition of their
annual license renewal.

Ms. Lane asked if the trainings required for METRO bus operators could be extended to include drivers
of Yellow Cab vehicles subcontracted to provide Paratransit service. Mr. Bugental responded that Lift
Line was responsible for the training required of the subcontractors - Yellow Cab and Courtesy Cab.
MASTF Minutes
September 16, 1999
Page Six

Mr. Bugental explained that all drivers currently receive sensitivity training and that there “could be
more training.” He noted that during a recent meeting each subcontractor agreed to designate drivers as
trainers for their group. He pointed out that the “high turnover” of drivers was one barrier to training.

Discussion of driver training followed Mr. Bugental’s remarks. Laura Scribner asked if MASTF
members participated in Paratransit driver training. She noted that it is important to build on what is
already being done. Mr. Bugental responded that MASTF members were not involved in trainings. Mr.
Neily and Mr. Nash noted that paying such training participants could be investigated. Mr. Daugherty
observed that during his cab riding experiences an “institutional barrier” existed since the drivers often
referred to themselves as being independent of the cab company and Lift Line. Mr. Bugental said he
was “confident” about the high level of training received by Lift Line drivers. Mr. Neily suggested that
this topic be brought back as an agenda item for next month’s meeting.

5.7    S.E.I.U. Report (Jim Hobbs)

Mr. Hobbs reported that one of the quarterly changes of bus service has begun today. He shared it was
“going off without a hitch.. . Everything should be accurate and in place.”

5.8    Commission on Disabilities Report (Kasandra Fox)

Mr. Daugherty reported that during their September 1 Oth meeting commissioners authorized sending a
letter to the City of Santa Cruz to notify city staff that the Commission had received several complaints
about the access problems encountered by persons crossing the Soquel Avenue Bridge.

5.9    Policy and Finance/Board Meeting Reports (Brad Neilv and Lesley Wright)

Ms. Wright reported that discussion topics covered during the August METRO Board meeting included:
1) A status report on Paratransit service; 2) Review of concerns raised by Jim Bosso, owner of Santa
Cruz Transportation Company, that the City of Santa Cruz taxi ordinance was being violated; 3) The
status of METRO’s Consolidated Operations Facility, now called MetroBase, that will be discussed
during the MASTF meeting next month.

5.10   E & D Advisory Committee Report

No report.

VI.    NEW BUSINESS

6.1    Presentation by the Bus Evaluation Study Consultant

Postponed until the October 14th MASTF meeting.

6.2    Courtesy Stops (Jeff LeBlanc)

Mr. LeBlanc noted that General Manager Les White has requested feedback on the Courtesy Stop Policy
proposal he will present to the METRO Board tomorrow. After talking with Mr. White, Mr. LeBlanc
decided to prepare a Motion for MASTF to consider that supports placing time limits on courtesy stops
MASTF Minutes
September 16, 1999
Page Seven

that METRO may designate as regular bus stops. Mr. LeBlanc submitted the following Motion to
Management that carried after discussion:

MASTF recommends to SCMTD management that the proposed courtesy stop policy be amended
with the following addition:

Each designated courtesy stop shall be improved to meet at least minimum district and ADA
access standards within two and one half years of the time it is officially established as a
designated courtesy stop.

If a bus stop has not been so improved at the end of this time, it shall be removed from the list of
designated stops.

An exception to this rule may be considered in a case where it can be shown that circumstances
substantially beyond the transit district’s control have delayed the installation of a fully compliant
stop. In such a case, it must be demonstrable that the district has made every reasonable effort to
make the required improvements in a timely manner. If such good faith effort can not be
established, the stop shall receive no extension and shall be removed from the list.
M/S/C: LeBlanc, Bugental

During discussion on the Motion, Mr. LeBlanc explained that he had chosen two and a half years as a
“reasonable” amount of time to navigate the bureaucracies that affect bus stop construction. Ms. Fox
reiterated that she was “frightened” by the probability that a person would sue METRO if that person
was injured as a result of the proposed Courtesy Stop policy. Until she sees verification that METRO’s
legal liability problem is contained, Ms. Fox stated, she remains opposed to the sanction of courtesy
stops. Mr. Chatter-ton said that it was “too much” for the majority of (non-disabled) passengers to have a
“burden” placed on them by restricting the use of courtesy stops. Mr. LeBlanc noted that he did not
intend to reopen discussion of the courtesy stop issue, but that his Motion is presented as an amendment
to the proposal from Mr. White.

Mr. Neily commented that he had discussed legal issues surrounding the policy proposal with METRO
Counsel Peggy Gallagher yesterday. He noted that he had asked Ms. Gallagher if the proposal had been
checked to see if it complied with Section 504 which prohibits discrimination against persons with
disabilities by agencies that receive federal funds. She replied that compliance with Section 504 had not
been checked. Mr. Neily noted that he had a “concern” about the Section 504 compliance issue. Mr.
Bugental asked for clarification about the amount of time allowed in the policy proposal for designated
courtesy stops to become fully accessible stops. Mr. Baehr explained that the status of designated
courtesy stops would be reviewed every three months and that Mr. LeBlanc’s Motion advised METRO
to allow up to two and a half years to transform a designated courtesy stop.

Noting concern expressed about whether designated courtesy stops complied with the law, Ms. Wright
forwarded the following Motion to the METRO Board:

 MASTF recommends to the SCMTD Board of Directors that the proposed “Courtesy Stop
Recommendation” be reviewed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit
Administration, Office of Civil Rights for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504
compliance.
M/S/PU: Wright, Fox
MATSF Minutes
September 16, 1999
Page Eight

6.3    Next Month’s Agenda Items

Noted during the meeting: MetroBase, Language for Paratransit vehicle signage, Training for Paratransit
service drivers, Service Review recommendations, status of Talking Signs project.

VII.   ADJOURNMENT

Meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. M/S/PU: Edwards, LeBlanc


NOTE: NEXT MAST MEETING IS: Thursday, October 14, 1999,
2:00-4:00 p.m., at the Louden Nelson Community Center, 301 Center Street, Santa Cruz, CA.

NOTE: NEXT S.C.M.T.D. POLICY & FINANCE MEETING IS: Replaced by a Special Board
Meeting/Workshop scheduled for Friday October 8, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. at the SCMTD Administrative
Offices, 370 Encinal Street, Santa Cruz, CA.


NOTE: NEXT S.C.M.T.D. BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING IS: Friday, October 15, 1999 at 9:00
a.m., at the Santa Cruz City Council Chambers, 809 Center Street, Santa Cruz, CA.
            Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
Minutes-Metro Users Group                                 September 15,1999

The Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Metro Users Group met at 2:lO p.m.
on Wednesday, September 15, 1999 at the District’s Encinal Conference Room,
370 Encinal Street, Suite 100, Santa Cruz.

MEMBERS PRESENT                                      VISITORS PRESENT
Bruce Gabriel, Chair                                 Shelley Day
G. Ted Chatterton                                    Mike Edwards
Sandra Coley                                         Greg Palin
Connie Day                                           Cam Pierce
Michelle Hinkle
Janet Singer
Michael Singer
Candice Ward

SCMTD STAFF PRESENT
Bryant Baehr, Operations Manager
Kim Chin, Manager of Planning/Marketing
David Konno, Manager of Facilities Maintenance
Tom Stickel, Acting Fleet Maintenance Manager
Leslie White, General Manager



          MUG RESOLUTIONS TO METRO BOARD OF DIRECTORS

None.

I.........................,........................,.....................



              MUG RESOLUTIONS TO METRO MANAGEMENT

None.



1.      CALL TO ORDER AND INTRODUCTION


2.      ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA


3.      ORAL AND WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.
Minutes-Metro Users Group
September 15, 1999
Page 2



4.      CONSENT AGENDA

ACTION:           MOTION: Bruce Gabriel           SECOND: Sandra Coley

Approve the following items accepted by the Committee:

        a)        Receive and Accept August Meeting Minutes
        b)        Monthly Attendance Report
        c>        Review of Minutes of Board of Directors Meeting
        d)        Review of Board Meeting Agenda Items:
                  1. Quarterly Performance Report
                  2. Quarterly Ridership Report

The committee voted unanimously.

5.       ON-GOING ITEMS

         a)       Review of Headways and Redesign Issues

         Kim Chin reported that the new issue of Headways is out and will be
         effective on September 16, 1999. Mr. Chin also reported that the District
         is in the process of putting together an RFP for graphic design services to
         improve the Headways publication.

         Ted Chatter-ton stated that he feels that the 7:lO a.m. timepoint at Western
         on the 40 inbound should be changed to at least 7:12. Mr. Chatterton
         feels that the present timepoint puts too much pressure on the drivers.

         Kim Chin stated that the District currently has a consultant performing a
         Bus System Evaluation Study which will look at where there are overloads
         on the system and where the route times are running short. Mr. Chin
         stated that the consultant will be attending a MUG meeting and the
         members will have the opportunity to express their concerns.

         Mike Edwards stated that he hopes there are plans to keep the back-up
         Route 71 in the mornings, he feels it is working very well.

         b)       Service and Planning Update

         Kim Chin provided the members with an overview and slide presentation
         of the service improvement recommendations that were to be presented to
         the Board of Directors at their September meeting.



F:\USERS\ADMIN\filesystWWUG\1999\09   15 .doc
Minutes-Metro Users Group
September 15, 1999
Page 3


         Janet Singer asked how the decisions are made on the order of priority for
         the goals. Ms. Singer asked why Goal #3, “Refine existing service to
         enhance effectiveness and efficiency” is not listed under the Winter goals.

         Kim Chin reported that for the winter bid the focus will be on goals 1, 2
         and 4 and that goals number 3 and 4 will be focuses on in the spring bid.
         Mr. Chin stated that this will allow the consultant on the Bus System
         Evaluation Study time to determine where refining and enhancing of the
         service is most needed.

         Bryant Baehr reported that the District received an additional $150,000
         from the SCCRTC.

         Bruce Gabriel stated he feels that we need to preserve routes with the
         greater number of passengers and routes to communities that have
         almost no service. Mr. Gabriel also stated that he hopes to restore some
         service to the Bonny Doon area.

         Sandra Coley noted that on the unfunded service improvements list, major
         improvements to Watsonville service is listed. Ms. Coley asked if there is
         a time frame for these improvements.

         Kim Chin stated that we will have a better idea of what service
         improvements should be added after the Bus System Evaluation Study.
         Mr. Chin stated that the District has not been in the position to replace or
         add service for some time. The number of buses and the hours of service
         are the same, however, ridership has increased. Mr. Chin noted that
         presently the District operates out of seven different facilities. When the
         District consolidates into one facility, there will be a $2.1 million savings
         that will be able to be diverted into service.

         Bruce Gabriel stated that it is very important that the District not add
         service and then take it away. It is important to establish service that will
         be maintained on a regular basis. Mr. Gabriel also noted that it is very
         important that the Advisory Committees support Metrobase.

         Greg Palin stated that this has been a very helpful and informative forum
         to come to and he wanted to thank the group for their input. Mr. Palin
         stated that he believes the additional 12:30 trip will be great benefit and he
         urges the MUG to endorse the additional $60,000 to continue to improve
         service to the Davenport/Bonny Doon area.

         Bruce Gabriel reported to the group that the District currently has a
         provision on the Routes 40/41/42 which allows bicycles inside the buses.


F:\USERS\ADMIN\tilesyst\M\MUG\l999\0915.doc
Minutes-Metro Users Group
September 15, 1999
Page 4


         Mr. Gabriel feels that consideration should be given to allowing bikes
         inside buses on Routes 33 and 34 because the roads are so narrow in
         that area that it presents a hazard to bicyclists and drivers.

         Connie Day asked if there were a lot of wheelchair users on these routes?

         Bryant Baehr stated that he does not have a route by route breakdown of
         how many wheelchair users use those routes. Mr. Baehr also noted that
         the policy is that when a bicycle is in the wheelchair position and a
         wheelchair user boards, the bicyclist has to leave the bus.

         Janet Singer suggested that maybe clearer posted policy stating that bikes
         on buses is a courtesy being extended by wheelchair users and that
         wheelchair users take precedence.


6.       UPDATES

         W         Yield to Bus Legislation

         Bryant Baehr reported that the legislation has currently passed the Senate
         and the Legislature and is awaiting signature by the Governor.

         W         New Service

         Kim Chin provided this report under 5b above.

         W         Bus Purchase Status

         Bryant Baehr stated that there is nothing to report at this time.

         W         ADA Recertification

         Bryant Baehr reported that we are going through the process with MASTF
         and Kim Chin is working on the Scope of Work with the consultant.

         W         Time Points

         Bryant Baehr reported that the Bus System Evaluation Study will help to
         resolve timepoint issues.




F:\USERS\ADMIN\tilesyst\M\MUG\1999\0915.doc
Minutes-Metro Users Group
September 15, 1999
Page 5


         60       Courtesy Stop Policy

         Bryant Baehr reported that Les White will be making a presentation to the
         Board that basically consists of the MUG recommendations.

         w         Marketing

         Nothing new to report at this time.

         6h)       Hot Bus Express Lanes

         Michael Singer stated that the flyer will be updated for the RTC meeting
         on Thursday, September 16, 1999.

         6i)       Golden Gate Buses

         Bryant Baehr reported that one of the 17 Express buses was in an
         accident and the District needs to replace the bus and add additional
         buses for the Highway 17 Express service. Golden Gate Transit is in the
         process of getting new buses and will sell their old buses to the District for
         $5,000 each. Mr. Baehr also noted that these “new” buses will double the
         wheelchair capacity on the 17 Express.

         Tom Stickel reported that Golden Gate will release the buses to the
         District when they are in receipt of their new buses. The exact date when
         this will occur is not known.


7.       NEW BUSINESS

         7a)       COF - Metrobase

         Bryant Baehr stated that interviews for the Architect and Engineering are
         scheduled for September 16, 1999.

         Ted Chatterton stated that he has heard comments made that the District
         has not settled on a site for the Metrobase yet.

         Bryant Baehr reported that the District has applied for an Administrative
         Use Permit and the process is on-going. Mr. Baehr discussed the savings
         the District will incur when it has consolidated into one facility.

         Mike Edwards asked Mr. Baehr to explain how the District will save $2.5
         million by consolidating its facilities.


F:\USERS\ADMIN\filesystWWUG\1999\0915.doc
Minutes-Metro Users Group
September 15, 1999
Page 6



         Mr. Baehr stated that one way the District would save would be in the
         purchase of diesel. Currently, the District buys diesel on the regular
         market at regular prices. When the District has a facility that can store
         diesel fuel, buying the fuel in bulk will save money. Also, the District
         currently spends about $6,000 a year doing a mail run between facilities.
         Mr. Baehr also noted that the District presently has l/3 of its fleet on
         leased properties, the cost of renting the Plantronics site, which is just one
         of the sites, is approximately $1200 per month.

         Bruce Gabriel stated that it is imperative that the District have a facility that
         can accommodate storage of the buses that are needed to provide the
         amount of service the District operates. Mr. Gabriel also noted that the
         consolidated facility will have a CNG storage facility.

         Michael Singer stated that at the last Transportation Think Tank meeting,
         Leslie White and Kim Chin discussed the Metrobase project. Mr. Singer
         also noted that the District’s website has a “frequently asked questions”
         section that has excellent responses. Mr. Singer also informed the
         members that the Transportation Think Tank is scheduling a forum on the
         Metrobase sometime in January when the consultants will be available to
         answer questions.

         Kim Chin stated that it is important that supporters of Metrobase attend
         the forum to voice their opinion.

         Michael Singer asked if MUG members felt that the Transportation Think
         Tank should sponsor or host the meeting, and what other organizations
         should be involved. Mr. Singer felt that a member from each advisory
         committee should be present for the forum.

         ACTION:             MOTION: Michael Singer         SECOND: Bruce Gabriel

         MUG recommends that the members offer to have MUG co-sponsor
         community forum on Metrobase.

         The motion passed unanimously.

         W         Metro Police Officer

         Bryant Baehr reported that the Board of Directors approved dealing with
         the Santa Cruz Police Department to provide a police presence at Metro
         Center. Mr. Baehr stated that an officer will be stationed part-time at
         Metro Center. The officer patrols the area from Cathcart to Laurel and


F:\USERS\ADM IN\tilesyst\M\MUG\1999\09   15.doc
 Minutes-Metro Users Group
 September 15, 1999
 Page 7


        from Front to Cedar. Mr. Baehr stated that the feedback from the
        community has been positive and that the presence of an officer at the
        Metro Center has also helped in the training of our security officers.

 a.     OPEN DISCUSSION



 9.     ADJOURNMENT

 The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.

 Respectfully submitted,




‘.-C/AURA MANGINI
   Acting Administrative Secretary
       SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT


DATE:          October 15, 1999

TO:            Board of Directors

FROM:          Elisabeth Ross, Manager of Finance

SUBJECT:       MONTHLY BUDGET STATUS REPORT FOR JULY 1999 AND
               AUGUST 1999 AND APPROVAL OF BUDGET TRANSFERS


I.     RECOMMENDED ACTION




II.    SUMMARY OF ISSUES

       l   Operating revenue for the year to date totals $4,175,747 or $41,528 over the amount
           of revenue expected to be received during the first two months of the fiscal year.
       l   Total operating expenses for the year to date, including pass through grant programs,
           in the amount of $3507,609, are at 13.6% of the budget. Day to day operating
           expenses total $3,503,001 or 14.0% of the budget.
       l   A total of $13,688 has been expended through August 3 1 for the FY 99-00 Capital
           Improvement Program.

III.   DISCUSSION

An analysis of the District’s budget status is prepared monthly in order to apprise the Board of
Directors of the District’s actual revenues and expenses in relation to the adopted operating and
capital budgets for the fiscal year. The attached monthly revenue and expense report represents
the status of the District’s FY 99-00 budget as of August 3 1, 1999. The fiscal year is 16.7%
elapsed.

A. Operating Revenues.
Revenues are $41,528 over the amount to be received for the period. Sales tax revenue is
$33,492 ahead of budget projections as of August 3 1” due to high advance payments. Variances
are explained in the notes following the report.

B. Operating Expenses.
Day to day operating expenses for the year to date (excluding grant-funded programs, capital
transfers and pass-through programs) total $3,503,001 or 14.0% of the budget, with 16.7% of the
year elapsed. Variances are explained in the notes following the report.
Board of Directors
Page 2



C. Capital Improvement Program.
For the year to date, a total of $13,688 has been expended on the Capital Improvement Program.


IV.    FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Approval of the budget transfers will increase some line item expenses and decrease others.
Overall, the changes are expense-neutral.

V.      ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A:         Revenue and Expense Reports for July and August, and Budget Transfers
                                              MONTHLY REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT
                                                OPERATING REVENUE - AUGUST 1999


                                FY 99-00              FY 99-00
                               Budgeted for           Actual for     FY 99-00    FY 98-99           FY 99-00   YTD Variance
 Operating Revenue                Month                Month       Budgeted YTC Actual YTD         Actual YTD from Budgetec
                           I                  I
Pixssenger Fares
t                          j $     250,477 1 $
1 Paratransit Fares          $      16,667 j $
  Special Transit Fares
  Purchased Transp Rev     I
  Advertising IncomE
  Other Aux Transp Rev
  Rent Income
  Interest General Func




 FTA Op Asst Planning          $                  $
 FTA Op Asst - Set 5307        $                                 IT
 FTA Op Asst - Set 5311        $          -$                ~--Il$
 Other Federal Grants
 Other Revenue                 $                  $                /$          I$              /              /
                                                                                               I              I              I
 Total Operating Revenut   / $ 2,800,806 1 $           2,865,976 j $ 4,134,219 1 $   3,963,681 / $ 4,175,747 I    $   41,528 1




exprepds
                                    MONTHLY REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT
                                   OPERATING EXPENSE SUMMARY - AUGUST 1999


                                     FY 99-00             FY 99-00       FY 98-99     FY 99-00   Expended ’
                                   Final Budget         Revised Budget Expended YTD Expended YTD of Budget
                                                                                                           I
 PERSONNEL ACCOUNTS
 Administration                          561,663 $              561,663 $           87,719 $             61,519           10.9%
                                                                                    ^. ^^^ A             ^^ a-7           >A A^,
 Finance                                 519,039 $              519,039 $
 Planning & Marketing                    783,679        $       783,679       $    106,082 ’1 $
                                                                                              A          _^ ^--
                                                                                                        112,649 1         d^ A_,
                                                                                                                          14.4%/       4
 Human Resources                         369,946        $       369,946       $     52,4r                4ti,tiss /       lZ.tW/

                                                                                                         YU,lUY           lU.4%
                                                                                                         i i 4,839        12.7%
                                                                                                         245,276          16.2%
                                                                                                      I ,386,084          15.9%
                                                                                                          - _- -7.O       15.5%
                                                                                                                           8.4%
                                                                                                                          15.0%
                               I                    /                     I                   I                                    I
                              Is




                                                                                                                          lU.tm
                                               )O I $            21,100 / $         17,600 / $                             O.O%j
                                                                 -_ ___



                               I                    I                     I                   I                  I           I
 Subtotal Operating Expense    j $       25,010,660         ] $ 25,010,660 1 $ 3,079,351 1 $              3,503,OOl / 14.O%j
                                                                          I             /                        I           1
 Grant Funded Studies/Programs $         106,340        $       106,340       $        525 $                               0.0%
 Transfer to/from Cap Program  $         300,000        $       300,000       $       1,646 $              4,609           1.5%
 Retirement to Reserves                        -        $             -       $           -$                   -
 Pass Through Programs                   450,000        $       450,000       $      13,873 $                              0.0%

 Total Operating Expense           $   25,867,OOO       :    25,867,OOi       $   3,095,395       $   3,507,609           13.6%
                               I                    I                                         I                       I            I

 YTD Operating Revenue Over YTD Expense                                                       1 $ 668,138 j                            I




exprepaug99
                                              CONSOLIDATED OPERATING EXPENSE
                                                        AUGUST 1999

                                                                                             1% t x p
                                   FY 99-00 ’     FY 99-00         FY 98-99 ~ FY 99-00 ~YTD of i
                              , Final Budget ~Revised Budget 1 Expended YTD~ Expended YTDI Budget ~
   iABOR        ~~             I                               *~~ ~~~~
   W rams Wwz                 T !tj 46;;;;‘: f “l;;w$ j-g               682,550 $    746,672 1 16.0%’
   Operators Overtime ~ ~~                                           53,385 $         86,662 _ 18.5% see Note 9
   Other Salaries & Wages    jm$ 4,949:@7 : $ 4,945:777 : $ 671,716 $                6 8 8 , 0 0 4 1 3 . 9 % _
   Other Overtimes        ~~ ;$       109,600 8       109,600 $         -29,733 1 $m  34,740 _ 31.7%; See Note 10

                            ~~                       18 ~$$        10,195,568       $   1,437,384 ! $   1,556,078 !     15.3%[
   F R I N G E BEN~EFITS
   fvledicare/Soc Set                                                 83,925 1 $p         10,568 / $     1 13,062 1 15.6%
                                                                                                              ~~
   PERS Retirement- ~~                                               765,023 ~$-         159,736 _~$       111,990 ; 14.6%
                                                                                                           -.- --.    .^ e-7
   Medical Insurance
   Dental Plan
   Vision fnsurance ~
   Life Insurance
   State Disability Ins ~~~                                                                                                        Note 11
   Long Term Disability fns
   Unemp!oy_ment frsurance----
   Workers Comp/lncurred~WC~ l $            I,#! , 0 4 8 $ t ,291,048~ I--$               1 9 1 , 2 0 6 , $ -182,zJ51 : 14,1%~
   Absence w/Pay               ~$           2?1-30,594 _~ $ 2,130,!$4 1 $               3OV5' , $          358,704 16.8%
   Other Fringe Benefits       I$              SOL769 1 $      60,769 1s                    8,454 :~ $        2,710      4.5%
                                                                                                    I
                                   I$       6,830,924 1 $           6,830,924 1 $       1,004,955 j $ 1,003,451         14.7%[
   S E R V I C E S ~~~ ~~~
   Acctng/Admin/Bank Fees-----                                      26! ,550 ;m$ps_ 17000+$~ ~~
                                                                                      L---J-                !w!?         2.3%1
   Prof/Legis/Legal Services-~                                       306,448 3      27,589 $               15,337        J$% 1
   Temporary Help_---                                                 467Q ~~ 15,158 3                     18,836       40.3% See Note 12
   Uniforms & Laundry ~~~                                            46,652-j $      3224 -~$               ?S?          6.3%’
   SecurityServices-am                                               274,244 $      18,858 $               42,005       15.3%’
   Outside Repair - Bldgs/Eqmt                                       143,!43 1 $    15,967 $               24,463       17.1%’ See Note 13
   putside Repair - Vehicle~~~                                       243,762 i $    11,!20 $               17,433        7.2%
   W a s t e Disp/Ads/Other ~ ~~                                     150,895 1~8    20,399 $               12,667        8.4%.

                             (     $     1,472,284    j       $   ‘,473,406     j   8    129,315 I $      139,673        9.5%[

   WBlLE M A T E R I A L S
   Fuels & Lubricants        I$
                           --c-~
   Tires & Tubes




                                       $ 1,506,894        j $ 1,506,608         j $       116,620 j $     167,542 1 ll.l%[




                                                          I                                                         1
                                   1 $      3,330,432 1 $           3,330,432 1 $        213,359 I $      454,054 1 13.6%




exprepaug99
                                            CONSOLIDATED OPERATING EXPENSE
                                                      AUGUST 1999

                                                                                               % txp
  I                               FY 99-00
                                  : Final Budget
                                                       FY 99-00          FY 98-99 1 FY 99-00    YTD of
                                                     Revised Budget Expended YTDI Expended YTD~ Budget ~
      OTHER MATERIALS                                          ~~~~.~ ~~
                                             ‘61?67_-$


      s&sty Suppj&
      Cleaning Supplies
      R e p a i r & Maintrtupplies
      Parts, NonTlnventoyl_
      Toojs~ool Allowance
      Photos/Mktg/Other Suppfjes my

                                           386,451 1 $         385,465 1 $        41,532 1 $       33,428       8.7%
                                                    I                                                       I
                                      $    244,245 1$          244,245 ~$         40,467 ! $       30,554 1 12.5%1
                                                                                                          I




                                                        $      259,250 1 $        15,440     $     22,615       8.7%1

                                                        $       36,601 $           3,419     $       2,409      6.6%[
                                                                                                            1     -4
                                              44,389    -fL     44,389 t  I        4,721
                                              46,200 $          -S?OO f            3,31 i
                                              12,000            I?,000               639
                                              43,500 ml         43,500             2,424
                                          --579825   $          57,825             4,332
                                              13,400




                                                     I
                                      $   1,383,187 1 $       1,387,187       $   75,880 1 $       81,805       5.9%

      Total Operating Expense         $     25,867,OOO $            25,867,OOO $            3,095,395 $ 3,507,609 13.6%~




exprepaug99
                              MONTHLY REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT
                              FY 99-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

                                              ~Final Program ~Expended in ~
                                                   Budget    ~ August     1YTD Expended

 -ADITAI      DDA ICPTC
1
 (Consolidated Operatincg Facility            3        6,690,OOO ~ $                         $        7,~200
  IJrban Bus Replacement (CO)=              1s            220.771 ; $                        $
-1Jrban Bus Replacement (10;                 i~ 7       -7--                                 $
                                                     .9;     ->--                      - I       $
 IPITA Paratrnncit V~hidnn (71                            3oo.ooo I i
  I3us Rehabilitation Project (10)
  I3us Stop Improvement Program
  I=arebox Replacement
 I      Cnmnl itnr Svntem ICCIl
   Talking Bus - TDA
 I3enches with Bike Rack - UC
  i3enches with Bike Rack - ML -.
  Iqadio Replacement
 ,(SVTC Construction (CC)                  I5              ~28,000 L $-
  IVletro Center Repairs (CO)                   $-~-       32,900 ~$
  IFacilities Repairs & Improvements         I$            22.475 t $
  IFnrilitk Rnnairn R Imn (CT)
 IVlachine*~Equ@ment Repair/lmpr
iIon-Rev Vehicle Recement (3) .._~ ~-~~+-~T. ~~~~~~~~
                                      \-I                                                             2,391
   .“I, m ..,. - -...w.- . .y. Ri-fll
iUnn-Rnv Vehide Fknl - -. . Jel (5)       j $- ~~~~~~~
 (Dffice Equipment                            ,$
   Total Capital Program Expense              $    13,963,558        $        10,225 I $             13,688

                                                                         Received in
                                              i    Final Budaet            August            YTD Received
                                              I
                                                              ~--A
  CAPITAL FUNDING SOURCES
iFederal Capital Grants                                 9,889,46’9   i
 ,State Capital Grants
 ,STA Fundina
              w----~- ~~~~~ ~~

 ILocal Capital Grants
1Transfer from Operating Budget
 iDistrict Reserves
                                                                     I

1Total Capital Funding                            ~$   13,963,558 ’ $         10,225 ~$              13,688




exprepaug99
             SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT
               NOTES TO REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT


1. Passenger fares (farebox and pass sales) are $10,876 or 2.1% over the final budget
   amount for the year to date. Paratransit fares are $1,193 or 7.1% under the final
   budget amount for the year to date (one month of fares). Special transit fares
   (contracts) are $10,104 or 14.7% over the budgeted amount. For the year to date,
   UCSC revenue is $553 ahead of budget projections and Cabrillo College revenue is
   $5,774 over budget projections. Purchased transportation revenue (Highway 17
   Express) is $7,856 or 6.4% under the year-to-date budgeted amount. Together, all
   four passenger revenue accounts are over the budgeted amount for the first two
   months of the fiscal year by a net $11,93 1.

2. Interest income is $7,856 or 6.9% below the final budget for the year to date, due to
   the fact that the interest rate used by the County for July interest income was
   incorrect. The interest rate has been adjusted and the additional income credited to
   the District will appear in next month’s report. With the correct interest rate, the
   interest income for the year to date meets budget expectations.

3. Sales tax income is $33,492 or 1.5% over budget for the first two months of the
   fiscal year due to high advance payments for the current quarter.

4. Finance non-personnel expenses are at 24.9% of the budget due to payment of
   annual casualty and liability insurance premiums.

5. Human Resources non-personnel expenses are at 18.6% of the budget due to use of
   temporary help during recruitment of an Administrative Clerk I.

6. Paratransit program expense is only at 9.2% of the budget because the August
   billing was not submitted by Food & Nutrition by the report deadline. If August
   were included, the program expense would be at approximately 14% of the budget.

7. Operations non-personnel expenses are at 2 1.4% of the budget due to payment of
   bi-monthly water bills and the higher rate charged by Discovery Tours for the
   Highway 17 service.

8. Pre-paid expense adjustment provides for allocating large annual payments, such as
   casualty and liability insurance, over the entire year so that the total expenses
   District-wide for the month and year to date are not skewed.

9. Operator overtime is at 18.5% of the budget due to Bus Operator vacancies. Newly
   hired Operators are currently in training, so overtime will continue to be high until
   all authorized positions are filled and training completed.

10. Other overtime is at 3 1.7% of the budget due to high overtime in Operations as a
    result of Transit Supervisor absences. Total payroll for non-Operators is within
    budget.
11. State disability insurance is at 26.5% of the budget due to payment of insurance for
    new hires. Most employees have reached their cap by this point in the calendar
    year.

12. Temporary help is at 40.3% of the budget due to hire of temporary workers during
    recruitment of new employees in the departments of Administration, Human
    Resources and Fleet Maintenance.

13. Outside repair of buildings and equipment is at 17.1% of the budget due to annual
    renewal of service agreements for office equipment.

14. Each month, the change in the Fleet Maintenance inventory value is recorded as
    either an expense or credit depending on whether the inventory increased or
    decreased.

15. Highway 17 contract transportation expense is at 22.7% of the final budget for the
    year to date due to the substantial rate increase for Discovery Tours.

16. Repairs to property is a casualty and liability account to which repairs to District
    vehicles and property are charged when another party is liable for the damage. All
    collections made from other parties for property repair are applied to this account to
    offset the District’s repair costs. Collections have been applied for the year to date,
    but some repairs have yet to be charged to the account.

17. Professional services for the casualty/liability program are at 55.1% of the budget
    due to staff vacancies in Counsel’s office and costs associated with an upcoming
    court trial.
                                            MONTHLY REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT
                                               OPERATING REVENUE-JULY 1999


                              FY 99-00           FY 99-00
                             Budgeted for        Actual for     FY 99-00    FY 98-99           FY 99-00   YTD Variance
 Operating Revenue             Month              Month       Budgeted YTC Actual YTD         Actual YTD from Budgetec

 Passenger Fares            $     261,530    $      256,933   $    261,530    $    256,402   $    256,933    $        (4,597) See Note 1.
                                                                                                                               -       .
                                                                                                             $
                                   37,385                         37,385                          42,923
                                   61,143                         61,143                          21,282
                                   10,000                         10,000                          10,000
                                      958                             958                                 796




                                                                                                                                     a
                                    6,729                         6,729                           9 , 7 8 2 :
                                   55,036                         55,036                          53,123
                                      200                             200                                 133
                                  900,432                         900,432                         9 1 4 , 8 0 0 ;:                   See Note 2
 ITDA Funds




 [FTAOp,



                           I               I                I               I               I                I                   I
 Total Operating Revenut   1 $   1,333,413 1 $    1,309,772 1 $   1,333,413 / $   1,292,451 / $   1,309,772 1 $      (23,641)I




exprepxls
                                      MONTHLY REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT
                                      OPERATING EXPENSE SUMMARY - JULY 1999

                                                                                              / Percent /
                                    FY 99-00            FY 99-00       FY 98-99     FY 99-00    Expended ’
                                  Final Budget        Revised Budget Expended YTD Expended YTD of Budget




 Subtotal Operating Expense       $ 2 5 0 1 0 , 6 6 0 $ 2 5 0 1 0 , 6 6 0 $ 1,703,829 $ 1,687,641         6.7%

 Grant Funded Studies/Programs    $     106,340       $    106,340       $        -$              -       0.0%
 Transfer to/from Cap Program     $     300,000       $    300,000       $     530 $                      0.0%
 Retirement to Reserves           $           -       $          -       $        -$              :
 Pass Through Programs            $     450,000       $    450,000       $   13,873 $                     0.0%
                              I                   I
                                                      a!             /            /                   I          I

 Total Operating Expense      j $ 25,867,OOO j ; 25,867,OOO 1 $ 1,718,232 j $ 1,687,641 j                 6.5%j
                                                                                                               I
 YTD Operating Revenue Over YTD Expense                                           j   $   (377,869)j                 I




exprepjuly99
                                            CONSOLIDATED OPERATING EXPENSE
                                                       JULY 1999

                                                                                             % Exp
                                         FY 99-00 ~ FY 99-00 i       FY 98-99 ~ FY 99-00 1YTD of
                                    ~ Final Budget Revised Budget ~Expended YTD Expended YTD~ Budget
   LABOR
   -                     ~~~~ I                                     I
   Dperators W a g e s ~~~~~ ,$           4,679,670 r $   4679,670 1 $            343,615~ ; $      372,489 8.0%’
   Operators Cvertime ~~~~~ 1 g                                                   ~33,384 : $        43,086   9.2% See Note 8
   @her Salaries & Wages                                                          347840 : $        344L298   7.0%-
                         ~----I                                                     18,923 $        13,779~ 12.6% See Note 9
   O t h e r Overtime     ~~ 1 $
                                    -$
                                      $ 10,199,418 : 10,195,568 ~$                742,862       $   773,652      7.6%]
   FRINGE BENEFITS                 1m       ~~~~ ail                                        I
   MedicarelSoc Set                                       ~~~~ @A925 2                                6,443 _
   PERS Retirement                                           765,023 $                              ~56,194
   Medical Insurance                                     1,639,232 $                                 19,462
   Dental-Plan                                           387,494 $                                  28,355
   Vision Insurance                      101,322 LA          101,322 $                                73241
   Life Insurance                         5%C!!-!-i I          56,919:s                               3,712 1’
   State Disability Ins- ~~~~~        $                        26,261 _ $                             3,819
   Long Term Disability Ir-rs~~~~~~~                         239,540 / $                             15,661 +
   Unemp_loy-ment I n s u r a n c e _. $ ~~49,707-~!-1         49,707 $                                  314 1
   W o r k e r s Compl&curred W-C+-$ l,29i1048 L$ 1 , 291!048 -3                                     91-,725 ;
   Absence w/Pay ~~~~~~~                               6 2,130,594 ’ $                               89,010 ’
   @her Fringe Benefits                                        60,769 , $                                965 1   1.6%

                                    t $   6,830,924 1 $   6,830,924 1 $           629,028 1 $       522,981      7.7%1


   ProWLegislLegalServices
   Temrary Help ~~~~~                                                        ~~ 6,959 :                                  See Note 14
   Uniforms & Laundry                                                           2,268
   Security Services                                                            5,6iO :
   Outside Rep-air -- Bldgs/Eqmt                                            ~~~ 8,549
   Outside Repair - Vehicles- ~~~                                               2,755
   W a s t e Disp!Ads/Other-mm

                                    ] $   1,472,284 1 $   1,473,406 ) $            45,516 1 $        63,838      4.3%\


   Fuels & Lubricants       i
   Tires &Tubes

   RevenueVehicle Parts
   Inventory Adjustment
                                                                                          I
                                    [ $   1,506,894 j $   1,506,608 j $            59,783 1 $        69,226      4.6%[

                                         --~----t
   CCNTRACT TRANSPORTATION
   ContractTransportation    $           400~ /$
   ParatransitService     -A   $ 2,239,9322’_ $1
   Hwyl7 Service           mJ $~~~~~~,100,000 +$m
                                                  I                                       I
                            1 $    3,330,432 1 $          3,330,432 1 $           109,018 1 $       155,416      4.7%




exprepjuly99
                                          CONSOLIDATED OPERATING EXPENSE
                                                     JULY 1999

                                                                                                     1 % txp ~
                                       FY 99-00     FY 99-00    ’~ FY 98-99       FY 99-00    YTD of ~
                                     Final Budget Revised Budget ~ Expended YTD Expended YTD Budget ~I
                                                                 I                          I
                                                                                                                   See Note 15

                                                                              6391~4 _ $
                                                                                921     $
                                                                             3898       $
                                                                              3,0751    $                          See Note 16
                                                                              8,469     $
                                                                                  ~4
                                                                                822 i   9
                                                                                1074    $

                                                      $      385,465 I $     28,290 I $     18,536      4.8%
                                                                                                               1
                                                      $      244,245 1$      24,756     $   21,258 ~ 8.7%




                             :$           259,250 I $        259,250 1 $
                                                                     I
                                                                              6,989 I $     11,068 ~ 4.3%1

                                 $         36,601 1 $         36,601 1$       2,287 , 9      2,409      6.6%[
                                                                                     I
   MISC EXPENSES
                  ;
   Dues & Subscriptions        i-mm
   Media Advertising
   EmployeelncentiveProgrsm
   Training
   Travel & Local Meet-tngs
                         ~~,  t
   Other~fvllsc              $--L
                                                  I                                 I
                             1s           217,314 1 $        217,314 1 $       1 0 , 3 4 5 4.8%1
                                                                             22,436 1 $
   CTHER EXPENSES        ~~~   ‘~
                                                                                  ~~~ i o.oo/o~
   Interest-Expense- ~~~~ ~                --* sm        - I s ~~       -- .3-
   Leee.es & Rentsk          11---- 483,187 ; 6
                                i         ~~~-~~  487,187 : 9     32,861 $     38,914~~~ S.g%j
   ServiceReserve           m--1; ~ 150,000 I $   150,000~ L$              I
   Transferto-Capital ~~~      ,$   $yJgo 1 s- 300~000 1 $ ~~     pi3c{;-         11     ms&
   P a s s ThroughfIProgr-rams ~$ 450,$9gl$       450,09g~J $

                             $        1,383,187   $       1,387,ia7   I$     47,264 $       38,914 ~ 2.8% ~~

   Total Operating Expense       $     25,867,OoO $        25,867,OOO $    1,718,232 $ 1,687,641 1 6 . 5 %




exprepjuly99
                              MONTHLY REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT
                              FY 99-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

                                             I Final Program ~Expended in ~
                                                   Budget    1    July    ~YTD Expended

1ZAPITAL PROJECTS
 (Consolidated Operating Facility
  IJrban Bus Replacement (CO)
  IJrban Bus Replacement (10)                -1~ $      3,290,694
                                                          ~~
I4DA Paratransit Vehicles (7)            ~~~ ’ $          300,000
  I3us Rehabilitation Project (IO)             I$     -1340,453
r3us Stop Improvement Program                  : $---      193,400-
  I-arebox Replacement                     Mom; $       1,ooo,ooo
iVllS Computer System (CC)                     3          400,600
   Talkina Bus - TDA                           3              8,000
  I                                                          161000
                                                             .~ - - -
  I3enches with Bike Rack - MBUAPCD              $           15,000 1                I
  Iqadio Replacement                      J! ~~~~~~-12~000 _ 3 ~~             --.’
 \tSVTC Construction (CO)          ~ ~~~~ ~~ ,.i$           3!3)$-             -~Yml   $ ~~  ~~     -
 IVletro Center Repairs (CC)..           !-AK ~ ~~           32,9001$  ~~~~~ ~~~~~ : i .$ ~~~~      -
  I=acilities Repairs & Improvements         L!K           .22,475 / $        704 ~$             704
  I=acilities-Rxairs & Imp (CO)                                                                    .-
 i
 IVan-Rev Vehicle Replacement (3)                                                                   -
 IVan-Rev Vehicle Rep1 - Bi-fuel (5)
i3ffice Equipment
   Total Capital Program Expense               1 $ 13,963,558 $             3,463 1 $          3,463
                                                                  I
                                                                  1 Received in
                                             , Final Budget            July     YTD Received
                                             1                    I
_(
 Y,,.   mm,.-.   -..v...- _



   IFederal Capital Grant!
 1,State Capital Grants                                350,000
  ,ISTA Funding                                        827,077
   ILocal Capital Grants                                99,000
    Transfer fromOperating Budget                      300,000~
   IDistrict Reserves                                2,498,012

 Total Capital Funding                       1$     13,963,558 1$          3,463   $           3,463




exprepjuly99
             SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT
               NOTES TO REVENUE AND EXPENSE REPORT


1. Passenger fares (farebox and pass sales) are $4,597 or 1.7% under the final budget
   amount for the year to date. Paratransit fares are zero because the July contractor
   billing was not received by the report deadline. Special transit fares (contracts) are
   $5,538 or 14.8% over the budgeted amount. For the year to date, UCSC revenue is
   $46 ahead of budget projections and Cabrillo College revenue is $3,014 over
   budget projections. Purchased transportation revenue (Highway 17 Express) is
   $39,861 or 65% under the year-to-date budgeted amount because the formula for
   billing VTA was not developed prior to the report deadline. The VTA billings for
   July and August will both appear in next month’s report. Together, all four
   passenger revenue accounts are under the budgeted amount for the first month of
   the fiscal year by a net $38,920.

2. Sales tax income is $14,368 or 1.5% over budget for the first month of the fiscal
   year due to a high advance payment for the current quarter.

3. Finance non-personnel expenses are at 24.7% of the budget due to payment of
   annual casualty and liability insurance premiums.

4. Human Resources non-personnel expenses are at 9.6% of the budget due to use of
   temporary help during recruitment of an Administrative Clerk I.

5. Paratransit program expense is only at 1.5% of the budget because the July billing
   was not submitted by Food & Nutrition by the report deadline. The number shown
   is the monthly payment for dispatch services.

6. Operations non-personnel expenses are at 10.6% of the budget due to payment of
   bi-monthly water bills and the higher rate charged by Discovery Tours for the
   Highway 17 service.

7. Pre-paid expense adjustment provides for allocating large annual payments, such as
   casualty and liability insurance, over the entire year so that the total expenses
   District-wide for the month and year to date are not skewed.

8. Operator overtime is at 9.2% of the budget due to Bus Operator vacancies. Newly
   hired Operators are currently in training, so overtime will continue to be high until
   all authorized positions are filled and training completed.

9. Other overtime is at 12.6% of the budget due to high overtime in Operations as a
   result of Transit Supervisor absences. Total payroll for non-Operators is within
   budget.

10. State disability insurance is at 14.5% of the budget due to payment of insurance for
    new hires. Most employees have reached their cap by this point in the calendar
    year.
11. Absence with pay is at 8.9% of the budget for the year to date since employees take
    more time off during the summer months. Total payroll is within budget.

12. Temporary help is at 16.4% of the budget due to hire of temporary workers during
    recruitment of new employees in the departments of Administration, Human
    Resources and Fleet Maintenance.

13. Each month, the change in the Fleet Maintenance inventory value is recorded as
    either an expense or credit depending on whether the inventory increased or
    decreased.

14. Highway 17 contract transportation expense is at 11 .O% of the final budget for the
    year to date due to the substantial rate increase for Discovery Tours.

15. Postage and mailing expense is at 14.4% of the budget due to a volume purchase of
    postage for the Administration postage meter.

16. Repair and maintenance supplies are at 9.5% of the budget due to volume
    purchases of supplies.

17. Repairs to property is a casualty and liability account to which repairs to District
    vehicles and property are charged when another party is liable for the damage. All
    collections made from other parties for property repair are applied to this account to
    offset the District’s repair costs. Collections have been applied for the year to date,
   but some repairs have yet to be charged to the account.

18. Professional services for the casualty/liability program are at 32.3% of the budget
    due to staff vacancies in Counsel’s office and costs associated with an upcoming
    court trial.

19. Travel and local meetings are at 8.8% of the budget due to payment of registration
    fees for the annual APTA meeting in October.
                              FY 99-00 BUDGET TRANSFERS
                                      7-l-99 - g-30-99
                                      ACCOUNT #                 ACCOUNT TITLE                   AMOUNT
        TRANSFER # 00-001

                   TRANSFER FROM: 3200501021           Salaries and Wages                   $      (3,850)

                   TRANSFER TO:    3200503041          Temporary Help                       $      3,850

                   REASON:         For temporary help in Operations during recruitment of
                                   Administrative Clerk I.

        TRANSFER # 00-002

                   TRANSFER FROM: 4100-504021          Tires and Tubes                      $        (286)

                   TRANSFER TO:     1400-503221        Classified Ads                       $        286

                   REASON:         To provide funding to Human Resources for special advertising
                                   for position of Fleet Maintenance Manager.

        TRANSFER # 00-003

                   TRANSFER FROM: 1300-503352          Outside Equipment Repair             $ (3,014)
                                  4100-504511          Printing                             $    (986)
                                                                                            $ (4,000)

                   TRANSFER TO:     1300-512061        Equipment Rental                     $      4,000

                    REASON:        To cover cost of leasing postage meter and photocopier for
                                   Planning and Marketing Department.




budtranrep
                                       HIGHWAY 17 - AUGUST 1999




               Farebox
  t            Operating Deficit
  I            Santa Clara Subsidv      I $ 51.510 I $ 2:


                                                    I               I              I
                   _---..   -.-              12 098 1
                                             .-a-- -      13.108 1       17.7%11             23.158 1    25.841 1     (10.4%)
               Revenue Miles                 31,421       3; 1421          0.0%              61:346      65;835         (6.8%)
               Revenue Hours                  1,222        1,222           0.0%               2,386       2,560         (6.8%)

      PRODUCTIVITY

  I        Cost/Passenger
           Revenue/Passenaer
                                         $
                                         $
                                         $
                                              10.83 $
                                               2.26 $
                                               8.57 $
                                                            5.79
                                                            2.20
                                                            3.59
                                                                          87.0% $
                                                                           2.9% $
                                                                        138.7% $
                                                                                              11.02 $
                                                                                               2.38 $
                                                                                               8.63 !§
                                                                                                           6.14
                                                                                                           2.26
                                                                                                           3.88
                                                                                                                        79.5%
                                                                                                                         5.4%
                                                                                                                      122.6%
                                               n 39
                                               -.--         0 43
                                                            -. .-        f7 7%)
                                                                              ._               0 38        0 39        (3.8%)
                                               9.90        10.73         (7.7%)                9.71       10.09        (3.8%)
                                              20.9%        38.0%        (45.0%)               21.6%       36.8%       (41.3%k


  r
                                             HIGHWAY 17 RIDERSHIP


      18,000 1




      16,000


               I




       8,000
                                  Aw                Nov       Dee        Jan           Feb       Mar      Av        May    Jun
                                                                    Month




17REPORT.xls                                                                                                                     9122199
                   L   ADA Paratransit Program
                        Monthly Status Report
                                                 1


          Riders         ADA Ridership




   Aug



    SeP




    NW


                                                      096197
    DW
                                                      897196
                                                      l396/99

    Jan                                              2
                                                      n 99/00



    Feb




 Month




ADADATA.xls                                          1014/99
                                                                                                \

                                                                 Santa Cr-uz Metropolitan
                                                                     Transit District

                                                                          k.
 September 22,1999



 Board of Directors
 Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
 370 Encinal Street, Suite 100
 Santa Cruz, CA 95060

        Re:    Notification Regarding Board’s Action in Closed Session on August 20,
               1999, Relating to the Claim of Julie Arias

 Dear Directors:

 Pleased be advised that on August 20,1999, you met in closed session to discuss the
 settlement of the above-entitled matter. A Settlement Agreement and Release of All
 Claims in the amount of $5,000 in full and final payment has been fully executed in
 accordance with your direction at that meeting. Directors Almquist, Beautz, Cavallaro,
 Gabriel, Hinkle, Keogh, Rios and Rotkin voted in favor of the settlement. Director
 Arthur voted no. Directors Beiers and Fitzmaurice were absent.

                                                        Very truly yours,
                                                         /..-.-
                                                -------,2ypj?s r- s c. J&:&q
                                                           *’ / _-
                                                         M a r g a r e t G a l l a g h e r ii
                                                        District Counsel
 MG/rw




370 Encinal Street, Suite 100, Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (831) 426-6080 FAX (831) 426-6117
 F:WSERSUegi,lUIISK\Cl.llln Datawlab Ed. Notlkicamn dot METRO OnLine at http://www.scmtd.com
                  BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
         OF THE SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT

                                              Resolution No. 99-10-l
                                             The Following Resolution is Adopted:
 ItESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR THE HONORABLE FRED KEELEY
      FOR HIS EFFORTS IN IMPROVING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
         PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES IN SANTA CRUZ COUNTY

       WHEREAS, the Honorable Fred Keeley, Speaker Pro-Tern of the Assembly of the
California State Legislature, representing the 27th District, does provide strong, steady
leadership on behalf of the people of Santa Cruz County to advocate for measures which
improve the effectiveness of public transit services; and
       WHEREAS, Assembly Member Fred Keeley did introduce, advocate and secure
the passage of legislation that provided the implementation of a Yield to Bus requirement
which will improve the effectiveness of public transit services by requiring motorists to
yield to buses entering traffic from bus stops and turn-outs; and
       WHEREAS, through the advocacy of Assembly Member Keeley, both Houses of
the California State Legislature passed the Yield to Bus measure and Governor Gray Davis
signed it into law, creating Chapter 482 of the laws of the State of California; and
       WHEREAS, the enactment of the Yield to Bus legislation will greatly improve
public transit services provided to the citizens in the demonstration counties and
ultimately all of the citizens of California.
        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District hereby commend Assembly Member Fred Keeley
for his superior efforts, strong leadership and effective advocacy on behalf of the
improvement of public transit service to the citizens of Santa Cruz County, as well as the
State of California.
        BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors presents this
resolution to commend Assembly Member Fred Keeley in appreciation of his outstanding
services to the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District and the people of Santa Cruz
County.
       PASSED AND ADOPTED this lSth day of October 1999.


                                             APPROVED
                                                                  JAN BEAUTZ
                                                                  Chairperson
ATTEST
              LESLIE R. WHITE
              General Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:


       MARGARET GALLAGHER
       District Counsel
        SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT


DATE:          October 15, 1999

TO:            Board of Directors

FROM:          Mark J. Dorfman, Assistant General Mana

SUBJECT:       REQUEST FROM COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH


I.      RECOMMENDED ACTION




II.     SUMMARY OF ISSUES

        l   A letter has been received from Community Mental Health requesting that they be
            allowed to purchase bulk tickets for ADA Paratransit Service.

III.    DISCUSSION

Attached to this report is a copy of a letter from Yana Jacobs, Program Manager of Older Adult
Services from Community Mental Health. In her letter, she states that in the past their agency
has been able to purchase bulk tickets for Lift Line trips, and this has been a great service for
their agency clients.

In the establishment of the ADA Paratransit Program, the transit district specifically excluded
agency-sponsored rides. As a result, we do not allow agencies to pay the fare for their clients. In
many areas of the country, social service agencies have used the ADA Paratransit Program as a
means of “dumping” their clients onto the transit system. A $2 ride paid for by an agency will
result in a $20 subsidy paid for by the transit agency. In previous presentations to the Board staff
has identified the high rate of growth being experienced in this program. Out of a concern for
this issue, the Board has authorized a client recertification effort and a Program Review to look
at the overall program.

Either Community Mental Health was in the past purchasing rides on Lift Line and not the ADA
Paratransit Program in which case this is not an issue of District concern, or Lift Line sold tickets
to Community Mental Health against the policy of not providing agency trips. In the letter, Ms.
Jacobs states that their clients are on SSI and have a $650 income limitation. The ADA
Paratransit Program is not based on economic criteria. Any individual is certified by the Santa
Cruz Metropolitan Transit District, books a ride and pays their own fare is eligible for ADA
Paratransit service.

The Community Mental Health Agency is not the only agency that has indicated a desire to have
this type of arrangement. Making an exception in this instance will open the door to future
Board of Directors
Page 2


requests for service that the District may be unable to provide without adversely impacting fixed
route service.



IV.    FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Should this request be granted, there will be many other agencies that will make similar requests
as a means of shedding responsibility for agency transportation. The current program with this
restriction in place is growing at a high rate, this request will cause it to increase at a
significantly higher rate.

V.      ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A:         August 6, 1999 Letter from Community Mental Health
I ---



                                      ;,~ .,*,.jT-.-y”. >,;,s!,
                                      r\- ;.;,;; ! :,,.a              HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY

                                                                  1400 EMELiNE AVENUE SANTA CRUZ. CA 95060
                                                           (831) 454-t17ll   FAX: (831) 45444.84 TDD: (831) 454-4123
        Community Mental Health

        August 6, 1999

        Santa Cruz Transit District
        Board of Directors
        370 Encinal Street, Suite 100
        Santa Cruz, CA 95060

        Dear Board Members,

        On behalf of our Older Adult Service Team for County Mental Health I’d like to bring a problem to
        your attention.

        For many years the County has assisted our disabled clients by purchasing $2.00 Liftline tickets to
        get to their medical appointments. Our case managers have had an excellent working relationship
        with Liftline. Recently we were told that Lifiline could no longer sell tickets to “an agency”.

        I am asking that the Board recommend a solution to this most serious problem for our clients. They
        need transportation; their income is typically based on the SSI rate of $650 per month. For the
        purpose of time management it is most efficient to purchase a block of tickets for those clients
        eligible for Liftline. At this time we are not being allowed to purchase any tickets on behalf of our
        clients. One of our goals in mental health is to assure that our clients are able to maintain stability
        of their illness and remain psychiatrically stable. Regular appointments to their doctors is critical in
        obtaining this goal. We do assist our clients with transportation needs, this is a function of good
        case management service. The prevention by your agency to allow representatives of County
        Mental Health to purchase Lifiline tickets for eligible clients has created a huge barrier to services.
        SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT


DATE:          October 15, 1999

TO:            Board of Directors

FROM:          David J. Konno, Manager of Facilities Maintenance

SUBJECT:       TRANSIT CENTER TENANT SELECTION CRITERIA


I.      RECOMMENDED ACTION




II.     SUMMARY OF ISSUES

        l   In May, the Board of Directors reviewed three unranked proposals for leasing the
            Metro Center Cafe, and expressed the need to develop a tenant selection criteria
            either universal or site specific-for leasing of District transit centers.
        l   District staff was directed to solicit criteria from other agencies for review.
        l   The District has received four proposals for the vacant Metro Cafe space and two
            proposals for the vacant Metro Center concession island space.
        l   Loss of revenue from all transit center vacancies is approximately $6980 per month,
            or $83,760 annually.

III.    DISCUSSION

The cities of Watsonville and Santa Cruz were contacted and asked if they have a tenant
selection criteria. Both cities responded by stating that they rely heavily on zoning ordinances to
guide their property managers in tenant selection.

In both cities, potential tenants also submit a written proposal to the city’s property manager.
Applicants are directed to include in their proposals a simple business plan, a resume of work
experience, and their current financial status. The property manager evaluates the proposal to
determine: (1) if a tenant/business is compatible with other nearby businesses; (2) if the
applicant has satisfactory prior experience; and, (3) if the applicant is financially stable. The
potential tenant’s references and credit are checked and verified. The property manager then
selects the most appropriate tenant, negotiates a lease, and presents the lease to the city council
for approval.

Neither city has any written exclusions other than those imposed by their zoning ordinances.
Board of Directors
Page 2


IV.    FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Approximate loss of revenue from vacant District owned properties:

Metro Center                   (2) vacancies =      $3000/month
Watsonville Transit Center     (4) vacancies =      $2 180/month
Scotts Valley Transit Center   (1) vacancy =        $1800/month
                               Total                $6980/month or $83,76O/year

V.      ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A:         Excerpt: Item 13
                      Minutes, Board of Directors Meeting, May 2 1, 1999
Attachment B:         List of Applicants for the Lease of District Transit Center Properties
Attachment C:         Current District Procedures for Tenant Selection
                                                                                              Attachment A



Minutes
Board of Directors Meeting
May 21, 1999
Page 9


13. Consider Metro Center Lease Proposals

David Konno, Facilities Maintenance Manager, reported that the District originally received three
proposals for the main restaurant space at Metro Center. The proposal from the Broken Egg was
withdrawn, leaving Star Food Service, Inc., a franchisee of Carl’s Jr., and Pan World Traders, a
retail outlet specializing in hemp clothing products.

Discussion

Director Beiers stated that she does not support bringing in additional fast food chain restaurants to the
Laurel/Pacific Avenue area.

Director Gabriel stated that he believes a fast food restaurant at Metro Center would be successful and is
conducive to the needs of some bus drivers and passengers who need a quick meal.

UTU representative, Wally Brondstatter, stated that he understands Director Beiers’concems; however,
he cited the success of the McDonald’s at the Watsonville Transit Center.

Director Fitzmaurice suggested postponing making a decision on tilling the vacancy.

Director Rotkin stated that he is not opposed to delaying the decision. He added that perhaps when Metro
Center has a higher level of police service it will attract other tenants.

Director Arthur agreed that having a police officer patrol Metro Center might be a positive impact on
potential tenants. He stated that he would defer to the City of Santa Cruz’s wishes and not support a fast
food chain restaurant to till the vacant space.

Director Cavallaro asked if the City of Santa Cruz is concerned over the actual product of fast food, or is
it the signage that is a concern. He added that the District would be able to have control over the signage.

Director Fitzmaurice stated that the people of the neighborhood should be polled on the issue.

Action: Motion: Director Rotkin, Second: Director Fitzmaurice

Direct staff to seek additional alternatives for the use of space at Santa Cruz Metro Center. Direct
staff to meet with the City of Santa Cruz regarding the use of the space and bring back the issue to
the Board of Directors for further direction.

The Motion passed unanimously.
                                                                                  Attachment B



                                List of Applicants for the Lease
                             of District Transit Center Properties
                                            9/l 7199


Metro Center - Metro Cafit
      1. Broken Egg Enterprise, Inc. - Locally owned business, former owner of The
         Broken Egg restaurants in Santa Cruz and Aptos.
      2. Star Food Service, Inc./Carl Karcher Enterprise, Inc. - Franchisee of Carl’s, Jr.
         with two locally operated restaurants, one in Capitola and the other in Watsonville.
      3. Pan World Traders - Retail clothing store specializing in hemp products.
      4. Caf6 Lanka -Locally owned business, formerly located in the Food Court in
         downtown Santa Cruz.


Metro Center - Concession Island
       1. La Mission - Locally owned business, owner of La Mission restaurant on Mission St.
          in Santa Cruz.
      2. Ali’s Chinese - Locally owned business, owner of Trans Mart at the Watsonville
         Transit Center.


Watsonville Transit Center
      No applicants.


Scotts Vallev Transit Center
      No applicants.
                                                                                   Attachment C




                     Current District Procedures for Tenant Selection



(1)   The potential tenant is required to submit a written proposal including (a) the type of
      business proposed, (b) a simple business plan, (c) the potential tenant’s resume, and
      (d) a current financial status statement .

(2)   The Finance Department reviews the financial information

(3)   The Facilities Maintenance Department reviews the proposal for requested modifications,
      and estimates the cost of the modifications.

(4)   District Counsel negotiates the final lease.

(5)   The District Board of Directors reviews, and approves or denies the lease.
.-.   i


                  SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT


          DATE:          October 15, 1999

          TO:            Board of Directors

          FROM:          Mark J. Dorfman, Assistant General Manager

          SUBJECT:       CONSIDER REQUEST FOR PUBLIC ART COORDINATION FOR
                         METROBASE


          I.      RECOMMENDED ACTION




          II.     SUMMARY OF ISSUES

                  l   The District has been working on a Consolidated Operations Facility for the past few
                      years.
                  l   This MetroBase project, as it has come to be known, is moving forward with
                      negotiations on-going with Waterleaf Architecture and Interiors.
                  l   All federally-funded transit projects are required to have an art element contained in
                      the project.
                  l   In order to integrate the art effort with the design work, it is recommended that the
                      work start as soon as possible.
                  l   Staff is recommending that this work be coordinated with the City of Santa Cruz.

          III.    DISCUSSION

          Since the Loma Prieta Earthquake District staff has been working towards a Consolidated
          Operations Facility. This project, now referred to as MetroBase, is moving forward as the Board
          last month approved a ranking of Architectural/Engineering Firms to design the project.
          Negotiations are currently being conducted with Waterleaf Architecture and Interiors.

          Related to the Architectural Selection process, members of the committee traveled to Southern
          California to tour some facilities. As part of the tour, members were impressed with the
          incorporation of art into the facility design process. From these visits, staff learned of the
          importance to get the art process in sync with the design process as early as possible.

          As a result, staff is recommending that a request be made to the City of Santa Cruz to assume the
          public art coordination for the MetroBase project. In this way the City can structure a process to
          work with the architectural firm to incorporate public art.
.

    Board of Directors
    Page 2


    IV.    FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

    Funds for this project are contained in the MetroBase Project.

    V.      ATTACHMENTS

    None
          SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT


DATE:             October 15, 1999

TO:               Board of Directors

FROM:             Bryant J. Baehr, Manager of Operations

SUBJECT:          HOLIDAY SHOPPER SHUTTLE


I.        RECOMMENDED ACTION




II.       SUMMARY OF ISSUES

l      This shuttle has been operated in previous years, with great success.

l     The Shuttle will operate from the Capitola Mall and shopping centers located in the
      Watsonville area.

l      The additional demand for transportation for holiday shopping cannot be met by existing
       service.

l      Service will operate for five (5) weekends starting on November 20th through December 1 Sth.


III.      DISCUSSION

For the last several years the Board of Directors has authorized the operation of the Holiday
Shopper Shuttle. This shuttle transports our customers to and from the Capitola Mall and the City
of Watsonville. The Shopper Shuttle operates five (5) weekends starting on November 20, 1999
through December 1 sth 1999.

During the holiday season customers demand to go to shopping centers located in the City of
Watsonville and Capitola exceeds our current capacity. The Shopper Shuttle ensures that our
customers can get to the shopping area efficiently and effectively.


III.      FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The cost of this service for twelve weekend days will be $3,400. This amount can be handled
within the Operations budget, because it was previously operated, and is therefore budgeted
under the “Continuation of Level of Service”.
Board of Directors
Page 2




IV.     ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A:        NONE
        SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT


DATE:          October 15, 1999

TO:            Board of Directors

FROM:          Kim Chin, Manager of Planning and Marketing

SUBJECT:       SANTA CRUZ TRANSPORTATION - PROVISION OF PARATRANSIT
               SERVICES



I.      RECOMMENDED ACTION




II.     SUMMARY OF ISSUES

        l   Lift Line is under contract to METRO for the provision of Paratransit services to
            ADA eligible residents of Santa Cruz County.
        l   Lift Line has subcontracted part of this service to Santa Cruz Transportation, Inc.
        l   Santa Cruz Transportation, Inc. has submitted a letter to the Board on September 16,
            1999 identifying several operational concerns.
        l   METRO is in the process of developing a Request for Proposals to conduct a
            Comprehensive Operational and Financial Audit of Lift Line consistent with contract
            provisions.

III.    DISCUSSION

On September 16, 1999, Santa Cruz Transportation, Inc. submitted a letter to the METRO Board
summarizing several operational and financial issues related to a previous presentation made by
Lift Line. This letter is included in the staff report as Attachment A.

Santa Cruz Transportation, Inc. disagrees with some of the fare computations presented by Lift
Line as they relate to the provision of subcontracted taxi Paratransit rides by itself and Courtesy
Cab, the second taxi subcontractor to Lift Line. In addition, Santa Cruz Transportation indicates
a concern with how the subcontracted rides are assigned between itself and Courtesy Cab.

Another concern voiced by Santa Cruz Transportation, Inc. revolves around its ability to operate
within the City of Santa Cruz as a Paratransit provider. The company has been in contact with
City Attorney Barisone to obtain clarification on this issue.
Board of Directors
Page 2


METRO proposes that these issues identified by Santa Cruz Transportation, Inc. form part of the
components that the upcoming Comprehensive Operational and Financial Analysis Request for
Proposals that METRO is in the process of developing. METRO expects to present the Board
with draft work scope specifications for the Board to review in December 1999. Following
Board approval, METRO will issue the Request for Proposals and conduct a competitive
procurement to seek consultant services to carry out the audit.

IV.      FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

There is no financial impact at this time.

V.       ATTACHMENTS

Letter from Santa Cruz Transportation, Inc, dated September 16, 1999.
                    /’




F:\USERS\ADMIN\tilesyst\B\BOD\Board Reports\l999\10kimCOFA.doc
                      SANTA CRUZ TRANSPORTATION INC.
                             131 FRONT STREET
                            SANTA CRUZ, CA 95060
                                (831) 423-6161




                                   September 16, 1999



Board of Directors
Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District
370 Encinal Street
Suite 100
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

              Re:   Lift!ine/CMTA Mid Contract Review to SCMTD

Dear Board of Directors:

      We have now had an opportunity to review the materials presented by Liftline to
you on August 20, 1999.

       First, the information presented to you is somewhat misleading because it
combines all taxicab service in comparing it to Liftline costs. For example, Page 24 of
24 of the Liftline report shows April customers carried by taxicabs at 5,524. Of that
number, 4,926 were carried by Santa Cruz Transportation taxicabs. In May the number
was 4999, and in June the number dropped to 444 1. The Santa Cruz Transportation cost
per ride for those three months was as follows:

      April $12.75 per ride
      May $12.85 per ride
      June     9.79 per ride.

       Those numbers are over $1.50 to almost $3.00 per ride more than those shown by
Liftline. The only reason for that difference is the increased cost of using Courtesy Cab
Company.

      Those numbers are verified by historical records as well. The average cost of
Santa Cruz Transportation taxicabs since 1993 has been as follows:
Board of Directors
September 16, 1999
Page 2




       1993           $11 per ride
       1994           $10 per ride
       1995           9.00 per ride
       1996          12.00 per ride
       1997          10.25 per ride
       1998          12.55 per ride

       In addition, for rides which Santa Cruz Transportation provides in the City of
Santa Cruz where it is the only Liftline provider with a license, the company must give a
discount of 10% of the ride for seniors. Courtesy is not licensed and thus not subject to
the City’s ordinance. Similarly, Courtesy does not have pay for or comply with City of
Santa Cruz mandated drug testing.

        Liftline suggests that there is only a difference of S.94 per ride between Santa Cruz
Transportation and Courtesy. That, of course, is based on their internal use of their own
statistics. The fact is the rates are quite different for the same ride:

       A typical five mile ride for a senior with Courtesy Cab Co. costs    $12.00
                                             with licensed SCT Cab            11.00

         The difference in cost rises as the mileage increases because
         SCT gives a senior discount of 10% while Courtesy gives a
         flat discount of $1 .OO irrespective of the ride.

        What was particularly disturbing is that in early May 1999, when officials at
Liftline were aware that the principals in Santa Cruz Transportation were away on
vacation, they suddenly, without prior notice, changed the makeup of calls, giving Santa
Cruz Transportation calls in the Live Oak and Aptos area and giving long time Santa Cruz
customers to Courtesy Cab Co. For some unexplained reason, about the same time, the
number of calls per day jumped to an all time high of 180 calls per day. This resulted in
a larger number of complaints because the calls were not as easily handled.

        About the same time, we were advised by Liftline employees (Randall) that he had
been instructed that when Courtesy Cabs vacated in the City of Santa Cruz, they were to
be given filler calls in the City of Santa Cruz until there is a return to Watsonville.
Liftline suggests that this is only when Santa Cruz Transportation is not available, but
Board of Directors
September 16, 1999
Page 3




that is not the case. In fact, those calls show up on the schedules a day in advance, so we
know that the unavailability of our vehicles has nothing to do with efficiency or timing.
Liftline suggests that Stella, the former owner of Courtesy Cab was a part time
bookkeeper which, unfortunately is not true. In fact, she was a scheduler-dispatcher
during the relevant time. (A fact confirmed by other Liftline employees) Attached hereto
are records of calls made to Santa Cruz Transportation on May 19, 1999 made by Stella.
Mr. Bugental mentions that those people have accepted positions “elsewhere.” In
Stella’s case, elsewhere is a position with Courtesy Cab which has been experiencing a
great increase in its Liftline business. That is consistent with comments made to
customers of Santa Cruz Transportation when Courtesy started taking over their trips.
Mr. Robert Bowman reported that Courtesy Cab personnel told him that Courtesy was
diligently pursuing a larger Liftline contract. At about the same time (mid May) another
customer, Caroline Konert reported that she was told “Liftline had hired Courtesy to
cover the City of Santa Cruz because Santa Cruz Transportation could no longer do so.”

       The contention that the changes in May 1999 were in response to increased
complaints is without merit and first voiced when we complained in June 1999. In fact,
no written notice of any kind was furnished to Santa Cruz Transportation of this alleged
increase in complaints and that was not mentioned in any contract negotiations which had
been ongoing during the past year. Mr. Bugental’s access to computer generated graphics
far exceeds ours, but it is a fact that on May 6, 1999, when I was out of the country, we
received some 180 calls which was almost 30 calls above an average weekday.

       Interestingly, his analysis of pickups in the City of Santa Cruz is limited to the
month of May and only looks at rides which both originated and ended in the City. Thus,
a ride originating in the City but terminating in Live Oak is excluded. All pickups in the
             a
City of Sant C ruz, under the Santa Cruz Taxicab Ordinance are to be by taxicabs
licensed in the City of Santa Cruz.

         On the critical issue of whether Courtesy Cab requires a permit to pick up cabs in
the City of Santa Cruz, we are willing to await the decision of Mr. Barisone, the City of
Santa Cruz Attorney. In talking to Lt. Sapone and the City Manager’s office, it became
clear to us that they were unaware of some critical difference in the services provided by
Liftline. Briefly, let us review the issues with the Board.
Board of Directors
September 16, 1999
Page 4




      1. No one is contending that the vans that are used need to have a City of Santa
Cruz permit.

       2. No one is contending that the handicabs used under the ADA program require a
City of Santa Cruz permit.

       3. The sole issue in contention is whether taxicabs (sedans) who are supplying
service to ambulatory passengers who meet Liftline financial criteria must have a license
to operate in the City in which they are picking up (not dropping off) customers,
irrespective of where those customers are dropped off.

       In short, Santa Cruz Transportation is willing to continue to provide quality,
efficient service to the citizens of this County through the Liftline program. We only ask
that the distribution of that business be done on a legal and equitable basis to those
providers who are properly licensed to provide the service in the given areas.




                                           ames J. Bosso, President




 SChlT.LlR
    -
I    L

                SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT


         DATE:         October 15, 1999

         TO:           Board of Directors

         FROM:         Margaret Gallagher, District Counsel

         SUBJECT:      CONSIDER AMENDING THE BYLAWS, ADDING ADDITIONAL
                       MONTHLY BOARD MEETING AND DELETING MONTHLY
                       POLICY/FINANCE AND PERSONNEL/SPECIAL PROJECTS
                       COMMITTEES


         I.     RECOMMENDED ACTION




         II.     SUMMARY OF ISSUES

                l   The Board of Directors amended its Bylaws to limit the committee agendas to
                    “consent” items only.
                l   The Committee Meetings were cancelled for the months of August and September
                    and replaced with a Board of Directors’ Workshop.
                l   It was decided that the Board would discuss the Committee meeting structure and the
                    Board workshop and Board meeting structures in September to determine what works
                    best.

         III.   DISCUSSION

         During the FEMA crisis, Directors were concerned regarding whether they were receiving all
         necessary and relevant information for decision-making. A concern was also expressed that
         Directors on the Policy/Finance Committee were receiving more detailed presentations at that
         committee than all the Board of Directors received at the Board meetings.

         As a result, the Bylaws were amended so that only consent agenda or non-action items were
         handled by the committees. This format has resulted in concerns regarding whether it is
         necessary to have presentations on relatively simple subjects from the consent agenda, when
         major issues and policy decisions are facing the Board of Directors.

         Therefore, at the July 1999 Board meeting it was decided to cancel the Committee meetings for
         the month of August and replace them with a Board Workshop. The August Board meeting
         would remain in place. In this way, Directors could determine if they wish to amend the Bylaws
         to make a permanent change to the committee structure. The entire matter was scheduled to be
         reviewed again at the August board meeting. At the August workshop it was determined that
Board of Directors
Page 2


more time would be necessary to evaluate the Board Workshop/Board Meeting structure so this
matter was continued to September for review and consideration.

IV.     FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

None.

V.      ATTACHMENTS

None.
    l
f


                SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT


        DATE:          October 15, 1999

        TO:            Board of Directors

        FROM:          Mark J. Dorfman, Assistant General Manager

        SUBJECT:       AUTHORIZATION TO RENEW CONTRACT FOR PAINT AND BODY
                       SERVICES


        I.      RECOMMENDED ACTION




        II.     SUMMARY OF ISSUES

                l   An existing contract is in effect for Pain and Body Services.
                l   There is an option to renew.
                l   The existing vendor will continue the contract at the same conditions and prices.

        III.    DISCUSSION

        In 1998 the Board of Directors authorized a contract with Bay Equipment and Repair, Hayward,
        California to perform paint and body work for the District fleet. The current contract contains up
        to four one year extensions. They have indicated a desire to extend the same terms and
        conditions for the existing contract for the next year, $38 per hour.

        IV.     FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

        Funds are contained in the existing Maintenance budget for this work.

        V.      ATTACHMENTS

        Attachment A:          Letter from Bay Equipment and Repair dated September 29, 1999
BAY EQUIPMENT AND REPAIR




   SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN
   TRANSIT DISTRICT
   MR. TOM STICKEL


   DEAR MR. STICKEL,

        WE RESPECTFULLY OFFER TO EXTEND THE EXISTING TERMS AND
   CONDITIONS ON THE CONTRACT NO. 98-17 FOR VEHICLE PAINT AND BODY
   SERVICE ON SANTA CRUZ METRO COACHES.

         WE SET UP PRODUCTION PROCEDURES TO ENABLE
   US TO PROVIDE SANTA CRUZ METRO WITH QUICKER SERVICE AND MOST
   VALUE FOR THE DOLLAR. WE BELIEVE WE MUST EARN YOUR BUISNESS
   ON EVERY COACH, AND HIGHLY VALUE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE
   SANTA CRUZ METRO.

        WE ARE GRATEFULL FOR THE WORK AWARDED US AND HOPE WE
   MAY CONTINUE TO BE INCLUDED IN SERVING SANTA CRUZ METRO.

         AT YOUR CONVIENCE, PLEASE LET US KNOW WHAT YOUR DECISION
   ON THIS MATTER IS.




                                                                   PRESIDENT B.E.A.R.




3393 Enterprise Avenue / Hayward, California 94545 I (510) 783-9050 I FAX (510) 783-3929
      Refirwhing - Collision Repair * Fleet Markings * Manufacturers & Distributors of Truck Bodies and Equipment
        SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT


DATE:          October 15, 1999

TO:            Board of Directors

FROM:          Kim Chin, Manager of Planning and Marketing

SUBJECT:       CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SERVICE CHANGES FOR WINTER 1999
               FOR DAVENPORT/BONNY DOON AND LOMPICO/SOUTH FELTON

I.      RECOMMENDED ACTION




II.     SUMMARY OF ISSUES

        l   In September, the Board approved service improvements for the Winter service
            change in the amount of $114,900 per year.
        l   The Board also approved $60,625 each for service in the Bonny Door-i/Davenport and
            Felton/Lompico areas, with the service details to be determined cooperatively
            between the community group for each area (the Davenport Resource Center and the
            Lompico Community Association) and the District staff-UTU Service Review
            Committee.

III.    DISCUSSION

In the two weeks between the September Board meeting and the packet deadline for the October
Board meeting, the Service Review Committee met with representatives from the Davenport
Resource Center and the Lompico Community Association to try to work out details of the
proposed service. There was general agreement about what kind of service is needed. However,
many specific details remain to be worked out. Therefore, staff requests the approval of service
additions in Attachment A “in concept,” with final details to be arranged as soon as route time
tests and other fine-tuning can be completed.

The mandatory deadline for formally notifying the UTU of service changes is one week after the
October Board meeting. Therefore, the Board’s approval of the winter service changes, effective
December 9, 1999, is necessary at this time if the improvements are to be implemented in
December.
Board of Directors
Page 2


There are two remaining issues that staff is working on in regard to implementing the proposed
service for December: having enough bus operators and buses to provide the additional service.
Staff will continue to press forward to try to resolve these issues.

Iv.    FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Funding for all winter and spring projects is provided by a $150,000 allocation of District funds,
and $150,000 from the Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission.

V.        ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A:          Service Additions for Routes 33,34,40,41 and 42.




KIM CHIN
Manager of Planning and Marketing

Prepared by: Linda S. Fry

LSF/prf
                                    Attachment A
                      Winter Service Improvements for Routes 33, 34, 40,41 and 42
Service added is in boldface.
Service with adjusted timepoints is shown in italics.




                                            Route 33 Lompico

                                                    Weekday

    Felton E. Zay./ West Dr.       Zay. Glen Arb.        Arr.     Dep. Glen Arb/ West Dr./    Zay.   E. Zay.   Felton
     Faire   W. Zay Lompico       Store QHollow          SLV      SLV Q. Hollow Lompico      Store   W. Zay.    Faire

 6:25 a.m.     6:28      6:36      6:4 1     6:50        6:54     6:55     6:58      7:08     7:14      7:20    7:24
                                                                  2:15     2:20      2:30     2:36      2143    2:48
 2:49 p.m.     -                                          2:52    2:55     3:oo      3:ll     3:17      3:22    3:26
  6:40 p.m     -         -         -        -            6:43     6:46     6:51      7:Ol     7:07      7:13    7:17
lo:66 p.m.     -         -         -        -           lo:68    11:Ol    11:06     11:18    11:22     11:28   11:32



                                                    Weekend
 6:61     a.m.   -       -                               6:54     6:55     6:58      7:08     7:14      7:20    7:24
 8:OOa.m.      -         -                               8:03     8:03     8:08      8:18     8:24      8:30    8:34
 6:40     p.m.   -       -                               8:43     6:46     6:61      7:Ol     7:07      7:13    7:17
10:30 p.m. -                                -           10:33    10:33    lo:38     lo:48    lo:64     ll:oo   11:04
                 Route 34 South Felton

                            Weekday

    Felton                    Forest   Redwood &    Felton
     Faire           SLV      Lakes        Valley    Faire         SLV

             7:30 a.m.          7:37         7:42   -              7:51
 2:lO p.m.           2:15       2:23         2:28       2:40   -
 2:41 p.m.           250        2:58         3:03       3:15   -
 6:lO p.m.       -              6:23         6:28       6:40   -
IO:20 p.m.       -             IO:33        IO:38   1050       -


                            Weekend

 7:30 a.m.       -              7137         7142       7:54   -
 8:40 a.m.       -              8147         8:52       9:04   -
 6:lO p.m.           6:15       6:23         6:28       6:40   -
lo:05 p.m.       -             10:13        IO:18   IO:30      -
                     Route 40 Davenport/North Coast Beaches
                                        Weekday

    Metro     S.C.    HWy.11    Dav.    Wadd.     Hwy. 11   Dav. Pac.    Hwy.11   S.C.
   Center     High   Western    P.O.    Creek    Cem. PI.     School    Western          SCMC

6:05   a.m.             6:15    6:27      6:45      6:55        7:oo       7:lO           7:25
6:50   a.m.             6:58    7:07                7:12        7:20       7:30   7:35    7:40
8:40   a.m.             8:48    8:57                9:02        9:lO       9:20   9:25    9:30
3:30   p.m.   3:33      3:40    3:49     4:12       4:29        4:37       4:47   4:52    4:57
6:05   p.m.             6:lO    6:22                6:27        6135       6:45           6:55




                                        Weekend
 5:45 a.m.              5:65     6:07    6:30       6:40        6:45       6:55           7:08
 8:30 a.m.              8:40     8:52               8:57        9:02       9:12           9:25
11:OO a.m.             11:lO    11:22    11:45     11:55       12:oo      12:lO          12:25
 3:30 p.m.              3:40     3:52     4:15      4:25        4:30       4:40           4:55
 5:30 p.m.              5:40     5:52     6:15      6:25        6:30       6:40           6:55
                      Route 41 Bonny Doon
                         Weekday (No Change)
   Metro              Bay/   Emp. Gr./    B.D. Rd./   Pine Flat/   Bay/             Metro
  Center      SCHS    High   Pine Flat    Pine Flat   Emp. Gr.     High    SCHS    Center

6:05   a.m.           6:14       6:36         6:41         6:57     7:17    7:23     7:25
8:00   a.m.           8:09       8:31         8:36         8:52     9:12             9:20
3:30   p.m.    3:35   3143       4:08         4:14         4:30     4:50             5:oo
530    p.m.           5:39       6:Ol         6:06         6:22     6:42             6:50




                                         Weekend
5:50 a.m.         -   5:59       6:21         6:26         6:42     7:02       -    7:lO
9:30 a.m.             9:39      IO:01        IO:06        IO:22    lo:42           10:50
1:15 p.m.             1:24       1146         151          2:07     2:27            2:35
5:15 p.m.             5:24       5146         5:51         6:07     6:27            6:35
                         Route 42 Davenport/Bonny Doon*


                                    Weekday
        Metro        Hwy. 11      Hwy. l!        Martin/     Emp. Gr./       Metro
       Center     Cem. Plant     B.D. Rd.      Pine Flat   Felton Emp       Center

    12:30 p.m.        12:48         12:52         12:58          1:17         1:50
     7:15 p.m.         7:33          7:37          7:43          8:02         8:35
    1O:OO p.m.        lo:18         10:22         lo:28         10:47        11:20




                                    Weekend
     7:15 p.m.          7:33         7:37          7:43          8:02         8:35
    10:00 p.m.         lo:18        10:22         lo:28         10:47        11:20




*Note: The routing will change to do a double loop in the area of Bonny Doon Road
and Pine Flat Road so that both areas are served.
       SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT


DATE:          October 1, 1999

TO:            Board of Directors

FROM:          Paul C. Chandley, Human Resources Manager

SUBJECT:       CONSIDER AWARD OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
               ADMINISTRATOR CONTRACT AND RENEWAL OF EXCESS
               INSURANCE CONTRACT


I.     RECOMMENDED ACTION




II.    SUMMARY OF ISSUES

       l   Both of the District’s current contracts for the administration of its workers’
           compensation program and excess insurance will expire on October 24, 1999.
       l   A Request For Proposals was advertised and sent to more that ten companies who
           perform third party workers’ compensation administration. Three companies
           responded with proposals.
       l   The District awarded a contract in October 1997 with Employers Reinsurance
           Corporation for excess workers’ compensation insurance and renewed the contract in
           October 1999 in the first of four allowable one-year extensions.

III.   DISCUSSION

The District contracts with a third party administrator for its self-insured workers’ compensation
program. Over the past five years the District has contracted with FIRM Solutions, Inc., to
provide these services.

Three companies responded to an RFP between August 27’h and September 27th, 1999. FIRM
Solutions was ranked the highest of the three, and although its two-year base rate of $130,042
was $17,842 above the lowest offerer, it offers the greatest savings on medical bills. Last year
FIRM Solutions obtained a $108,287 net savings to the District through preferred provided and
bill review programs. Also FIRM Solutions ranked highest in overall program and experience
qualifications.

In October 1997 the District awarded a contract to Employers Reinsurance Corporation for
workers’ compensation insurance in excess of any claim exceeding $350,000. Employers
Board of Directors
Page 2


Reinsurance Corporation has agreed to renew its coverage for one year with the District at the
same rate ($0.2308/$100 payroll) as last year.


IV.    FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The costs are included in the FY 1999-2000 budget.

V.      ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A: Workers’ Compensation Administrator RFP Ranking
                                                         Attachment A


SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT

 WORKERS’ COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATOR RFP RANKING


        1. FIRM Solutions

        2. Willis Corroon Administrative Services Corportation

        3. JT2 Integrated Resources
       SANTA CRUZ METROPOLITAN TRANSIT DISTRICT


DATE:          October 15, 1999

TO:            Board of Directors

FROM:          Mark J. Dorfman, Assistant General Manager

SUBJECT:       CONSIDER AWARD OF BUS SHELTER CONTRACT


I.     RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the General Manager to execute a
contract with Daytech Manufacturing for the purchase of thirty (30) Bus Stop Shelters.

II.    SUMMARY OF ISSUES

       •   During the past month(s) the Purchasing Office received offers for the
           products/services outlined above.
       •   It is requested that the Board approve this Contract and authorize the General
           Manager to execute the necessary contract to procure these goods and/or services.

III.   DISCUSSION

On August 9, 1999 bids were released for the purchase of thirty (30) Bus Stop Shelters. Bids
were sent to ten (10) firms known to manufacture Bus Shelters. In addition, the bid was
advertised in the local newspaper.

On August 16, 1999, bids were opened for this bid. There were three firms that responded to the
bid. A Bid Tabulation is enclosed as Attachment A. The recommended award is to Daytech
Manufacturing of Orchard Park, New York in the amount of $110,925. This exercises the option
of purchasing nine (9) optional shelters, as well as the Seating Option Number 4 for all the
shelters.

IV.    FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

The cost of the shelters with the options requested total $110,925. Funds are available in the
Capital budget for this purchase. Nine of the shelters are being paid for by County
Redevelopment.

V.      ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A:         Bid Tabulation
                                                                            ATTACHMENT A


                                  Bid Tabulation
                                  Bus Shelter Bid

                              Daytech                                          Columbia
             Item           Manufacturing        Brasco International          Equipment
21 Shelters                            72,975                    76,041                 136,479
9 Shelters                             30,600                    32,589                  59,031
Seating Option 1                        4,350                     7,950                  12,150
Seating Option 2                        6,450                     8,340                  15,750
Seating Option 3                        7,350                     8,610                  10,350
Seating Option 4                       11,850                     8,370                  12,900
Option Lighting (1)                     1,895                     1,515                   1,950
Option Display Panel (1)              Included                        217                  115
Option Front Wall (1)                                                                      365
offered as another option
by Columbia Equipment




                              Recommended Award
                                  Bus Shelter Bid

               Item             Qty              Unit Price            Extended Price
Bus Shelters                     21                           3,475            72,975
Bus Shelters                      9                           3,400            30,600
Bench Option 4                   30                            245              7,350
                                                        TOTAL                 110,925

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:2
posted:1/31/2012
language:
pages:132
jianghongl jianghongl http://
About