[0:00] Trying not to be too forceful, but we're going to comply with our three-minute speaking rule, strictly adhered to that, and we're going to try to get through this agenda as efficiently as we can, because we are going to be here while.

[0:12] So, with that, it's 10 a.m. and I will call to order the meeting of the Capital

[0:18] Much Pollution Transportation Authority Board of Directors, where in 2010, a fifth

[0:22] street, it is September 24th, 2010, and we will begin our meeting as we always begin with

[0:30] the Pledge of Allegiance, please stand.

[0:32] I

[0:37] pledge allegiance to high of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, in the name of Israel, in the name of the United States of Israel.

[0:50] Now the Texas pledge, please? Honored the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under God, one heart in the name of Israel.

[1:09] How many of y'all had to read that?

[1:13] You should be embarrassed.

[1:18] I just say the hell, Mary, and it sounds like I'm saying it.

[1:29] All right, so we will start out with our public comment portion of the meeting.

[1:34] And the first speaker is Mitchell.

[1:39] Is it rapport?

[1:40] Is there a Mitchell record for here?

[1:45] How about Malcolm Graham?

[1:46] It's seen Malcolm.

[1:48] Who?

[1:59] Okay.

[2:00] How about Robert Frank?

[2:04] Robert?

[2:05] Welcome.

[2:05] You'll have three minutes.

[2:09] Here's a microphone.

[2:10] We're going to hand you.

[2:12] Okay.

[2:13] Thank you, Robert.

[2:14] I've been with STS as a consumer.

[2:17] for almost 18 years and it has been great.

[2:25] I realize the train is a mixed bag.

[2:27] It's good for the business community.

[2:28] It's good for some of the consumers.

[2:31] It's not all a lost cause.

[2:34] But capital metro and STS need to work together

[2:38] based on compromises of giving and taking and sharing.

[2:43] I think some of the changes are compromises.

[2:46] I think closing the office earlier on weekends is not bad.

[2:54] Provided it's open for a while each day on the weekend.

[2:58] I think open returns is a good thing.

[3:02] It's needed, especially for the doctors concerned.

[3:05] That's necessary.

[3:07] We do need the cabs because cabs are such that for blind people such as myself,

[3:14] They get me to my work on time, and they get me home on time, and that is very, very crucial

[3:22] if I am to keep a job or if anyone else is to keep a job.

[3:27] If the disabled are to continue to move forward and be like everybody else, we need STS and

[3:35] Metro. And we need to work together because if SES is cut and some of the changes going to

[3:44] affect and the disabled are pushed back, we will not make it as a whole. Therefore I plead

[3:51] as a consumer that the Camp Program not be cut and that some of the changes going to affect

[4:00] where there is a trimming of the fact that I think keeping STS the way it's been would be very

[4:08] beneficial if all disabled people blind maybe death crippled and other disabled people are

[4:18] to continue along these lines and make it as part of the community. Thank you very much and have a good day.

[4:24] Thank you.

[4:27] Next is the ATU local 1091 regarding labor relations issues.

[4:35] And lastly,

[4:36] Sandy Baldurge is Sandy here. Oh, welcome, Sandy. I didn't see either. You have three minutes.

[4:52] Push the button. There's a button up there. There you go.

[4:55] Sit on. My name is Sandy Baldurge. I'm the President of the O'Kill Association of

[5:01] Neighborhoods. O'Han is a voluntary group of people from O'Kill in the surrounding area

[5:06] who meet monthly to review proposed changes to our community and offer input.

[5:11] We are not paid and our only reward is a job well done.

[5:14] Sometimes our input is requested, sometimes it is ignored.

[5:19] We have been in existence since least 1985.

[5:22] Today, oh hand represents 27 neighborhoods in southwest Austin and Travis County, being a

[5:28] forum and spokesperson for nearly 30,000 rooftops.

[5:32] We have stopped an asphalt plan from being constructed on 71 West.

[5:36] We stopped a Walmart from being constructed at West Water Lane in MoPAC.

[5:40] And then spent the subsequent two years making sure that the Walmart that existed did not

[5:46] turn the Blight.

[5:48] We backed AMD and we backed the Costco Center at MoPAC in Louisiana.

[5:53] Involved since early 2003, O'Hann encouraged the construction of a transit facility into

[5:59] in O'Kill.

[6:00] efforts were repeated with a cat Metro boards in 2004 and five when cat Metro embarked on the

[6:06] all systems go effort.

[6:08] Okay, it was promised direct bus service to downtown into the airport and I want to thank this

[6:13] board for making sure that we at least got the service to downtown.

[6:17] Residents use the flyer and have had more than one occasion to ask for services to be increased.

[6:24] Ladies and gentlemen, we get it.

[6:26] We understand that mass transit is better for our ecology, our economy, and our quality of life.

[6:33] During somewhat arduous three-year debate over the late largest neighborhood plan in Austin,

[6:38] then and still being some 11,000 acres, our plan has always contained a transit component.

[6:45] Our neighborhood plan set aside a town center core area which we begged City Council to be designated as a master plan development.

[6:53] that did not happen. But neither has anything else in this area that was set aside.

[7:00] On August 28th, 2006 years after promises were made under all systems go, O'hand called

[7:07] a town center meeting. I have provided you with a local newspaper edition which was published

[7:13] following that meeting. 97% on average of at least 130 residents that gave up their Saturday

[7:21] morning immediately after school started. Came together from five zip codes and agreed that

[7:27] now was the time to work with ACC to get a transit component into Oak Hill and to make sure

[7:34] that we stopped some of the congestion before the two major intersections were 70,000 vehicle trips

[7:41] per day exist. This was six weeks ago. School is now in session and the economy may be coming

[7:47] that, which means that traffic jam is going to continue. It is one of the 100 most congested

[7:54] intersections in the state. The only way we can relieve this is with mass transit. I'll

[8:00] be glad to take any questions.

[8:02] We question, thank you, Ms. Walden.

[8:06] Now we'll go to our advisory committee updates and

[8:09] just as a reminder folks, when you speak on an agenda item, when you see the yellow light

[8:13] or here that first be, it's just a reminder that you have 30 seconds for me.

[8:19] So, the first advisory committee update is the customer satisfaction committee.

[8:24] Do we have a representative here?

[8:26] Okay.

[8:32] Welcome.

[8:34] You're up.

[8:35] Perfect timing.

[8:48] Sorry for my pardon.

[8:49] I said I was going to be 10, 30 for my time.

[8:52] Okay.

[8:53] Board members, Mr. Chair, greetings,

[8:56] my name is Rich McKinnon.

[8:57] I'm the vice chair for the customer satisfaction

[9:00] advisory committee.

[9:02] I'm also a member of the City of Austin Transportation Commission.

[9:06] C-SAC last met on Tuesday, September 14, 6 p.m.

[9:10] at the Toronto's Library.

[9:12] I'm a lot of breath.

[9:15] Let's see.

[9:16] We did not adopt the minutes at the August C-SAC meeting

[9:20] because of a lack of quorum.

[9:22] Robert Gonzalez provided the committee with a presentation regarding

[9:25] catmeters proposed January 2011 service changes.

[9:30] After the presentation the committee discussed changes

[9:32] and questions were answered.

[9:35] We're going to be hearing provided the committee with a presentation

[9:37] on the proposed fiscal year 2011 budget.

[9:41] And John Michael Cortez discussed the possibility of the

[9:43] access and C-SAC advisory committees being reconstituted.

[9:47] The timeline is not certain, but may begin to be

[9:50] phase over the next several months.

[9:52] The next C-SAC meeting is tentatively scheduled for October 12, 6 p.m.,

[9:56] at Tross's Library, and all are invited to attend.

[10:03] Thank you.

[10:04] Thank you.

[10:06] The next advisory committee update is from our access advisory committee.

[10:23] Dan, are you ready?

[10:36] As the MMWG agent was not on the agenda,

[10:40] I'm just going to combine these, and I'm going to try to be very

[10:42] brief.

[10:43] As I'm sure Chair Martinez will really appreciate and I first of all we had a discussion

[10:54] of the budget at the meeting and also Ms. Mendoza brought up the issue of the combining

[11:10] I'm going to try to be calm here, combining the committees, and it was our understanding

[11:19] that that was not going to be brought up to either the Operations Committee this morning

[11:24] or to the board.

[11:27] And so we are pretty perplexed by that today.

[11:32] So in order to the committee, basically was very outraged because they were included in the

[11:39] discussion, and of how this should be, it seems to us that this is an attempt to

[11:50] to the public and put in the public voice, and I left something over there that I need.

[12:06] Excuse me just a second.

[12:07] I think it's in my purse.

[12:09] I just need one purse.

[12:10] I'm very sorry.

[12:12] I came in really quickly here.

[12:14] You're from then.

[12:16] I got someone coming with the purse.

[12:17] Thanks.

[12:18] Thank you very much.

[12:19] I'm sorry.

[12:19] I wasn't expected to just come and do this right away.

[12:23] Anyway, okay, so we're very, very concerned about that.

[12:28] We have had management interference in our process.

[12:34] As I've spoken to this board about in the past,

[12:37] we've had management interference in putting in names

[12:43] that we did not suggest for nomination.

[12:46] people who had applied, but we did not feel we're qualified.

[12:51] Those people don't really participate.

[12:53] They don't understand the issues.

[12:55] We feel strongly that this attempt is

[12:59] to, as I said, stifle the voice of the disability community,

[13:05] the CSAT committee, if I understand correctly, is appointed

[13:08] by members of the board.

[13:12] And I don't remember any instance in which they have

[13:16] come up with anything that opposed what staff was already presenting.

[13:24] Part of the reason for the mechanism that specified under ADA is to provide some oversight,

[13:34] which we have done.

[13:37] Whether we've been listened to or not is another matter, but we have definitely done that.

[13:41] And because of that, now you're having that same staff determine how we should be abolished.

[13:51] I mean, that you're just trying to shoot the messenger.

[13:54] You guys just want somebody who's going to be up there who's not going to tell the truth.

[14:03] I know that the Sunset Commission said that this was in disarray.

[14:07] Thank you.

[14:08] Okay.

[14:10] I'm not only interrupting to relieve a little pressure, there's no intention to combine the two

[14:16] committees.

[14:18] Okay, but there is the intention of having board directly a point.

[14:22] Okay.

[14:23] Yeah.

[14:23] Sorry.

[14:23] If you want to address that, please.

[14:25] I just wanted to mention that.

[14:26] That's right.

[14:27] Yeah.

[14:28] I'm not, you know, I feel that, because of that, I mean, the board was supposed to have been

[14:35] pointing all along, right?

[14:37] That was supposed to be the thing, but what's happened is that management has then interfering

[14:44] in that process.

[14:45] And if you would allow us the committee to handle the application process as we have done

[14:55] the past and take the suggested appointments from us.

[15:00] Rather than letting management interfere, I think we would have a much better committee.

[15:06] And if we're not very, as you want, like professionally handling every committee or whatever, as you well know, these are very volatile issues.

[15:18] And we represent the public and the public comes, and I've tried real hard to let the public have a voice.

[15:25] and instead of having it quite as, as, as formal. I want to also now I want to go into the

[15:33] work group. I want to go into the work group issues. And what we, what we discussed extensively

[15:43] yesterday was the taxi voucher program and I had scheduled a conference call with Mr. Larry

[15:51] and did for Colorado, and that was scheduled for 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, Colorado time, 4, 3 are time.

[16:01] And he was on a really tight schedule and staff didn't arrive until 5.

[16:07] That was Ms. Evans arrived at 5, and then Elaine, 10, didn't arrive until long after that.

[16:14] So as a result, we didn't have a phone, and we weren't able to call Mr. butter in Denver.

[16:19] And I think that his input is extremely important.

[16:23] I spoke with Ms. Watson yesterday morning about the importance of getting his, in fact,

[16:28] she asked, she mentioned it to me before I got a chance to mention it.

[16:34] And it seems to be a great that we should get information from as many places as possible

[16:40] before deciding on a change in the taxi request model.

[16:46] I also want to say that the group did vote, of course, Hills 3 to 2, as usual,

[16:57] that the budget for the amount that has been spent on the taxi request program this year or be maintained for next year and not be reduced.

[17:11] The, no matter what kind of a plan we finally come up with.

[17:17] In the meantime, we would request that the Taxi Voucher program stay as it is.

[17:24] And also for the record, I want to play something here that I played for the group yesterday.

[17:30] And it's important that this go on the public record.

[17:34] Ms. Butcher had sent out an email to myself and to the board stating that the FDA has

[17:41] not

[17:45] stating that staff never said that the FDA claimed that they had that they were violating,

[17:55] that the tax, I'm sorry, I'm very flustered, that the Taxi request program was in violation.

[18:03] She said in her email that staff had informed the board that FDA had provided note had given

[18:13] notification that there was a vulnerability of being of a complaint or a challenge against

[18:24] the program okay and that's what she told me was said to the board and to us

[18:39] and of course

[18:40] things don't work when you want them to, right?

[18:45] Okay. Anyway, what we have is a locked device.

[18:53] Okay, I'm going to play this for the public record because it's very important because this is this is exactly how we work found.

[19:04] And this illustrates for us the importance of the other issues which have to do with the personal interview and why we don't want staff to conduct personal interviews, why we don't want them to be a part of that because this is what was actually said.

[19:21] That's

[20:32] not

[20:38] what Mr. Butcher indicated that was told. And I'm sorry to have to play this for the public record, but I want to insist that you guys realize that staff is not telling the truth to us.

[20:54] And that in order to re-establish public trust, I beg you, do not do anything to the access committee at this time.

[21:06] You will have more of an outcry from the disability community than you had in 2008.

[21:12] And we want you guys to make staff accountable and not participate in the personal interviews

[21:19] because they have denied eligibility to people last year who were eligible, and we do not trust

[21:28] them at all because their whole charge by this organization is to cut ridership on metro

[21:38] access in any way that they possibly can.

[21:41] And I beg you to please, we keep the voice for the disability community, we have studied

[21:48] the law, we have done everything, and I don't want people to be assigned to this committee

[21:54] who will not be as dedicated and who will just be just men like you have on CSAC.

[22:00] Thank you.

[22:03] Board members, we will now go to our board committee updates, finance and audit committee.

[22:11] Well, we have a lot of things for me bringing to action this week as you guys can see.

[22:17] we have a lot of action items regarding board policies, the budget reserve policy, which is

[22:24] a big win for our sense of review recommendations, keeping on track to meet all those.

[22:29] And the big one, obviously, is approving the 2011 budget.

[22:33] So, it's a fact agenda.

[22:35] Thank you, Board Member Fernandez.

[22:38] Board Member Langemore, do you have an update from the real community?

[22:41] I do.

[22:41] the primary thing that we discussed was the changes to the rail service and originally

[22:52] they had the recommendations that were originally made that we would adjust peak-hour

[22:58] service shift the times to not start as early and then return home run at the end of the

[23:06] day at different times as well. Their estimation is that that would increase ridership and lower

[23:11] the cost for capital metro.

[23:13] We've set all along that we should pursue the adjustment

[23:15] to peak our service.

[23:18] And so we've recommended that part to the board.

[23:22] The second one that was recommended was to add midday service.

[23:27] We've basically stuck with that in our recommendations

[23:31] to add midday service.

[23:34] There seems to be evidence.

[23:36] And we are looking for staff to provide us

[23:38] with the information from other cities specifically,

[23:42] and we're getting that.

[23:43] But as you add midday service, it enhances the ridership

[23:47] on your peak service.

[23:49] So we're recommending that we move forward

[23:51] with that addition of midday service.

[23:53] They had originally proposed staff

[23:56] had recommended that we implement Friday night service

[23:59] beginning January.

[24:01] As a function of the budget, we thought

[24:04] that it's just not the appropriate time to do that.

[24:07] So what we have done is opposed to beginning Friday night service on January 1st have approved

[24:14] four Friday nights sometime over the course of the year.

[24:19] So it clearly envisions that we will ultimately add Friday night service, but all we'll

[24:24] do at this point in time basically is tested at some point during the year.

[24:28] So that was the recommendation from the committee.

[24:30] They had originally proposed eight Saturday special event services.

[24:37] We have scaled that back to three with a strong encouragement to staff to pursue Saturday night or Saturday.

[24:47] The services that will be more than cost plus that we will recover our cost and potentially add revenue based on those Saturday night services.

[24:57] Saturday, and day services may be into the night, we are sure what events those three will coincide with.

[25:04] They're going to evaluate that and come back with some proposals.

[25:07] So in the end, what we are, what the committee recommended was,

[25:11] adjust the peak service, add midday beginning January 1, add 4 Friday night services

[25:18] as a trial over the course of the year, beginning January 1,

[25:21] sometime through the end of the budget year, and add three special event services over the

[25:28] course of that same period.

[25:32] Thank you, Board Member Langmuir any questions?

[25:36] Operations and planning committee, the new chairman of that, will be Board Member Riley.

[25:41] We have a chair.

[25:42] We had a good meeting this morning.

[25:44] There were a couple of items pulled by staff, but we still had a full agenda, and most of

[25:50] of us are things that we will be considering as a board today to our policies that the board

[26:00] community involvement policy and the advisory committee policy, the community involvement

[26:05] policy, well those are items 12 and 13 on our agenda today and that both of those received

[26:12] a favorable recommendation from committee and we can get into details about those when we

[26:15] come to a moment regular agenda.

[26:17] We also considered two contracts, which are also on the board's agenda for today.

[26:22] The one was state U.T. Shuttle and BRT operations and maintenance contract, which, by

[26:27] way, is a $57.9 million contract, a very significant item, which is number seven on the

[26:32] board's agenda for this for today, and then the civil engineering rotation contract, which

[26:39] is a smaller contract, 1.1 million, which is really just an extension of existing contract

[26:44] of the RAS to complete the design work on the BRT lines.

[26:48] And so this does not go for it.

[26:51] It's an extension of an existing contract

[26:52] in the amount of 1.1 million.

[26:54] That's number five on the board's agenda day.

[26:56] And we favorably recommend it, both of those contacts.

[27:00] We then had a discussion, well,

[27:02] it's really just an update on where we are

[27:04] with our ITS project.

[27:08] That has been a subject of ongoing concern

[27:11] for quite some time now, and we remain very concerned about it, in fact we went in and discussed

[27:18] it in the executive session following the discussion that they committed.

[27:24] I am hopeful based on the information I received from staff that we will be seeing some significant

[27:29] progress on that in the coming month.

[27:33] Right now, and in particular, the one aspect of it, obviously, that ITS project affects almost

[27:38] every aspect of the agency's operations.

[27:42] But in my mind, really, the most critical, in time

[27:45] sensitive is the call notification system

[27:48] for Metro Access customers, which is long overdue.

[27:53] I am hopeful, right now we have a pool of 100 people

[27:57] using that success rate on those calls

[28:00] as has been about 70% where aiming to get it up closer to 93%

[28:06] on a regular basis. I am hopeful that we will be seeing progress on that over the coming month

[28:13] as we get some patches in. I may have the schedule for getting three patches over the next month.

[28:19] And so over the course of the month of October, we should be seeing enough improvement in our success rates

[28:27] that as those patches go go in, that we should be able to expand the pool of customers,

[28:32] the honor of the 100 who are currently being the serving of the pilot for that, we should

[28:38] be able to expand that probably in increments of 100 or so to the point where we will be

[28:44] confident enough to expand it to the whole universe of venture access customers. And we will

[28:52] be keeping a very close eye on the progress on that. But I am cautiously optimistic about how

[28:57] that's looking. And I want to thank staff for all their continuing work on that. I know it's been

[29:02] real challenge, but I am satisfied that staff have conveyed to our contractor the urgency of

[29:10] a vastly improved success on that service because we really need to get that system in place.

[29:17] And once we get the problems fixed with the call notification system, there are all kinds of

[29:21] other applications that technology may be used for.

[29:27] As I said, the call notification is particularly urgent, since it was a consideration last

[29:34] fall when we extended the pick-up window for Mantra, I set customers, and so we need

[29:39] to get that right first, and then once we get that in place, then we can have conversations

[29:43] about other applications for the second time.

[29:46] So anyway, that we had no action on that, but just a helpful update, and either staff or

[29:51] I would be glad to visit further with any other board members who are interested in that.

[29:55] Great. Thank you, board member. Any questions, board?

[30:00] All right. The last committee update is the Labour Relations Committee and we did have the meeting on September 8th. It was a brief meeting. There were three items discussed. One is just the sunset tracking item that is a recurring item. We got an update on the sunset recommendations and obviously where we are today implementing those recommendations. The second one was the second item was about taking the pulse of the workforce. Our HR department is now wanting to go out and ask the workforce.

[30:30] basically take a survey, ask them questions about the environment here at CAP Metro, things that

[30:35] are working right, things that aren't working right, and what we can do as a liberal relations

[30:40] committee to make policy recommendations to the board to improve the working environment here at

[30:44] CAP Metro. And then the last was, it was a agenda item that Council Member Riley and I brought

[30:51] forward, and that was to get staff to begin working on a report that specifically separates

[31:02] the three contractors that we have under CAP Metro.

[31:05] First transit, Velia, and what's the third one?

[31:10] Star Tran.

[31:11] I couldn't forget them.

[31:14] Star Tran first transit, Velia, ends it to come to the board and explain to us an

[31:21] Apples to Apples comparison as to the cost that each contractor puts on cap metro.

[31:29] One of the recommendations from Sunset was to consider contracting out all of our services

[31:35] to potentially achieve a substantial savings.

[31:41] And while on the surface it may look like that when you just put the dollar for dollar contract

[31:50] We need to really dig down deeper to determine what are the true costs of StarTran in terms of infrastructure, facilities, as well as operating costs compared to the first transit and BOLIA contracts.

[32:03] And so we're simply asking for information so that we can make a completely informed decision as to the sunset recommendations.

[32:12] And so we asked staff to begin the work of providing that information to the board and we hope to see that it's not going to be a short task.

[32:22] It's going to take some work.

[32:24] But I believe it's absolutely necessary in order for us to make the decision ultimately what we do with our labor structure.

[32:30] So those were the three items, and that concludes the Labor Relations Committee report.

[32:36] I would like to say that since we're on this topic of board committee updates, I want

[32:42] this board to contemplate where they see themselves fitting in or continuing to fit in in

[32:49] their roles.

[32:50] We have a new board member in board member, Holista Blackmore, and I certainly want to talk

[32:55] to you about the things you're interested in and where you might want to serve on any of

[32:59] subcommittees and don't blame you if you don't want to serve on any of them.

[33:04] So these subcommittees are new to this agency.

[33:07] We created them this year based on the priorities that we felt like the agency is facing.

[33:13] And so various board members are assigned to each committee and we welcome you on any of

[33:18] those committees, but we'll be working with you and rest of the board to see where it

[33:22] is.

[33:22] You might be able to serve.

[33:24] We're remembering more.

[33:28] Chairman Martinez, what's the time frame for the report analyzing the various costs?

[33:34] We really don't know at this point.

[33:35] We didn't put a time frame on it.

[33:36] Obviously, one of it is quickly as possible, but we want to give the necessary time to get

[33:41] accurate detailed information.

[33:43] Just assuming that it'll be in time to inform our decision as we go into what June 2011 we

[33:49] have to renegotiate in contracts, exactly.

[33:52] I mean, we definitely discussed that timeline that we would begin potential renegotiations and would have to have a decision point somewhere between now and then.

[34:03] Chairman Markness, for the report on star trend, will it be done by cat net pro staff as opposed to star trend staff.

[34:11] Correct.

[34:13] All right, let's go into our action items on the agenda.

[34:18] Now, action item number one is the approval of the board meeting board meeting minutes for August

[34:23] 23, 2010, the board meeting and public hearing for August 11, 2010.

[34:29] I'm going to entertain a motion for the board meeting.

[34:30] I move approval.

[34:31] That motion by Vice Chairman Langemore, second by Board Member Riley.

[34:36] Any discussion?

[34:37] Here you can see none.

[34:38] All those in favor say aye?

[34:40] That motion carries on about a seven to zero with board member Fernandez temporarily off the

[34:45] dice.

[34:46] I'm sorry, I abstain.

[34:47] I was not here for that meeting.

[34:49] I apologize.

[34:49] That motion passes on a vote of six to one with board member,

[34:54] who was to black and white, more abstaining and board member for

[34:56] name this temporarily off the dice.

[34:59] Second action item is approval of the resolution authorizing the

[35:02] president, CEO, or her designate to finalize and execute a contract

[35:07] with U-bank and BIRM, L-O-P, and an amount not

[35:10] to exceed 410,510, believe we have brief staff update on the side.

[35:16] Good morning, Chairman and board members.

[35:19] The contract before you is a new contract for legal services.

[35:22] And those...

[35:23] I'm sorry.

[35:24] Please introduce yourself.

[35:25] I'm sorry.

[35:26] And that's on here for me.

[35:29] Cynthia Martinez legal records manager for the legal department.

[35:33] Excuse my code.

[35:35] No way.

[35:35] No, or not.

[35:39] The contract before you is a new contract for legal services and those services are for the ongoing litigation.

[35:45] for CD Henderson.

[35:47] You've been combined by our unsubmitted proposal and response to the statement of qualifications.

[35:52] The firm was selected as the most qualified firm and contract terms were negotiated.

[35:59] The DBE is in this matter is race neutral.

[36:02] The firm has been engaged to continue representation to capital metro in this matter.

[36:08] The finance and audit committee were presented with this information earlier this month,

[36:12] and you have been recently been briefed on the status of the litigation by the Council for

[36:17] you Banking Byron.

[36:19] The contract terms will be effective for the timeframe of October 1, 2010 to September 30,

[36:28] The amount of this contract is not to exceed the amount of $410,500.

[36:34] If you have any questions regarding this matter, I'll be happy to answer them at this

[36:39] time.

[36:40] Any questions, Board? Thank you.

[36:44] Board, I believe we're up to speed up with the exception of maybe Board Member Hustle

[36:48] Blackmore. On this case, we are posted for executive session if necessary. So without any

[36:56] request from the Board, I would entertain a motion to approve this item unless a question.

[37:02] I would motion to approve the item.

[37:04] Motion by Board Member Fernandez is there a second. Second by Board Member Stafford,

[37:08] Any comments?

[37:11] The only comment I would have is, as we present these going forward, what would be helpful would be to say that it was recommended in the current form before the board by the committee for approval.

[37:23] And that's kind of what I look to is that it did it run through a committee.

[37:27] Did they recommend it for approval to the board and have there been no changes since it was presented to the committee.

[37:34] So that's the only point I'm part of the committee, so I'm set through the presentation.

[37:39] Thank you, Doug.

[37:39] Thank you.

[37:40] So this did go through Audit and Finance, and was recommended.

[37:45] Any other discussion?

[37:47] All those in favor, please say aye.

[37:49] Those opposed?

[37:50] That motion carries on a vote of 8 to 0.

[37:53] When did then I had to stay?

[37:54] They don't have enough information.

[37:55] 7 is equal to 1.

[37:57] With Board Member, who listed Blackmore, I apologize.

[38:00] I'll get it by the last agenda item in the beginning.

[38:03] Mr. Chairman just to you.

[38:05] Go ahead and shake.

[38:07] It's Blackmore, Hallista.

[38:09] Blackmore, Hallista.

[38:12] Thank you, Board of Nations.

[38:16] Next item number three is approval of a resolution

[38:20] authorizing the President, CEO, or her,

[38:22] does he make to finalize an executed contract with

[38:25] Winstead, PC and an amount of not exceed $100,000.

[38:30] This is a new contract as well for legal services,

[38:33] four-star tran, and they will be for the matters involving employment labor and arbitration.

[38:40] Winspit PC also submitted their proposal through the State Minqualifications and were selected

[38:47] as the most qualified firm and contract terms were negotiated.

[38:53] The DVE in this matter is race neutral.

[38:55] The firm has been engaged to provide this representation to capital metro star tran in this

[39:01] matter.

[39:03] As I was advised, it did go before the finance and audit committee and was approved to be brought forward here today, and there has been no changes.

[39:14] It has not been modified except for any minor grammatical changes to it.

[39:19] The contract term will be effective for the timeframe of October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011, and the amount of the contract is not to exceed $100,000.

[39:30] And if you have any questions regarding this contract, I'll be happy to have any questions board members.

[39:35] Thank you, Cynthia, I'll entertain a motion for approval.

[39:39] Motion by Board Member and line more.

[39:41] Second by Board Member Fernandez.

[39:44] Any discussion?

[39:45] Hearing me seeing that in all those in favor, please say aye.

[39:49] Any abstentions?

[39:51] That motion carries on a vote of seven to one with one abstention.

[39:57] Thank you.

[39:58] Thank you, Cynthia.

[39:59] The next action item is an approval of a resolution authorizing the President's CEO or her

[40:05] designate to finalize the next Q2 contract with Oracle America for the continued support

[40:11] of the various Oracle products used in an amount not to exceed $665,532.

[40:19] Good day, Mr. Chairman, board members.

[40:21] My name is Bill Predmore from the IT Department and I'm here to present this request to

[40:27] authorized to support contract to continue.

[40:30] The agency established Oracle's domain back in or database product

[40:34] for our application several years ago.

[40:37] We also use Oracle financials as a product

[40:40] as our main ERP enterprise resource planning tool.

[40:44] And we use several other Oracle tools for various projects.

[40:48] This contract is, Chairman noted,

[40:50] is not to exceed $665,5,532 over three years. It goes into effect November the first and last

[41:00] for those three years. Have you glad to answer any questions? Thank you, sir. Any questions, board members?

[41:06] Did this go through a committee, sir? I'm sorry, it went and it's got to have that written down here

[41:10] after you. It's in its current form. It was through the subcommittee of the financing and

[41:15] And it comes with a recommendation from that subject.

[41:19] Okay.

[41:21] I'll entertain a motion for approval on this item.

[41:24] Motion by Board Member Fernandez, their second.

[41:26] Second by Board Member Stafford.

[41:29] Any other comments, questions?

[41:31] Hearing and seeing none?

[41:32] All those in favor, please say aye.

[41:34] Any opposed?

[41:35] Any abstentions?

[41:37] Motion carries on a vote of seven to one with one abstention.

[41:42] Moving right along.

[41:43] The next item is an approval of a resolution to increase civil engineering contract with

[41:49] URS for Metro Rapid Design.

[41:55] Can we please make sure that our phones and pages are on silent move?

[41:59] Thank you.

[42:01] Mr. Chairman, thank you board members.

[42:03] Ms. Watson, I'm John Hodges.

[42:05] I represent the engineering and construction group today.

[42:09] As you mentioned, this item is request for the board to consider the review and approval

[42:13] of expanding one of our task-order contracts by 1,100,000 dollars for engineering services.

[42:22] That amount includes a 13 and a 1,5% contingency.

[42:27] A brief background, this particular task-order contract that we're talking about

[42:33] has much of its term left, its term will allow it to proceed through 2013.

[42:39] The dollar amount is short, and that's what this additional funding request for, the particular piece of work that we're addressing here is for full engineering services on the Metro Rapid or Rapid Bus Project.

[42:55] We originally issued the first task order under which they're currently working to get route 1 of 2 routes for the Metro Rapid Project carried to 60% design.

[43:07] When that task order was issued, we had not yet known the full scope of the project, so the engineering work among other things has helped us refine the scope of the project.

[43:18] As that scope was refined, staff believed that it would be more efficient, both in man-hours required and in subsequent costs.

[43:26] If we didn't change engineers in the middle of the project, but would continue with the same engineer.

[43:32] discussions with FTA showed us that FTA also thought that was the most prudent approach to take.

[43:41] Again, we're confident that's contingent of course on two things, one are we comfortable with the engineer's performance and staff is.

[43:48] And two are the rates that they're charging us, are they reasonable and within the market range and staff believes that they are.

[43:56] A quick elaboration on that point, when the original task order contractors were suggested,

[44:02] they were selected, rather, they were selected under the state procurement statutes,

[44:10] and these are professional services, so they're qualifications based.

[44:14] Once the qualified firms were selected, rates were negotiated, we would not have put them

[44:20] under contract unless we were comfortable with the rates were reasonable.

[44:23] And without a lot of elaboration on minutia, I'll end this by saying, this was taken in front

[44:30] of the operations in planning committee early this morning, and it enjoyed a recommendation

[44:35] for the board to consider approval.

[44:38] And I'll just address any questions if you have any questions.

[44:43] Any questions?

[44:43] Webman Langweren.

[44:44] Thank you.

[44:45] I just want to make sure I understand this.

[44:47] I don't know, you can tell me as well, whoever, the original task order was 1.4 million to

[44:56] do.

[44:57] Is that not right?

[44:58] Did I already get it wrong?

[44:58] Yes.

[45:00] But it needs some elaboration or it could be a little deceptive. The task order contract under which

[45:06] they're operating includes five different engineering firms. It was set up as a rotating contract.

[45:12] So when the Metro Rapid Project came up, they were next on the assignment list, if you will, for

[45:18] a task order. So keep going. So we had five. But the original, so it was $1.4 million was allocated

[45:26] for the design work associated with Metro Railroad.

[45:30] No, sir.

[45:31] Okay.

[45:31] You've demonstrated a little more elaboration.

[45:34] We'll explain that.

[45:35] The dollar amount that all five firms were burning

[45:39] under if you will was a total of 1.4 million for all five.

[45:44] What did the project, what projects were covered by that 1.4 million?

[45:50] Uh, when the whole list, there, no, when the task order contract was awarded it for these

[45:57] five firms, there at the time was not a list of projects.

[46:01] It was sort of an on-call and as projects arose, like an evergreen.

[46:05] Okay.

[46:06] I got all right.

[46:07] So we just kept it at 1.4 million irrespective of what projects it related to.

[46:13] Correct.

[46:13] And then we had five firms that made it onto the list that we rotate through.

[46:17] Correct, exactly.

[46:18] We're somewhere you must have established that that 1.4 million must have been a function of some assessment of projects that we intended to pursue as opposed to a random number.

[46:29] Yes, it was our guess at the time on what sort of volume of projects we could anticipate, but we also knew like the only thing you know for sure when you make a guess is you're going to be wrong.

[46:40] You just don't know how much of which was it.

[46:42] So it was the best guess we could make it the time.

[46:45] Okay, so then let, so the 1.1 million now relates to specifically metro rapid.

[46:55] Yes, sir.

[46:56] The next one on the list is URS, had they not had they already started work on metro rapid?

[47:01] I know they had not.

[47:02] In other words, when a new potential project comes up, we see who's next on the rotation list.

[47:09] And unless their skillsets don't fit the unique characteristics of that project,

[47:13] there, requested them to make a detailed proposal for that particular scope of work, and if it's

[47:21] a reasonable, then we'll go ahead and award them that task order, and we rotate through the firm.

[47:26] So are we approving 1.1 out of the 1.4 to go to URS for Metro Rapid?

[47:33] No sir, in brief elaboration, all of these five contractors chemitively have just spent about

[47:40] 1,390,000 dollars today.

[47:43] So we're out of contracted money capacity, so we've used up the 1.4 on

[47:49] for all of our services. Yes, they're probably 25 different projects that we've used them so far.

[47:58] Okay, so really, it's, I mean, we are the only difference here is that there was a tiny bit left under the 1.4.

[48:07] And that's why we took the next one on the list, as opposed to going out to some kind of competitive bid for metro rapid in and of itself.

[48:16] Instead we decided to roll it under the Evergreen obviously.

[48:19] And I have money to do the whole metro rapid.

[48:21] However, it happens that the next one on the list also was how to qualify to the metro rapid.

[48:27] So now we're going an additional 1.1 specifically for metro rapid.

[48:31] That's correct.

[48:32] Yes, sir.

[48:33] Okay.

[48:33] Thanks.

[48:33] I'm sorry.

[48:34] I know you tried to connect with me yesterday and we missed each other.

[48:36] I'm sorry.

[48:37] I'm sorry.

[48:37] I could have covered this yesterday.

[48:38] Thank you.

[48:38] Thank you, John.

[48:42] Any other questions?

[48:44] I'll entertain a motion for approval of this item.

[48:48] I've got a motion by Board Member Riley.

[48:49] There's a second by Board Member Shafetz.

[48:51] Any other comments?

[48:53] Here you can see none.

[48:54] All those in favor, please say aye.

[48:56] Those opposed?

[48:57] Any abstentions?

[48:58] The motion carries on a vote of seven to one with one abstentions.

[49:01] Thank you.

[49:02] Thank you, John.

[49:07] Moving on along, we have a approval of a resolution authorizing to President CEO or her

[49:12] designate to finalize and execute an interlocal agreement with the City of Austin for capital

[49:17] Metro Transit passes in an amount, not to exceed $150,000.

[49:22] Welcome, either.

[49:23] Good morning, board members.

[49:25] President CEO Watson.

[49:26] I am here to give you a summary.

[49:29] And that's my presentation, it's a very brief presentation and you are getting a copy of it as well as some handouts that may provide some additional information for you.

[49:43] Can I say a real quick, thank you for printing on this one.

[49:48] Saving pipe or an egg, I appreciate it.

[49:51] Thank you.

[49:58] There we are.

[49:59] Again, the city of Austin and capital metro have had a partnership, if you will, since 2003, in which city employees have been able to rent capital metro system.

[50:10] In 2009, that agreement was getting ready to expire, and what we did is we changed the setup of that agreement.

[50:20] And it was the base $100,000 per year for the total number of employees.

[50:24] And as our rates changed, we had to re-valuate how the ILA was going to be done in the

[50:31] future.

[50:33] Therefore, in 2009, we went into a magnetic pass, which would track ridership.

[50:38] In 2010, that changed, and only 1,000 passes were awarded.

[50:43] And there is a summary sheet in items that have passed out to you to see the difference

[50:48] and this is why we're here today.

[50:52] We're trying to accomplish is to mirror the pilot agreement

[50:56] we have with Austin Community College,

[50:58] in which we would allow city employees

[51:00] to ride capital, metro services,

[51:03] and try the ridership for 12 months

[51:05] beginning October 1st, December 30th.

[51:08] It would be charged on a per-ride basis.

[51:10] That per-ride basis is detailed in the handouts

[51:13] that I handed to you, and it's been proposed

[51:16] 55 cents per ride. That is taken into account the number of cards that will be used. And also

[51:24] based on the base fair of a dollar and the usage taken into account a day pass usage versus

[51:33] a monthly pass usage and finance put together three scenarios for you which are summarized

[51:39] And in your handout, do you have any additional questions?

[51:45] Metro access and right share will be charged

[51:48] at full fair.

[51:49] There will be no discount for those services.

[51:52] And at this time, the city has chosen not to include rail,

[51:57] but they want to have the option of adding that later on

[52:00] if they want to.

[52:01] So the 55 cents per ride will be charged only for fixed

[52:05] right services.

[52:06] All routes.

[52:08] The right now, the city of Austin is proposing a $150,000 for this one for a month period,

[52:17] and that is being proposed to be inducted from the Portercent ILA that we have for the

[52:24] city of Austin.

[52:24] Sorry, we'll be deducted from what we would owe the city, and the both finance departments

[52:30] in the city, and also here, Capitol Mitchell, both have agreed that that would be a good

[52:35] way to go about this.

[52:37] Based on usage, if the 150,000 may be exceeded, we are prepared to come before you and

[52:44] amend it as such, the actual ILA is still being tweaked by the city legal staff actually

[52:51] just took a look at it, less than come for hours ago, and there are some proposals that

[52:57] are procurement and legal stats still have to finalize.

[53:00] So if you have any questions, I'll be happy to ask you again.

[53:03] Thank you.

[53:04] Or memorizing.

[53:05] Yeah.

[53:05] I just have a question about those passes when I, when a city employee uses one of those passes

[53:11] in sports the card.

[53:12] We will be tracking that.

[53:14] Yes, sir.

[53:15] Will those, will we track it?

[53:18] Is that information users specific or is it just from the type of card?

[53:22] For us is the type of card.

[53:24] It will be a city of Austin, and by the way, that's the card up there.

[53:27] This year it will be a burnt orange.

[53:29] Each card has a city of Austin, code.

[53:32] We don't know who is using it but city benefits office will. They'll be issue even if they will issue the car

[53:38] Through the HR departments and they will know that you know John Smith wrote the bus three times this week

[53:44] So I'm sorry I'm not following how to how does the city have that data?

[53:48] And we know

[53:48] Well, the city has

[53:51] The cards they are issued cards. They are 1,000 and 1,000 to 1,000

[53:56] to 5,000. We give them the cards and we know those are city of Austin employees. We'll be using

[54:02] those cards. When the cities HR office issues them each employee, they have to make sure

[54:08] they know which employee is getting it. So they have the employee usage numbers. We give them

[54:12] ridership numbers. We'll know we'll be able to tell the city that card 1,000 and 1 was used 20 times

[54:19] on this week. So it is users. Yes, it is, but we won't know who the user is. I guess that's what I'm trying to do.

[54:25] Right. Okay. I had, yes.

[54:30] Well, but we do have to capacity to associate a particular car with the number of types. It's in swipe.

[54:37] Yes. So it's not, I mean, because I don't, I don't know if we don't really have the capacity to do stored value cars.

[54:42] that this is pretty close to a stored value card because we'll know we know how many times each card is used.

[54:50] Correct. And we will issue the city quarterly report and that's how we will be issuing the deduction from what we will be paying them.

[55:00] Okay. Thanks.

[55:03] So, the city of Austin has agreed to contribute 150,000 towards the cost of this in the local.

[55:10] That's because they're a cost capital metro.

[55:13] Well, actually, they're also printing the cars.

[55:16] The only cost that we had assumed in the past was the printing of the passes.

[55:20] And in this particular ILA, the city will assume that cost as well.

[55:24] And you say that the $150,000 may be exceeded and the ILA will be amended.

[55:31] Yes, if it is exceeded, before it's exceeded, we will be tracking it closely and if we feel that it may be exceeded within the 12 month period, we will amend it.

[55:39] And the city of Austin will pay the additional. That's correct. Thank you.

[55:44] What membership, just real quick, can somebody, as well as a card's transferable, so if John Smith from the city of Washington,

[55:52] the size of the give it to somebody to use is that from a civil.

[55:55] Now, and that's a very good question because that is something that both the city and capital

[55:59] metro have been working closely to avoid. Employees are given an agreement that they must use that card themselves,

[56:08] not to give it to their child or their spouse. And they must also, if asked, present the city of Austin,

[56:13] when using it, so it is not transferable.

[56:18] Any other questions?

[56:21] Hearing CNN, I'll entertain a motion for approval of this item.

[56:25] Motion by Board Member Shafet, second by Board Member Salas.

[56:28] Any comments?

[56:30] Hearing CNN, all those in favor, please say aye.

[56:33] Aye.

[56:33] Any extensions?

[56:35] That motion carries on a vote of 8 to 0.

[56:38] Thank you very much.

[56:39] Thank you.

[56:44] Action item number, we are on action item number 7.

[56:48] Approval of a resolution authorizing the President's CEO or her

[56:51] resignation need to finalize an executed contract with first transit

[56:54] ink for UT shuttle and BRT operations and maintenance in an amount

[56:59] not to exceed $57,886,000 and $10.

[57:04] Thank you Mr. Chairman, board members.

[57:06] My name is Daddy Watkins, I'm the Director of Transportation.

[57:09] This item is for a contract for the University of Texas shuttle system

[57:13] operation and maintenance.

[57:15] It also includes an option for operation of the Metro Rapid

[57:18] service which is the reference BRT in the actual board item. The term for this contract is a

[57:24] three year base period with two one year options. Additionally there is a separately priced

[57:29] option for the Metro Rapid Service cost for the full five year period inclusive of all options

[57:35] are included in the $57 million not to exceed amounts. First turns it is the existing contractor

[57:41] for this service and they will retain their experience local team on this contract and they've also

[57:46] proposed to add additional staff should we elect to exercise the option for Metro Rapid Service.

[57:52] The DBE goal on this contract was 5% and is being exceeded by first transit they are going

[57:57] to achieve 7% DBE. This item has been presented to both the finance audit and operations

[58:03] planning committees both of whom I am recommended it for approval. So if this time I would

[58:07] be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[58:09] Thank you, Daddy. Any comments? Questions?

[58:13] We'll remember one more.

[58:15] I just want to, so we have the sole option of first transit to operate the BRT under this proposal at this fixed price.

[58:28] That is correct.

[58:29] And if we choose not to pursue it with them, then we would just go out for another request for proposals and they'd be free to bid under that as well.

[58:37] That is correct.

[58:39] Thank you.

[58:40] Any other comments?

[58:42] Here you can see that.

[58:43] I'll entertain a motion for approval of this item.

[58:45] So, Luke, motion by Board Member Languards.

[58:48] There are seconds.

[58:49] I'll second.

[58:50] Uh, I'll second that.

[58:53] Any other comments?

[58:55] All those in favor, please say aye.

[58:57] Any opposed?

[58:58] Any abstentions?

[59:00] That motion.

[59:01] I have to release myself as an UT employee.

[59:05] As do I?

[59:06] Okay.

[59:06] So, that motion is adopted with a vote of six to zero with two abstentions.

[59:16] Thank you.

[59:18] Action item number eight is approval of a resolution authorizing the President, CEO,

[59:23] or her, does he need to create a basic transportation needs fund with the purpose to ensure

[59:28] low income, transit dependent populations have access to affordable transit services.

[59:33] Welcome to our Michael.

[59:35] Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[59:36] members of the board, at least Watson.

[59:39] This resolution before you would provide staff direction to my apologies, John Michael Quartez,

[59:45] with the Business and Community Development Department.

[59:47] Again, this resolution before you would provide staff direction to work on development of

[59:52] the governance structure in goals for creating a fund to enhance our community's ability to

[59:59] ensure...

[1:00:00] That low-income transit to populations have access to an essential and basic need, and that is transportation.

[1:00:06] Per direction received from board members Stafford and other members of the Finance and Audit Committee.

[1:00:11] This resolution also provides us direction to create an ad hoc committee comprised of hopefully members of the board of directors, members of the social services community and the community at large, to work on the governance and purpose and goals of this particular initiative.

[1:00:27] It is the initial recommendation of staff that the funds initial purpose specifically is to get

[1:00:34] cap metro passes into the hands of people who truly cannot afford our very affordable

[1:00:39] fares based on direction from the board and this committee that will be formed, the purpose

[1:00:44] of the fund could indeed expand to address other transportation gaps, but that would be

[1:00:47] our initial recommendation is to get transit passes available to people who cannot afford

[1:00:53] them.

[1:00:54] I'm ready to entertain any questions if you haven't just go to the finance and audit committee.

[1:00:57] and the resolution reflects the input we received from the committee that day.

[1:01:02] Thank you, John Michael, any questions or comments?

[1:01:04] Or remember lying warm?

[1:01:06] John Michael, I just want to make sure that I understand that the others understand this.

[1:01:11] So this is primarily to work with folks that can afford, as opposed to like disability, for instance,

[1:01:20] but it's based on a function of income level, primarily.

[1:01:26] Well, that is, to be determined, that certainly would be a factor.

[1:01:32] Our initial thoughts are to work with those social services that are working with folks

[1:01:37] in our community who are most in need.

[1:01:40] Capital Metro is probably best that we stay out of the business of doing income eligibility

[1:01:45] determination.

[1:01:46] There are already a number of organizations in our community who do that work.

[1:01:50] It's probably best that we work with them to identify the folks who truly cannot afford

[1:01:53] of fairs and work to get those fairs through those agencies to the folks who need them.

[1:01:58] It's very similar to an arrangement we currently have the discount pass program.

[1:02:03] So are we funding the, is it just, are we funding the group or are we funding the fairs

[1:02:11] for those that can afford it through this?

[1:02:14] The way we envision this working is there is a line item in the proposed budget of

[1:02:23] fund. We would also be seeking out resources from outside this community, federal money, other

[1:02:29] grant money that could be available, private fund raising, as well. We would, a number

[1:02:34] of our social services are now purchasing passes on the half of their clients. What we

[1:02:38] would do is, instead of folks purchasing, or those agencies purchasing passes directly from

[1:02:43] capital metro, we would have them purchase them from this fund, which would hopefully

[1:02:47] be able to subsidize these passes at a much higher level than capital metro is currently

[1:02:52] subsidizing the passes.

[1:02:53] Because we don't have access to certain federal funds as a transit provider that they might

[1:02:58] have access.

[1:02:58] Indeed.

[1:02:59] The reason that we would need to do this during outside entity is because as a transit agency,

[1:03:04] there are funds that could be used for this particular need that we cannot access.

[1:03:09] This outside fund could potentially access those funds.

[1:03:12] And when's this going to start up?

[1:03:14] Well, if we receive direction from the board, we would start working on this tomorrow.

[1:03:18] In fact, we've already had conversations over the last year with a number of the social

[1:03:22] services agencies on this concept.

[1:03:24] We had another meeting with one of the major stakeholders yesterday.

[1:03:28] We continued to develop this starting tomorrow or Monday.

[1:03:33] And have you gotten a positive response from the social service agencies that you've met

[1:03:38] with that they do this?

[1:03:39] Generally, yes, there are some folks who have expressed concern, but they're concerned

[1:03:44] really lies in not necessarily this idea, but within the context of a number of the other

[1:03:50] decisions that the Board are making many of them that you're making today.

[1:03:53] There is a lot of concern about capital metro's commitment to ensuring that there is a

[1:04:00] safety net for folks who cannot afford our services.

[1:04:03] And I suppose what we'll have to do is just be very successful with the efforts of those

[1:04:07] concerns can be a laid.

[1:04:08] But I'm assuming that they viewed this initiative, as at least on a temp, a perspective of whether or not they viewed as sufficient, that this is an attempt to create that safety net.

[1:04:20] I believe so, especially the folks with whom we've spoken to at length on this particular idea over the last year are those major participants of the discount pass program.

[1:04:30] agencies are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars collectively purchasing

[1:04:35] this, this passes that are already discounted over the cost that it, that there is to provide the service by capital metro.

[1:04:45] They're spending a lot of money on them currently.

[1:04:47] And so when we came to talk to them, we presented this as a way for them to continue to meet their clients' needs.

[1:04:53] But hopefully we can do it with an additional subsidy from resources outside the community.

[1:04:57] because certainly the need is great, and we need to find a way to make sure that this need is met.

[1:05:04] Yeah, and thanks for your honor, you've been working on this for a long time, and I would just say,

[1:05:08] you know, as we contemplate things like charging fairs for the first time to folks that have not paid, you know,

[1:05:14] elderly and disabled, and you know, you've heard a bunch of public testimony, obviously,

[1:05:20] and I absolutely take it a face value of people that are on fixed incomes that are not being adjusted.

[1:05:26] we're contemplating this as Dan's, you know, told us we need to think about the port,

[1:05:32] think about the port, think about the port, think about the port we need to.

[1:05:35] So I think it's a great program and, you know, a very creative approach.

[1:05:39] The one thing I would want to make sure we do is monitor the success of this, whether it's

[1:05:44] through some type of audit, but that we understand whether or not we're accomplishing its intended

[1:05:50] purposes, because we've got to try and mitigate the effects of increased affairs, if that's

[1:05:54] we go.

[1:05:55] And to that end, if I may just expand on what you said a little bit, if the Board does

[1:06:01] make a decision today to eliminate free fares, we've already proactively taken a look

[1:06:05] at who the major categories of folks that are using that disability fair card overwhelmingly

[1:06:12] their folks who are eligible to a mental health issue.

[1:06:18] And so the first folks that we would reach out to are the MHMR or ATC and actually that

[1:06:24] earlier this week, because we know that's where the impact is going to be greatest initially

[1:06:28] as far as it's sure numbers.

[1:06:29] So we want to work with the folks that will be most impacted in the greatest numbers

[1:06:35] by these particular policy decisions that are before the board.

[1:06:38] So we can ensure that those impacts are mitigated as much as possible.

[1:06:43] Thank you, John Michael.

[1:06:44] Or remember for now, I would just add, because I've been in some conversations, some of

[1:06:54] Cap Metro are concerned that we would be basically turning over something that they be with the government responsibility over to the private sector

[1:07:01] And I just want to make sure that

[1:07:04] From my perspective, I don't think we're doing that. I think we have a responsibility, but we're not the only folks who are part of this and other folks seem to step up.

[1:07:11] And I do have the hope that this

[1:07:15] Proposed structures and enable us to do that. We're still getting meeting meetings to contribute

[1:07:19] and monitor, but hopefully, I think that the key thing is that we're going to be able to

[1:07:23] track other funds to make this happen, that not only will help our writers, but I think

[1:07:29] folks, to me, hopefully this thing becomes a bigger thing than just catmental service

[1:07:33] here, because we do not fully serve the full region, and that's part of the challenge for folks

[1:07:36] who are low income, who are disabled. So, great.

[1:07:41] We'll remember staff.

[1:07:42] Yes, first of all, did we have any nice time to speak on this topic?

[1:07:45] And I plan on calling them up before we take action.

[1:07:51] I want to say that I'm really excited about this prospect.

[1:07:55] I think that one of the things that drew me to this board was the idea that

[1:08:02] Transportation needs to be a community effort and not just a community service.

[1:08:07] And I think that to have an opportunity to create a system with a variety of leadership

[1:08:15] both from the board and from community service providers to find a solution that is long-term,

[1:08:22] that's sustainable, that is responsible, and that is caring is probably the highest calling

[1:08:28] we can have.

[1:08:29] So I'm very excited about this, and I want to say to John Michael, thank you for the work

[1:08:33] on this.

[1:08:34] I know it's been extensive.

[1:08:37] I'm excited that the Austin Community Foundation has agreed to partner with us on this as

[1:08:43] fiscal agent, I'm right about that, right?

[1:08:46] Yes, but before we execute any kind of

[1:08:47] fundamental agreement, we will bring that back to you.

[1:08:49] We didn't want to take that step until we could be.

[1:08:50] But the willingness is there, because I feel like the

[1:08:54] fiduciary oversight will be extensive, and it will be

[1:08:58] beyond reproach.

[1:09:01] I do think it will be our responsibility, both as the

[1:09:04] ad hoc committee, and as the board, to ensure that

[1:09:08] it does not, the fund does not reach a point where

[1:09:10] it's no longer sustainable, and that we continue to

[1:09:12] and resources, but I'm excited about it,

[1:09:17] and there's not been a whole lot of this for the last few months.

[1:09:22] Thank you, John.

[1:09:23] Thank you.

[1:09:28] Just to you.

[1:09:30] So this resolution provides a starting point.

[1:09:34] It provides the starting of the fund,

[1:09:36] and establishes some support for it.

[1:09:38] But there's no real implementation plan at this point, right?

[1:09:41] As far as what are the criteria,

[1:09:43] is what is the policy that you use, how do we monitor its performance, how do we ensure

[1:09:47] it's a successful effort.

[1:09:49] Is the first step for you to develop that implementation plan and then bring it back to

[1:09:53] the board so that we can discuss it and see where it's headed?

[1:09:57] Absolutely, and that would be the role of this at Huck committee.

[1:09:59] Again, I have my own ideas, and I'm sure others do about how this may, that's the effect

[1:10:03] of it.

[1:10:04] But we certainly want to engage all the stakeholders involved to make sure that we're all on

[1:10:08] the same page, because as Board Member of the Stafford said, this is a community issue.

[1:10:11] This is not a capital metro issue alone.

[1:10:13] This is a community need, and we have to work together

[1:10:16] as a community to meet it.

[1:10:18] Thank you.

[1:10:20] John Markov just had one question.

[1:10:21] How many board members do you envision sitting

[1:10:23] on this ad hoc committee?

[1:10:25] Well, I would advise not a quorum, but certainly as many

[1:10:29] as we'll take your advice.

[1:10:32] But I would welcome and appreciate any and all takers, certainly.

[1:10:38] I would hope at least two.

[1:10:40] Thank you.

[1:10:41] Any other questions comments?

[1:10:43] If not, we do have one citizen signed up to speak to the board on this item.

[1:10:49] Welcome.

[1:10:50] Seeing you two times this week, Dan.

[1:10:52] All right, nice to see you again.

[1:10:55] Board members, Board Chair Martinez.

[1:10:57] Thanks so much for allowing me to come up and talk a little bit about this particular subject.

[1:11:05] I represent meals on wheels and more.

[1:11:07] I'm the President and CEO.

[1:11:09] Is my like not on or?

[1:11:10] I'm sorry. I'm about, I'm getting there. I'll be quicker. I'm Dan Prood. I'm the President

[1:11:15] and CEO of Meals on Wheels and More. I'm the Chair of One Voice Central Texas, which

[1:11:20] is a collaboration of 40 of the leading nonprofit organizations here in town in the Human

[1:11:24] Service area. We appreciate the fact that we've been able to come to the Finance Committee

[1:11:30] and present there. You've been meeting with several of our representatives over the last

[1:11:35] weeks. I think we too look forward to this initiative and a new possible way of looking at providing

[1:11:42] transportation assistance. So people who are in need with disabilities, people living in poverty

[1:11:46] in this community, it's critical. You all know that and you all are doing a hard work to make

[1:11:51] that happen. I also am here to request a couple of things. Number one, we hope that y'all will consider

[1:11:57] one's waste central taxes as a partner in this process. And when you're appointing folks to this

[1:12:02] We would like to make recommendations to you, as folks that might be willing to serve, have the background experience and knowledge to be a benefit to the process.

[1:12:15] We serve tens of thousands of people who use this service.

[1:12:20] We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars providing all kinds of assistance to folks in this community.

[1:12:26] One of the concerns we have a little bit in the Frank, I think this goes to one of the comments you had made, is I think while there are many opportunities for additional funding out there, we're going to have to work in partnership to make that happen and we've already got a pretty full plate and a pretty full agenda.

[1:12:46] And it's sometimes it's easy to say, well, we can sit down and we can look for a federal grant and we can make application and we can do that.

[1:12:54] Well, all the agencies have waiting list whether it's safe place or meals on wheels or caritas or whoever it may be.

[1:13:00] We're pretty busy. Our plates are full. So how exactly do we do that? So I would hope that this task force would maybe look at some innovative ideas.

[1:13:08] maybe there would be some funding for a collaborative effort to get some fund raising or some development dollars in place to maybe help support those kind of requests.

[1:13:21] It's just a thought maybe a little innovative deal because it's going to be tough for us to go to our development staff and say,

[1:13:28] here's a whole new series of grants that you need to go after and funding that you have to pursue.

[1:13:33] It's particularly tough right now.

[1:13:34] But we are anxious to work with you all, we think it's a wonderful idea, and I think it'll be a successful partnership.

[1:13:41] Just wanted to add that.

[1:13:42] Thank you, Dan.

[1:13:43] Thank you all very much.

[1:13:44] Appreciate it.

[1:13:45] Remember for now, I could just make one comment to your point, because this is a concern I had when it was first raised.

[1:13:50] I think the intent is to make the pie larger, not to take from your pie that you guys get.

[1:13:55] Because we get, I'm in the same boat, we get some funding for transportation.

[1:13:58] We want to make the pie larger, and I just take up pieces of the pie, so we don't have to put in as much.

[1:14:03] Yeah, I know you do. Thanks, Frank.

[1:14:05] Thank you.

[1:14:06] Thank you, Dan.

[1:14:09] Any other comments?

[1:14:09] Questions?

[1:14:10] If not, I'll entertain a motion to approve this item.

[1:14:13] Motion by Board Member Salas.

[1:14:15] Second by Board Member Fernandez.

[1:14:18] All those in favor, please say aye.

[1:14:20] Aye.

[1:14:21] Those opposed?

[1:14:22] Any abstentions?

[1:14:23] That motion carries on a vote of eight to zero.

[1:14:26] Action item number nine is approval of the proposed January 2011 service changes.

[1:14:33] Welcome, Roberta.

[1:14:36] Good morning. My name is Roberta Gonzalez. We capital met just planning department. Today's item is to seek approval of January 2011 service changes.

[1:14:45] Just about a few days ago, we had a public hearing of which most of you as board members were present to hear comments from the public regarding these changes.

[1:14:54] The themes of these changes are as follows, a consolidation of services out in North Austin, North of U.S.

[1:15:00] On 23. Consolation of our express services up in North West Austin, which includes two routes, Route

[1:15:07] 984-986, being combined into one single route called Route 985. A consolidation of services

[1:15:14] in far North West Austin as well to near the communities of Jones Town and Lagovista, and coordinating

[1:15:21] with the community of Cedar Park to introduce service for the first time in that area in a while.

[1:15:26] And that introduction of that service would be on the assumption and the reliance that Cedar Park would pay 100% of the service that is being provided within the city limits there.

[1:15:39] The last two items are a realignment of service in far east Austin that serves the main or community.

[1:15:45] and coordinating with our partner, the Capital Area Rule Transportation Services, which is named

[1:15:50] cards, to coordinate services that would enable the community of Elgin to be able to transport

[1:15:59] their residents over towards Mainer and coordinate with those services so that we would have

[1:16:03] one stream line service operating to and from the downtown area to those two communities.

[1:16:08] Finally, we are proposing an adjustment to the Metro Rail Schedule to improve upon some of

[1:16:13] that we offer in the peak service, and we will be introducing mid-date level service to fill

[1:16:17] in the void that we right now have, where we only operate in the mornings, and then we only

[1:16:22] operate in the afternoon peak periods. We will now be able to operate from morning until

[1:16:25] afternoon with the mid-day service being turned on. We've been able to communicate directly

[1:16:30] with those particular writers overwhelmingly there in favor of the particular change that

[1:16:35] we were proposing. They see a benefit of that service being more so with the introduction

[1:16:40] that level of service.

[1:16:44] With that, I'd be happy to answer any details or any questions that you may have, there

[1:16:48] were some that may have been raised at the hearing that you may have wanted or thought a little

[1:16:52] bit further.

[1:16:53] Well, that let me turn it back over to you.

[1:16:55] What do you remember since?

[1:16:57] Thank you.

[1:16:58] Roberto, one of the things that I looked at the route in my name was it is the 240.

[1:17:04] So, and I've been watching the ridership pretty much since our hearing on Monday explain to me how it's going to be realigned and how that service is going to be consolidated.

[1:17:16] Sure, I can show you map.

[1:17:18] That's better.

[1:17:33] Yes, man.

[1:17:44] Route 240 currently starts at North Lamar Transit Center near the intersection of US-1A3 and North Lamar.

[1:17:52] And it operates through the neighbourhoods just north of the North Lamar transit center where we have a high density of apartment complexes, near Runberg and Rutland area.

[1:18:02] It travels right now on a street called Parkfield Lane, which is highly residential single family.

[1:18:09] And it travels west on break or lane, over towards Amherst and Duwall in the neighborhood.

[1:18:15] What we're looking to do is re-align the service, so it still continues to serve the neighbourhood's north of the north of the north of the march transit center, up to the Runberg and Rutland area.

[1:18:24] And then travel on Rutland Road, travel west and east, over towards the Burnett Road corridor.

[1:18:31] Well, it will then serve alongside service in that area, just east of the domain development.

[1:18:38] And then take over service that operates along an area called Stone Hollow,

[1:18:43] metric Boulevard, and out towards the North Austin Medical Center.

[1:18:48] The area of Stone Hollow has apartment complexes,

[1:18:51] ACC, North Ridge is in that area,

[1:18:54] and the northern terminus of this route would now be the market at Palmer,

[1:18:58] which is a grocery stores and retail development there,

[1:19:01] as well as the North Austin Medical Center.

[1:19:03] So I'm not actually familiar with the neighborhood into which you reside,

[1:19:07] But maybe you can tell me where you live.

[1:19:11] See that dot at the top, in the circle 142.

[1:19:14] Yes, ma'am.

[1:19:15] Okay, I can walk from my house to that dotted form of the way.

[1:19:20] So is the 142 taking over that?

[1:19:22] Yes.

[1:19:23] In that section, we operate right now service on weekdays.

[1:19:28] That will be removed.

[1:19:29] And the substitution would be route 142 which would operate weekdays peak periods.

[1:19:33] There are approximately 30 riders of the 400 that utilize the service a day that would be impacted in that area.

[1:19:41] They would have the options to use 142, which would enable them to still travel towards most of these corridors,

[1:19:46] but it would be limited to the weekday peak periods only.

[1:19:51] They would not have all day service, like they're accustomed to right now with this change.

[1:19:55] So right now, the one, the 240 is all day.

[1:19:58] provide all day weekday service and the 142 will provide peak period of

[1:20:05] weekday. That's correct. Will there be any weekend service? There is no

[1:20:09] weekend service for that particular neighborhood. Now the new 240 route which

[1:20:12] currently only operates on weekday will now have Saturday and Sunday service.

[1:20:17] So some of these areas such as North Austin Medical Center and apartment

[1:20:20] complex and these zones that have never had that type of service will now

[1:20:24] We receive in that service, okay, which means also that ACC will now have weekend service also

[1:20:30] We will have we can service it. There's a need to try it. Yes, ma'am. Thank you

[1:20:35] We're memorandum

[1:20:37] I was just going to ask a quick question the 392

[1:20:41] route

[1:20:41] Can you explain what the what the changes are how many people are impacted by

[1:20:45] Religning to 40 actually I think the reason we put this particular area in here is this portion of of breaker

[1:20:53] Lane, which is served by Route 240, which still be served by another route and Route 392 still enables folks to utilize service in this section.

[1:21:02] So they would not be without any service they would still have service.

[1:21:05] So what this shows is that these folks will have an alternative.

[1:21:09] That's correct. The grades are the areas where the alternatives are available.

[1:21:12] The section right here along Parkfield Drive is the only area that would not have the service available.

[1:21:18] That is single family residential and.

[1:21:20] And how many people does that represent?

[1:21:22] off the top of my head, I could not tell you, but it's not a large number when compared to

[1:21:30] to looking at the whole.

[1:21:32] Okay, so is it on the order of the same number of people up there?

[1:21:35] Maybe on the order of the same amount as up there, maybe 30-ish in that area, because it's

[1:21:39] single-family residential in that area.

[1:21:41] There aren't apartment complexes.

[1:21:42] There are no apartment conflicts that are located in that zone.

[1:21:46] And the 392 alternative for the folks on that's breaker?

[1:21:51] Yes.

[1:21:51] Does that represent a change in hours of service the way the 142 does now that'll be an existing service to just

[1:21:59] The gestations act and it's as a there's an alternative

[1:22:03] We'll remember our chair first. Let's do we have a system this time to speak on this we do

[1:22:08] Well hold my questions to let this okay

[1:22:10] With that we'll go to the systems and this we're broke. I just want to know where we are with the

[1:22:15] the 904-9806 issue just

[1:22:19] Sure

[1:22:20] any updates, any further feedback on the proposed...

[1:22:26] Not any different than what we've proposed to the public, since our meeting out in Leander.

[1:22:32] Ninety-six is a route that originates and terminates at Leander Station.

[1:22:37] Its function is to pick up passengers at that one particular station, and then express the VLUS-1-3-35

[1:22:42] to reach the state office complex in downtown.

[1:22:45] In 1984, does the same type of activity, but it's, it's origin is lake line station.

[1:22:52] Our proposal is to combine those two services, so those two stations continue to be

[1:22:57] served.

[1:22:58] We would still travel the U.S. 1, 23, 23, 235 and still deliver passengers to the

[1:23:02] state office complex and downtown along the same stops.

[1:23:05] Our goal is to continue to have three trips in the morning from the land station and three

[1:23:11] trips in the morning from Lake Lines station, it just happened to be combined.

[1:23:17] I don't understand.

[1:23:17] But I was furious as to what the feed that's been from.

[1:23:20] And you went out to the Lake Lines and we understand this and surveyed current

[1:23:25] riders.

[1:23:25] Correct?

[1:23:25] I just want to see if we did.

[1:23:27] Generally, I'm sure you're going to make everyone happy, but there's some general

[1:23:31] consensus that this is 95 route is satisfactory.

[1:23:34] Well, at the meeting that we had in the Leander community, that's when we tried to

[1:23:39] with as many folks as we could one-on-one, and we broached that option at that time and we

[1:23:44] continued with that. We then brought it back out in a public format in terms of making sure

[1:23:50] we documented exactly what we were proposing. My experience has been that the folks that we talked

[1:23:55] to most of them have accepted the fact that that's a reasonable compromise. What we had been

[1:24:01] proposing prior to would have been consolidating those services but using MoPAC and 38 Street.

[1:24:06] This would enable them to still continue to travel down the corridor

[1:24:10] to they feel this most efficient in operations and still enable us to drop

[1:24:15] and deliver passengers and pick up passengers and the state complex and downtown.

[1:24:19] In the same exact bus stops that they're accustomed to being delivered and picked up at.

[1:24:24] Our goal is to try to keep those times of departures in the afternoon morning

[1:24:29] close to what they're accustomed to having right now from each of those two stations.

[1:24:34] What does the red line I rely on?

[1:24:37] Where does the red line?

[1:24:39] Red line, you mean a capital metro line?

[1:24:44] Capital metro is red line.

[1:24:45] There's a station here at Leander.

[1:24:47] It travels parallel to US-183.

[1:24:52] And then it does.

[1:24:53] It does.

[1:24:54] It does.

[1:24:55] It does.

[1:24:56] It does.

[1:24:57] towards Lake Lines Station. Travels over towards Howard Station, down towards Cramer, towards

[1:25:03] Crest View Station near Lamar, Highland Station, MLK Boulevard, or MLK Station, Salteo, and then downtown.

[1:25:17] Is there an assumption for the folks that some of these folks are going to move over to that

[1:25:22] commuter line? There may be some that choose to do so. We believe most of them will

[1:25:28] continue to take advantage of the bus service that we offer.

[1:25:32] The commuter rail line, even with the enhanced service

[1:25:35] that we're often in midday, has a longer operating

[1:25:38] span.

[1:25:39] And our express services have traditionally

[1:25:40] been a very, very narrow window, because we have found

[1:25:44] that we cannot actually rely on our operation times

[1:25:48] once we get up beyond a certain point in the morning.

[1:25:52] That's when we start to be in the same traffic patterns

[1:25:55] as normal automobiles.

[1:25:56] So our express buses are in a narrow focus, our rail line is a larger window.

[1:26:03] Some may choose to take advantage if it meets their needs, but most we believe will stay with what the service will offer.

[1:26:10] And that's been my feedback as well.

[1:26:11] I live in the general area and the feedback is that this is fairly heavily used around people rely on it to get downtown quickly.

[1:26:21] They don't feel that they'll get the same level of service from a commuter rail.

[1:26:25] And so there's concern that the focus of this is to drive people onto commuter rail and I just want to be sure that that's not the case.

[1:26:36] It's an option that they'll still have.

[1:26:38] They'll have commuter rail is an option and this express buses is an option.

[1:26:41] But that's not the goal.

[1:26:42] That's not the goal.

[1:26:43] This is a consolidation of services looking at how effective and how efficient are we with the express buses.

[1:26:48] There, those two routes are in the two thirds or it depends on the trip, range in terms of loads and what we're trying to do is consolidate and make more efficient use of those resources.

[1:26:57] In my packet, I've got the supporting information.

[1:27:04] And it says staff is continuing to work on refinements to the original proposal to meet patronese while complying with agency objectives and standards.

[1:27:12] So, I'm not sure exactly what that means, it doesn't tie down for me exactly what the proposal is.

[1:27:20] Can you tell me exactly what efforts you're making and how do you expect this description

[1:27:27] or that description to change as a result of that effort?

[1:27:32] The only thing that would change is that we're making sure that we narrow down exactly the departure times

[1:27:37] from each of those two stations to ensure that we are as close to our current times from

[1:27:42] those two stations.

[1:27:43] We may or may not be able to achieve that in the morning or afternoon, which respect

[1:27:49] to one of those stations, for instance.

[1:27:52] We can leave at the exact same time from the under station, but it may take us a few extra

[1:27:56] minutes, and it will take us a few extra minutes to arrive to Lake Line Station.

[1:28:00] So that's why we're just making sure that it gives us an avenue to just state that we're

[1:28:06] going to work towards trying to ensure that we have about the approximately

[1:28:10] same departures.

[1:28:11] Thank you.

[1:28:13] All right.

[1:28:14] There are no other questions or comments.

[1:28:16] Actually, do you have one more question?

[1:28:17] Okay.

[1:28:17] On the 2014 Northwest Flex,

[1:28:24] I believe it says under rationale, the proposed routing would offer service

[1:28:27] to most of the Northwest Dialogue customers as well as current mental access as

[1:28:31] in the area and then it says that the metro access area for logivista and Jones town will be retracted.

[1:28:39] What does that mean, exactly?

[1:28:43] Well, the metro access service area is dictated by a three quarter mile boundary around a fixed route service.

[1:28:51] So we are able to serve clients within three quarters of a mile of a fixed route service.

[1:28:56] As we change this particular route, and we consolidate services, the dollarized services in that zone operates beyond that three quarters of a mile, it's a demand response service, and it operates three days out of the week, very limited hours, and with the days of operation, very limited number of days, and it's so functions to carry folks from any one of the parts of those communities, over towards the downtown area, but it's only one trip in the morning, one trip in the afternoon.

[1:29:24] We're proposing to offer more service throughout the day, allow that boundary or allow our service to flex beyond the fixed route.

[1:29:32] Normally, a fixed route bus only stops a designated stop and does not deviate anywhere off-brow.

[1:29:39] Under this proposal, the flex route would enable us to deviate at least three quarters of a mile past that route, so that we could at least try to serve clients anywhere in and around that boundary.

[1:29:50] So that's what we're going to do.

[1:29:52] What we're trying to say is that the demand response boundary,

[1:29:55] which is a lot larger, is the one that we cannot fully exist.

[1:30:00] Spectacerve with the way that we're designing this particular service. So there are some clients who may or may not be using that particular service of the dollar, right, that may or may not be able to use what we're proposing now.

[1:30:13] And we've been able to map out and work with carts, who's our provider for the service, to see who might be the sum of those folks that may or may not be affected.

[1:30:22] That particular dollar, right, is because it's so infrequent in operation Monday, Wednesdays and so on and in the limited hours.

[1:30:30] The type of person that might use that service is not a continuing rider, it depends on what their function is.

[1:30:38] So there are some who may be able to use a new service because if they can get to the in and around that corridor,

[1:30:44] some may still be without that.

[1:30:45] And we'll continue to try to work to see how we might be able to meet the need.

[1:30:48] Cars could still step in and try to meet that void between three quarters of mile and what we're leading with the dollar ride

[1:30:55] because they offer services in the rural areas.

[1:30:57] Right, and so for, I'm saying that you have no data about how many Metro access customers would be impacted as a result of this change.

[1:31:06] I mean, on Metro access customers, I would have to ask one of my staff versus Meredith Highsmith who worked on this to come answer that because I believe that we've got close to most of those customers.

[1:31:23] Hi, members of the board.

[1:31:24] There are high-smits in your planner for Capitol Metro.

[1:31:28] What we have done is work with our Metro Access team to ensure that we are mapping all

[1:31:33] of the Metro Access clients in the area as well as the passengers that currently utilize

[1:31:37] the North West style and the two-fourteen service and just do an overlay to see what the

[1:31:42] potential effect is.

[1:31:44] It's our understanding at this time that the majority of the Metro Access passengers in

[1:31:48] that corridor, the three-quarter mile-quarter, will be able to utilize this new proposed

[1:31:52] flexible route.

[1:31:53] There is an exception with a couple of passengers that we're utilizing the Northwest Dialoride.

[1:31:59] We have sent letters to all of those passengers.

[1:32:02] We do have their addresses as well as made phone calls.

[1:32:06] And we are continuing to work with our Metro Access Department to ensure that those who are relying on the transportation system have a way to get where they need to go.

[1:32:14] So you do know that there's some number of people who are impacted.

[1:32:19] How many is it?

[1:32:20] We know that there are two people that will be directly impacted on the Northwest

[1:32:24] Dialrod and there are two to three people currently in Metro Access that we are working with our Metro Access team on.

[1:32:35] Okay.

[1:32:35] Thank you, Mayor.

[1:32:36] Any other questions?

[1:32:38] Comments?

[1:32:40] With that, we'll go to the citizens that have signed up to speak to us on this item.

[1:32:43] The first speaker is Will McCloud.

[1:32:46] Welcome Will.

[1:32:50] good morning or like I guess probably good afternoon right now

[1:32:56] Apple Metro for record my name is Wilma clown and I am again some of these

[1:33:03] service changes the 142 in particular it needs to run more often 142 if I

[1:33:20] a day. It seems like our catering to the express bus and the real community again and not

[1:33:31] the transit areas and solutions.

[1:33:38] And then the local route, sorry, I'm a little nervous. The local

[1:33:46] routes are not very impacted. What your service changes are not making a service changes that

[1:33:52] are needed to be done. I have to walk with the king now because of the facts that I had

[1:34:02] asked a couple of major miniatimes to extend route 392 to service morale circle. I'm going to keep

[1:34:09] asking. I want to keep asking. I'm going to keep on until I get it. Because it ends with my community

[1:34:15] gets it in the arboretum. You are shorting the transit dependent community in the arboretum

[1:34:21] and now you're asking for more money. That's not acceptable. Okay, that's just not acceptable.

[1:34:29] How many people have to get hurt and catching your buses and writing your buses in order to

[1:34:35] use your services to make y'all happy? I don't understand why they express buses they're getting so

[1:34:44] much of a favor while all the rest of the rounds, especially in North and North West Austin

[1:34:49] are being red lines and that's eternally using the real estate community redlining is to make

[1:34:57] the services undesirable to people and that's not right and that's not fair. Thank you for your time.

[1:35:04] Thank you, Will. Next speaker is James Crabtree. James here. Welcome James.

[1:35:19] We'll make copies for the rest of

[1:35:20] That's a good morning. My name is James Crabs.

[1:35:22] You got to represent an ad hoc group out of Leander.

[1:35:25] We call ourselves, save our buses.

[1:35:27] And we started up what you have there, Mr. Chairman,

[1:35:30] as a copy of a petition signed by 103 riders of the 96.

[1:35:35] We sent one to you as well, man.

[1:35:37] It was over a month ago, and we never got a response from it.

[1:35:40] And so that's really the reason I'm here today is to represent those riders

[1:35:43] and to try to get an answer for why we never got a response.

[1:35:48] Basically, we feel that the 1985 is a step in the right direction, because the first thing

[1:35:52] you guys are going to do is just to completely remove the 1984-96 route, which

[1:35:57] you're very, excuse me, which are very popular routes.

[1:36:01] But the problem with the 1985 is it's still going to be very, very crowded.

[1:36:05] In fact, I think you're going to see a lot of people that are going to be standing remotely

[1:36:08] on some of these runs.

[1:36:10] You know, I'm all for the train, I think the train was a great idea, the reason why my family

[1:36:14] I move from Lugerville out to Leander, but the bottom line is the train has become a wide elephant.

[1:36:20] It simply doesn't run on schedules that are efficient for those of us that live out there.

[1:36:24] A lot of people that I ride to work with, we leave our homes before six in the morning.

[1:36:28] The bus is the one way that we can get here on time in an efficient manner.

[1:36:33] The train just simply will never be that way.

[1:36:36] And so I would like to invite you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Watson, to please come out and sit down

[1:36:40] meet with these people that are being affected with the change the 1986-1984.

[1:36:45] We were disappointed that you guys were not at the hearing that we had at the Leander

[1:36:49] Library.

[1:36:50] And the follow-up, follow-up hearing that the gentleman spoke about, wasn't really a hearing

[1:36:54] it was simply a couple of capital metro staffers at the Leander Station one afternoon

[1:36:59] at five o'clock when many of us were still at work or riding on the buses.

[1:37:03] In fact, when we first got there, a lot of us actually left because Miss Schram was the only

[1:37:08] person there. She works for Cap Metro. She didn't have any materials and the other person

[1:37:13] who's one of the planners was apparently stuck in traffic. I don't know why he didn't

[1:37:17] ride the train. But honestly, seriously, I hope that you could respond to what we sent

[1:37:24] to you. In fact, the petition that I sent was actually directly to your office at City Council

[1:37:28] because I was afraid of I sent both of them here that end up in the circuit of file. So please

[1:37:33] come out to the end or sit down with the people out there that ride the 96 they have legitimate concerns both time away from their families and the pocketbook concerns

[1:37:44] I think increasing you guys already increased the fairs once on the buses like 36 to 63 dollars now you're going to do it again

[1:37:52] So I think bottom line is I think we all help their feel you guys are doing what you can to put people onto the train no matter what and though that the bus is not as sexy or sleek as the train

[1:38:03] It's much more efficient for all of us.

[1:38:05] So please come to the ender and sit down and meet

[1:38:07] with 103 people to sign that petition.

[1:38:09] Thank you.

[1:38:10] Thank you Mr. Crabford.

[1:38:11] Next speaker is Diane Boehmore.

[1:38:15] Welcome.

[1:38:23] I just want to say that first of all,

[1:38:25] before I even get to the mic here,

[1:38:28] that Mr. Michael Zitzavanskka would have been here to speak.

[1:38:34] And he's not, he's going to church retreat,

[1:38:36] but he called me last night with great concerns.

[1:38:40] He was just re-certified for Metro Access and this directly affects him, I'm sure that

[1:38:49] you guys are very familiar with Michael even though he was excluded from being on our committee

[1:38:55] by management interference.

[1:38:58] He is the most dedicated person that you would ever know.

[1:39:04] He would come to all of the board meetings.

[1:39:06] He comes to the work sessions.

[1:39:07] he gives us notes and has never held a grudge because of the interference that kept him

[1:39:14] off of the committee.

[1:39:17] But my point is that he uses this bus and he called me last night with great concern because

[1:39:23] he had received a notice and I don't have a copy of it and he has cognitive disability,

[1:39:29] so it's kind of hard to understand what it was, but he has received notice that because

[1:39:33] of this 240 change he will not be able to get Metro access service after January and he has

[1:39:45] already suffered from the fact that although the gentleman before said that the 240 I think it's

[1:39:51] the 240 I'm not going to get these confused but anyway I think it's the 240 that he was speaking of

[1:39:59] Even though the gentleman before me said that this bus has never had weekend service, that's in correct.

[1:40:07] It used to have weekend service, which Michael took advantage.

[1:40:11] But that was taken away from him a few years ago too.

[1:40:14] And now, his service is being jeopardized by this entirely, and I want to use this as a segue sort of into explaining why it's so important that people the grandfathered in who have used the service and whose buses are changing it's so very important.

[1:40:40] Mr. Zitsavanskha has a lot of times his wife will drive him, but his wife has other things to do and

[1:40:50] And it it causes a strain in their relationship and I think this is a very important piece that hasn't been mentioned before about how these things cause family issues when you guys

[1:41:03] Tick people off and I don't want to use any other word

[1:41:08] of their transit system when that's all the choice they have.

[1:41:12] This does affect families and relationships.

[1:41:16] It doesn't just affect their transportation issue.

[1:41:19] And also, Mr. Kevin, who I can't remember his name,

[1:41:23] who I met with Doug Allen, as well as staff.

[1:41:27] He lives in Manor.

[1:41:28] He works in Cedar Park.

[1:41:31] And this Manor, he lives more than three-fourths of a mile

[1:41:35] from the express of us, and this Vader, he's going to be affected also because he's been

[1:41:43] grandfathered in for many, many years, he works in Cedar Park, he's also cognitively disabled

[1:41:49] his parents are elderly, and he has no other transportation to get to work, and he is

[1:41:56] a productive employee at Walmart in Cedar Park, and this is taking him off of the system as

[1:42:04] not the 240, but the taking people out of the service area. He cannot move. He's dependent on

[1:42:11] his elderly parents. They cannot move. I'm done, but I hope I've made my point. Thank you.

[1:42:19] That concludes all the speakers signed up on this item. Do we have any further comments or questions

[1:42:24] from board members, or member Riley?

[1:42:27] Yeah, I have a question for Roberto.

[1:42:32] Really,

[1:42:35] I wish we could, we've got something to put,

[1:42:40] actually there was some input Thursday night during the Metro Access hearing,

[1:42:44] from a writer who was talking about the changes of North Carolina,

[1:42:49] the line that you had.

[1:42:50] It was Michael, sir.

[1:42:52] And I believe that he was present last week, or was it someone else?

[1:42:58] I might have been late here.

[1:42:59] I spoke with Mike.

[1:43:00] I'm going to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

[1:43:02] The argument was that the change would,

[1:43:06] that currently, the well that we provide serves something like six major apartment complexes with 350 people each.

[1:43:17] And this is the way, and this provides the transportation to go to the stores.

[1:43:21] and that the change, the service change that's proposed would have a limited and that service

[1:43:27] made it very difficult for those folks to be able to get the groceries.

[1:43:33] And I'm sorry I don't remember the-

[1:43:34] That's Mr. Lee Hill.

[1:43:36] And the subject was on Rutland Drive.

[1:43:38] Can we get that?

[1:43:40] Could you pass that on screen?

[1:43:41] And I don't know where the apartment-

[1:43:43] Sure.

[1:43:43] Complexes are exactly.

[1:43:45] And I just want to make sure I just want to hear your response to that.

[1:43:55] The apartment complexes that he's talking about are in this corridor right here, which will continue to be served without 240.

[1:44:03] And we're introducing Saturday and Sunday service to that area.

[1:44:06] What he was referring to is the apartment complexes here, reaching this destination here at North Lamar and Runberg in that area.

[1:44:15] There are two apartment complexes in this zone, and there are more in this zone of which we're transferring some service.

[1:44:23] Let me show you.

[1:44:29] Two complexes in question have about 800 units here though continue to be served by that new route

[1:44:35] What we're doing is we're making a change which is this red line this red line normally travels on this purple area

[1:44:41] And it'll stay straight east west on one berg lane north south on metric and label us to serve

[1:44:47] 1,800

[1:44:48] 2,800 units in this in this zone right here

[1:44:52] which is at

[1:44:54] West

[1:44:54] Runberg at Northgate. So that's that's primarily the reason for the change in that area

[1:44:59] but we are not.

[1:45:00] Leave service out of that particular corridor there. And with respect to this and the other service changes that are proposed, is it the case that we will actually be serving more customers with these changes, and we are currently serving today?

[1:45:16] Yes, the goal is to serve more with the same amount of resources that we were right now spending for services in this zone.

[1:45:22] And you've looked carefully where all the apartment complexes are, and you're satisfied that we will actually see increases in ridership as results of this.

[1:45:31] We have, and these changes are also part of the outreach and the, the whole project of service plan 2020.

[1:45:40] We're, each one of these items are part of that service plan plan plan, which we're vetted with the community.

[1:45:46] With the last year, you're in a half looking at ridership figures, looking at how we could better utilize our resource and that's own.

[1:45:51] Okay. I could answer the previous question in this VOMAR. Michael Discivines is a gentleman

[1:45:58] that we've known capitalist staff for many years. And when we did our plotting of potentially

[1:46:03] affected clients for metro access with whatever changes we were going to propose for service

[1:46:08] in that area, we were able to extract a number of addresses and points in that zone. He lives

[1:46:17] just west of Mopak, let me see,

[1:46:23] in the Duval Amhurst area. The boundary originally prior to just a few weeks ago was going to exclude about 30 clients in that area. With the introduction of midday service on metro rail and service where we were providing a connector route.

[1:46:41] that boundary has now been enlarged, orton enlarged,

[1:46:45] and studied in a word, enlarged, enlarged in that area,

[1:46:49] so that it will now cover half of those 30 clients.

[1:46:52] Michael sits in the zone that will be covered now.

[1:46:56] Now the letter he got was an advance and was sent out

[1:46:59] in advance just to caution that that was going to happen.

[1:47:01] But I have spoken to him in the past personally,

[1:47:04] within the last week we can have, I'll need to do that again.

[1:47:08] And when I spoke to him at that time, I said,

[1:47:09] Mike, this is where we stand right now.

[1:47:12] If we can get midday service, an operation in a rail,

[1:47:15] that zone will come back on and you will be covered

[1:47:18] within that zone for metro access.

[1:47:22] No, it is a real connector, which qualifies under fixed route

[1:47:25] regular service, because it is a regular schedule

[1:47:28] with regular bus stops.

[1:47:33] He would be, but the times are from six in the morning

[1:47:35] to almost eight at night, which is approximately

[1:47:38] the same time as the current rail.

[1:47:41] And then Mr. McLeod also had a number of questions and particularly about service in the

[1:47:47] Arboretum area.

[1:47:49] Do you have any response to this?

[1:47:50] If I have a map of that particular area.

[1:47:56] And then,

[1:47:59] that's one of the different scents I have made and also, if you speak that

[1:48:03] Murad I think it was Murad a circle that, in particular, that's your home.

[1:48:06] Murad a circle is a loop of a street that's just a west of Breaker and Jollyville Road.

[1:48:12] And we operate north and south on Jollyville,

[1:48:15] Road in the Arboretum area.

[1:48:16] Do we have a man?

[1:48:17] You know, I don't have anything specific to that particular area.

[1:48:19] We have to pull a Google map.

[1:48:22] That's OK.

[1:48:23] But it's basically in this little zone right here in,

[1:48:27] let's see, somewhere in this area.

[1:48:29] But we've taken a look at that area before and we've

[1:48:32] timed it.

[1:48:32] And it would require a double loop to be added to a route

[1:48:37] that operates east, west, on breaker, north, south, on Jollyville.

[1:48:41] When we evaluated that, we evaluated that against the number of pastors that would have to incur that loop.

[1:48:48] And at the time, we have felt that that's an additional travel time for folks not having to travel in that zone.

[1:48:53] So folks right now can walk to Charlieville Road and or Breaker.

[1:48:57] And that's what Mr. McCloud is, is voices concerns about that walk.

[1:49:01] Part of it is uphill.

[1:49:05] Yeah.

[1:49:08] That's correct.

[1:49:16] Hang on, Mr. McCloud.

[1:49:17] Somebody has a question for you.

[1:49:18] Will ask you a question.

[1:49:19] member Riley has a floor.

[1:49:23] I want to go back to the Rutland

[1:49:29] Rundberg.

[1:49:33] The concern that we heel expressed was

[1:49:39] East

[1:49:42] of where the 240 is going down Parkfield

[1:49:45] Is that?

[1:49:46] Yes ma'am.

[1:49:47] And the people in the complexes getting to the ATB.

[1:49:54] That's correct.

[1:49:54] Ed Ryan Berg and Lamar.

[1:49:56] So does the red line still go?

[1:50:00] Yes, the red line still.

[1:50:02] The red line still travels and so does the green line,

[1:50:05] which travels east to west.

[1:50:07] OK.

[1:50:07] Two lines traveled east and west to that particular ATB.

[1:50:10] OK.

[1:50:10] And folks can make a transfer to the intersection of Parkfield and Runberg.

[1:50:14] Now, if you look at in the context of just the HB,

[1:50:19] that line, this is the zone in question.

[1:50:23] There's one HB here.

[1:50:25] There is another HB at the other end of the point of which we would

[1:50:28] deposit folks on the same side of the street as what that HB is.

[1:50:32] And he was referring to about the difference between what they're

[1:50:34] accustomed to now, whether it's a one to four difference in terms of

[1:50:38] travel time and what they're accustomed to.

[1:50:39] If they were traveling to solely to that HB, so someone can choose to

[1:50:43] make a transfer to a route takes in the HB or someone can choose to just ride one route

[1:50:48] to a different HB if they wish to.

[1:50:51] Thank you.

[1:50:52] Would you remember safe?

[1:50:53] Would you turn your mic on, please?

[1:50:56] What does a travel time without a North HB?

[1:50:59] I couldn't tell you in terms of minutes, but it would be like a run before difference.

[1:51:02] Maybe 20 to 25 minutes, I believe.

[1:51:06] If that.

[1:51:07] But the other option would they have to transfer, which would also be a...

[1:51:10] option would be transfer, however, a transfer to these routes in this area, there are fairly frequent in that area.

[1:51:17] There are 20 minutes and there are two routes operating east and west, and that's something.

[1:51:22] What do you remember lying there?

[1:51:24] Thank you.

[1:51:25] One thing I'm curious about is, you know, service playing 2020 is meant to enhance our ridership,

[1:51:31] but we're forecasting and declining in ridership.

[1:51:34] Can you explain how those to how that comes to be?

[1:51:39] The forecast that we have for right now for this change are only related to these particular bus route changes.

[1:51:46] The forecast for overall system-wide, we've done on different, covered all the whole system bus route system.

[1:51:55] We're forecasting a fairly significant decline in ridership.

[1:52:02] Are you going to tell me to be much greater if we didn't do this?

[1:52:05] Well, good action, or good morning, I'm sorry.

[1:52:08] I'm taught Hemingson Vice-President Strategic Planning and Development.

[1:52:12] It's not exactly that, but the overall ridership to climb that's forecast that is

[1:52:17] due in part to fair increases that are proposed.

[1:52:22] So as you all know, there's a lack of what's called elasticity between rising fairs

[1:52:26] and ridership impact.

[1:52:28] So these changes, as Roberto was explaining, in and of themselves, we fully expect to result

[1:52:34] an increased ridership within the changes we're making and one of the things I was just

[1:52:40] a little point out is that as we've discussed before when we do our three times a year

[1:52:46] performance reporting, we'll show you the results and say whether we actually delivered on that

[1:52:51] statement or not but that's the expectation.

[1:52:54] So I mean it is basically that if we move forward with these fair changes and if we didn't

[1:53:00] implement service plan 2020, the decline in ridership would be much greater, that the service plan 2020 is definitely going to

[1:53:09] definitely going to, it's forecast that to increase the ridership all things equal. Yes, that's correct.

[1:53:17] There's always, you know, tough tradeoffs in these service planning situations. The overall thing we're trying to accomplish with service plan 2020, especially in the first few years,

[1:53:27] want to make did not have the luxury of adding service, was to maximize the use of our existing

[1:53:33] resources.

[1:53:35] But if we had kept, let's just say we haven't gotten the fairs yet, if we kept fairs

[1:53:41] the same, the assumptions of overall system ridership, and let's say we implemented service

[1:53:47] plan 20, 20 didn't change the fairs, then we would be forecasting an increase in ridership.

[1:53:53] Is that correct?

[1:53:55] Does that's another way of getting at the same?

[1:53:57] All of us being equal, yes.

[1:54:03] One thing on Mr. Thanks, Todd.

[1:54:05] I appreciate it.

[1:54:05] So, that was the answer.

[1:54:08] On Mr. Crab trees,

[1:54:13] you know, petitioned that a hundred people signed,

[1:54:16] please, I'm assuming that we, if we may not have responded formally, that we have certainly,

[1:54:22] I mean, I got it.

[1:54:23] 100 people signed something like this, you know, that would assume it would get some response

[1:54:30] from capital metro.

[1:54:32] So, I just wanted to kind of make sure how that went from my perspective.

[1:54:36] We did.

[1:54:37] I mean, right after the, and I think Mr. Crouchy, did you have that petition at the time of

[1:54:41] the meeting?

[1:54:42] If you want me to go.

[1:54:43] We had this.

[1:54:44] Actually, from his Watson, because we thought we'd do this again, but that we've mailed it

[1:54:48] the very next day.

[1:54:49] I've never gotten a response from that, including my address, and so on, that the

[1:54:53] but one that I sent here off the city council,

[1:54:56] I actually included a personal note in myself,

[1:54:57] the number as well.

[1:54:59] So, no, we never got a number of spots.

[1:55:01] And the only thing we were told is,

[1:55:02] we're going to have another follow-up form

[1:55:03] here at the end of the station.

[1:55:05] That's when we're Mr. Ram was there,

[1:55:06] bought a clock, and there's nobody else.

[1:55:09] Okay.

[1:55:09] Thanks again.

[1:55:10] So, we took into consideration everything that we heard in that.

[1:55:14] Ms. Watson and her art of did work on a response

[1:55:17] based on exactly what we proposed within the few days

[1:55:20] after that initial meeting that we had in the end.

[1:55:22] And our response was trying to address, I think, two of those three points in there.

[1:55:27] One of those points, he was making was just a reference of trying to have more senior level

[1:55:31] staff president at that particular meeting.

[1:55:33] Now, we did have two board members present in that area, but the scrap tree and others wanted

[1:55:38] to see additional members of Capra-Metral.

[1:55:43] I mean, the only thing I might say in a case like that, where this represents a very significant

[1:55:50] that it might make sense to tailor a response to something where 100 people have signed up and

[1:55:56] send it to them directly.

[1:55:57] But I don't want to belabor the book, but John Michael, if you have something to add.

[1:55:59] By these.

[1:56:00] We were just going to add it.

[1:56:01] What we've put up on what we distributed to passengers and what we distributed and what we

[1:56:05] have on the blog and the response to the compromise was trying to address those points that we're

[1:56:12] talking about.

[1:56:12] We've got to understand that you responded internally and subsequently in terms of how we

[1:56:17] that what we propose to do as a result.

[1:56:20] Just might make sense to your one step further to, you know, send something specifically to

[1:56:26] a group or a hundred and signed a petition.

[1:56:31] John Michael Cortez with the Canadian Parliament, and we did send individual.

[1:56:36] We received, I would estimate probably about 40 to 50 emails and phone calls on this particular

[1:56:42] one.

[1:56:42] And every one of those got an individualized response with the revised proposal, that was based on the input that we received from the community.

[1:56:51] And many instances where they also provided a phone number, we picked up the phone and call.

[1:56:54] So did Mr. Crabb's tree get?

[1:56:57] Yes, I actually corresponded with Mr. Crabb tree and so did Mr. Ram on several occasions.

[1:57:02] And it is my understanding that something a note went from this Watson's office and within the last few days to Mr. Crabb.

[1:57:09] That's okay. I don't want to belabor the point. Thank you. And that's what I would have hoped and expected for from staff.

[1:57:15] I know you all are good at dealing with the public.

[1:57:17] Yeah.

[1:57:18] I want to add one more thing with respect to Mr. Crabford's comments on that one particular meeting at the end of station.

[1:57:25] Our objective with that meeting is not to hold a formal public hearing, but just to have staff presence that we can answer one-on-one questions.

[1:57:31] Upon our arrival, I did arrive to the understation of one of my other staff members as Mr.

[1:57:37] Crabsry and others had already left at a parking lot.

[1:57:40] I understand because as soon as I got there, Mr.

[1:57:42] I hadn't informed me that Mr. Crabsry had left because it was disappointed that we had

[1:57:47] not arrived as soon as the bus had deported, but they were on their way already to their

[1:57:52] automobiles as we were walking up.

[1:57:53] So we did meet with some of the writers that did decide to stay a few extra minutes and we

[1:57:57] caught the other buses as well too.

[1:57:59] So that's how that's what happened with that particular situation.

[1:58:02] So he is correct in that, yeah, I was not present at that time when he did

[1:58:05] the board, but we did try to meet with the rest of the folks that were there.

[1:58:09] Certainly understand certain states intervened, you know, thanks, you've answered it, point

[1:58:13] mate. And one thing there was, if we could go back to the, um,

[1:58:21] Lagovista feeder in northwest Dalari, could you walk me through that one more time in terms of how

[1:58:26] you're a mini because I had a question the same as for member Felista and I'm not exactly

[1:58:34] sure what how we're amending that dialeride and how that impacts the metro access.

[1:58:38] The best thing to do is to give it maybe more context and I don't know, Meredith, you

[1:58:42] do want to give them more context as to how this whole project, this is actually a larger

[1:58:47] project than it may seem.

[1:58:50] I'm gathering that but I just don't have my head around it and I'm having the exact same

[1:58:54] questions that you did, you said, are you talking about this time?

[1:59:01] Okay, pardon me.

[1:59:03] Um, so, um,

[1:59:04] on the Northwest Dahloride,

[1:59:09] um, what we had currently was three days of service,

[1:59:12] and it was a demand response level service,

[1:59:14] so if you're familiar with that,

[1:59:16] people will call in.

[1:59:18] Um,

[1:59:18] ridership had been on steady decline for the Northwest Dahloride,

[1:59:21] in some cases,

[1:59:23] we would have service posted to operate that day,

[1:59:26] out because no one was calling in for rides. Additionally, we have a lot of growing population in

[1:59:33] log of a stringent town that would like access to metro rail via downtown or express routes

[1:59:39] from like line station and would like to be better educated on how to use capital metro as a whole.

[1:59:46] It was, now you said metro rail did you mean metro rail? Yes because the 2014 the anchor point is

[1:59:51] like when station got it. Sorry. Okay. So, what we have in

[1:59:56] the mother of a sinjohn's town is, we're all 2014 currently, we have the-

[2:00:05] In terms of tracking, we see duplication in terms of some metrics as passengers will use to do 14 or the north-west side, so essentially what you have are three services out there and in our discussions with folks from the north-west and gents town, there's often confusion about how do I make these services work for me?

[2:00:23] So, ultimately, we decided it would be a great idea to go ahead and consolidate that way

[2:00:27] we could offer more and better service and then do outreach and kind of remark it and

[2:00:34] kind of rebrand the services we're offering out there.

[2:00:37] Okay, where I'll tell you where I'm getting a little bit of that house, definitely.

[2:00:41] Where I still don't thoroughly get is the relationship between the changes that we are making

[2:00:48] in Metro Access, that it seems that as though there's some significant shrinking in the territory

[2:00:58] served by Metro Access, and I want to understand that aspect.

[2:01:03] Correct.

[2:01:05] What we are going to do is convert what is currently a feeder route to a flexible route.

[2:01:11] With flexible routes, a complementary pair of transit is not required because they can detour

[2:01:17] off route to still meet the needs of a pair of transit route.

[2:01:22] Okay.

[2:01:23] Does that make sense?

[2:01:23] Yeah.

[2:01:24] Okay.

[2:01:24] So now that was the part of it I didn't get.

[2:01:27] So basically in essence, once we shift from a fixed to a flex route, it you no longer

[2:01:32] type pair of transit service to that route.

[2:01:35] Correct.

[2:01:37] And so there are some number of people out there that you have an exact, well, what's

[2:01:42] the number again?

[2:01:44] Um, I don't have the metro access passengers off the road.

[2:01:46] And yet it's probably five to ten.

[2:01:49] Okay, so five to ten that were covered by Metro Access as a result of being within three

[2:01:56] quarters of a mile of the fixed route now that it's flexed the three quarters of a mile no

[2:02:02] longer applies so they've fallen out.

[2:02:06] Correct, but we have contacted the majority of those folks and let them know via telephone

[2:02:12] and letter to let them know what this change in hails and how they can be able to utilize

[2:02:17] it. At this time, we know of three exceptions to that will not be able to utilize the two

[2:02:23] 14 route. And one that was kind of a holdover from a while ago that actually, and as Evans

[2:02:29] was working on with Metra access. So we are continuing to work with Metra access on those three

[2:02:34] exceptions.

[2:02:35] Okay, no absolutely now I get it and and I appreciate it's clear that y'all are trying to

[2:02:42] You know help those that are on metro access and are affected by a route change and I really appreciate that

[2:02:48] That's obviously the way it should be and I know you don't need board direction to do that

[2:02:52] You'll do it on your own the court. So I get it

[2:02:56] What one other there was a one other point associated with these?

[2:03:01] I noticed that you listed in several places that the metro access impact, I think, is probably

[2:03:09] for him, or maybe for someone from metro access, you know, on Route 2, 40, 15 people were

[2:03:16] fall off, I understand that's now altered slightly, because like Michael was one of those

[2:03:21] for instance, and he'll come back in.

[2:03:25] On 243 we lose 15 people lose the ability

[2:03:31] to utilize metro access.

[2:03:33] Then I noticed on the 990 main or express,

[2:03:36] we have a metro access impact, but no material, no data there.

[2:03:42] Does that mean no one's impacted?

[2:03:45] You know, right now, throughout 990 is an express service.

[2:03:48] So it does not generate the boundary so Metro access doesn't apply but I know Miss

[2:03:54] Paul Mar mentioned something to that effect when she stood up here, but I didn't understand how

[2:04:00] That particular comment that she made but that's okay, but we but that didn't that doesn't

[2:04:04] I did a boundary that's where access does not fall in the three quarters the three

[2:04:08] All they've done implied of that because not to an express front. Okay, so now what we're so

[2:04:14] you know we have yet to vote on our

[2:04:17] Policy, please, Ms. Salomon if I could just continue please, I'd appreciate it, if we haven't gotten through our metro access policy yet, but would, let's say that we approve what's been proposed, is what would happen to these folks that they would have up to 12 months to transition into the amended route, three quarters of a mile of the amended routes.

[2:04:46] Is that how that would apply I'd have to ask you to Ralph right now, but because I know that we're look, okay

[2:04:52] So we're looking to do that historically looking backwards, but

[2:04:56] Looking forwards the same

[2:04:59] Policy approach would apply that they would basically be grandfathered for up to 12 months

[2:05:08] Okay

[2:05:09] For the record for those that didn't hear the response the answer is yes

[2:05:15] Okay, thanks. Those are my questions. I appreciate it. Thanks for your responsibility.

[2:05:21] What do you remember, Shafith?

[2:05:22] Just a quick question on Meredith. Could you update me on the logo visit situation at the young man, the works at Mallmark, and see your part?

[2:05:30] Is he going to be, who would be able to use the flesh around?

[2:05:34] Okay, that would be Kevin Henson. I believe it's a person you are talking about.

[2:05:38] He is one of the unique instances in that he has not actually been in a part of the metro axis.

[2:05:45] service area for several years now and we have been working specifically with that family

[2:05:50] to address his needs.

[2:05:53] We are continuing a dialogue with him. I would have to actually

[2:05:56] defer to Inaz to know the latest on that. We are going to give him time as well to grandfather

[2:06:02] and be the 12 month policy that is my understanding. We are working with the family to see that

[2:06:09] He could be transferred to our logo of a supermarket ride and then utilized the route

[2:06:14] to 14.

[2:06:16] The other new feature of the route is that we now have the potential to flex within

[2:06:21] Zeter Park, which would offer him a direct ride to his place of employment.

[2:06:26] So we are continuing to discuss that with the family, and he will now have a 1Z ride to Walmart.

[2:06:34] I've got a question that a question about the 2014.

[2:06:36] You mentioned that your feedback from people in John's town in Lago indicated that they were more interested in a new rail and that that drove some of your changes to 2014.

[2:06:48] I represent Lago in John's town and that has not been my experience while they're interested in computer rail.

[2:06:54] They're interested in it but not at the expense of the only service that they have out to Lago in John's town.

[2:07:00] So I'm very concerned that the changes to the 2014

[2:07:05] that it's unclear exactly how the people in Logo and Jones town will be impacted.

[2:07:11] A lot of retirees, a lot of seniors in Jones town,

[2:07:14] and their input is that they won't be able to get to medical services for anything.

[2:07:20] And so I don't feel confident that I understand what the impact on Logo and Jones town,

[2:07:25] which is a very limited service to begin with.

[2:07:32] I don't fully understand how they're impacted, and so I'm concerned that, that somehow you have the impression that commuter rails, they're focused now, and so they're willing to give up some of the very minimal services in order to pursue that.

[2:07:48] Right. You actually bring up a really good point.

[2:07:49] It actually commuter rail is only one piece of the puzzle in terms of that route.

[2:07:53] When we initially did the research, one of the concerns that Jen Town did bring up, and I apologize for not addressing this earlier,

[2:08:00] is the connection to medical appointments. In fact, we are working with them in some detail,

[2:08:06] and we have two meetings, one next week with carts and capital metro and healthcare provider,

[2:08:12] as well as our Travis County Clinic, because a lot of them are medical assistance patients or

[2:08:18] map patients and they need access to specific healthcare centers and we actually have been

[2:08:24] dialoguing with them for over a year now to try to determine how we can better connect them

[2:08:29] to their medical appointments. And so we are continuing to discuss, like I said, we do have a

[2:08:35] meeting next week to talk about how they can access appointments. One of the points that they did

[2:08:40] bring up is the potential to be able to access medical services in Cedar Park, which is why that

[2:08:45] connection is kind of critical and the ability to flex on this route would allow them to

[2:08:50] be able to do that as well as access certain pharmacies because there are pharmacy requirements

[2:08:55] as well. In terms of the actual service change and service being limited, what we have done

[2:09:04] is in addition to the flex capacity of this route, we would be looking at a 35 minute frequency

[2:09:09] in the AM&P and then a 70-minute midday frequency, as well as the ability for people to of course

[2:09:17] call in and kind of set up a ride for when it works for them. So they should actually have a little

[2:09:23] bit better frequency, especially in the AMP and peak in a little bit more flexibility, which would be

[2:09:27] the purpose of the route. So we are continuing to discuss with Travis County as well as the

[2:09:38] connectivity. And given that you're continuing this dialogue,

[2:09:44] why should I conclude that this

[2:09:45] route change is not premature?

[2:09:48] That is also a good question. One of the things that we

[2:09:52] have an issue with is that some of the map patients are being sent out of the service area.

[2:09:57] And so we, as a region, need to come up with more creative ways to be able to allow our medical

[2:10:04] patients to connect not only from capital metro service area, but into the

[2:10:09] cart area and so on and so forth, which is why we are working on expanding

[2:10:13] services to be able to offer those connections.

[2:10:17] Thank you.

[2:10:18] We'll merge that.

[2:10:19] Yeah.

[2:10:20] We talked a lot about communications with Mr. Craig, but what we did in address is

[2:10:24] his concern that the changes to the express route will create over crowded buses and

[2:10:33] standing randomly, in which course we don't want, I think, one of those at 30 times.

[2:10:41] We're about to have, if you would talk about what triggers additional rounds or additional buses,

[2:10:46] or additional capacity, and what we can do to address that from time to time.

[2:10:50] Well, additional capacity on express routes are handled in two ways.

[2:10:53] One either, we change to type of the vehicle, and we have two types of vehicles.

[2:10:57] So, nobody wrote a coach, kind of like a tour bus, and then we have a different kind of vehicle.

[2:11:01] it's almost similar to our urban bus,

[2:11:03] but it has a different kind of seating combinations

[2:11:06] and patterns.

[2:11:07] So what we've looked at is to see where we have our tour buses

[2:11:10] right now operating.

[2:11:12] There's at least one trip in the morning

[2:11:13] and one trip in the afternoon that would look

[2:11:15] to possibly meet or maybe exceed the seat of the load

[2:11:19] from what we're proposing.

[2:11:23] The smaller bus, the moment the higher seat,

[2:11:26] it's about 38 to 39 passengers seated.

[2:11:30] And the over-the-road coaches in the 50s and low 50s depends on, and when we say depends,

[2:11:38] it's about a 52 to 53 passengers.

[2:11:40] It depends on whether or not a wheelchair is placed on that bus.

[2:11:45] So what we're proposing to do is look at moving one of those over-the-road coaches,

[2:11:49] just use somewhere else that may not be fully utilized,

[2:11:53] and making sure that it's on the one morning and one afternoon trip,

[2:11:55] where we feel that we'll have some loads that will get close to our limit.

[2:12:05] Does that address your concern? Does that help us?

[2:12:08] Yes, ma'am.

[2:12:09] I think it's a step in the right direction, but again, I do.

[2:12:11] Just from what I see with the 94 riders to get on the bus before we get on with the 96.

[2:12:15] There would be likely days that it would be standing remotely.

[2:12:18] I just see that happening.

[2:12:19] We had that with the 97 recently when the 96 had it.

[2:12:22] One day it missed its run and it was standing remotely on the 97 home.

[2:12:27] And so,

[2:12:30] is there capacity immediately or when the changes made in January, if we vote for it?

[2:12:39] Are we ready to address that immediately?

[2:12:40] We'd be ready to address it immediately with the larger vehicle, and if we have any issues,

[2:12:46] which we've had in the past when gas prices spike to address it with inserting the next trip,

[2:12:50] if need be.

[2:12:51] And that's how we'll look at that.

[2:12:52] And we'll look at the case by case.

[2:12:56] Do you have a question for Mr. Holista?

[2:12:59] Sorry, just one more question.

[2:13:01] After you made the proposed 1985 change in response

[2:13:05] to the feedback from the elimination of 1986, 1984.

[2:13:10] I think it's what it was.

[2:13:11] Did you follow up with a meeting with the group

[2:13:15] that was for Crapree represents?

[2:13:17] Yes, that's the meeting he mentioned,

[2:13:19] where we went to the Parken Rides Service

[2:13:21] or the Parken Rides at those locations.

[2:13:23] And he arrived just as, or he'd be part of just as we were arrived in the business.

[2:13:28] That's how we, but we don't have any formal feedback regarding 90 to 50.

[2:13:33] Although he has said it's a step in the right direction.

[2:13:39] We actually have had quite a bit of feedback.

[2:13:42] And I think we can characterize it as generally positive, especially from the lakeline customers,

[2:13:47] because for the lakeline customers, there's really no, not much difference, because they are still getting their direct trip from lakeline to downtown.

[2:13:54] We have heard that there's some folks in Leander who still have some concerns because of the the fact that they'll have to make one stop at Lakeland right now

[2:14:01] They're going directly to downtown now. We're asking them to you know take a little bit longer stop at Lakeland to pick some folks up

[2:14:08] So we have received actually lots of appreciative comments because that we listen to their concerns

[2:14:13] Especially from the Lakeland customers again

[2:14:15] There are still a few Leander customers who are concerned about the addition to their travel time

[2:14:21] I don't know exactly how much that addition is but we're talking about

[2:14:24] several minutes. Thank you.

[2:14:27] I want to remind more.

[2:14:28] Thank you.

[2:14:29] I just this in the question.

[2:14:31] I want all the all to know that we appreciate this where you'll do a good job in planning.

[2:14:37] And there is when you start changing routes, it is never easy.

[2:14:40] And service plan 2020 was a great project.

[2:14:43] I was part of the technical advisory team long before joining the board.

[2:14:47] And it is exactly what we need to be doing.

[2:14:50] is looking to get the most ridership and the most efficient services that we can out of

[2:14:57] our limited assets and these are tough years.

[2:15:00] We're cutting back. It never goes down easy. And please just understand that these board questions are nothing more than us getting comfortable with the changes that are being made, because with respect to the community, you know, where the ones that are kind of ultimately responsible to the community. So view them is nothing more than that. I am always impressed with whom we ask a very specific question about a specific route. You all have an answer. If we talk about having met with someone,

[2:15:29] You all met with them, or you've written them.

[2:15:32] So I just want to acknowledge that, you know,

[2:15:35] this is a tough process and you all are doing a really good job.

[2:15:39] And I mean that very sincerely.

[2:15:40] It always impresses me the extent to which I'll have, you know,

[2:15:44] really worked hard on these issues.

[2:15:46] So I just want to make sure to acknowledge that in irrespective

[2:15:50] of the questioning that occurs the last minute.

[2:15:53] So should we very difficult decisions?

[2:15:56] Any other questions or comments?

[2:15:59] Not from the audience, ma'am. I was talking to the board. Thank you.

[2:16:05] I'll entertain a motion to approve item number nine.

[2:16:10] I'll move to approve item number nine.

[2:16:13] Motion by Vice Chairman Lane Moore's there second.

[2:16:16] Second by board member Riley.

[2:16:18] Any other discussion at comments?

[2:16:20] Hearing and seeing that, all those in favor, please say aye.

[2:16:23] Aye.

[2:16:23] Those opposed.

[2:16:25] in health tensions. Emotion passes on a vote of seven to one with Board of

[2:16:33] Merhalista voting note. Next item is the approval of a resolution

[2:16:39] adopting the metro access policy changes and authorizing the President, CEO, or

[2:16:45] her designated implement the metro access policy changes. We'll have a

[2:16:54] to speak on the side.

[2:16:57] I'm going to have to know any lengthens,

[2:16:58] Executive Vice President and I'm chief operating officer.

[2:17:01] You have a handout that I put at your at each one's desk this morning.

[2:17:09] It should be a copy of this presentation to up slides as well as a financial document behind it.

[2:17:18] Before I get too far into the process,

[2:17:23] we please take our conversations outside.

[2:17:25] Thank you.

[2:17:27] Before I get too far into a presentation, I know that if the public hearing, there was

[2:17:33] discussion from the Board of Directors as to whether or not these policies would be

[2:17:40] adopted as a whole, or if they would be adopted one by one.

[2:17:46] At the will of the Board, I will

[2:17:49] present them one by one for discussion, or if you would like, I will be happy to go through

[2:17:54] to them. The presentation is set up to do it either way, so whatever the board prefers is what

[2:17:59] I will do. I think what we can do alone is just go ahead and go through a full presentation

[2:18:03] and then we'll let the board decide how we want to address each specific policy change.

[2:18:09] With that being said, I will move forward with the presentation.

[2:18:15] The policies before you today

[2:18:18] is the eligibility and appeals process, service level, open returns, taxi vouchers, service

[2:18:25] area in the call center days and hours and before I get any further, I would like to say that

[2:18:31] I'd as Evans is ill and so it's me answering your questions.

[2:18:37] As you are aware, we had meetings back in August with the MMWG, it was a result of dispute

[2:18:45] resolution and so this represents the conclusion from that effort as well as public input

[2:18:51] to rounds of public involvement in public input as well as public hearing brings us to the

[2:18:57] conclusions that will be presented today.

[2:19:00] And so it is a staff's recommendation that we do individual applications and medical

[2:19:06] verification as well as interviews.

[2:19:10] If it is deemed that you are unconditionally eligible, that would be a screening and process

[2:19:17] very first step that could be done by staff.

[2:19:21] I want to clarify, staff will not deem people or screen people out.

[2:19:29] We only will screen people in.

[2:19:32] And if there's any question about one's eligibility, they will move on to the functional

[2:19:36] assessment.

[2:19:40] There's unconditional eligibility, and then the next step would be conditional eligibility,

[2:19:44] and that would be determined by the third party that would be doing the functional assessments.

[2:19:50] All customers must go through it, all applicants must go through the process for eligibility.

[2:19:57] Customers, at any time, may request that they be reassessed.

[2:20:03] For instance, if we have determined at some point that a client is conditionally eligible,

[2:20:10] if they would like to come in because something has changed in their life, which is a very low possibility,

[2:20:15] that they believe now, they should be determined to unconditionally eligible.

[2:20:19] That path will always be of all that, it's just a matter of a request from a customer.

[2:20:27] The current customers, what we are requesting is that, at the time of their

[2:20:32] re-certification, that they also must come in for an interview, an orientation process.

[2:20:40] If deemed unconditionally eligible, the exact same would apply, that they would, in the future,

[2:20:46] only be required to update their personal information.

[2:20:49] They would not be required to come back in for an assessment.

[2:20:55] Conditional eligibility, same thing applies to our current customers as our new customers.

[2:21:01] And then of course, as always, they can move a request that they come back in for an eligibility review at any time.

[2:21:10] We have established an appeals process that consists of one member of access.

[2:21:17] And it is the desire that that number of access would represent the disability of the

[2:21:24] individual that is appealing if possible that would be the desire.

[2:21:28] There would be a board appointee, there would be someone from our ADA would be a capital

[2:21:33] metro staff person who is our ADA coordinator would also sit on the appeals board.

[2:21:38] And then there would be an absorber from access and access of course is the committee it is

[2:21:46] And that would be a non-boding observer.

[2:21:50] May I ask a quick question?

[2:21:51] Sir, thank you.

[2:21:53] When you say there would be a member from the Access Committee with a similar disability as the person making.

[2:22:02] So in other words, we would have a pool of some folks who had agreed to serve and had been

[2:22:09] If someone came in with a visual disability, we would pull from that pool of access members.

[2:22:16] I'm trying to...

[2:22:18] That's correct.

[2:22:19] If available.

[2:22:21] Okay, thank you.

[2:22:23] Our customers have 60 days to appeal the decision.

[2:22:27] And then of course, if they're not satisfied with the results of the decision, of course, it can always be moved to the federal level for review.

[2:22:34] and we will provide the toll-free number of information for them.

[2:22:40] This is just a map, if you all process a map,

[2:22:44] and a low-tability decision making tree.

[2:22:46] And so very quickly, one would come into with an application

[2:22:50] and if their professional have gone through a professional verification

[2:22:54] at that point, we would conduct staff

[2:22:56] with conduct an in-person interview and orientation.

[2:22:59] It is possible, as I said earlier, to be screened in at that point,

[2:23:02] as unconditional depending on what we determined from the applications, we never would

[2:23:08] screen any went out at that point. If we were not able to staff to make the determination

[2:23:12] that they were unconditionally eligible, then they would move on to it to the third party

[2:23:17] assessment process.

[2:23:22] The next policy is the service level. Currently our policy is door through

[2:23:27] door, non-residential locations. We're going to open it up to where it's curved to curve,

[2:23:35] door to door and door through door. Our original proposal if you remember was to go to door. I'm sorry go curb the curb and then door to door door through door would be upon request and so we've just opened it up for all three levels.

[2:23:49] client may request door to door at the time.

[2:23:54] For instance, we may have them defaulted to curb the curb at their request, but

[2:23:59] any time they may request that it be door to door to door to door to door to door to door.

[2:24:02] That's just the process we'll follow.

[2:24:07] It is also required by law that upon request that you must provide door to door service.

[2:24:15] Open returns, the main change here is that because our business is based on scheduling and the way that we gain efficiencies and are able to operate and deliver a better quality of services through scheduling.

[2:24:30] And so what we're requesting here is that at the time of the scheduling that our clients estimate a return time.

[2:24:40] Taxi vouchers, this was the initial recommendation, was that subscription service that

[2:24:47] when it became available on the Metro Access service that we would begin transitioning

[2:24:52] our clients.

[2:24:53] Then the vouchers on request program has stood to what you have seen to this point was to eliminate

[2:25:01] that program.

[2:25:02] And I would like to clarify here that while the take that played did indicate that, yes,

[2:25:07] I did say that we had spoken with the feds on numerous occasions before the public.

[2:25:13] I have clarified that there was a potential violation, and so I hope that that's understood

[2:25:19] do the Board of Directors as well as the public.

[2:25:22] The vouchers on request is as early as we had recommended that it be eliminated and then overflow

[2:25:27] vouchers there would be no impact to that at all.

[2:25:31] However, based on comments from our community, based on public hearings, based on staff discussions,

[2:25:41] based on discussions that we've had with other agencies, based on the public hearing,

[2:25:47] and quite a bit of input, staffists would like to advance to the Board of Directors

[2:25:51] a little bit different direction on the Taxi voucher program. And so if I could take a few minutes

[2:25:58] to roll that out. I know this is new information for the board, so I apologize for the short

[2:26:05] opportunity you've had to review it. I will do my best to explain this to you so that

[2:26:09] it makes sense to not only to you, but to our community as well.

[2:26:14] What we're proposing is an accessoride program. What makes this different from what we're

[2:26:20] doing today. Currently, our ADA plan just calls out a Taxi Voucher program, and there are

[2:26:26] components within that. And of course that being the subscription, it being the overflow and it being

[2:26:31] this piece of the vouchers on demand. What we're proposing is to carve that out of the vouchers on demand.

[2:26:47] Okay, so that in our ADA plan, when we address the Taxi program, what will be included will be

[2:26:59] in the one side of the room, but I'm sorry for that.

[2:27:03] When we carve it out, it will stand independent of the ADA plan.

[2:27:10] And so it will be a premium service that is not mandated by the federal regs of any way.

[2:27:20] So we are able to provide to our customers an option through the Taxi Program, what's going

[2:27:28] be important is how we manage this program. It's just like anything else we do. But what

[2:27:32] is key is that what we were led to believe through our discussions and when we got into

[2:27:37] the 504 and I will be the first to say lessons learned next time I'll call the feds four

[2:27:43] or five times. Okay, so I'll be happy to do that in the future. But what we want to do is

[2:27:49] to set this up to where it's pretty much managed outside of Metro access. It's managed

[2:27:56] to a third party and more than likely it would be a taxi company.

[2:28:01] We have confirmed that the technology is available, we have literally put our eyes on

[2:28:06] that technology.

[2:28:07] It would be a stored value card, you just swipe, and then it backs out the fair.

[2:28:15] What we're proposing is that we have a cost share of this and we've estimated a trip and

[2:28:23] And I'll try to do a good job of explaining trip versus value, but we've estimated a trip to be approximately $20.

[2:28:32] Of that, we would expect a cost share of $5 from our customers.

[2:28:36] So the maximum that we would contribute would be $60.

[2:28:41] The maximum of a customer would contribute would be $20.

[2:28:45] That's the max that can happen, which puts us at an $80 value stored value on the card.

[2:28:51] by with me so far. Okay.

[2:28:55] What makes this a little different is that currently everything

[2:28:59] is trip based. So you use a voucher for a trip, and then after you reach a certain level

[2:29:05] and I believe it's six miles, our customers must pay the difference. What we're proposing

[2:29:10] here is it is simply stored value of a total of $80 of which 20 is contributed by our customers.

[2:29:19] If you live and your trips are maybe a mile, mile and a half, you're going to get a lot bigger bang for the buck than someone who uses it for a long distance trip.

[2:29:31] So really it's about managing the trips and managing the dollars, and it will be flexible, not everyone's going to have the same needs.

[2:29:40] So I may be able to go 20 trips, someone else may be able to only go three trips. It just depends on where they're going.

[2:29:47] That's one advantage of the program where I really see the greatest advantage.

[2:29:52] We've heard a lot of concern about if we go to the three quarter mile, there will be folks

[2:29:58] who will not be eligible.

[2:30:00] Not that they won't be eligible. They won't have service available to them. For some folks, this will serve as a gap. It can bridge, not serve as a gap. It can bridge the gap. For instance, if we change our service and we just change the hours and we no longer have service available on weekends, someone can come in and get the maximum per month.

[2:30:26] And use that if they want to go to church or if they do their grocery shopping on the weekends, they can use that.

[2:30:31] And so that's a little bit of a bridge. Does that need the full need? No, it does not.

[2:30:36] And I don't want anyone to think that that's what I'm saying, that this backfill is that whole program because it doesn't.

[2:30:42] But it certainly helps fill some of the gaps that we know exist.

[2:30:47] And so we would expect that there would be a one-time upfront charge and that be a $5

[2:30:53] because that's what the Taxi Company will charge for the smart heart and the technology

[2:30:59] that goes with it.

[2:31:01] That is a very high-level view of that program.

[2:31:06] We did have a very brief discussion at the NMWG meeting last night.

[2:31:12] I believe in general we received a favorable response simply because we're doing something different than just eliminating the program.

[2:31:21] There was a desire to express that what we're proposing is a funding level of $720,000.

[2:31:29] And then of course, when client puts in the 20, and what it comes to is about $900 and

[2:31:35] somewhat $1,000 a year, total value.

[2:31:37] But our actual contribution would be $720,000, it's in the budget.

[2:31:43] It's just a matter how you reallocate the dollars originally.

[2:31:46] It was going to be in there for transport on our service.

[2:31:49] We would carve those funds out and use it for this program.

[2:31:53] Remember, machines?

[2:31:54] It's a quick point of clarification.

[2:31:55] This is only a proposed program would be only available to the current three quarter mile ADA customers if that's the way we went or is it available to the entire service area and you want this eligible and even if they live outside through.

[2:32:10] Okay.

[2:32:11] Remember step.

[2:32:14] If the card is good for the average of four trips based on $20 a trip, how often can people refill that card?

[2:32:22] once a month. Okay. That's a monthly

[2:32:26] allotment. So let me know something somebody can use to you to get to work every day if it was a

[2:32:31] $20 per every day. It's just a bridge. That's right. Thank you.

[2:32:40] But what I would like to clarify is that someone who needs a trip to work every day, that's

[2:32:45] what we're here for. That's what we did. It's a subscription service. And so we would

[2:32:51] take care of them. We're remember listening. So he said it's a subscription service,

[2:32:58] something needs it to get to work. You'll take care of them. And I just want to clarify what

[2:33:03] we're remember, Chief, it's that includes people outside the three quarter mile quarter.

[2:33:10] We've got apples and oranges in that discussion. Okay, I'm sorry. I saw a glance when he made the

[2:33:16] and so let me clarify.

[2:33:18] In order to use the TATC program, it is non-ADA, if you are eligible and you live in the

[2:33:27] service area and by eligible meaning you are eligible for our service.

[2:33:31] If we set the 3-quarter mile boundary, you're still eligible once you get into the 3-quarter.

[2:33:37] However, for this program, you can use it even though you are outside as long as you're

[2:33:44] the service area, but not necessarily the three-quarter mile corridor, for this program.

[2:33:49] For this taxi program, yes.

[2:33:52] That's correct.

[2:33:53] Can you remember, could you help me understand the rationale for that?

[2:33:58] I mean, we provide metro access service.

[2:34:01] The idea is that we'll be providing metro access service to folks within three-quarter mile

[2:34:05] corridor.

[2:34:07] And then if you, for those outside that corridor,

[2:34:11] So, they would still be able to get this premium service.

[2:34:18] I understand it's not a matter of providing, it's not an ADA service, it's not, it's not,

[2:34:26] but I guess one question is, do we have a good sense of the universe of customers that this will?

[2:34:40] I mean, how many customers were talking about that?

[2:34:44] And a rationale for how this fits in with our other services?

[2:34:53] I don't want to leave people with the impression that this service is designed to meet the needs

[2:34:59] of those outside of the three-quarter mile.

[2:35:02] It is simply an option to meet a very small need.

[2:35:09] Well, I guess I'm sorry if you're outside the three core mile or corridor and you're not so you're not eligible for access services

[2:35:19] I don't even understand how that's that's how does this feel like gap this seems like this is this is the service that you're eligible for

[2:35:27] I mean if some of you can't use picks right at all

[2:35:31] Then then in what sense does this bridge a gap it doesn't bridge it for everyone

[2:35:37] However, if you are outside of our three quick, and I'm assuming if we adopt the policy of

[2:35:44] the three quarter mile quarter, which needs to happen, if you were beyond that point, and

[2:35:50] you are eligible for our services, if you get into the three quarter mile, you're eligible

[2:35:56] for this program.

[2:35:59] And because this program is not tied to an ADA plan, those folks can use it.

[2:36:04] If it was structured as it is today, it is part of an ADA plan, they would not be eligible for it.

[2:36:11] And so this opens up some flexibility for all customers that are eligible for the Metro Access Service.

[2:36:19] Whether you're inside the three-quarter mile or outside the three-quarter mile.

[2:36:23] And do we have some numbers as to the number of additional customers?

[2:36:27] I mean, this will increase, well, someone's making use of this system, would they be considered

[2:36:35] a metro access customer?

[2:36:38] I'm sorry.

[2:36:39] Someone using this service, is that when they be considered a metro access customer?

[2:36:45] You have to be a metro access, you have to be eligible from metro access to use this.

[2:36:49] So you're a metro access customer, but you're not, you're outside the three court of my

[2:36:53] court or yes. And, and do we have a sense of the how many additional metro access customers

[2:37:03] we expect that this will bring you to the system?

[2:37:06] I can give you some numbers that were prepared by the Texas Transit Institute and that's

[2:37:11] what I'm basing all of this on. When they did their study and for getting the I do not remember

[2:37:16] what year it was then. If you look at, if you look at the population, about 14.4% would be deemed

[2:37:27] eligible for the service. Of that, looking at a utilization rate, we would only anticipate

[2:37:34] 6.6% that's very conservative. TTI is indicated it's upwards of 10%, but we have used

[2:37:42] 6.6 because that's pretty much what we've experienced in the past.

[2:37:45] So based on those two factors, if it were the entire service area based on today's

[2:37:52] ridership and numbers, if we just do the three-quarter of a mile base, and we do not

[2:37:59] grandfather anyone in, you're looking at about 670,000 trips.

[2:38:05] If we open the entire service area up, and again, I apologize for not looking this way.

[2:38:13] If we open the entire service area up, we're looking at 873,000 trips.

[2:38:21] And let me tell you what that translates to in dollars.

[2:38:27] About $14.2 million annually.

[2:38:31] Because there is a capital cost.

[2:38:33] But we're at our scenes when it comes to expanding the metro access fleet.

[2:38:39] We are currently running a portion of that fleet from this building, which should not be

[2:38:43] happening.

[2:38:44] But anyway, if we were to grow the service to that level, there's no doubt we would need

[2:38:48] facility number two.

[2:38:50] And so there's all the capital costs to come with it.

[2:38:52] And that's what gets us to the 14.

[2:38:54] If we just want to look at salaries and benefits, that's about, well,

[2:39:05] this is the total.

[2:39:06] So I don't have the delta, roughly $6 million on annual basis.

[2:39:12] So it's significant when you open it up because most clients that, based on the data that

[2:39:18] we have, the average customer takes about a hundred and one trips annually, and if most

[2:39:26] Most of those trips are within the corridor to not on the outlying areas, they direct cost,

[2:39:33] not fully allocated.

[2:39:35] The direct cost is 31.62, and then there's allocation on top of that.

[2:39:40] So that kind of puts the dollars in the order of magnitude to the dollars.

[2:39:45] Did I answer your question?

[2:39:46] Yeah, I think so, and does this service,

[2:39:56] does it make sense to even think in terms of a fair box recovery for this service?

[2:40:02] Does this service, does this service, I mean, we, the I understand the customers are paying 25%.

[2:40:08] The customer pays five and we pay 15. Does that mean we've basically got a 25%.

[2:40:13] It's exactly what that means.

[2:40:17] That's pretty good.

[2:40:20] Okay.

[2:40:20] What to call us?

[2:40:22] So we're, we're, we're essentially opening a providing new service.

[2:40:27] So broader range of customers.

[2:40:28] And, and expecting that.

[2:40:30] It's set.

[2:40:31] Basically, it's set in the Fairbox recovery of 20% per cent.

[2:40:36] Thanks.

[2:40:37] We're remembering more.

[2:40:37] Thank you.

[2:40:38] I want to make sure that the same question I was going to wait,

[2:40:41] but I want to make absolutely sure that I understand.

[2:40:43] in this aspect of vouchers on demand.

[2:40:50] So the only, I mean, we're really operating at three quarters of a mile today.

[2:40:57] With the exception of that 400 customers, that's correct.

[2:41:00] That's right.

[2:41:00] That's correct.

[2:41:01] That's correct.

[2:41:02] That's correct.

[2:41:04] That's correct.

[2:41:04] to the actual change your respect of how it was approved and all the rest.

[2:41:11] So, when you say that people outside of the three quarter of a mile, if we go to three quarters a mile,

[2:41:18] we're there, that the people outside the three quarters of a mile will have access to this program,

[2:41:24] are we talking about the 400?

[2:41:26] All, anyone who is eligible for the service?

[2:41:33] When you say the service, do you mean metro access service?

[2:41:37] But people outside three quarters of mile are not eligible for metro access.

[2:41:42] Okay, so let me clarify.

[2:41:46] You can, if they can, that's right.

[2:41:49] You cannot confuse eligibility with ability to use.

[2:41:53] Okay, and so that was, so it's just the function of not where you live, but can you start off your trip within three quarters of a mile, and then, however you get there, you get through a bus stop, or I guess it's basically got to be a bus stop, right?

[2:42:11] And then you get to that bus stop, you're instantly eligible for metro access if you've been admitted to the program through, you know, all the process that we formally admit people to metro access.

[2:42:23] That's that is correct. I got it. So they are now, they're eligible for this voucher on demand, whereas they would not have been before.

[2:42:40] Do you have someone got their own transportation into a bus stop and then got picked up by a metro access vehicle at that point?

[2:42:49] They would not have been eligible for it from their home to that bus stop.

[2:42:54] That's the bridge piece. They would not have been eligible.

[2:42:58] Because we're, I'm sorry.

[2:42:58] No, no, you go ahead.

[2:42:59] Because we are carving this out of our entire ADA plant.

[2:43:03] This is like it is a premium service with a design that basically we can do with what we need to do.

[2:43:11] Okay, it was that one little piece. I was missing it makes it clear.

[2:43:14] So in essence what they can now do is use the taxi to get into service territory and then fall into the restroom.

[2:43:21] Got it. That was the one piece.

[2:43:22] We're much the funding level is not adequate to do it every day for work.

[2:43:28] I just want to make sure unless they live half a mile away and maybe with $80 back and forth they could do it.

[2:43:34] Okay, I can honestly say this is the second time today. I've been really excited and hopeful.

[2:43:40] I'm so glad I'm on the list.

[2:43:43] You're usually on the deadline.

[2:43:44] What's the first one when you woke up?

[2:43:47] Now it's been John Michael.

[2:43:52] It's theoretically if someone's using this card and they're a mile and a half from the grocery store

[2:43:57] the purpose $10 versus $20, they can get a lot further, use that of a card if it's maxed

[2:44:06] out we're looking at about 750 times a month, right? If my math is right, that it's $60,000,

[2:44:15] a month, divided by $80,000.

[2:44:17] 40, we didn't look at it on a client basis, we looked at it on availability and this goes

[2:44:26] back to the voucher piece, believe we set it up for 4,000 vouchers, times 1248,000, and then

[2:44:34] started doing the math.

[2:44:35] And that takes you to, to like 600 and some odd 1,000, we up to 720, just for rounding

[2:44:40] numbers of math and make it easier to, it would be $60,000 per month.

[2:44:45] And so a client could refill that card whenever it was time to refill it, it didn't have

[2:44:51] to be done monthly, but they cannot exceed more than once a month.

[2:44:55] That's going to be able to be Tunisius with the car and end.

[2:45:00] Use it in a manner that requires less than $20 per trip. They fare radically, could actually, that is correct.

[2:45:09] I'd like to show you a little bit of data that may help answers some of the questions that I could.

[2:45:14] We have done an analysis on the current usage, and about 71% of all of the tax that you are the voucher on demand customers are using anywhere from one to four.

[2:45:27] So that may help you understand what the current usage level is.

[2:45:33] So it's a suddenly

[2:45:38] 71% use 1 to 4.

[2:45:42] We have 19% that use anywhere from 5 to 10,

[2:45:45] and then you can see how the numbers shift from there.

[2:45:48] What we would like to do is part of the program when it's finally implemented

[2:45:53] and we have our plan and measurements.

[2:45:56] It's very possible that

[2:46:01] we may not use the whole $60,000 in a month, and I'm going with

[2:46:09] some hypotheticals here based on these numbers.

[2:46:12] And so what we would look to do is say, okay, we're not using all of this.

[2:46:17] Maybe there are customers that need more trips.

[2:46:20] And so instead of reducing and shrinking our commitment to the program, we simply expand

[2:46:25] what we can offer to the customers.

[2:46:28] So it may be 25, 100 versus 20, 80.

[2:46:32] But of course, that has to be looked out over time

[2:46:35] and understanding the impact.

[2:46:37] But that certainly is a possibility with the program.

[2:46:40] Thank you.

[2:46:43] And then looking at the current purposes,

[2:46:47] the majority of the vouchers on demand are for medical and grocery.

[2:46:52] And then the subscription service is for work and dialysis,

[2:46:55] which I kind of put in the category of medical as well.

[2:47:01] Are there any more?

[2:47:03] Yeah.

[2:47:04] Any other transit systems or using this concept?

[2:47:08] There's a similar concept, I believe, in Denver,

[2:47:13] and I don't know if Houston does it

[2:47:16] or not, but our whole goal was to, I don't know if you recall, but probably the last time

[2:47:22] we're time before when I made the presentation, and we talked about Denver.

[2:47:27] We did spoke with Denver that morning or the morning before.

[2:47:31] And the whole concern we had was that there was carved out.

[2:47:36] And ours was not.

[2:47:37] And please understand that it will require us to modify our ADA plan in order for this

[2:47:41] to be implemented.

[2:47:44] It's up.

[2:47:44] And as to Jeff, something you weren't coming in.

[2:47:46] Good to respond to you.

[2:47:48] I'm a member of Shavitz.

[2:47:49] MST, Monterey, Selena Transit, does a similar program such as this.

[2:47:53] They do it a little differently, where they pay up to 50% of the fair that's on the meter,

[2:48:00] but they only subsidize up to a max of $45 per month, so it's a similar program.

[2:48:07] Thank you.

[2:48:07] I hope you feel better.

[2:48:11] Are there any other questions on taxi voucher before moving?

[2:48:16] The next one is the access service area.

[2:48:18] This is the three-quarter mile that we've been discussing.

[2:48:22] And I don't know the exact date, I want to say 2007, for some reason, I'm jumping back

[2:48:29] in between 2005, 2007, when staff presented to the board of directors, the TTI study

[2:48:37] very comprehensive information, and presented the idea of moving to the three quarter mile.

[2:48:44] However, there was never official action taken by the board of directors.

[2:48:48] It was an implementation but there was no official action taken by the Board of Directors and as I

[2:48:53] understand at the time, there also was no public input like we've done on these other policies.

[2:48:59] And so what we have included this as part of all of our outreach over the course of the past two months,

[2:49:05] and of course it was part of the public hearing as well.

[2:49:08] And so we believe that we have met the responsibilities as far as if the Board chooses to adopt this,

[2:49:15] that we have gone through the public process, we have also had the public hearing.

[2:49:19] And so it is, it's okay to authorize it, of course, that's a board decision.

[2:49:26] The call center hours of operation based on what we have heard from the community,

[2:49:31] what we heard at the public hearing.

[2:49:33] I had a couple of people who wanted one with me to discuss the fact that, you know,

[2:49:37] it really would be beneficial while you extended it to front end of what you originally proposed

[2:49:42] and by the way, we have extended it one hour to the 7 a.m. we originally had a date to five.

[2:49:48] And so we have opened it up another hour. What we're proposing is that we also extended an hour

[2:49:54] on the back end. So that if someone gets off work, they also have the ability to call and schedule.

[2:49:59] It's not just before they go to work. And so we heard that several times as part of the

[2:50:03] public hearings and the public meetings. And so we would like to offer that. There is no fiscal

[2:50:07] impact. It's just a matter of how we schedule staff. And so the overlap in the middle of the

[2:50:11] would be a little shorter and we'd extend to the late evening.

[2:50:18] Next steps, put a check mark along there somewhere.

[2:50:22] Once we decide exactly what the changes are going to be,

[2:50:25] we've done our outreach board public hearings and of course the reports.

[2:50:30] And then today would be the board adoption.

[2:50:33] Once the board gives staff direction on policy,

[2:50:37] then we will move forward to revise the ADA plan.

[2:50:41] take that ADA plan to the community, another round of public input, as well as a public hearing that must be held and then it would be set up for formal adoption.

[2:50:55] And with that, I'll answer any questions.

[2:50:59] I don't have a question, but I do have a comment.

[2:51:03] I'm very glad to see option two on the taxi vouchers.

[2:51:08] I joined my fellow board member and staffer.

[2:51:11] I'm excited about this too.

[2:51:13] One of the concerns that I had was the complete elimination

[2:51:20] of the voucher on request.

[2:51:25] And so I'm very glad to see that we have something

[2:51:28] that can stand in place of that.

[2:51:30] I'm also glad to see that it's carved out.

[2:51:34] I think that is going to be more beneficial to our clients

[2:51:38] and to the agency. So, for me, that's the win when both ways. So thank you for doing that.

[2:51:48] Any other comments?

[2:51:49] If not, board, what I would suggest is we go to the public comment section and then obviously

[2:51:54] start taking up each one of these items.

[2:51:58] You're welcome to take a break if you need to.

[2:52:01] You can hear the public testimony from the breakroom.

[2:52:04] We will move to the public comment section of this agenda item.

[2:52:16] That's not on the agenda, Ms. Vomar, but you are signed up to speak on this item, and I will call you.

[2:52:22] I will call you to speak up.

[2:52:28] Thank you.

[2:52:33] The first speaker signed up is Boone Blocker Boone.

[2:52:40] Here comes the mic.

[2:52:44] I didn't want to roll off it on my lap because it would always fall off.

[2:52:51] I'm glad that you guys are here, and I want to make cast the votes, I'm sure no one

[2:52:56] thinks you enough, but I'm sure it's not an easy thing to sit up there and make votes.

[2:53:02] That's not whether I agree or disagree, it's a good thing that you guys are up there

[2:53:07] wanting to do this stuff.

[2:53:09] In terms of, you know, lots of the other changes, those are all important.

[2:53:16] And one thing I would say about the service area is it is my belief.

[2:53:21] I'm glad that a couple of Metro finally said that they didn't do the required public

[2:53:26] hearings in 2005.

[2:53:30] And the public hearing about the service area and the recent service area hearings in the

[2:53:36] meetings only was only for the 391 that are going to be phased off of the service.

[2:53:41] the public hearings did not address the 800 previous people that were phased out in 2005.

[2:53:48] And so, in my estimation, that still needs to be gone through the process, and that's a federal

[2:53:53] requirement. That's not a boon thinks it's a good idea, so that aside. In terms of all the

[2:53:59] other proposed policy changes, I know those are important, but the eligibility to me is paramount.

[2:54:06] And the current application, I won't be laborious with all the stuff and I see you guys

[2:54:12] emails and all that good stuff.

[2:54:15] But current application is six pages long, the new one that the staff and the members of

[2:54:20] the Access Committee worked on is 12 pages long.

[2:54:25] And it has to be filled out and submitted by a state of Texas license medical provider.

[2:54:33] And I implore you, please do not take that out of the hands of the licensed medical professional.

[2:54:39] It's completely unnecessary.

[2:54:41] It adds a whole level of bureaucracy when you don't need to.

[2:54:46] And I have heard several board members and several people of capital metro staff say,

[2:54:51] well, do we want the first point of contact for the customers to be their first ride when they show up?

[2:54:56] Well, that's a fair point and that has some merit.

[2:54:59] So, move the orientation, don't interview everyone and don't assess everyone,

[2:55:04] have them go through the application, it's verified by the license, state of Texas license medical provider,

[2:55:10] and then when they're approved, then have the orientation before they can do their first ride,

[2:55:14] and orient them to what's available and, you know, how the system works and all that kind of stuff.

[2:55:20] So, again, it's, in my estimation, it's completely unnecessary to do that.

[2:55:25] screen the number that you would have to interview and assess way down from the total number.

[2:55:31] And it's an undo burden to have to place on the overall client cell, new and current users.

[2:55:40] Thank you for any questions, board member Langwell.

[2:55:42] Yeah, I do have a question, Ben, thanks a lot for your input. I value it highly.

[2:55:47] And I know, obviously, we read all your emails, read the one from last night,

[2:55:51] And I know that you're really, you know,

[2:55:55] I totally appreciate the point at which you're coming on the eligibility thing.

[2:55:59] And I'm asking for your help on that this is no form of debate.

[2:56:03] I just want to hear your response because you haven't specifically responded to this.

[2:56:06] And this is what goes through my head is that it seems to me, you know, correct me if I'm long from your perspective, from a customer's perspective.

[2:56:18] that it's responsible on the part of the agency to sit down once with someone that's

[2:56:28] going to be eligible for a significant capital metro service metro access.

[2:56:38] It seems, I mean, it just seems like kind of a basic level of responsibility to have

[2:56:44] some encounter with the person that's applying for this program and have some, you know, irrespective

[2:56:50] of the orientation piece. I mean, literally, from kind of evaluating them. You know, in

[2:56:56] whether it's, you know, to avoid abuse or whatever, but to have some contact once with people

[2:57:05] getting on to a program that's a significant offering, you know, with a lot of costs associated

[2:57:11] with it. So just set me, that's what I'm struggling with, because I hear you and I, you know,

[2:57:16] when you're that, them and about something I take it very seriously, but that's what I'm struggling with.

[2:57:24] My position would be that with the expanded and detailed and very objective application and

[2:57:32] a licensed medical professional by the state of Texas, the state of Texas takes very seriously

[2:57:38] with a license to provide medical services and granted maybe a couple doctors here, you know,

[2:57:46] don't do their full duty. So put in an additional clause in the application that says,

[2:57:52] hey, by signing this, this person is going to be eligible for these services and, you know,

[2:57:58] make it clear. And in terms of having the, I guess, you know, I, in terms of like sitting down

[2:58:06] with the capital metro person.

[2:58:09] Again, that point is not without merit.

[2:58:12] I don't see that point, I don't think we're arguing,

[2:58:14] so I'm not going to see anything.

[2:58:17] But if you want to do that, then have them go through

[2:58:20] the application with the medical professional verification

[2:58:26] of the disabled in condition, and then have the orientation

[2:58:30] and have them sit down with the capital metro people

[2:58:34] after that's done.

[2:58:35] because it would just eliminate the vast,

[2:58:40] unneeded and undo level of bureaucracy added to the authority that you guys don't need.

[2:58:45] And I promise in a couple of years there's 6,800 people and everyone's only eligible for two years.

[2:58:52] And so if you have to do all of those people, the current we're talking current in two years in their eligibility.

[2:58:59] That's 3,400 people a year.

[2:59:01] That's a lot of money to do upfront.

[2:59:03] And so, I'll just ask you, you know, consider that.

[2:59:08] Thank you, bud.

[2:59:10] The next speaker signed up is Mr. Robert Frank. Welcome back, sir.

[2:59:22] I'm pleased with the outcome of the Taxi Program, some of the other programs that I've heard at this meeting.

[2:59:32] And I just want to say that I hope to be able to fit into them and get into the new programs

[2:59:43] and try them out.

[2:59:44] I mean, I know that I'm going to need rides to them from work every day because, you know,

[2:59:50] I do work.

[2:59:51] And I think I was still fit into that.

[2:59:54] I am an RLF, retro-lennel, too much oxygen at birth, and I can't ride the bus.

[2:59:59] You

[3:00:00] The orientation problems, but I hope to be able to continue to use STS and to get around. So I just want to say thank you.

[3:00:07] Thank you, Mr. Frank. Next speaker is Lee Jones. Lee? Is Lee here?

[3:00:15] For Mr. Jones, it's Julian Foster. Julian, welcome. You can say in your seat if you'd like.

[3:00:21] We bring you microphone.

[3:00:23] Okay, you're welcome to use the police.

[3:00:33] Sir, it's on.

[3:00:35] All right.

[3:00:36] There you go, right there.

[3:00:38] Can anyone hear?

[3:00:41] Perfect.

[3:00:42] We can hear you.

[3:00:44] All right.

[3:00:47] Hello, I've been here a couple of times before.

[3:00:52] And for those of people that are new, my name is Julian Foster, I represent myself and my grandmother who uses SES.

[3:01:06] And basically what I want to talk about is the taxi voucher.

[3:01:15] First of all, I think it's a great programming program that S.J. has.

[3:01:23] However, I feel that the voucher program needs a little bit of sunshine

[3:01:32] because of my friend, Christine Murrell, who if here today, had some really bad experience

[3:01:45] with one of the cab companies,

[3:01:52] which was Austin Cab and so we need to keep the programs

[3:02:01] structure and more affordable to serve the community.

[3:02:09] Employees 40 are open to terms like my grandmother sometimes has doctors

[3:02:19] appointment, which she does have to go with her attendee.

[3:02:24] And the opportunity is good, however, and that's needs structure, and hopefully helpful within the City of Lemon.

[3:02:35] Thank you.

[3:02:36] And I'm pleased to welcome the answer any questions.

[3:02:40] Any questions, Board Member?

[3:02:42] Thank you, Mr. Forster.

[3:02:44] The next speaker is Donald Hooper.

[3:02:46] Is Donald here?

[3:02:47] Yes.

[3:02:47] Welcome, sir.

[3:02:56] This is my first major board meeting.

[3:03:00] I appreciate that light rail is, I'm glad to see it expanding because it's the service

[3:03:09] hours, because I am visually impaired, and I do ride the light rail, off and on.

[3:03:15] Thank you for doing that.

[3:03:18] Also, one of the other issues was the taxi vouchers I'm glad to see that they are trying

[3:03:23] to do this premium service.

[3:03:25] I think that although it won't solve a lot of the problems, it's better than where we were.

[3:03:34] I don't use STS because I have enough vision to write my bike.

[3:03:38] One thing I do want to ask is, are there going to be, I know the board can't do any dialogue, I understand that.

[3:03:47] But are there going to be any more, I guess, bike routes that are planned within the service area?

[3:03:59] Or does anybody know that?

[3:04:01] Mr. Hibber, we can get someone to respond to.

[3:04:04] Board member Riley probably knows every single bike route.

[3:04:09] We'll remember Riley.

[3:04:11] Well, yeah, we, in fact, our, our bus, our, our pipelines are, our, have been dramatically

[3:04:16] improving.

[3:04:17] We've been, we've been, the city of Austin does have a bike map, which is, which you can

[3:04:20] use either, and get you a printed version, or you can access it on the city's website.

[3:04:25] We are bound to come out with a new one, which will be, better than ever before, it's actually

[3:04:30] going to occupy folks, you sides of the map.

[3:04:33] So, it'll be, because the city's grown, you'll see more routes in more detail, and a lot

[3:04:39] of them are, a lot of the assistant rats have gone from red or blue down to green, meaning

[3:04:46] they're now, we now have bicycle facilities, they're much more user friendly. So yeah,

[3:04:50] the bike, bike rats have been, we've been putting in bike lanes at a faster rate than ever

[3:04:57] before, and if if if if if if if the bond election is successful this November, then you'll see

[3:05:03] even more. Okay, one another thing. I'm the wish that they would, when they, if they order

[3:05:10] new rail cars, which we probably won't for a new while, I'd like to see a couple more

[3:05:17] hooks put on the sides of the rail cars to, for more bicycles. And thank you, thank you, Mr.

[3:05:24] Hooper. If you don't mind, I'm going to give you your contact information to Councilman

[3:05:27] Riley, so you can follow up with you on the bicycle information you're offering to.

[3:05:34] And by the way, in terms of bike access on the trains, right now we are not putting,

[3:05:39] we have no cap, no fixed cap on the number of bikes. If you can get your bikes

[3:05:43] from the train stop, you will be able to take your bike on the train.

[3:05:48] There's not a hook available that doesn't preclude you from boarding the train.

[3:05:52] You can just roll your bike right arm of the train.

[3:05:54] And so it's much better in that sense than the other buses are.

[3:06:01] And Nelson is our next speaker, San here.

[3:06:03] Welcome, man.

[3:06:04] We'll bring a microphone to you if you

[3:06:10] don't.

[3:06:10] I think I also want to speak on the eligibility.

[3:06:14] I think it needs to be rethought in regards to the money that is going to be spent on the identifying each person face to face.

[3:06:23] How is this going to be done?

[3:06:24] will each person be certified by the same person so that you know the same information is going

[3:06:30] is given to each time. This would be an impossible job. The amount of time for the

[3:06:37] re-certification would be the same amount of time. The employees needed to be trained and hired

[3:06:45] to comply with the changes you are suggesting. A new application would need to be

[3:06:53] easier for the applicant to fill in, as well as to take it to your medical profession.

[3:07:02] As being was talking I thought about a member of access being with the person with the same

[3:07:09] responsibility when the orientation is done and maybe have an orientation meeting once a month

[3:07:15] as opposed to each time a new applicant came in.

[3:07:19] The cost cuts in the implementation of the rail system has hurt having the handicap community.

[3:07:27] The rail system that is in use now is just the beginning of the rail system that has been

[3:07:35] wanted by capital metrics since it was first voted against by the city and set up anyway.

[3:07:41] The discussions,

[3:07:45] again, to include the seat of park in the end or so that the rail will be able

[3:07:49] to go to Georgetown.

[3:07:53] I understand the need to grow, but it whose expense,

[3:07:56] the handicapped community is funding a large portion of this.

[3:08:00] The cost of the tickets have continued to go up

[3:08:03] from 30 to 35, and now it's going up again

[3:08:06] in January to 45.

[3:08:09] They want to start charging the elderly

[3:08:10] who have always ridden the best for free.

[3:08:14] All of this for the train that the city of Austin voted against.

[3:08:19] The appeals process at this time is no ex, there is no ex as member.

[3:08:26] On the appeals process, that's a membership needs to be,

[3:08:33] I think.

[3:08:34] On the appeals process, the ex as member needs more time to schedule rise and to get familiar

[3:08:45] with the case so they can better advise the client on the records they need to provide

[3:08:50] to Capitol Metro. I thank you. I thank you for your time that you've been working on this

[3:08:55] board.

[3:09:01] Thank you, Ms. Nelson. I'll just hand it to Sandy. She's next. Welcome back, Sandy.

[3:09:22] I'm Sandy C. Campan. I'm representing myself, but I do have one thing I want to say about

[3:09:29] the advisory committee. Today, I've heard about voting in the service area, flex routes,

[3:09:40] reorganizing the access committee, and setting rates for the access and disabled people

[3:09:48] on fixed routes. And last night, a different taxi policy, which may be good, but last night

[3:09:56] was the first time even after all of these public hearings that has even been mentioned.

[3:10:04] And so the access system has not been utilized as an advisory system evidently because we

[3:10:17] have it been given any suggestion of any of these topics to advise at all.

[3:10:27] And so how can we advise?

[3:10:29] I'm extremely disappointed.

[3:10:32] But the handicap community is frightened to death today, shaking in their boots, so to

[3:10:38] speak, waiting for your decision on interviews for eligibility and recertification.

[3:10:43] They do not see the interviews as a way to introduce future clients to access.

[3:10:54] They see it only as what it is, a way to cut down deserving handicapped people from access to the system.

[3:11:10] I'm putting interviews into place as extreme.

[3:11:15] And while you're trying to cut cost, this is a mistake.

[3:11:19] The new application form will take care of any of the problems that the staff has concerning

[3:11:26] this.

[3:11:27] If you pass this policy, you will destroy your relationship you have with the handicap community.

[3:11:34] You're so concerned with trying to make more people ride the rail and make up for all the

[3:11:44] mistakes that have been made there that you are just cutting our system to the bone.

[3:11:50] And we can't handle it.

[3:11:53] Believe me.

[3:11:55] Thank you very much.

[3:11:59] Thank you, Mr. Camp.

[3:11:59] The next speaker is John McCalsky.

[3:12:01] Welcome back, John.

[3:12:27] I'm jealous of the dog, and I want to just go down and take a look at this.

[3:12:33] Welcome, John.

[3:12:36] John Lundkowski with Arsel.

[3:12:38] I have sent comments on all these issues extensively.

[3:12:42] Several months back, extensive comments on the application process and eligibility process.

[3:12:49] Our recent comments, which I do believe I will take it to the current comments,

[3:12:56] even though there are some changes proposed today is that this is going to fast.

[3:13:01] We are also is recommending that the war rejects these changes and continues this discussion.

[3:13:07] It doesn't mean that there isn't positive things happening.

[3:13:10] We appreciate the fact that we are rethinking the voucher on demand.

[3:13:15] We appreciate the fact that you have taken measures toward mitigating the impact of the cost increases.

[3:13:24] I agree with Boone completely. I think you said it very well. This is bureaucracy we don't need.

[3:13:31] The whole application thing is going on the assumption that there are huge numbers of people that are using the service that shouldn't be.

[3:13:38] That just is not true. You're not going to screen out people that don't need it.

[3:13:44] You're going to screen out people who don't have the advocacy skills and the support to go through another ridiculous

[3:13:51] if you're creating and intrusive bureaucracy is what you're creating.

[3:13:58] In terms of the vouchers, what's proposed now is obviously better than nothing.

[3:14:08] But in reality, this is another cost increase compared to what you have now.

[3:14:13] Again, we do like the fact that we are discussing mitigating the cost of people who are very low-income.

[3:14:23] But we're giving Indians, we're giving smallpox-infested blankets to Indians, and then say, we'll talk next week about medicine.

[3:14:33] We're doing the daily and coming back later and say, well, maybe it shouldn't, we'll do something to keep it from being quite so bad.

[3:14:39] This hurts people now, the cost increases you already done hurt people now.

[3:14:46] Can we just slow this down and think about reality here, relation to this service area?

[3:14:55] And I'm shocked that anybody would think that the kind of pretending to talk.

[3:15:00] About the three quarter mile service area is going to make up for not doing it when it should have. You've not had a public hearing on the old service area before 2005 versus three quarters mile. There has been no public hearing anywhere about that period, pretending it happened is silly.

[3:15:19] If you want the potential liability for 88 violations, guess what?

[3:15:27] You didn't even have to make up the conversations we have to get to believe that.

[3:15:31] People are already following those complaints, they're not mythical, they're not possible,

[3:15:35] they're happening.

[3:15:37] Thank you.

[3:15:38] Thank you, John.

[3:15:39] The next speaker is Ophelia Zapata, Mr. Pata, you all have welcome your three minutes.

[3:15:49] Yes sir, my name is Ophelia Zapata.

[3:15:51] I'm a member of the San Jose Catholic Church in a leader with Austin Interfae.

[3:15:55] You know, in 1995, I had to resign from the appointment for the state because I became visually impaired.

[3:16:00] And I did not know how to handle that.

[3:16:03] In 1998, they adopted my daughter's license.

[3:16:06] So I've been on both sides and it's been a very difficult, you know, it's been really hard to adjust.

[3:16:14] But with my church community and Chris Cole, I learned how to reclaim independence.

[3:16:22] And SES is not a reward.

[3:16:26] You know, I didn't start using STS because I felt like I still could get around and do what I needed to do.

[3:16:33] But sometimes we can't do what we think we can do.

[3:16:38] And I have to learn to accept that part of my blindness.

[3:16:42] We work.

[3:16:43] This community, we work.

[3:16:45] We are homeowners.

[3:16:46] We help build the economy.

[3:16:48] We pay taxes.

[3:16:50] And we vote.

[3:16:53] This year, November, but also in our faith is working under

[3:16:56] every 20,000 voters for the November election.

[3:17:01] community, we need to vote a lot in vote.

[3:17:08] We oppose the eligibility process. You know,

[3:17:11] that's something that can be done as we said last week at the beginning at the forefront

[3:17:15] because the doctor is the one that sit with us and ask us and can tell you by his profession

[3:17:24] that we are able or not able to get the service. Staff cannot do that. It will save us a million

[3:17:31] dollars, so you wouldn't have to increase our fares so that we would be paying for that extra

[3:17:38] cost of that department that isn't really not necessary.

[3:17:42] Just as you approve the applications you can also disapprove, send a letter back to us

[3:17:48] saying, well, we don't approve because of these reasons, go back to your doctor.

[3:17:53] Easy as that.

[3:17:54] You talked about face to face orientation, when we go get our IDs, before we get our ID, we

[3:18:00] can get orientation. That's face to face. We have to do that every three years. So, I'm

[3:18:07] here. It's also interface to say we oppose any cuts you are stuck as recommended. And

[3:18:14] believe that we, the disabled and senior citizen community should not be the ones having

[3:18:20] to pay for the prices that the impumers you need to make. Thank you.

[3:18:24] Thank you, Ms. Lepa.

[3:18:27] Let's be here as Christine Marl. Welcome, Christine.

[3:18:41] Can you come to the microphone, please?

[3:18:43] Okay. Thank you.

[3:18:44] My name is Christine Marl.

[3:18:46] And I've been wanting to go to this for quite a while.

[3:18:49] The issue with the cab, much of that I had was Austin cab.

[3:18:54] In the back of 2005, the overcharged me and extra fee on top of this is

[3:19:02] Keep on now. I don't know if it were allowed to do that or not, but we

[3:19:08] Also always found going to hunt them all for an annual

[3:19:11] also

[3:19:13] Christmas party

[3:19:15] Well

[3:19:17] We have it to see but

[3:19:19] Because he charging and there's for nineteen dollars. I didn't have no money at all

[3:19:25] To buy

[3:19:27] And

[3:19:27] I guess I don't know if it's allowed to do that or not

[3:19:32] But they did and I never got someone back at all and they really got me angry. They're angry then again

[3:19:41] In 2006 we would

[3:19:44] To talk to him for lunch. They walked to the gateway to go see

[3:19:50] literally you start

[3:19:51] I'll take a short of me an extra eight dollars on top of this is keep on like I said

[3:19:58] I don't know where, I don't know if they were supposed to do that or that too, but you did.

[3:20:03] So I think basically got four charts twice.

[3:20:07] And so I never result again.

[3:20:09] So now I just got used to LCAP, but in her again, something LCAP is not connected with STS, either.

[3:20:19] So we're going to do, you know, how you fix it like that.

[3:20:23] You know, are they supposed to do that?

[3:20:25] I don't know, but I don't

[3:20:36] know.

[3:20:36] I don't know.

[3:20:37] I don't know.

[3:20:37] I didn't.

[3:20:38] So.

[3:20:40] Thank you for your comments and if you want there's staff here that works on Metro access that can explain the program

[3:20:47] P into exactly what the service providers can and cannot do so you can get your questions specifically answered today.

[3:20:55] Thank you, though.

[3:20:56] Thank you for your time. Next speaker is Mr. Bartel Pat Bartel.

[3:21:04] Pat you're speaking on behalf of the Austin Council for the line. So we'll give Pat five minutes.

[3:21:11] Thank you.

[3:21:11] And for your part of the clock, we'll get these handouts ready to show me the.

[3:21:16] Hmm.

[3:21:16] Hold on a minute.

[3:21:18] Make sure I get all this straight.

[3:21:21] Let's turn the clock back until he starts speaking.

[3:21:24] Okay, and as others, I can see I only have to make four copies.

[3:21:27] This one, so they need copies of that.

[3:21:31] Go ahead and start, yeah, we'll make the copies.

[3:21:33] Go ahead and make the copies.

[3:21:37] I'm just wondering, what does it take for the staff at Capitol Metro to tell you all the truth?

[3:21:46] Sound radical?

[3:21:49] Thank God that Linda Watson is interested in other taxi voucher programs and other models to try to figure out what's going to be the most beneficial for everybody.

[3:21:56] I really appreciate that.

[3:21:58] This is the first CEO that has ever been interested in trying

[3:22:01] to figure out how to make a mental access better.

[3:22:05] And I'll tell you right now that I did have some misconceptions

[3:22:08] about her at the beginning, and I apologize for those.

[3:22:12] The truth I'm talking about, capital, these taxi vouchers,

[3:22:16] are not in your ADA plan.

[3:22:19] I will email y'all the 400 and some odd pages of the planned documents.

[3:22:24] They're in the 1992 plan, but they were not.

[3:22:26] It's called overflows, subscription, taxes,

[3:22:29] auto driver quests.

[3:22:31] They have since been taken out of the plan.

[3:22:34] Now, it doesn't really matter as far as that goes,

[3:22:36] but when they make it real clear,

[3:22:38] they don't need to be in there, and they are not there.

[3:22:41] Staff should have known that.

[3:22:43] Now, as per your report here, I know you

[3:22:46] know this, Joel, two o'clock in the morning,

[3:22:48] probably didn't have a thing to read it.

[3:22:51] This, this, this, this taxi voucher program

[3:22:55] in brief will not stay of $140,000. The capital metro says it will. There are a lot of other

[3:23:03] problems with this model that they are proposing here. That has not been discussed with

[3:23:09] the MMWG except brief a yesterday and not with the Access Advisory Committee. This $80 a month

[3:23:15] means people get approximately seven vouchers a month. People like me that use a lot of taxi vouchers.

[3:23:25] Just as it's going to happen, those rise are going to have to be scheduled on the STS system,

[3:23:30] and either they'll be turned into overflow, so that lifestyle to cost savings.

[3:23:34] Or they're going to be put on to the telemetry of vehicles, and then you may have some constraint

[3:23:38] problems because you don't have enough capacity.

[3:23:42] Also, what you mean, did not tell you all is that maybe a thousand clients at most can take

[3:23:50] The advantage of, you know, the max voucher cards or 80 bucks, the other people won't get vouchers.

[3:23:58] So you may have to set up, it's a first come first serve, where people get have cognitive disabilities,

[3:24:03] like you have your disabilities.

[3:24:05] If you did a run out and max out their cards at the end of the month, they won't have them.

[3:24:09] Also, trying to do this really quick.

[3:24:12] And at that time here, the service area, I'm telling you right now that I have filed

[3:24:21] under the Texas Information Act of God emails from 2006, but there's been nothing

[3:24:25] in writing, which is strange about what has happened to the 2005.

[3:24:29] Somebody made a decision.

[3:24:31] There are 800 people.

[3:24:32] I have filed to get those people's names.

[3:24:34] I'll tell you right now that those people did not have their deep process.

[3:24:40] The FDA's and the interest in that, we need to have 30 seconds to get the stability, because

[3:24:44] this is real important to talk about what Bruno said, is there some new information

[3:24:48] that we don't have?

[3:24:50] Just read the, okay, I'm very quick, okay, I'll try.

[3:24:53] In March, Diane informs you all about all the civil rights violations of people that have been

[3:25:00] denied paratized service that have been on there for years, since 2009, these two letters

[3:25:06] that I gave you, or representative of that, on Monday, I am picking up 275 pages worth

[3:25:15] of denial letters. From 2009 on, these are people that used to deal with the system, but

[3:25:22] yet they were denied. And I'm going to tell you the FTA is really interested in them. I have

[3:25:26] not decided yet whether I'm going to submit them or not. So what I'm asking you all, I think

[3:25:33] that these people should be evaluated using application that is

[3:25:37] data proved by the MMWG instead.

[3:25:40] More important, these letters show that capital metro,

[3:25:46] I don't think it is very qualified to do the innocent interview.

[3:25:50] OK, thank you so much for talking about that.

[3:25:51] So what I would really ask for is to try this application for a while.

[3:25:58] You can't get sued for just using an application.

[3:26:01] and if somebody changes because we have or whatever, that's what you do in English.

[3:26:07] They can be soon, if it's not been done.

[3:26:10] Thank you very much.

[3:26:12] Next speaker is Diane Bomar Aliman.

[3:26:16] Diane is, let's see, it says down here's city communication.

[3:26:24] I'm not quite sure what that.

[3:26:28] Are you speaking on behalf of MMWG?

[3:26:32] I'm going to speak on behalf of the MMWG.

[3:26:38] However, I have not been afforded my own personal time,

[3:26:42] and I've mentioned earlier.

[3:26:44] We'll do one, I'll give you five minutes speaking on behalf of the MMWG,

[3:26:48] but please cover your points within that five minutes.

[3:26:50] I'm going to try real hard.

[3:26:52] I need you to.

[3:26:53] I need you to.

[3:26:56] First of all, I wanted to, and I'm sorry that this is taking my time.

[3:27:01] my time. But I wanted to make it let you guys know that I want to refine my comments a little

[3:27:10] while ago about staff. I think that at least 99% of the staff, all of the workers that

[3:27:19] capital metro are awesome. I think that they're very nice. I think they're very genuine. I think

[3:27:24] they're very professional. I think they're very caring. And I especially want to thank Miss Watson yesterday

[3:27:30] for meeting with me and I hope very much that she will help to change the culture of capital

[3:27:40] metro. And that was a very positive step. Former CEOs have not been willing to meet with me directly.

[3:27:48] And so anyway, oh, McGowan, there's so many things to talk about. The Taxi Vulture Program,

[3:27:56] We requested yesterday that it the examined further, as I said before, the person that we didn't get to speak to in Denver.

[3:28:07] We still want to be able to talk to him. Mr. Chad Valentine, we were told was the one who spoke with someone in Denver,

[3:28:16] but he did not speak to the Director of Paratransit and all of us weren't present.

[3:28:21] we don't know what was said or that kind of thing. So anything regarding what was said earlier

[3:28:28] about the taxi voucher in Denver being similar should be stricken because Miss Tim's is not

[3:28:35] spoken with them directly and is not familiar really with what the taxi voucher in Denver is.

[3:28:42] I also wanted to mention that although I'm not opposed to taxi vouchers being provided to people

[3:28:49] outside of the three fourth mile, which has been the service area for five years.

[3:28:59] Although those people will be allowed, and I think it's a good thing to come into the service area,

[3:29:07] that's going to add all of those rides on to Metro Access.

[3:29:14] And so whatever number she has told you, the number of rides that they are trying to eliminate will now be added.

[3:29:23] And again, I'm in favor of that.

[3:29:26] I'm going to state that for the record.

[3:29:28] But I'm just making you guys aware that Cap Metro currently has about 4,500 a month of taxi vouchers.

[3:29:38] These are just returns.

[3:29:40] Taxi voucher requests, I'm sorry, and overflows they have about 400 a day of capacity that they cannot meet.

[3:29:49] So when they're telling you guys that they have vans and sedans sitting around not doing anything and could actually be picking up these people that are getting taxis on rate.

[3:30:00] If that were true, why did they have 400 overflow trips? The overflow trips cost them more than the taxing on request.

[3:30:10] So my question to you guys is to please not approve any taxing on request a monetary amount today, because if it's going to be including people that are out of the service area that's already in effect, it's going to increase the number of rise.

[3:30:29] and so the budget needs to be adjusted for that.

[3:30:34] Also same-day taxi vouchers, which have been proposed,

[3:30:38] will reduce cancellations and no shows

[3:30:41] and could potentially reduce the administrative cost,

[3:30:45] especially if one of the programs that's implemented

[3:30:49] is done like the one in Austin.

[3:30:55] I mean Austin, in Denver, I'm sorry, I'm very nervous

[3:30:57] because there's so much to say.

[3:30:59] The proposed quote-unquote vote on the service area, the official service area, I think has been covered, I want to just not even go into that except to say that I totally agree with Mr. Blocker and that you're reliable to have a legal challenge.

[3:31:21] What were the words in this picture?

[3:31:24] You're vulnerable to a legal challenge on that.

[3:31:28] I'm not going to go as far and say that it's a violation.

[3:31:32] I also want to say that the service area, I mean that the call center hours were never

[3:31:39] discussed this year with the MMWG since the compromise that, excuse me, that we reached last

[3:31:47] which was on the same proposal that's being made now, and unlike yesterday, we were told by Ms. Evans that a decision, a determination was made by Ms. Butcher,

[3:32:05] that including that all policies, practices and procedures, including, but not limited to, did not really mean not limited to.

[3:32:16] So, I don't understand that and those two things were not discussed.

[3:32:23] I have one more real quick thing to say about the call service hour.

[3:32:25] So please do it.

[3:32:26] I will.

[3:32:27] The staff has indicated that the public meetings, unlike what they indicated to you guys today,

[3:32:33] that their plan would be to implement that in April.

[3:32:39] And because new technology would be available at that point,

[3:32:44] until new technology is available and tested,

[3:32:48] no decision should be made on that as history has shown,

[3:32:53] the ability of staff to predict when technology will be available

[3:32:57] has not really worked out.

[3:33:00] The right notification system has been tested for two years,

[3:33:04] still not working, the AVL system that was put in,

[3:33:08] and we've got to point about.

[3:33:09] More than two and a half years ago is still not working.

[3:33:12] Okay. Thank you for the personal interviews by staff.

[3:33:18] Thank you. Is there anyone else that I don't have anyone else signed up? Is there anyone else that cares to speak on the topic of metro access before we take up?

[3:33:28] You know what? I'm sorry. You are listed at the top.

[3:33:32] Why don't you come forward?

[3:33:37] Yeah. I'm sorry.

[3:33:39] Well, we'll come on up and list it, but you didn't sign up on this agenda, but if you want to speak, you're welcome to speak.

[3:33:46] Okay, but like words in the items in my sign up.

[3:33:48] You are signed up on agenda item 14, nine, which you've already spoken.

[3:33:52] 17, 18, and 20.

[3:33:54] 17, 18, 20, and 14.

[3:33:57] Yes.

[3:33:57] Awesome.

[3:34:00] Okay.

[3:34:01] Try not to take that long on this Metro Access issues.

[3:34:07] I oppose being interviewed by someone other than the doctor position because they are the ones

[3:34:17] that have the college degrees and experience and expertise necessary to evaluate and determine

[3:34:23] if someone is disabled or not.

[3:34:26] Not somebody who is going to sit down with someone and interview them, why are you doing this twice

[3:34:32] to them?

[3:34:33] You know how much money you can save by eliminating this middleman from your budget?

[3:34:38] Yeah, I need to do that.

[3:34:40] And because if the position tells that this person is disabled and they're not,

[3:34:49] and then the position lies over the money they can be,

[3:34:53] and series legal trouble, civil and criminal penalties.

[3:34:57] We need to drop that, and let's get rid of this middleman, thank you.

[3:35:01] Thank you. Will. Sir, please come on to the podium if you want

[3:35:07] to just state your name for the record, and then you'll have three minutes.

[3:35:13] Yes, I'm done.

[3:35:14] Sorry.

[3:35:15] That's okay.

[3:35:17] Just right here?

[3:35:18] Yes.

[3:35:20] I don't know where my case.

[3:35:21] It's right there in front of you to your left.

[3:35:24] I'll get to start talking.

[3:35:26] Thank you.

[3:35:26] How many are you sure?

[3:35:27] I'm here to talk about the interview part of the STS chains.

[3:35:40] I heard a board member say that the interview part is very important because it gets

[3:35:50] to know the metro access to the customer.

[3:35:53] If that's true, we'll then take out the screening of terminology of that statement and just

[3:36:00] say that it's for orientation and as far as screening goes, it should just be like,

[3:36:07] show your ID and say, this is, you know, this is who this is and with your application

[3:36:12] from the sign from the doctor, that should be enough.

[3:36:15] And, you know, don't mix the two terminologies.

[3:36:17] Also, the taxi vouchers, I know people that take the taxi vouchers to their doctors almost twice a week.

[3:36:36] And so that would be an extremely high cost for them to, if it's only a $60 car trip, but I can still understand that too.

[3:36:53] And I also want to speak on the three quarter of a mile limit.

[3:36:57] I know that's probably the minimum.

[3:36:59] follow under the ADA, but why do just the minimum?

[3:37:05] I mean, I understand that it's a budget time and it's in all the cities are hurting

[3:37:10] right now, but that doesn't necessarily have to be that way.

[3:37:14] Thank you very much.

[3:37:15] Thank you, Mr. Hena.

[3:37:26] All right.

[3:37:27] Board members,

[3:37:31] as we discussed earlier, as was commented earlier, I would suggest that we take

[3:37:35] presentation and just bring each item up individually and take an individual vote on each

[3:37:42] proposed change. So with that eligibility and appeals process will be the first one and I'll

[3:37:53] entertain a motion for purposes of beginning discussion. Oh, make a motion. But remember

[3:38:03] I'm sorry, I'll make a motion that we, I mean, at this point, basically consider implementing

[3:38:11] the staff recommended changes to the eligibility and appeal process and I would note that

[3:38:17] this is for purposes of instigating discussion.

[3:38:21] Is there a second?

[3:38:22] We're on the rally seconds that we are now in the discussion phase.

[3:38:26] What do you remember, Alan?

[3:38:28] Could I ask you a few other questions of staff?

[3:38:31] Either, Elaine?

[3:38:36] First, first, with respect to re-certification.

[3:38:41] One somebody is determined to be eligible.

[3:38:47] If we go ahead and the staff recommendation to require the in-person interview before the

[3:38:55] for those that are found to be, well, it's presenting that everybody's going to have to come back for

[3:39:01] these certifications and how often would that happen?

[3:39:07] There is a one-time eligibility process for everyone on a resertification.

[3:39:14] As recommended, the resertification process will occur every four years, but we're going to go through the first round,

[3:39:20] which will take it's a two-year because that's what they're currently certified for.

[3:39:24] If, during that process, someone is deemed unconditionally eligible, that's not going to change.

[3:39:33] And we, on that four-year cycle, would simply contact them via phone, via mail, to update their personal information,

[3:39:42] to make sure we have everything current, and then it would move on.

[3:39:45] So the only ones that will have to come back in are those who are conditionally eligible.

[3:39:51] And that wouldn't be till after the four-year period.

[3:39:55] After we've gone through this process one time, that's correct.

[3:39:59] Everyone wants right now and then after that it's every four-year session.

[3:40:03] You're only conditionally eligible.

[3:40:04] That's correct.

[3:40:07] Now, the application that has gotten a lot of scrutiny and

[3:40:13] And we've got a lot of helpful input from the MMWG and others.

[3:40:20] It asks questions about things like, like, in addition to questions about the individual's

[3:40:29] own medical circumstances, there are questions about the physical environment that they have to

[3:40:39] deal with in order to access fixed route.

[3:40:42] And in particular, there's questions about uninterrupted sidewalk access.

[3:40:49] My hope has been that in the course of these interviews that we're talking about, that

[3:40:54] in addition to just orienting new metro access customers to the services that we provide,

[3:41:01] that staff would also be gaining information from those customers about the obstacles that

[3:41:07] currently face, and that that information could be essentially compiled, and we could provide

[3:41:15] a basis for prioritizing infrastructure improvements.

[3:41:22] For instance, if we find that there are particular gaps in the sidewalk network that are

[3:41:27] preventing a number of metrics as customers from accessing fixed route, then we would

[3:41:37] that need could be addressed, could be given priority, additional priority in the course of the

[3:41:45] sidewalk work that either can metro or the city of Austin, these to do.

[3:41:51] Is that a reasonable expectation of this, of the inner reprocess, of the inner reprocess

[3:41:57] for that we're talking about now?

[3:42:00] That is more than a reasonable expectation.

[3:42:02] And what our plan is is that we have included in the budget two travel trainers.

[3:42:09] We already have one on board just to hire another one.

[3:42:12] Part of that will be to do what we call pathway assessments.

[3:42:15] And so when someone comes in and they indicate that that problems with sidewalks are access

[3:42:20] to a facility, part of what we will do will be to go out and evaluate.

[3:42:24] Once it's determined, you are exactly right.

[3:42:27] We will be working with our facilities design and construction group to put together a

[3:42:32] comprehensive list that will become part of our plan to improve infrastructure.

[3:42:38] And I believe that part of the vision that President Watson has expressed is that the importance,

[3:42:46] we really have two ends of the spectrum.

[3:42:48] We have a fixed route system, and we have folks who are mobility impaired,

[3:42:53] whose whole goal in life is to use it to the max.

[3:42:56] And so we know that in order for them to do that, if the facility must be accessible as well.

[3:43:02] And so how do we balance?

[3:43:04] And so our goal is to working with the customers

[3:43:06] that indicate their pathway conditions

[3:43:08] to make those right so that they truly have

[3:43:12] an accessible way to fix route.

[3:43:14] Those who will never, ever be able to do that,

[3:43:17] we definitely want to accommodate

[3:43:18] their transportation needs.

[3:43:20] All of that to say, we've also had

[3:43:21] a lengthy discussions with Boone,

[3:43:23] I wouldn't say lengthy,

[3:43:24] but we've had some serious discussions with Boone

[3:43:26] that as the bond package moves forward,

[3:43:28] that we coordinate our dollars and the city bond dollars so that we take a systematic approach to the infrastructures that issues that exist.

[3:43:40] So, and what we gather from these clients is they come in will be a part of that assessment process.

[3:43:45] Okay, so there is real value not just in in orienting those customers but in terms of obtaining information from them that goes beyond what we're able to get on a question there.

[3:43:55] I mean, the questionnaires, the application form says,

[3:43:58] are there continuous unobstructed unbroken sidewalks

[3:44:00] on the route and is traveled to get to the bus stop?

[3:44:03] Yes, no, sometimes.

[3:44:05] In order to get beyond that and say, well, where are the issues?

[3:44:09] That seems like a, at that point where you do it,

[3:44:12] but that is very, there's a real reason why we would

[3:44:15] want to do that when someone is first accessing a service.

[3:44:18] Can you give me a sense of, so there are some customers

[3:44:23] we're in that kind of gory that where we need to make those infrastructure improvements.

[3:44:26] There are other customers who are unconditionally eligible and no sidewalk improvements

[3:44:31] are ever going to enable them to use these fixed route.

[3:44:35] Can you give us a sense of what share of our metro access customer base each of those different

[3:44:44] groups that takes up?

[3:44:46] I do not off the top.

[3:44:47] I'm not able to tell you what percentage are unconditionally.

[3:44:50] There's just a small handful or is it I mean, is it right now? I think it's fair to say that a lot of our customers

[3:44:59] But I do not know

[3:45:00] Percentage, or unconditionally eligible. But that could possibly change when we got too different.

[3:45:05] Those are unconditionally eligible. We're talking about coming in every two years, every four years, we're talking about one interview which we'll make them eligible essentially for life.

[3:45:18] unconditionally eligible. Okay. Okay. Thanks.

[3:45:23] If someone has a question for you in this all alone, Diane, could I ask you what your

[3:45:32] put information here?

[3:45:34] Can you come to the mic?

[3:45:35] Yes, I think I would go directly to the question that you were asking on which

[3:45:39] Ms. Tim was unspeakable.

[3:45:40] And just if you could be very brief.

[3:45:42] Oh, for you.

[3:45:45] The travel trainer who has been hired was at the NTI class with us and suggested several things

[3:45:53] such as a blind person walking out in the street to go around a difficult situation like a

[3:46:01] telephone pole where they couldn't get through the sidewalk. She also suggested going to the

[3:46:07] end of the line if you couldn't get across the street and then come all the way back. She was told

[3:46:12] that that is not acceptable under ADA. There are a lot of problems with the people that have been

[3:46:20] that are going to be making these evaluations.

[3:46:23] But people, like in a DAP, for instance, who use the fixed route on a regular basis, risk

[3:46:30] arrives and burn it road.

[3:46:32] And yeah, none of them had been killed.

[3:46:34] So would we say that they are safe and maybe they would be evaluated.

[3:46:38] Somebody like that and said, yeah, you can go out and burn it road.

[3:46:42] And certainly these people in a DAP do it.

[3:46:44] So why don't you?

[3:46:45] And I think that that's exactly, it gets to the point of how this is troubling for us.

[3:46:50] Thank you. Thank you, Diane. And then let me just say I would not expect to, and someone from

[3:46:58] that for anybody else to be going, making a way to a bus stop along Merit Road. I've done that myself on a bike, and I know it's not fun.

[3:47:08] There are that it's a fast moving traffic. There's no shoulders, no sidewalks, no bike lanes.

[3:47:13] As I'm pleasant, but I think to the extent that we can get information from our customers that says that is the problem for me.

[3:47:19] And then that's helpful information when it comes time to prioritize the infrastructure

[3:47:24] and premise that we need.

[3:47:25] Obviously, we have a lot of work to do on burden and road and elsewhere in order to make

[3:47:29] our fixed-fast service more accessible.

[3:47:34] Well, remember, shape delaying?

[3:47:36] Can we have a question for you?

[3:47:41] Could you please refresh my memory as to what the additional staffer requirements are going

[3:47:45] to be for the eligibility?

[3:47:48] I will do happy to do that.

[3:47:53] I'll make sure I get the right facts and figures here.

[3:48:03] There's an eligibility coordinator that is already in the budget last year.

[3:48:09] There are two specialists, whether it's a total of five associated to the program of which

[3:48:15] four or new.

[3:48:19] What's your impact?

[3:48:20] The total budgetary impact is on a six-month basis because of the implementation would

[3:48:29] be 388,000. However, the savings, the projected savings is 505,000. The cost is 388,000,

[3:48:39] with a net savings for a six-month period would be 116,000. However, when you project that over

[3:48:46] a 12-month period, which I really think, in order to understand the impact and the magnitude

[3:48:51] of the decision, it's about $1.8 million projected savings over the course of a 12-month

[3:48:59] period, assuming that all of the eligibility work has been done.

[3:49:04] The staffing cost is 644, which is basically twice the other.

[3:49:08] For a net savings of $1.2 million per year.

[3:49:13] And again, the savings are based on what the majority of that is at the onset of the process

[3:49:21] when folks must fill out the application and come in for the interview.

[3:49:24] TTI estimated that 18 percent never come in for the interview and we have,

[3:49:36] we have a denial rate

[3:49:39] of 9 percent and so when you compound those over a 12-month period it's about 27 percent.

[3:49:51] What do you have staffers?

[3:49:54] For clarification purposes, these numbers are not a goal to achieve as noris as the 18 percent

[3:50:02] who don't show up. They are statistics. And I hope that the people who are here today

[3:50:10] understand that this is not based on something where it's not a goal we're trying to achieve.

[3:50:15] It is simply the statistics nationally that are factored into financial estimates.

[3:50:26] I do also

[3:50:27] have a question and that is if someone is deemed conditionally eligible and they're using

[3:50:33] fixed route or the getting certain services and situations change temporarily.

[3:50:40] For instance, there is road construction or there's been a washout somewhere.

[3:50:48] Do we have in the plan a way to do a temporary revaluation and then follow up once the conditions

[3:50:59] whatever they are, are cleared up to read the rest.

[3:51:04] It is not currently identified, but there is nothing that would prevent us from doing

[3:51:07] that, no, make sure that that happens.

[3:51:11] Yeah, it's on me.

[3:51:11] Board Member Fernandez.

[3:51:13] I guess, first of all, come in.

[3:51:14] There's a quick question.

[3:51:16] The sense I guess from a lot of the public testimony is that we're like an insurance company

[3:51:21] that our business model is based on trying to figure out why not to get you a service.

[3:51:25] or not you, it's the same, that's kind of what I'm hearing, and I think what I would want to

[3:51:32] hopefully, and this is what I would look to staff to, because I think this is the point

[3:51:35] that Ann was making is that that is not, we are not a private business, we are a public

[3:51:40] entity that's trying to survey public good, and we're in a situation where we're having to

[3:51:47] come balance competing priorities and interests. It's just kind of the unfortunate reality,

[3:51:51] financial realities were in. And I guess a lot of the concerns I hear are about

[3:51:57] implemented. Some of it is, you know, the service, the service there and

[3:52:00] some things like that, but it's about implementation. And about us, the, the, the

[3:52:05] the notion that, or the belief that cap metro is going to try to figure out a

[3:52:10] way to pull one over on someone that's something you're entitled to you're not

[3:52:14] going to get. And I guess what I would want, this is the, that question I asked for

[3:52:19] and I think you guys have it by one folks to hear that is that that is not what we are trying to do.

[3:52:27] Where if you are eligible and title the surface you should get it and you can be treated fairly with dignity.

[3:52:33] And that's what we came to do. Is that of Diane please please? Diane?

[3:52:41] You're not recognized to speak. Diane?

[3:52:45] I normally don't put business on a personal level.

[3:52:48] I can tell you from personal, in my own life,

[3:52:51] I have a net-use or evil policy.

[3:52:53] I have a brother who is mentally retarded

[3:52:55] and their visual impairments in my family.

[3:52:57] I know the impact these decisions have

[3:53:00] from a personal perspective.

[3:53:03] It has never, ever been the intention of staff

[3:53:05] to do anything that is just to a bottom line.

[3:53:09] We must understand the needs of this community

[3:53:12] and meet the needs for those who are eligible.

[3:53:16] And sometimes what we lose side of is that with the ADA

[3:53:19] regs, it is about comparable service.

[3:53:24] It is not about one's disability that makes you eligible.

[3:53:28] It is about your disability in combination with functionality,

[3:53:33] your ability to function.

[3:53:36] And so it is that is what we will base the assessment on.

[3:53:39] It will be a fair assessment.

[3:53:40] It's we're using the Pittsburgh model where, you know, we will work with the community, we will work with access as we go through identifying what that assessment looks like, but it has never been the intentions of staff to ever roll out something that is simply to the bottom line.

[3:53:58] Any other questions?

[3:53:59] Comments?

[3:53:59] I'm going to line one.

[3:54:00] Thank you.

[3:54:01] You were done.

[3:54:03] Right.

[3:54:04] Okay.

[3:54:07] You know, I do not want to, first of all, I respond to your comments.

[3:54:11] You shouldn't have to personalize that.

[3:54:13] What you tell me, I believe.

[3:54:17] But I do not want to have any misconception about that.

[3:54:23] The change and eligibility, the $1.2 million 12-month savings, are a function of the fact

[3:54:31] that some folks will not have, will not be eligible if they go through this process for

[3:54:38] Metro Access on making statements now, so there's a few questions in a second, and others

[3:54:43] whose level of service will change, that is where these savings originate from, so that's

[3:54:50] They are not hiding that aspect of this.

[3:54:54] Unequivocally we have built in a high amount of cost to deal with 644,000 to deal with the issues

[3:55:03] that you all have correctly raised that to evaluate all of our existing customers is going

[3:55:09] to cost us something.

[3:55:11] There is a net savings, actually sorry, the savings is 1.8, the net savings is 1.2, 1.8 million

[3:55:19] a function of people's service, decreasing or not being eligible?

[3:55:26] I am really, really struggling

[3:55:28] with this one. You know, of all of them, I would say, if anything I've been presented

[3:55:31] with here at Capital Metro, how we approach eligibility is the toughest one I've been confronted

[3:55:37] with thus far, because a lot of people I really trust and respect are pointing out some

[3:55:44] real issues about what the impacts are going to be.

[3:55:49] And at the same time, and this is the ironic part, is we have let metro access, we have

[3:55:57] not we, the agency, have not properly administered the eligibility component of this, and we

[3:56:04] have, I suspect, let people in historically

[3:56:08] that don't belong in or should only be conditionally eligible

[3:56:14] and have been deemed unconditional eligible.

[3:56:17] So it is ironic that we are having to change

[3:56:21] our eligibility process to account for our own failings

[3:56:27] in the past.

[3:56:28] However, I respect that staff has come forward

[3:56:32] and acknowledge this point with me in multiple occasions.

[3:56:37] And along with what others have said,

[3:56:40] you know, just making a point in this regard,

[3:56:43] that we are holding, my understanding is we are holding

[3:56:47] the criteria constant.

[3:56:49] What we are now doing is just doing a more reliable in our opinion,

[3:56:56] assessment of who falls into, who meets that criteria?

[3:57:09] Tell me so now a question, what if we

[3:57:13] so we have made some important assumptions to get to our $1.8 million annual savings that

[3:57:22] basically rely on some very detailed work that has been done historically about what happens

[3:57:28] when you very, very clearly and strictly administer your eligibility program, that someone

[3:57:36] show up now, obviously I know that the disability community would say those folks don't show

[3:57:41] up because they're intimidated. Another way to view that is they don't show up because they know

[3:57:47] that they will be deemed ineligible for the program, and then some, if they went through a functional

[3:57:52] assessment might be, might move to a lower level of service.

[3:57:59] What if we, and so I'm fully sympathetic to, not only the additional cost, but you'll

[3:58:06] never have to pitch something from a cost perspective to us, when the disability community

[3:58:11] speaks to us, I want to hear the impact to you.

[3:58:14] We'll do our own assessment of feel free to address it, but primarily what I want is the

[3:58:19] to you as a disability community, and I understand they're very anxious about this.

[3:58:25] And the primary, it seems to be that the primary component of that anxiety is the fact

[3:58:31] that they do not trust us to fairly administer the program.

[3:58:36] Or that there is something, no, you don't have to class, I get it, I've heard you.

[3:58:42] So please, let me just finish this, you know, we're debating this, I've heard y'all.

[3:58:48] So, what if, and here's where I could use some input, because I'm trying to find a compromise,

[3:58:55] that in, it's a tough one, what if we did a three-month trial program?

[3:59:01] Now, I don't know how we would draw from our community to say who runs through the program

[3:59:09] in the first three months, because they're obviously going to feel disadvantaged.

[3:59:12] I suppose you could just draw straws.

[3:59:14] What if we did, and then, obviously, what they are on my

[3:59:18] panel, and that is that all of the board views this obviously as an

[3:59:22] opportunity. I know staff does as well. An opportunity to

[3:59:26] garner additional information that will not only help the customer,

[3:59:30] but also might help us get people on to fix around or whatever. What if we

[3:59:34] did a three-month trial program? Tell them I want you to tell me what

[3:59:41] implications might be where we chose some and started to administer the new form of eligibility

[3:59:46] or the new, not the new criteria because the criteria holds constant that we administer the program

[3:59:53] as we're now contemplating. What if we did a three-month trial program and it stopped it?

[4:00:00] The assumption would be that it ends at three months, and we would revert back to the original short

[4:00:06] of board taking it up again. And maybe have our audit group look at it, you know, see how many

[4:00:15] don't come in, see what the cost to us are, see how fast we can work through our group of customers,

[4:00:23] You know, see how many shift from eligible to, you know, eligible unconditionally to

[4:00:31] unconditionally.

[4:00:33] And my, am I, am I missing something?

[4:00:35] Is it totally off-based?

[4:00:37] You're walking through it.

[4:00:38] It would be a little difficult for me to price that simply because from the solicitation standpoint

[4:00:42] I think it would be very difficult to put someone in a contract for just three months.

[4:00:46] It would drive the cost of the process because you're, I mean, you're baserings.

[4:00:52] tremendously. From a legal perspective, I would have to defer that to legal counsel as to whether

[4:00:58] or not there would be any implications that we had single out of group and didn't treat

[4:01:05] everyone the same. From a business perspective, I don't think that it would be difficult for

[4:01:10] us to do that if I'm just looking at it from a business perspective and then come back and

[4:01:15] what I would do would be recommend that we do the solicitation with an understanding that

[4:01:20] After three months, there will be an evaluation and assessment of the program and possibly

[4:01:24] a modification to it, but I can't stand here today in what those figures would look

[4:01:29] like.

[4:01:30] What I would like to do is put something in perspective that obviously have failed to do to

[4:01:34] this presentation.

[4:01:37] If we look at a functional assessment of our current clients,

[4:01:47] it is approximately on an annual

[4:01:49] basis.

[4:01:52] 678 customers that would be conditionally eligible,

[4:01:59] as opposed to everyone becoming unconditionally

[4:02:03] eligible.

[4:02:05] It is a small, it's 10 percent, if you will, that would be deemed conditionally eligible.

[4:02:11] Everyone else would be deemed unconditionally.

[4:02:15] Let me just make sure I understand that, so you're saying of our current group of

[4:02:21] certifications of re-certifications, those that are deemed unconditionally eligible, you think about

[4:02:31] what you say? 678 is the impact and the number of trips is 1413 for that would move to

[4:02:40] conditionally eligible.

[4:02:42] Correct.

[4:02:44] That's about 10%.

[4:02:48] Well, remember, for now, just from a process perspective, what John just raised, because

[4:02:53] right now we're voting on policy changes, and the kind of thrust of what I heard you saying

[4:02:58] is more of a processing about the evaluating and making sure, is this going right or not?

[4:03:03] And can we tweak it and move quickly to fix it if it's not going right?

[4:03:07] That's correct.

[4:03:07] So if we were to approve of policy change, it changed the eligibility process, but built into

[4:03:13] that we need to hear from you all how's going and get it, you know, some sort of

[4:03:17] valid components to it within a, whether there's three months, whatever that time

[4:03:21] period is. And if it's not working, we can tweak it. I'm just wanted to confirm there's

[4:03:25] no, we can do that. And now we would need to think through any particular budget

[4:03:30] implications of doing that. That's what we can do that.

[4:03:33] And the contractual, I would imagine that when we put the scope out and we put that

[4:03:36] condition in there, we probably will see a different cost driver for that particular

[4:03:40] The three-month period, then we would, if it were a five-year contract.

[4:03:43] So everything beyond that three-month period, we would probably see a different assessment

[4:03:48] rate associated to it.

[4:03:50] The other thing that I would like to make sure that everyone understands is that we are in

[4:03:54] the process of putting together an implementation plan that outlaw it, first we must prioritize

[4:03:59] all of the policies and what we will, you know, what we're going to implement first.

[4:04:03] Some of them have an overlay to technology, and so we are overlaying the schedule for the

[4:04:07] technology implementation to the actual policy itself.

[4:04:12] Once we have that identified, then we will come back

[4:04:15] with an implementation plan as it relates to this particular

[4:04:17] policy.

[4:04:18] Here's what we will measure.

[4:04:19] Here's what we will monitor.

[4:04:20] Here's what we will report.

[4:04:21] Here's how we will communicate it so that we take a systematic

[4:04:24] approach to the business.

[4:04:27] And you know, it's very well-possible.

[4:04:28] We may look up and say, we haven't finished this one yet.

[4:04:31] This one's going to be delayed another two months.

[4:04:34] We don't want to go at this at the flip of a switch.

[4:04:37] that's not the intention that all it's to make sure that we do it and we do it right and

[4:04:43] there will also be a process in place by which we survey our customers who go through the

[4:04:48] process as well because we want their feedback and that will give us an opportunity to adjust

[4:04:53] where needed.

[4:04:54] I may not want to ask a question on the solicitation.

[4:04:57] Don't we put a provision in many of our professional services contract that we have the ability

[4:05:04] to terminate without notice.

[4:05:07] So if we were to make a different policy decision three months from now, that five-year contract

[4:05:12] would still contain that borderplate language that would allow us to terminate.

[4:05:16] It would probably feel better saying a speaks to this, but I also know that a lot of times

[4:05:20] when that happens, there's buyouts, and there's costs associated to it.

[4:05:24] And that would be something from a policy level that we would have to consciously, is it

[4:05:29] work, canceling it, and paying that additional cost?

[4:05:32] So for me board members, I think the scrutiny that's going to be placed on any decision we make today regarding the eligibility process is going to be at such a high level.

[4:05:42] I don't anticipate waiting three months to find out how it's going.

[4:05:46] I want to find out next week and the week after and I'm going to be asking questions and following up and ensuring that whatever we adopt as a policy is working to the best interests of our customers.

[4:05:59] and improving the service.

[4:06:02] What do you remember, holistic?

[4:06:04] I agree that, to Frank's point, a lot of the concerns that I've heard raised, and also to

[4:06:09] Jones Point, involve concern and prepidation about implementation and process.

[4:06:21] But we're at the point now where we're talking about policy, we're not talking about

[4:06:25] implementation yet, as you said that you're just now getting to the point where you're

[4:06:29] in the implementation plan, and so I can well understand why people are concerned.

[4:06:35] It's vague bubble out there that has the ability to control their lives and they're not sure how it's going to work out yet.

[4:06:43] Is there any way for us to have some sort of approval that is contingent upon further approval of an appropriate implementation plan that can mitigate some of the concerns of the community?

[4:06:57] As you can hear, a lot of people distrust our ability to administer this to be able to do it fairly.

[4:07:03] Is there a way to come up with an implementation plan that mitigates that?

[4:07:07] That can get more people less concerned about it.

[4:07:15] Dan, if someone asks you a question, you'll be able to speak.

[4:07:22] If I were sitting where you were sitting, what I would say is that

[4:07:27] When staff brings back any form of a solicitation with it must come the implementation plan with all the processes before anything would be approved, which means we would be before the committees, the discussion on the implementation plan, the strategy, the measurement tools at that time, and so before the contract would even be awarded, we would have to present to the Board of Directors.

[4:07:52] that's what we plan to do, that's what the committee structure is for.

[4:07:57] And so we would bring that, we try to come, they must before if there are issues, then of

[4:08:01] course it could be deferred.

[4:08:04] But nothing would be awarded by the Board of Directors until such time you've satisfied

[4:08:07] that the plan was adequate to address the concerns.

[4:08:11] Right.

[4:08:11] And so I just wanted to, could we build into the implementation plan, the oversight of the

[4:08:15] performance?

[4:08:16] And I understand we're all talking about it, we're all kind of unboard with that idea.

[4:08:20] But I can see that there is distrust in the community of just trust us.

[4:08:26] We'll take care of it.

[4:08:27] Sort of thing.

[4:08:27] Is there a way to ensure that that occurs that we are bound by that?

[4:08:32] Yes.

[4:08:33] That's easy to do.

[4:08:34] When we set up the performance measurements,

[4:08:36] we would expect to work with Access on that to begin with

[4:08:39] and get their via in and their input.

[4:08:42] There will be certain things that we will miss and things that we think need to be looked at

[4:08:46] and if they have other concerns that they would like to see measure of monitor,

[4:08:49] Well, if there's input from the board that they would like to see measured money, there's nothing to conclude us from doing that.

[4:08:54] And that is one of the other points that we have been making all along through this process is that we are going to work very closely with our access committee in terms of any implementation that takes place.

[4:09:06] So today we adopt the policy and I suspect sometime in December, maybe that's the target date.

[4:09:12] If you can get it up to speed that fast,

[4:09:16] it would come back to the board.

[4:09:18] What's your timeline?

[4:09:20] April.

[4:09:20] April?

[4:09:21] Fair enough.

[4:09:22] Take what take as much time as you need to get it right.

[4:09:24] We understand how big this is.

[4:09:26] And we also understand how complex it is.

[4:09:29] And so you have the whole solicitation process.

[4:09:31] You have a scope to have to be developed.

[4:09:34] You know, we've heard a lot about the application.

[4:09:37] We not only would like to take the application as it exists today,

[4:09:40] that we work through the MMWG.

[4:09:42] We'd like to run that through a focus group and see what we get from, you know, a broader

[4:09:45] base and see what input we get.

[4:09:48] So now that this is not a December decision.

[4:09:52] But when it is a decision, it would come back to this body for the procurement of the solicitation.

[4:09:57] Yes.

[4:09:58] Great.

[4:09:59] And then that would be the point where we scrutinize the implementation plan and how the

[4:10:04] process will go and be to.

[4:10:07] Any other comments or questions?

[4:10:08] Board Member Stafford?

[4:10:09] I was just going to say perhaps access committee would be willing to act as a sort of strong

[4:10:16] man in the process and have a non-binding eligibility once you've got this process in place

[4:10:27] that perhaps they can be the people who test it for without an outcome that is finding

[4:10:33] but to see how the process works.

[4:10:36] Mr.

[4:10:39] Bomer, please have a seat if the board member has a question, we'll ask you.

[4:10:44] Board members, we have a motion and a second on the table.

[4:10:49] And it is to approve the staff recommendation for the eligibility appeals process.

[4:10:55] No, eligibility. Are we taking up the appeals process as well or just eligibility?

[4:11:01] I've made it worthy

[4:11:06] of that.

[4:11:07] The eligibility and appeals.

[4:11:09] Any comments?

[4:11:10] We have an amendment.

[4:11:12] Absolutely.

[4:11:13] And I don't know if this is possible but an amendment to make this approval contingent upon

[4:11:18] Board approval of an implementation and performance measure plan.

[4:11:22] I would suspect that's a friendly amendment.

[4:11:25] Yeah.

[4:11:25] Friendly amendment.

[4:11:26] More than the morality.

[4:11:27] You consider that.

[4:11:28] Friendly.

[4:11:30] So that amendment is accepted.

[4:11:31] That's friendly to the maker in a second.

[4:11:36] If I may.

[4:11:37] Yes.

[4:11:38] This is.

[4:11:39] So in essence, I mean, we do need to understand that we are moving towards a, I mean, obviously,

[4:11:44] and that we do, but I'm just going to get up on our own chest, that we are moving towards each,

[4:11:51] and interview of each client subject to, obviously,

[4:11:59] heavy involvement from the board and

[4:12:01] terms of how that's implemented to ensure that whatever it is, mitigates the concerns of

[4:12:10] this group of customers.

[4:12:14] All right.

[4:12:15] Any other comments, Lane?

[4:12:17] Thank you.

[4:12:17] I just want to get clarification here.

[4:12:21] In adopting this, the eligibility policy, while it is conditioned, you are still adopting the policy

[4:12:28] correct. It's just one of the conditions is that we must present to you a plan, because

[4:12:35] otherwise we would not be able to update our ADA plan, and so I just want to make sure

[4:12:40] I understand it.

[4:12:41] Thank you.

[4:12:41] I understood.

[4:12:42] Thank you for the clarification.

[4:12:44] Any other comments from the board?

[4:12:46] Hearing and seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye.

[4:12:50] Any opposed?

[4:12:51] Any abstentions?

[4:12:53] That motion carries on vote of 8 to 0.

[4:12:57] Thank you.

[4:12:57] the length and staff and everyone moon. All you guys at work fun. Next, the next is the service

[4:13:06] level, policy. All right John, go make your sounds.

[4:13:16] You got time for a put loan.

[4:13:22] Okay,

[4:13:23] So the next metro access policy recommendation is the service level.

[4:13:30] Now I'll here contain a motion to approve the staff recommendation by motion made by Board Member

[4:13:37] silence second by Board Member Schafetz any discussion.

[4:13:42] All I'll say is thank you all for the hard work on this as well.

[4:13:46] All those in favor please say aye.

[4:13:49] Those opposed, extensions, that motion carries on a vote of 8 to 0.

[4:13:54] The next policy recommendation is on the open return policy.

[4:13:58] I'll entertain a motion.

[4:14:01] And a motion by board members, Silas, to accept the staff recommendation on open return policies.

[4:14:07] Is there a second?

[4:14:09] Second by board member Stafford.

[4:14:10] Any discussion?

[4:14:13] All those in favor, please say aye.

[4:14:15] Those opposed and motion carries on a vote of 8 to 0.

[4:14:18] The next policy consideration is the Taxi vouchers.

[4:14:23] There are two options and I'll entertain a motion.

[4:14:30] I, let's see, I don't remember exactly which one's wish, but I would move that we implement

[4:14:36] the program as this option to, thanks.

[4:14:40] Okay, I would propose that we implement option two as the Taxi voucher program, which is basically

[4:14:45] the stored card, $80 a month, 60 of that paid for by Capital Metro, and that relates to

[4:14:54] just vouchers on demand and subscription.

[4:15:02] Overflow, overflow, there will be a measure. We'll be run separately as part of the program.

[4:15:09] Council member Martinez. Hang on. Hang on.

[4:15:12] We've got a motion by Vice Chairman Langmore. Is there a second?

[4:15:15] All right. There is a second. Discussion?

[4:15:18] Lang?

[4:15:18] When you make a final decision, there's language there for us.

[4:15:28] Okay. I'll read it into the record. The motion is to adopt the staff recommendation option

[4:15:35] accessoride program.

[4:15:36] Capital Metro's accessoride program is a non-ADA

[4:15:39] cost shared premium service,

[4:15:41] opened all registered capital metro access customers,

[4:15:44] regardless of their mobility device needs.

[4:15:47] Subscription vouchers.

[4:15:48] Metro access will move subscription vouchers.

[4:15:51] Subscription voucher customers to

[4:15:54] Metro access vehicles as space becomes available.

[4:15:57] Overflow vouchers, taxi vouchers will be used

[4:15:59] when Metro access vehicle capacity has been reached.

[4:16:03] These extra trips are referred to as overflow trips

[4:16:09] and then I will read into the record

[4:16:13] Did I just cover that in the first statement? Okay? Great. So we have a motion and who is the second?

[4:16:20] Board of North Stafford was the second. You need a discussion. I've got one comment. I really appreciate

[4:16:26] Staff coming up with this option. I do think it's a it's a good option. You work hard on it and and came up with it in response to

[4:16:34] public input and concerns. But with that being said, I did just see this and my experience

[4:16:43] on city council is that it's almost always a bad idea to vote on something within hours

[4:16:49] of seeing it for the first time. So it won't really excited about this. I am very hesitant

[4:16:57] to vote on it within hours of having seen it.

[4:17:02] Understand.

[4:17:03] Any other discussion?

[4:17:05] All those in favor, please say aye.

[4:17:07] Those opposed?

[4:17:09] Any abstentions?

[4:17:10] That motion carries on a vote of 7-0 with one abstention.

[4:17:15] The next policy consideration is the Metro Access Service area.

[4:17:20] It's not all intertained a motion.

[4:17:23] We're going to remember for

[4:17:26] an end.

[4:17:27] For an end is moves that we accept the staff recommendation.

[4:17:32] Is there a second?

[4:17:34] Second by board member silence.

[4:17:37] Any discussion?

[4:17:39] We're remembering one.

[4:17:42] This one I, you know, we're rectifying.

[4:17:45] There's no one's hiding from the fact that this was an oversight.

[4:17:49] Should not have gone down the way it did in terms of implementing something without the appropriate process.

[4:17:53] We're going to make darn sure we run through the appropriate process now, and that's what this is.

[4:18:03] So, may a colpone, the half of capital metro for not having done this properly, the first time around should not have gone that way.

[4:18:12] Move around that way. Going forward. So, I regret that we have to vote on this.

[4:18:19] But nonetheless, we will.

[4:18:22] All those in favor, please say, any opposed, any abstinence, that motion

[4:18:30] carries on vote

[4:18:33] of 7 to 0 with one abstinence.

[4:18:35] I'm sorry, six to one and one abstinence.

[4:18:38] Board and Rochef, it's voting, no, Board, remember, holistic abstaining.

[4:18:42] The next policy consideration is on call center operations, all entertained, but motion.

[4:18:49] Board Member Stafford moves the staff recommendation for call center operations is there?

[4:18:53] Second, the second, my board member for now is any discussion?

[4:18:59] Hearing a scene on all those in favor, please say aye.

[4:19:01] Aye.

[4:19:02] Those opposed?

[4:19:03] Any abstentions?

[4:19:04] That motion carries on a vote of 8 to 0.

[4:19:07] Thank you, Lane, and thank you all very much.

[4:19:10] We will now.

[4:19:11] Can we remember?

[4:19:12] Some, you know, there's been such a rough.

[4:19:14] I mean, it's an important issue with a lot of time and effort that's going into it.

[4:19:22] One thing I would like to contemplate is, you know, I mean, as painful as this was,

[4:19:29] I specced as the easy part, just establishing the policy, what's going to be tough is implementing the policy.

[4:19:35] You know, staff, you have more than got your work cut out for you because these are some major changes to an important program.

[4:19:42] So, something that I would like, what Board Member Fernandez, if we could potentially take up

[4:19:48] in the Autism Finance Committee and be up to you, obviously, to chair, but I'd like to

[4:19:54] see if we could have a formal financial and operational audit of this sometime during the course

[4:20:02] of the next calendar year.

[4:20:04] In addition to our oversight, and you know, I really respect the work of our internal auditors,

[4:20:10] And so I'd like to understand we've made a lot of assumptions on this in terms of savings

[4:20:17] and how it's going to work and I'll guarantee you there's going to be a whole host of

[4:20:22] issues that we have not yet anticipated in terms of the way this is going to go down upon

[4:20:27] implementation.

[4:20:29] So I'd like to, I would have a very strong desire to see, you know, obviously I know

[4:20:35] you're played as full in the audit department although you did get an additional resource

[4:20:39] to have this move up in terms of a priority given the significance of the change for a financial and operational

[4:20:47] on it sometime during the course of the next calendar year.

[4:20:51] And we could figure out when we would be most appropriate.

[4:20:55] And as part of that, I think we need to start really understanding what's going to drive us on this program.

[4:21:02] I mean, obviously it's a federally mandated program, but it's also to the extent that you

[4:21:07] don't oversee it in a responsible way, what happens is it starts to take on very significant

[4:21:13] financial implications to the agency.

[4:21:16] Somehow we need to think about this in terms of, how are we doing this as part of our overall

[4:21:23] financial budget?

[4:21:26] So it's got up to around 18% of the budget, 2% of the riders, the sunset report had kind

[4:21:32] a superficial coverage of it, and compared us to some peer cities

[4:21:36] where exceeding some peer cities in terms of the cost of our budget.

[4:21:40] We're below some peer cities in terms of the cost of our budget.

[4:21:44] I'd like to have some additional discussion, I think,

[4:21:48] again, Frank, maybe this is something that could go on.

[4:21:50] I would suggest going to the Audit and Finance Committee,

[4:21:52] potentially drafting a resolution that would create some

[4:22:02] Okay, good men, the last point on this is we're digging into part of that would be how we're allocating overhead and some of the rest to RSTS program.

[4:22:18] What are your opinions?

[4:22:20] I will give a Carolyn in terms of turning corporate advantage of the 2011 internal audit calendar.

[4:22:29] Thank you.

[4:22:30] All right, we're halfway through our agenda.

[4:22:37] No, we're not taking a break.

[4:22:39] You're free to get up and take your own personal break,

[4:22:41] but we will not stop.

[4:22:45] The next agenda item is item 11,

[4:22:48] which is approval of a resolution

[4:22:49] to adopt a railroad bridge replacement plan.

[4:22:53] Okay, John.

[4:22:54] Did you finish the challenge?

[4:22:57] Good afternoon, Board members.

[4:22:58] John Olman, Vice President, Engineering and Construction.

[4:23:01] This item before you as approval of a resolution to adopt the railroad bridge replacement plan.

[4:23:06] It's part of the railroad bridge safety management program that we've developed.

[4:23:10] List of part of list of bridges that require a replacement.

[4:23:14] Each year, this list will be updated, reflect any changes and additions as bridge conditions warrant.

[4:23:21] This action will comply with key recommendations from the Sunset Advisory Commission report.

[4:23:26] I'd like to acknowledge Mr. Nino from the Senate's staff is here today, as well as put

[4:23:34] us on a path to address our aging timber bridges over the next several years.

[4:23:39] And with that, can I answer any questions?

[4:23:41] Any questions, Board?

[4:23:45] I make a motion that we adopt that plan, and I would join you, Mike, just for the sake

[4:23:51] of, as including this as part of our process, talk about the fact that it ran through the

[4:23:56] committee and what a recommendation was in that regard.

[4:24:00] And we did address the rail committee with this a couple of days ago.

[4:24:04] And when over the plan with them, how we got there, all of the, even the list of bridges

[4:24:08] we had in mind and has recommendation from the committee to advance it to your board.

[4:24:14] Now, motion and second motion by board member Langmore, second by board member Schaifitz,

[4:24:18] any other discussion, you're seeing that on all in favor, please say aye.

[4:24:23] Any opposed?

[4:24:24] Any abstentions?

[4:24:24] A motion carries on vote of 7 to 0 with Board Member Fernandez temporarily off the dice.

[4:24:31] The next item is item number 12. It's approval of Resolution adopting a board of directors community involvement policy.

[4:24:38] Good afternoon, Chairman Martinez members of the board. My name is Dianne Vendosa and I'm Vice President of Business and Community Development.

[4:24:45] I stand before you today to ask for your approval of a resolution adopting a board of directors community involvement policy.

[4:24:52] Although, community involvement is very important to us, and we have done a great deal of

[4:24:58] it as was recognized by the Sunset Commission, there had never been a formal policy

[4:25:02] delineated for this body.

[4:25:05] This is a policy in response to the Sunset Commission section 4 under Board Governance and

[4:25:14] the public engagement, and the policy that I'm bringing to you formally establishes the Board

[4:25:20] director's commitment to effective and meaningful community involvement by delineating

[4:25:25] how capital metro will work to ensure that its decision-making processes are open and accessible

[4:25:32] to all parties. What we've done as staff in also a recommendation from sunset is to develop

[4:25:38] a complementary community involvement guide that lays out how your policy, if you approved

[4:25:44] today, would be implemented. It ensures methods for engaging the public, the public, it

[4:25:50] that we need out how they can get involved.

[4:25:53] It does a flow chart of how those community involvement plans come to you.

[4:25:57] And I'm ready to answer any questions that you may have at this time.

[4:26:00] Thank you, Dianne.

[4:26:01] Any questions?

[4:26:01] We're going to move approval.

[4:26:03] Got a motion?

[4:26:04] Is there a second?

[4:26:06] Second.

[4:26:07] My board member, silence.

[4:26:08] Discussion.

[4:26:10] What member?

[4:26:11] I was just going to say, I apologize.

[4:26:15] I should have said this has come before your operations and planning committee and was recommended

[4:26:20] Thank you.

[4:26:23] Any other discussion?

[4:26:25] Hearing it's seen then, all those in favor, please say aye.

[4:26:27] Aye.

[4:26:27] Any opposed?

[4:26:28] Any abstentions?

[4:26:29] That motion carries on about a 7-0 with Board Member Fernandez, temporarily off the

[4:26:32] day.

[4:26:36] No problem.

[4:26:37] Item 13.

[4:26:45] I apologize.

[4:26:45] Item 13 is approval of resolution adopting a Board of Directors Advisory Committee

[4:26:49] Policy.

[4:26:51] Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board.

[4:26:52] This is also one night stand before you today, moving approval of this resolution.

[4:26:58] Also in the section, section 4.2 and 4.4, I'm sorry, 4.3 and 4.4, of the section in the Sunset

[4:27:06] Commission report, there was consideration by Sunset that we looked at our advisory committee

[4:27:11] structure and also looked at how we engage our metro, metro access paradigms at customers.

[4:27:18] We are bringing to you today a recommendation for policy to enhance this community involvement,

[4:27:25] Primarily what the policy does is that it restructures the current advisory board committees that you have in place, and also delineates in its procedures, a new appointment policy for those committees, and secondly, delineates a very specific roles and responsibilities level of authority for those committees.

[4:27:46] I do want to preface and I was remiss in this previous policy.

[4:27:52] All of this will be, that we will do community involvement and community involvement.

[4:27:56] We will take these policies out for community outreach and education.

[4:28:00] We will be sure that any operating guidelines that assist the board and recommendations

[4:28:05] that are coming for appointments to the committee structure are also vetted with the community.

[4:28:12] So I can answer any questions you may have about that.

[4:28:15] The only remind me is this, David, I have you down, I'll take so that's an input in just a second.

[4:28:22] The only remind me is this, these advisory committees are required by statute.

[4:28:27] Is that not correct?

[4:28:28] They are not required by statute.

[4:28:30] Basically, you, as a Board of Directors, pursuant to section 451-07 of the Transportation Code, may adopt any rules, any regulations and violence, as you know.

[4:28:40] And in those articles, you can, from time to time, establish any board committees that

[4:28:45] have trustworthy, test forces, or anything that you feel will assist you in that decision-making

[4:28:49] process.

[4:28:50] What I believe, a sense of commission wanted us to do is to formalize that process, make sure

[4:28:56] that there was great oversight from the board, and so the appointments process that's recommended

[4:29:00] for you, is that each member of the board would appoint a member, that chair would have

[4:29:05] two appointments, and then the other members of the board would have one appointment, and all

[4:29:09] members of the committees would serve at the will of the board and would be correspondant

[4:29:13] to your terms of office.

[4:29:15] There have been some discussion in the committee.

[4:29:18] Again, we did take this to operations in planning and fit it at the process.

[4:29:22] And as you all call board, I'll just say for the record, we have talked about this for quite some

[4:29:25] time.

[4:29:26] There was even conversations about potentially combining our two advisory committees.

[4:29:30] After much thought and input and process, we've come to the decision, or we may come

[4:29:35] decision here at a moment where the proposal before it's keeps then separate and distinct.

[4:29:40] And we believe that's the appropriate course of action because of the nature and severity

[4:29:44] of the issues that are completely different.

[4:29:47] When you're talking about customer service versus access issues, they may not necessarily

[4:29:52] always be one of the same.

[4:29:53] And so this proposal keeps those committees separate and distinct, allows the board members

[4:29:58] to make appointments.

[4:30:00] But also maintains an odd number of appointees by allowing the chair to appointments. Any questions or comments?

[4:30:07] Or, remember, holistic?

[4:30:09] How do we ensure, and then I see under the membership that members must be transit users and may include residents, business owners, other key stakeholders concerned about transfer service and service area?

[4:30:21] Is there any way that we can ensure that those impacted are represented?

[4:30:29] For instance, there's no requirement here that someone who uses STS to be part of the Access Advisory Committee.

[4:30:37] How do we ensure that that happens?

[4:30:40] Well, I would say that you would appoint them.

[4:30:43] I mean, you can ensure that as you're an individual by your appointment.

[4:30:47] That's okay. The appointment response is announced.

[4:30:50] Got it. Thank you.

[4:30:52] All right.

[4:30:55] We have speakers signed up.

[4:30:59] If there's any other comments.

[4:31:01] The first speaker signed up is David Patterson.

[4:31:06] Welcome, David.

[4:31:14] Thank you very much.

[4:31:15] We're members.

[4:31:18] I wanted to sign up.

[4:31:20] I did sign up for this couple of weeks ago.

[4:31:22] And it was our understanding that, based on the reaction from last four access meetings,

[4:31:32] that this item was not going to come forward today.

[4:31:40] I've been doing this about 10 years, and the access committee may be the last four.

[4:31:47] It's been my observation, it has not changed,

[4:31:56] that the purpose for an advisory committee

[4:31:58] is to advise in the formation of the policy,

[4:32:05] and we had no input either in the CSAC or in

[4:32:16] access any details of this policy recommendation.

[4:32:22] It's, on the one hand, it's been my observation that one of these advisory committees has

[4:32:30] been largely populated by folks who, with whom the staff has had contact or does business.

[4:32:39] I don't think that this is a formula for credible advisory committee.

[4:32:47] I think the other committee, at least for the past two and a half years, has been involved

[4:32:53] in the reaction of policy changes that came forward without any input also whatsoever

[4:33:03] and is led to a litany of legal expenses,

[4:33:10] of confrontations, and as has been observed

[4:33:14] by several more members, a substantial lack of trust.

[4:33:21] I don't think this is a purpose of advisory committees or mechanisms that might be mandated

[4:33:28] by the FDA in terms of access or in terms of CSA. I don't think that this is what was

[4:33:39] contemplated by anybody's legislation or in advising how to administer funds. I would think

[4:33:50] that perhaps you would instruct the staff to go back to the current advisory committees and

[4:33:58] maybe at least get some third discussion.

[4:34:02] This part of it can come 90 days down the road or whatever.

[4:34:08] And in keeping with what you just decided on Metro Access Policy

[4:34:12] changes, how is the impact of the Access Committee going to be

[4:34:18] taken into consideration when it doesn't exist?

[4:34:23] Thank you, thank you.

[4:34:24] Next speaker is Diane Boomer?

[4:34:37] As chair of the Access Advisory Committee, and knowing that I give reports that upset some members make me light, light, however, I have done extensive work on learning policies of ADA, of going to classes, of spending a lot of my time doing that.

[4:35:04] I am reportedly and truly an advocate between the disability community and this board.

[4:35:13] I am a very intense person.

[4:35:16] That's what comes across my frustration about five years ago.

[4:35:21] When I moved here in the service area was changed,

[4:35:24] I probably wouldn't even move here if I had known that the policy manual that I was given

[4:35:30] included, excuse me, Sunset Valley, and then as soon as they gave me the policy manual,

[4:35:35] they told me that they wouldn't even take me there.

[4:35:39] I, you know, I think that you need an access committee that is made up from people from

[4:35:48] the community who know what the laws are, who can be aware, and who can truly advise this

[4:35:57] word, whether you like the reports or not, who can truly advise this board about policy and

[4:36:08] and give insight to staff, and I don't mean any offense by this, but I question,

[4:36:18] I question

[4:36:20] people specifically to fill this role. I appreciated what Ms. Mr. Blackmore, that

[4:36:31] correct? I brought up. Because what this is essentially doing is stifling and

[4:36:39] attempting to stifle the voices that have been heard here have been heard by the

[4:36:46] committee and that's you know just because this board hasn't wanted and I don't

[4:36:53] mean this board specifically because I really want to say that I really

[4:36:56] appreciate this new board. Then the people that are new on this board really ask

[4:37:02] good questions and they're very very concerned and I really I really

[4:37:07] appreciate that. I had a very positive thing to add a little while ago and

[4:37:13] Unfortunately, you wouldn't let me do that, but I really, really don't think that the advisory

[4:37:20] committees were not included at all in planning any of this or what the nomination process

[4:37:27] would be or any of that. And this is not an effort to on the board's part or staff's part

[4:37:37] to help the community get along with you guys better and I don't know. I throw my hands up.

[4:37:49] If you guys do this, I can promise that we will form a community that's outside of your control,

[4:37:56] and you will hear from us in big ways. I don't mean that as a threat. It's just true.

[4:38:02] When I know that's what you don't like about me, thank you, but I really want to help the process.

[4:38:10] And by the way, ADA requires a mechanism and they will hear about why this is being changed.

[4:38:18] Thank you.

[4:38:20] Any other comments, board members?

[4:38:22] I want to take a motion.

[4:38:25] Oh, Boone, I'm sorry.

[4:38:26] You did, you did ask to speak.

[4:38:28] Gina came over and wished for that to me and I forgot.

[4:38:39] Welcome, Boony, you have three minutes.

[4:38:41] Thank you.

[4:38:42] Again, Conway David was saying in our September 1st Access Advisory Committee meeting,

[4:38:51] we raised objections that the new form of the Access Advisory Committee was being contemplated

[4:38:57] without our consultation.

[4:38:59] And while it's good that, you know, Johnny Mendoza says that public consultation

[4:39:04] is going to be going forward, it's only public consultation to a point because it's this

[4:39:12] new structure and then we get to give our input on the new structure.

[4:39:16] The way I'm on the urban transportation commission for the city and the way the city does

[4:39:21] it is a little bit different in that while I agree if this is going forward if the chair

[4:39:27] is going to get to boats and I think Miss Watson is quite capable of getting her to.

[4:39:32] I don't I don't think it should be put into a pool of applicants, I mean the way the city does

[4:39:36] is the city council member appoints and vets, the person they want, you know, and so

[4:39:42] while it may be good for council member, council member, from his lots and to have the two

[4:39:47] votes, you know, the rest of the people, it should not go into a pool of names, and again,

[4:39:52] it's not the access, I don't mean the interrupture, just want you to understand the policy,

[4:39:56] It's one appointee, per board member, and the chair gets two appointees to create an odd number.

[4:40:03] So I would make two appointments to achieve an odd number.

[4:40:07] I was thinking, sorry.

[4:40:09] I was just talking about, in terms of...

[4:40:12] I've been sitting...

[4:40:13] I can see how that happens to us all the time.

[4:40:17] Let me tell you.

[4:40:18] Sorry.

[4:40:19] I've been here since eight to in that sense.

[4:40:21] But I just mean in terms of like the chair submitting and everyone submitting into a name and then the chair

[4:40:28] consult with the other members. I think it should be an independent decision, but it is person.

[4:40:32] It is an independent decision by I don't I don't have the authority and nope nor does anyone else for that matter have the authority as a board member to accept or reject

[4:40:41] and nominee. Once it's made, it is made and accepted by this board.

[4:40:46] And so I just wanted to, again, the access committee, you know, doesn't

[4:40:51] strengthen, you know, be frank with you and I still knew I'd roll. No, actually,

[4:40:55] that was upon intended. But I just think the consultation is backwards.

[4:41:02] It wasn't it, you know, hey, what do you guys think of this for thinking about doing this?

[4:41:07] And so I was suggest that we, we do have some good ideas and after, you know, month,

[4:41:10] maybe two months or a month if you guys listen to it and you choose to go in the direction

[4:41:16] that staff is recommended and that's fine but I just think it's a lot of change, all

[4:41:21] up front and I don't think it would be out of order to kind of study the subject for a month

[4:41:26] and then vote on it next month.

[4:41:29] Thank you.

[4:41:30] I will say we have talked about this for quite some time, this is not some, we started

[4:41:35] talking about this in February of the year about what we're going to do.

[4:41:41] And I realized there are, my times up already.

[4:41:49] I thought that was for Langmore.

[4:42:00] This decision is obviously not an easy one, but it is one that we have contemplated.

[4:42:04] And like many of our decisions, this board has been put in place to make decisions, not in a manner of haste, but with a little bit of speed and diligence.

[4:42:19] And so I feel like we'd come forward with a policy recommendation.

[4:42:24] It does not preclude this board from changing it in any way, Boon.

[4:42:28] And if this committee comes together and does not feel like it is working best for Kat Metro,

[4:42:34] We absolutely reserved that right and will bring this full back to this body and take any recommendations you might have.

[4:42:42] I know you guys have been discussing it for all.

[4:42:45] I was just talking about in terms of the ideas being brought back to the excess community.

[4:42:50] And the members of the disability community because it doesn't start or end with the excess community.

[4:42:55] There are thousands of people out in our community.

[4:42:57] And so that's what I'm talking about, not necessarily you guys have been, you know,

[4:43:00] flippens about it.

[4:43:01] I know you haven't, you've been very deliberative and thoughtful and I absolutely agree

[4:43:05] with that.

[4:43:05] I'm just talking about in terms of the rollout and the ideas to the access committee.

[4:43:09] I understand.

[4:43:10] Thanks.

[4:43:10] Thank you, Boon.

[4:43:12] Sandy?

[4:43:12] I had also asked to sign up and they had told me that I, for this and they had told me

[4:43:17] I couldn't because it had started.

[4:43:18] Well without objection, you have three minutes.

[4:43:20] But it's, it's good to do it, so can I.

[4:43:24] I, as they have said, we had thought that this was going to be in a later time before

[4:43:32] this would be brought up.

[4:43:34] I do want to say that if each of the members of the access committee are appointed by members

[4:43:44] of the Board of Directors, the handicapped community are going to feel that the access

[4:43:52] committee is just a puppet for the Board of Directors.

[4:43:59] And that's what you're going to get from this community.

[4:44:03] And that's all they're going to think it is.

[4:44:05] And whether it is or not, that's what they're going to believe.

[4:44:10] And that's what you're going to put it, what, what, what, thingly, and especially what you

[4:44:14] have passed every policy that the staff has put into place even though this access group has

[4:44:23] told you that there are differences in opinions. And then you put in a group that is

[4:44:31] once that you have appointed, that's what they're going to believe. Believe me, so you

[4:44:38] going to continue this feeling of distrust.

[4:44:44] Missy Campbell, would you like to serve on the committee?

[4:44:47] Yes, I would.

[4:44:48] It's an honest question.

[4:44:49] No, yes, I would.

[4:44:50] Because I'm, I spend lots of my time working with this.

[4:44:54] Yes.

[4:44:55] Well, I will make you one of my appointees.

[4:44:58] Thank you very much.

[4:45:00] But I truly do believe that I'm afraid that they will think that.

[4:45:09] Thank you, Senator.

[4:45:10] Thank you, Senator.

[4:45:12] Thank you.

[4:45:13] Well, remember that?

[4:45:14] Make a comment.

[4:45:15] And that is that earlier when we were talking about the implementation

[4:45:22] implementation of the eligibility and the appeal process, we made a de facto decision about the access committee because we said that there would be members of the access committee with similar disabilities as part of the review process.

[4:45:46] So, I think that, you know, while it is not written into this policy, we've made a

[4:45:54] defective decision that there will be at least someone from the visually impaired community,

[4:46:00] someone from the mobility impaired community.

[4:46:06] I'm not sure what else, but the sorry, I think that we've got, that's going to be part

[4:46:10] of the next.

[4:46:11] I'm sorry, I'm out of words.

[4:46:15] For once.

[4:46:18] Thank you.

[4:46:19] I think those are extremely valid points and points will need.

[4:46:23] Remember, Riley?

[4:46:24] Yeah, I just want to add this.

[4:46:26] This action we take today does not restructure the committees.

[4:46:30] All this does to say we are going to restructure the committees.

[4:46:33] And we are going to be consulted with our current committees in figuring out how to do that.

[4:46:38] And what the new committees are going to look like.

[4:46:39] I do think we are making a decision, and we've talked a lot about it, that the City Board

[4:46:45] and Commission, the City's approach to Boarding missions will provide a model for the

[4:46:50] reconstructed committees, and I think if you look at that, what you'll see is actually a few

[4:46:56] days, you'll see a lot more transparency and accountability than we have with our Capital

[4:47:01] Metro committees. With any City Board and Commission, you can go on with the City's website

[4:47:06] find out exactly who is on that committee, who appointed what their term is, and that has

[4:47:10] always been the case with our Metro committees. You'll get, and we'll also get the bylaws

[4:47:17] of the committee, all the minutes of the committee right there, very, very conveniently provided.

[4:47:21] And also say that it's free, even though those members of Board City Board

[4:47:26] submissions are appointed by the City Council, those boards are often at odds with the City Council,

[4:47:32] And that's because when we appoint them, we, sometimes we look to current members of the committee for guidance for input.

[4:47:40] So who would be a good, who would be well suited to serve on those boards?

[4:47:43] Sometimes they're just people we know in the community.

[4:47:45] Sometimes they're people who just step up and fill out an application.

[4:47:49] And we find out about them that way.

[4:47:50] However, they come to us.

[4:47:51] We generally want, we, the City Council, in my experience,

[4:47:55] But one step point people who are very well-versed in the issues that the board deals with

[4:48:01] will be committed to the cause, wanting to engage in conversations about it, and often

[4:48:07] they are very fierce advocates that why not disagreeing with the Council.

[4:48:11] And I think if you follow a city government, you know that's often the case.

[4:48:15] And so I don't sense that they are just member stands for the City Council or puppets of

[4:48:21] the City Council.

[4:48:22] Just a good way of pointing.

[4:48:23] That hasn't been the experience at all.

[4:48:24] So I'm very hopeful about this.

[4:48:27] I think it will actually be an improvement in our engagement with citizens,

[4:48:35] but its success

[4:48:36] is really going to be dependent on our ongoing coordination with youth folks that folks

[4:48:41] out there in the community who will help guide us both in selecting the membership of the

[4:48:46] committee and then dealing with the committee going forward.

[4:48:51] whoever's on that is going to be we're not going to be getting input just from them as members of the committee that committee is going to need to be getting input from the whole community so whether

[4:49:00] whether the series whether the advocacy one of the committee wind up on it or not we want a committee that we'll provide an effective mechanism for getting that input from everyone

[4:49:10] and I'm hopeful and optimistic

[4:49:15] I would just briefly reinforce the point he made.

[4:49:18] To me, the intent of this restructure is to make it a more effective and advisory group

[4:49:23] in that some of the feedback I hear from folks is that we don't listen well to what the

[4:49:31] adviser committee is saying.

[4:49:32] I think this structure, at least to me, part of the intent, is one we're going to ensure that

[4:49:37] it has a diversity of perspective that can constructively provide feedback in a way that

[4:49:42] going to help inform and forward the issues that the committee is discussing, but also to

[4:49:48] me, just more practically, if each of us is a appointing someone, I am hopeful that the

[4:49:53] person I appoint someone I have a personal or develop a personal relationship with, so that

[4:49:58] the folks who are on that committee will, for their respective board member will be able to do the

[4:50:04] same thing. And I think you will see, as a function of that, that the input that is provided from

[4:50:10] any access committee or a C-SAC, if we end up doing the same thing there, is going to be

[4:50:15] translate more into what we are doing, what we, how we respond.

[4:50:22] Can I take that as a motion?

[4:50:27] Member Fernandez makes a motion that we adopt a resolution as proposed in the other comments.

[4:50:35] Yes, second by Board Member Alley comments.

[4:50:36] I'm feeling more.

[4:50:37] Thank you.

[4:50:38] The only one I need your help on this.

[4:50:40] I have some specific input on the language as is provided.

[4:50:44] We say members must be transit users.

[4:50:48] I could see someone that's like a caretaker

[4:50:52] for a minimally impaired person serving on the access committee

[4:50:58] to represent that group.

[4:51:00] They might not personally be a transit user,

[4:51:03] although someone in their care might be.

[4:51:05] Is that going to prevent it?

[4:51:07] I could also, I'm also concerned about how you would even define transit user because I could

[4:51:13] also see for the customer service, the C-SAC committee, someone that's a choice rider,

[4:51:18] maybe doesn't on occasion, but you know, still very valuable input in terms of that.

[4:51:23] We can amend that, we can certainly amend that to read differently so that you can expand that.

[4:51:31] The intent and the past has been for them to use the services so that they can represent

[4:51:35] different sectors of the service, but it does not reclead us heavily.

[4:51:38] How about if we said, okay, what I would do there would be to say that there's a preference,

[4:51:46] but not an outright requirement, okay, and so I'll make a amendment, see if it's friendly.

[4:51:54] Then we've also got on here that as per statutory requirements, each member of the Capital

[4:51:59] that's where Board of Directors will select their appointees based on recommendations from

[4:52:04] the President's CEO. I just want to go find my own person. Nothing against Linda.

[4:52:12] Well, legal counsel, but to review this, there is something in this statute that usually

[4:52:17] any person to be appointed by the Board is usually vetted by the President's CEO. It has always been a

[4:52:23] collaborative effort, Board Member Limer, so I think that if there are recommendations that are

[4:52:29] coming forward that something that can be worked out as you do now.

[4:52:32] I don't perceive that to be anything that precludes you from recommending and then this list

[4:52:38] is the different appointees that the board feels need to come before you for action and

[4:52:43] then you move forward with those recommendations.

[4:52:46] So it is a cork in the statute, it is a statement that it was made and so Karyanshme to include

[4:52:53] fine and happy to work with Lyndon my appointment.

[4:52:58] The then under H, Triple I, it says, the staff liaison has presented the recommend that

[4:53:05] this is, sorry, the Capitol Metro Board of Directors will receive committee recommendations

[4:53:09] only when they include,

[4:53:15] then Triple I, the staff liaison, has presented the recommendation

[4:53:18] to the Capitol Metro President, CEO, and here's the part on struggling with.

[4:53:23] and received approval to move this recommendation forward to a specific Board of Directors Committee.

[4:53:32] I'm wondering why we would have staff approval of a committee being able to recommend something to the Board of Directors.

[4:53:41] I don't see why it should be vetted by even, and again, obviously nothing.

[4:53:45] against our esteemed President and CEO, but why can't they just recommend it?

[4:53:54] They could.

[4:53:55] The only reason that is included is because most of the time we do agenda review to make

[4:53:59] sure that timely information is brought forward to the Board of Directors and that anything

[4:54:04] that's going before committee structure is vetted by the different committee chairs.

[4:54:11] We can amend that too.

[4:54:12] I mean, these are, this is a draft recommendation for your consideration to move a policy

[4:54:16] board.

[4:54:17] So if those are things that you feel we need to kind of change and do more of the

[4:54:21] recline to the board, obviously, that could be done.

[4:54:23] Okay.

[4:54:23] And I just want to make sure that, and that was what I needed to know what the implications

[4:54:27] are of taking that approach were.

[4:54:30] So I would make two proposed amendments.

[4:54:36] The first being that says there's a preference, sorry, under procedures, A, there's a preference

[4:54:44] that members must be, there's a preference that members be transit users.

[4:54:50] And there's a maker, consider that, friendly.

[4:54:53] Thank you.

[4:54:54] And then secondly, that we under H, triple I, the capital metropolitan directors will receive

[4:55:01] committee recommendations only when they, when they include,

[4:55:07] triple either staff liaison has presented the recommendation to the capital

[4:55:11] metro president CEO period and delete the rest of it, so that it doesn't

[4:55:15] require any staff approval to make this way to the board.

[4:55:17] Yes, sir.

[4:55:19] Is that friendly?

[4:55:20] Great.

[4:55:21] Thank you.

[4:55:22] Who is the second on that?

[4:55:24] Is that Eucharist?

[4:55:26] You consider that friendly Christian?

[4:55:28] All right.

[4:55:28] We've got two friendly amendments that are motion in the second on the table and the other discussion.

[4:55:34] Apparently seeing that in all those in favor, please say aye.

[4:55:36] All right.

[4:55:36] Those opposed?

[4:55:37] Any abstentions?

[4:55:39] Motion carries on to vote of 70, zero with board member Stafford temporarily off the dice.

[4:55:43] Thank you.

[4:55:44] Thank you, Deanna, for your work on all this.

[4:55:47] Board members, I'm going to suggest, in the interest of time, we take up items 14, 15, and 16, all in one motion,

[4:55:57] because they are all three board policies that have been vetted through our subcommittee process

[4:56:04] and through discussions among board members.

[4:56:07] Good afternoon Chairman, members of the board and President Watson, I'm Denise Young, the capital

[4:56:12] Metro staff attorney and I'm here to fill in questions you have about that.

[4:56:16] Denise, this is your first time before the board.

[4:56:18] Yes.

[4:56:23] That was very early in your front day, John.

[4:56:27] I'm going to sit right here.

[4:56:31] So each policy, I'll just briefly describe each one for Board Member Hullis assume you're

[4:56:37] up to speed on these, but they relate to travel in the first one, how are travel?

[4:56:43] These are areas of practice where we have never had a policy in place, and so one of

[4:56:48] things that we wanted to accomplish this year was also putting policies in place for the board where

[4:56:54] there have only been past practices.

[4:56:56] And so the first one speaks to the board travel policy, that's item 14, item 15 is what

[4:57:04] is 15.

[4:57:06] The board approval, what's the representation cap on that?

[4:57:08] That's correct.

[4:57:08] So if you're a board member on cap metro and you want to seek an appointment or an election

[4:57:14] to a position outside of this agency that represents a transit authority at the local state

[4:57:20] or federal level, then this board will have to approve of that, seeking that position.

[4:57:27] Oh, maybe it is.

[4:57:31] The chair of the board, okay.

[4:57:34] And then item 16 is, some board members are eligible for a stipend at this time, her board

[4:57:43] meeting, we're just doing the way with that stipend altogether, and so we will no longer

[4:57:48] pay a stipend to any board member for attending the meeting.

[4:57:52] Those are the three items, I'll entertain a motion for approval.

[4:57:56] And I motion by Vice Chairman Lang, we're second by Board Member Shafes, any other discussion.

[4:58:03] Hearing and seeing none, all of us in favor say aye.

[4:58:06] The opposed?

[4:58:07] Any abstentions?

[4:58:08] That motion carries on a vote of 8 to 0.

[4:58:11] Thank you.

[4:58:16] agenda item 18,

[4:58:20] I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself, agenda item 17, appointment of chair

[4:58:27] of the Operations Planning Committee and that new chairman would be Board Member Riley.

[4:58:33] I'll entertain a motion.

[4:58:36] The motion by Board Member Shafet, second by Board Member

[4:58:38] and Fernandez. Any discussion? Hearing its Board Member Siles? How long are these

[4:58:44] point before.

[4:58:45] It's a good question.

[4:58:48] One calendar year.

[4:58:50] So that means that the other three committee chairs that took office in January, February.

[4:58:59] February.

[4:59:01] Whenever it was there were constant, yeah, our term is, this January.

[4:59:07] And so board member, Riley's term would end next October.

[4:59:13] This January.

[4:59:19] Any other discussion?

[4:59:22] Anyone seen that?

[4:59:22] Almost in favor, please say aye.

[4:59:25] Any opposed?

[4:59:25] Any abstentions?

[4:59:26] Congratulations, Board Member Rally, that motion carries unanimously, 8 to 0.

[4:59:35] Action item number 18 is approval of a resolution adopting the annual operating and

[4:59:40] capital budget for the period October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011.

[4:59:51] Do we have a staff presentation?

[4:59:55] Oh, there he is. I'm sorry, Frank.

[5:00:16] Good afternoon Mr. Chairman Martinez-Bordmembers, my name is Francisco Nassambia, director financial planning. I'm here substituting for Mr. Randy Hiem who is out of town.

[5:01:14] I'd like

[5:01:55] to begin by explaining the assumptions that went into preparing the budget for

[5:02:00] fiscal year 2011.

[5:02:03] Sales taxes, we projected to be 2.7 over the projected projections for 2010.

[5:02:14] And the bargaining unit, we also included the salaries that were part of the Union

[5:02:20] current Union Agreement.

[5:02:21] We also stating the medical plan deductible to increase by $100 per person in

[5:02:28] excess clear.

[5:02:30] There's money for the Administrator employees merit salary increase, effective January 2011,

[5:02:37] and then this is according to the current compensation policy for employees.

[5:02:44] There's also a fuel-percent increase building to the budgets and percent increase over the current average price.

[5:02:55] Three more assumptions that were included in the budget was Metro Bus.

[5:03:00] We're following the current service plan 2020 metro rail we are budgeting for the first full year of operation.

[5:03:12] And metro access, we're also including the projected cost savings due to the changes in policies.

[5:03:22] A few highlights that I like to share with you is that again, we incorporated cost savings based on metro access policy changes.

[5:03:32] We have added $2.9 million in reserves.

[5:03:37] We are also finding the bus accessibility improvements in the amount of $2.5 million,

[5:03:45] which is an increase of $500,000 from the original amount.

[5:03:50] We are discontinuing free fares,

[5:03:52] is recommended by the Sunset,

[5:03:53] and we're adding me the material service.

[5:03:56] And it also assumes the beginning of the Meta-Rapid Project in 2011.

[5:04:04] These are the differences between the billionaire budget and the budget that we're presenting to you today.

[5:04:13] We increased research from 6.1.6 million to 2.9 million.

[5:04:18] We also set aside 1.8 million for the 2012 quarter percent ILA payment to the city.

[5:04:25] We have reduced matter rail service expansion.

[5:04:29] We have also reduced the gold line cost of our hours to realize

[5:04:35] $70,000 in cost savings.

[5:04:39] We also removing cross-票 plus frequency improvements to increase

[5:04:43] reserves.

[5:04:45] We made an adjustment based on the first transit contracts

[5:04:48] rates that are going up from our previous projections.

[5:04:52] And we also had to make an adjustment in revenues for third party.

[5:05:03] We also made several adjustments in the capital plan.

[5:05:10] These are two also increased reserves.

[5:05:14] We also made additional reductions in the operating budget and in total just so you know

[5:05:20] there were $1.8 million reduction in the operating budget.

[5:05:25] if we compare the preliminary budget with the proposed budget.

[5:05:32] We're increasing 500,000 to the last of accessibility funding,

[5:05:38] and we have increased the fourth quarter-cent island payment to the city.

[5:05:44] That's the $2.3 million that we have budget for that.

[5:05:57] This is the 2011 operating budget listed by Account category.

[5:06:05] You'll notice that 50% of our budget is primarily salaries and benefits with a sick

[5:06:13] major category being purchased transportation and the total proposed to any 11 operating

[5:06:21] budget is 168.2 million dollars.

[5:06:24] The

[5:06:28] proposed 2011 capital budget is $44.6 million.

[5:06:35] You'll notice that the most significant investment there is for the replacing of vehicles, followed by the metal rapid project that will be beginning in 2011.

[5:06:49] This

[5:06:53] is a summary of the progression that we've done with regard to research beginning in fiscal year 2011 to date including projections for the end of fiscal year 2011.

[5:07:07] On the bottom, you'll notice what our targets are in order to follow the sensitive recommendations to increase our research.

[5:07:19] In terms of fairs, we are recommending the elimination of free fairs, that's $1.2 million.

[5:07:29] Also, some fair adjustments for Metro Access, that accounts to

[5:07:43] $140,000.

[5:07:46] The multi-ripe has rates, changes will bring an additional $91,000.

[5:07:53] These fair increases, or would be affected January 2011, but there would be an independent

[5:08:02] process to review the fairs.

[5:08:04] We have public hearing, public input, and make sure that we're following Title VI assessment

[5:08:10] with regard to these proposed fairs.

[5:08:17] The next slide is the proposed fair.

[5:08:22] And

[5:08:29] the multi-ride passes will generate an additional $91,000 in 2011,

[5:08:44] and the elimination

[5:08:45] of free fares would add an additional $1.2 million.

[5:08:51] And this would be applicable to disability, Medicare, seniors, 65 and over and students

[5:08:58] six through 18, an active duty and reserve military personnel.

[5:09:20] This slide shows you what's the proposed 2011 budget for the start-tron organization

[5:09:26] which we contract out for services.

[5:09:29] The proposed budget is 64.9 million dollars in 2011.

[5:09:37] You'll have a proposed reserve policy for your consideration today and what we've done here

[5:09:43] This lists every reserve and the proposed targets of funding based on fiscal year 2009

[5:09:51] actual amounts.

[5:09:55] We view these as a roadmap for the future.

[5:09:59] The board could select a number of these reserves to be adopted today, or all of them,

[5:10:10] But we thought it would be helpful to the board to just share this as a long term goal and

[5:10:17] to propose target days for us to achieve as an organization.

[5:10:26] Now, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

[5:10:29] Questions?

[5:10:30] Comments?

[5:10:35] Wendy, would you like to make some comments?

[5:10:37] Yes, sir.

[5:10:38] Thank you.

[5:10:39] You probably recall maybe my very first day here, I talked about instilling performance and

[5:10:47] accountability and discipline into the organization, and I'd like to state that part of the

[5:10:55] merit increases listed here for the administrative employees would include benchmarks and

[5:11:04] performance measures and meeting those benchmarks in order to receive the merit-based

[5:11:11] So just wanted to add that, we hadn't talked about it previously, but wanted to make that clear.

[5:11:18] I really appreciate this comments.

[5:11:20] I think we all know, most of us know that last year, all of our administrative employees went without a raise.

[5:11:28] Cost of living didn't go down this last year.

[5:11:30] The economy got worse.

[5:11:32] So this budget does contemplate a two and a half percent paying increase.

[5:11:36] But it does give me some level of comfort.

[5:11:39] And let me just say, it's hard for folks to understand that, it's hard for folks to

[5:11:42] comprehend how much we're having to cut this year, to balance our budget, but at the same

[5:11:48] time off for some of our employees to an average increase.

[5:11:51] I get that.

[5:11:51] I understand that people have concerns about that, but this gives me comfort and the statement

[5:11:58] that Linda just made that she will be coming forward with performance measures that need

[5:12:03] Maybe that and maintain moving forward that are clearly defined, transparent, and are known

[5:12:10] to the workforce and to the community, so I appreciate this context.

[5:12:14] Any other questions?

[5:12:15] I'd just like to echo what you just said, Mr. Chairman, that commend Linda with respect

[5:12:22] to your efforts to instill a sense of accountability in the organization.

[5:12:27] that's kind of been one of my things I think is really it will be the single most important

[5:12:34] thing in terms of turning around our performance and I'd like to see personally speaking

[5:12:39] and it'd be up to you to administer the program but that raised some portion of people salary

[5:12:46] tied to the accomplishment of very specific objectives and some will get more that really excel

[5:12:53] And those that do Excel should be compensated more, and those that fall behind get less.

[5:13:00] And in the end, our customers are going to benefit from people that are motivated and compensated to really excel.

[5:13:10] That's going to make its way out to customers.

[5:13:12] So, you know, many respects, I think, motivating our workforce is also obviously something that, you know,

[5:13:19] provides, helps the organization provide better service to its customers, which is critical.

[5:13:27] Thank you.

[5:13:29] Board Member Fernandez?

[5:13:31] Just a few comments.

[5:13:32] I guess first, I just want to thank the staff and also thank the other members of the Finance

[5:13:37] and Audit Committee as we went through this process.

[5:13:39] We went through the budget.

[5:13:41] Many iterations in person and something looking at the email.

[5:13:45] Well, I think, you know, from my perspective, this was a tough budgetary process given the

[5:13:51] financial constraints we are working under and given the hard decisions we had to make

[5:13:56] around metro access, around the fairs, having to, or making a decision to increase from

[5:14:05] free to reduce four folks who are very low-income, more seniors in disabled.

[5:14:11] To me it was a process of we have competing priorities and we need to figure out what is the right balance.

[5:14:19] I think, you know, one thing I will say, I think this budget puts us on the road to longer term financial sustainability,

[5:14:28] which is I think something we have struggled with in the last year or two and we need to get back on track on that.

[5:14:33] are policy, which we'll look at and after we look at what on the budget is another big

[5:14:40] step in that direction. I will say for me the in terms of this balance,

[5:14:50] the policy

[5:14:50] questions that I grappled with in terms, especially with the cuts when we're as it relates to

[5:14:55] in the fairs for having increased fairs is...

[5:15:00] How we balance this question of what is it that we, as community, owe folks who are vulnerable, versus what does cap metro owe folks who are vulnerable, because those are not necessarily the same things that went.

[5:15:11] The answer to one, what we owe the community is pretty significant.

[5:15:17] What is cap metro's role is what we have been grappling with and trying to figure that out, do I think we have the perfect balance?

[5:15:25] I don't know.

[5:15:26] You know, that's something we have to continuously revisit from my perspective.

[5:15:32] But I do think what we've done is a good start and hopefully it's a conversation that

[5:15:38] will continue as we move forward.

[5:15:40] I would also like to point out that while we have made some changes to metro access, I think

[5:15:48] what we're trying to do is adhere to a commitment that we made in the past but we haven't

[5:15:53] been holding ourselves accountable to it, as it relates to the bus stop, accessibility stuff.

[5:15:58] When we first, we looked, I only had a million dollars in there for bus stop accessibility.

[5:16:03] And when you look at what we actually accomplished, this fiscal year or accomplished,

[5:16:07] it didn't even hit that budget, which is, you know, to me, unacceptable.

[5:16:11] And so we've increased that to two and a half million, because if we're going to be asking folks

[5:16:15] through the eligibility process to go from unconditional to conditional, from a high-level conditionality to lower,

[5:16:21] that we need to make sure they have the tools to be able to access the mainstream and I think that commitment is a good step and hopefully we can continue that conversation.

[5:16:32] Thanks Frank. I'll just add to that comment that I agree it's wholly unacceptable to be making false commitments to our community when we say we're going to do this.

[5:16:42] in an annual year and then don't do it, it only helps me understand the level of frustration

[5:16:48] that we hear when folks come down here and scream and yell at us, I get it, understand

[5:16:53] why.

[5:16:56] So with this budget adoption, I've made this comment to some folks and that is if we don't

[5:17:01] have the internal resources to fulfill these commitments, I fully expect that we go outside

[5:17:09] and outsourcing because we are making a commitment, a strong commitment to move these projects

[5:17:14] forward, to create more accessibility, and so Linda, what I would hope is if there's not

[5:17:21] enough internal staff to get these projects done, that we team with the city, we team with

[5:17:25] the county, we even go private if we have to, but we do the $2.5 million in projects that

[5:17:31] we're committing to this community, and hopefully next year we'll be able to do even more.

[5:17:35] Thank you.

[5:17:37] On a related point, I think one thing that I hope we see with this budget, one of the things

[5:17:42] that we've grappled with, or struggled with, is on the capital budget side being very

[5:17:47] clear and transparent accountable on that, and I think this budget represents a good

[5:17:51] first step.

[5:17:52] We have a five year CIP now that's a good start, and I think through finance and audit, hopefully

[5:17:58] we'll be able to do a better job of tracking these kinds of things, whether it's this particular

[5:18:02] or other capital products, BRT, making sure that we're hitting our milestones from a financial

[5:18:08] perspective.

[5:18:11] Yeah, I just want to say having served on this other finance committee this year.

[5:18:18] Thanks, Frank, for your leadership on this committee, and making sure that we really took

[5:18:25] a hard look thanks to staff for being flexible, for being open, it's been a tough year on

[5:18:35] staff and we know that.

[5:18:38] Sunset leadership changes, public comment, public opinion, very often not deserved,

[5:18:49] it's been a tough year.

[5:18:50] And to me, the fact that this presentation shows a projected balance and reserves of $16.5 million

[5:19:02] says that staff has gone above and beyond to make sure that the finances of this organization

[5:19:11] from a handle carefully, that they heard and understood the concerns of sunset, that they placed

[5:19:21] a high priority on transparency and safety.

[5:19:27] And I feel like this budget, maybe it's just me looking for, you know, a silver cloud.

[5:19:32] I mean, silver lining, I think this budget represents, you know, the balance it's turned,

[5:19:38] and I'm really excited about where we are on it.

[5:19:40] Thank you. Thank you board members. We're memorizing a couple of questions for staff. First on the reduced

[5:19:49] fairs, especially for people with disabilities. We got some public input expressing concern about

[5:19:56] people having to actually use cash, who haven't been expected to do that.

[5:20:02] Can you help me understand the availability of the cards? I guess it would be typically

[5:20:09] be 31 day cards. If someone is at a reduced fair, people with disabilities, they'll be able to,

[5:20:15] so they'll still be able to just buy the five monthly passes, they'll be the reduced fair,

[5:20:20] and so it's 32 instead of 64.

[5:20:25] There were some suggestion that we ought to allow annual

[5:20:30] passes for people who really have difficulty dealing with cash and just as a one more physical

[5:20:38] issue that they have to deal with in boarding the bus, is that do we do we do that, do we provide

[5:20:43] that passes on an annual basis or if we don't we would like to do that because we want to be

[5:20:50] sensitive to the needs of individuals and we agree with you that if we if we make it convenient

[5:20:58] to the individual then I think they're better so we can look into this I just think we need to

[5:21:06] mindful of that. You know, we're not the first transit agency in the country to expect all

[5:21:13] our customers to pay some fair. So we ought to be able to learn from other agencies and learn

[5:21:21] from our own experience going forward about any issues that can happen to see whether whatever

[5:21:25] means moving to the kind of Q-card that Houston uses where you can actually subtract value

[5:21:31] as when you sweat the card or any other any other system that would reduce the need to use

[5:21:37] cash that I think we need to keep a careful eye on that going forward.

[5:21:42] No, we agree with you that we need to maximize the subject.

[5:21:46] Okay, my second question is about the prospect of buying a replacement vehicle,

[5:21:56] I understand that the budget includes funding for 42 replacement vehicles of the coming

[5:22:03] year.

[5:22:04] That's correct, Justice.

[5:22:05] Okay.

[5:22:06] And I've previously discussed with here at the board and with our CEO about the possibility

[5:22:14] of including within those purchases, some vehicles that run on professional gas, which

[5:22:22] So we'll require some capital improvements, more fuel and maintain those vehicles.

[5:22:29] But I think it would be a real worthwhile.

[5:22:34] It would make sense as an investment just from this standpoint of being able to diversify our fleet,

[5:22:40] and provide some protection against spikes in fuel costs in the future,

[5:22:46] given that diesel costs may well be more volatile than CNG costs.

[5:22:50] And my understanding is now is that the budget we're approving today will allow for that possibility.

[5:22:59] We don't have to figure out now exactly how many C&G vehicles we buy, but we will continue to focus on that.

[5:23:07] Especially with the operations committee.

[5:23:10] And expect to move forward on that over the course of this year.

[5:23:14] But that is part of the, that is within the budget that we are approving now, that is, that will be perfectly, that will be possible given the decision to make into that.

[5:23:28] Yes, that is correct. And we will be bringing that to the, to your committee for discussions and guidance as we move through it.

[5:23:36] Okay. Thanks.

[5:23:37] And you're in the comments.

[5:23:39] Questions?

[5:23:41] Thank you.

[5:23:41] Francesco.

[5:23:42] Thank you very much.

[5:23:43] Thank you.

[5:23:44] I'll entertain a motion.

[5:23:46] Or member Fernandez.

[5:23:53] Or member Raleigh on behalf of Board Member Fernandez.

[5:23:58] Almost forgot about this one.

[5:23:59] In looking over the materials, I noticed that in the resolution we're approving,

[5:24:06] the resolution is just one page.

[5:24:08] It's a very short paragraph, which is odd considering the complexity of this, but it's

[5:24:14] a three short paragraph, and it says, therefore, it was all that the board budget

[5:24:23] as presented below be adopted.

[5:24:25] And then the next paragraph says, if there was all that staffs directed to initiate the public

[5:24:30] process to increase affairs, as presented to be effective gain, or 17th, and when I'm

[5:24:36] And typically you'll see a little more clarity than that in the resolution.

[5:24:40] You'll see actually what we are approving, and why would we just say, as presented below,

[5:24:49] as opposed to referring to a particular attachment or a particular set of figures that are connected with the resolution?

[5:25:00] Well, we can change to better meet the board's needs.

[5:25:08] That was done as the budget was not yet finalized when the documents had to be entered into

[5:25:17] the system.

[5:25:18] So that's why you don't see the budget numbers in the resolution.

[5:25:25] But the budget is final now.

[5:25:28] Yes, it is final.

[5:25:29] So what I would suggest the board is whoever can make the motion to read out loud the budget.

[5:25:40] And then make that a part of the motion.

[5:25:44] So if you were to make the motion, Board of the Morale and somebody would second.

[5:25:48] It opened up for discussion.

[5:25:49] And you could make a friendly amendment to add into the resolve the specific dollar amounts that you would like to see or any other information you would like reflected in the resolution.

[5:25:59] And then, and then,

[5:26:01] Well, I'm not following. How do you read the budget?

[5:26:04] I mean, the total amount.

[5:26:07] You may reference the proposed 2011 operating budget is.

[5:26:15] And then we can read off from

[5:26:18] $170 million.

[5:26:20] That's correct.

[5:26:22] And then, I mean, the thing is, when somebody's looking back at this in the future, they're going

[5:26:25] to see this document succumbly clear what exactly we're approving.

[5:26:28] That's correct.

[5:26:29] So, first of all, I think either the budget or the fair increase.

[5:26:31] That's correct.

[5:26:33] So, I think those points well made, but I think we have a remedy.

[5:26:37] So, I'll entertain a motion.

[5:26:40] And we approve the budget.

[5:26:42] And a motion by board member Fernandez is their second.

[5:26:45] Second by Board Member Shafet's discussion.

[5:26:49] And I'd like to offer a friendly amendment that we refer specifically to the,

[5:26:56] to this page.

[5:26:59] What page on the slide is that?

[5:27:02] There's no number.

[5:27:04] But the number at the bottom is 168-221-436.

[5:27:10] It is page 6.

[5:27:12] They have six of the budget presentation which contains the overall budget for the next fiscal year

[5:27:19] at 168 million, 201,436 dollars.

[5:27:24] And then the fair increase was first specifically to the proposed fair structure that appears

[5:27:30] on two, three, four, four pages later.

[5:27:35] And we also need to include the capital budget in addition to the, yeah.

[5:27:40] That's correct.

[5:27:41] Both the operating budget and the capital budget.

[5:27:44] And then the proposed infrastructure.

[5:27:48] Okay.

[5:27:49] Why do we include the entire task?

[5:27:52] Why do we say a task to your team?

[5:27:54] Yes.

[5:27:55] But you have to use let them talk long enough.

[5:27:57] They'll get there.

[5:27:57] A task to your team as opposed to prevent it below.

[5:28:01] That's that they can.

[5:28:02] Thank you, sir.

[5:28:03] Is that friendly to the maker in a second?

[5:28:07] Is that friendly, Mr. Fernandez?

[5:28:08] Yes, it is.

[5:28:09] You may have the discussion board members.

[5:28:12] Hearing and seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye.

[5:28:16] Any opposed? Any abstinence?

[5:28:19] That motion carries on vote of 7 to 0 with Board Member Halistob standing on the budget.

[5:28:23] Congratulations and thank you all, Frank.

[5:28:25] Thank you so much. Audit and Finance Committee.

[5:28:29] Thank you.

[5:28:33] Board members, we have two remaining agenda items.

[5:28:38] Both of which I co-heartedly support,

[5:28:40] But I've been pushing off a meeting all day, and it's scheduled for 330, so I'm going to

[5:28:44] excuse myself and have Vice Chairman Langmore conclude the last two action items and then

[5:28:50] any other items on the agenda.

[5:28:56] Let's move on to item number 19, which is the approval of a resolution, approving fiscal year 2011

[5:29:04] start training, employee support services budget.

[5:29:07] I guess this is something that we do, although it's in conjunction with a negotiated labor

[5:29:15] agreement that we approve the expenditure each time we do a budget as a mind-restaining.

[5:29:20] Elaine, you're going to present something is that right?

[5:29:23] No.

[5:29:23] You're just standing up.

[5:29:26] Don't stand up.

[5:29:27] It's like an auction.

[5:29:30] Is there a presentation?

[5:29:32] The hearing presented that in bed within that presentation is the pulling out from the overall operating budget, the start-trans portion of the budget in the frame.

[5:29:43] Okay, that's correct.

[5:29:44] But we still do we have my impression is that we have to specifically adopt.

[5:29:49] Yeah.

[5:29:49] That's correct.

[5:29:51] So, but it is what you just presented.

[5:29:54] Yes.

[5:29:54] Start-trans.

[5:29:56] Okay.

[5:29:57] I'll entertain a motion.

[5:30:00] Motion to go ahead and prove the start-tran budget as presented and the presentation and attach it in there.

[5:30:06] Okay, have a motion.

[5:30:07] I'll give you that.

[5:30:08] Board Member Fernandez.

[5:30:09] That's second by Board Member Shavids.

[5:30:11] Is there any discussion about this?

[5:30:13] I will.

[5:30:14] Board Member Stafford.

[5:30:14] I would make sure that we reference the number sixty four million nine hundred and sixty six thousand six hundred and ten.

[5:30:19] There you go.

[5:30:20] Is that friendly?

[5:30:22] Yes it is.

[5:30:23] Any other discussion?

[5:30:25] There are big numbers.

[5:30:27] They provide a lot of service.

[5:30:29] Any comments, questions?

[5:30:33] Okay, all is in favor?

[5:30:36] Any abstain?

[5:30:39] What abstain?

[5:30:39] Any opposed?

[5:30:41] It passes?

[5:30:42] Let's see.

[5:30:43] Three, five, six with one abstain.

[5:30:47] And Chair Martinez, absent from the dice.

[5:30:51] All right.

[5:30:53] Item 20, the approval of a budget reserve policy.

[5:30:57] We have something in your packet.

[5:31:02] We also have a hand out at your place.

[5:31:05] So this is a approval of a resolution adopting an annual operating capital budget.

[5:31:14] Okay, just a approval of a budget reserve policy.

[5:31:18] Do I have a motion to approve that?

[5:31:21] Some will.

[5:31:23] We'll may recite it a second.

[5:31:24] We'll remember from Andy's.

[5:31:26] Any discussion?

[5:31:26] So I would just add very quickly.

[5:31:30] This, to me, is a continuation as I referred to earlier of trying to get ourselves in a position of long-term financial sustainability.

[5:31:38] I think this is one of the recommendations that was in the sunset review report.

[5:31:43] So we're meeting those recommendations.

[5:31:44] I think it's a very strong, well-thought-out reserve policy.

[5:31:48] There's some more additional detail work that I think we're going to be working on.

[5:31:52] but it's a great start.

[5:31:57] I'd like to offer up what I hope would be deemed a friendly amendment.

[5:32:01] If you look, there's a red line version of slightly modified reserve policy, and this

[5:32:10] is consistently things I talked about in the Audit and Finance Committee, and basically what

[5:32:15] does is a my opinion,

[5:32:22] or it makes clear what each reserve is meant to do, and then it also

[5:32:27] goes further to say that the money in that reserve can only be spent for the intended purposes.

[5:32:37] If anyone has any questions about the language, I'd be happy to try and answer it. I would

[5:32:42] that it is self-explanatory. The only things I would remove in the last one, there's

[5:32:50] some language that is common carry, and I would remove that as part of this. I forgot to

[5:32:57] do that when I sent this on. But all of the others that are not coming to the second bullet too.

[5:33:05] In the second bullet as well, I propose that be pulled as well. So it's just the language

[5:33:10] It's not incorporated by square brackets.

[5:33:17] You all take your time to read it.

[5:33:18] I can see some of you are.

[5:33:22] I would consider friendly amendments.

[5:33:25] Thank you.

[5:33:27] And we're going to shake, we're going to remember.

[5:33:32] Silence does any questions come in?

[5:33:36] OK, so all in favor of adopting this reserve policy?

[5:33:39] Do we need to read this into the record?

[5:33:44] OK.

[5:33:44] I'm sorry.

[5:33:44] Just a short.

[5:33:45] Sure.

[5:33:45] We can do that.

[5:33:46] We need you or not.

[5:33:47] It's just a question.

[5:33:48] I know.

[5:33:49] I think it'll be that this document will be part of the record once we adopt it.

[5:33:56] All right.

[5:33:56] Hearing no more comments or questions, all those in favor?

[5:34:02] Any opposed?

[5:34:03] Any abstentions?

[5:34:05] Passes?

[5:34:05] Some to one?

[5:34:06] Or some to zero with Chairman Martinez?

[5:34:09] Absent from the Dias?

[5:34:11] All right.

[5:34:12] That is all of our action items.

[5:34:17] Just a quick point for those who were not involved with finance and not committee.

[5:34:22] One of the things that we are planning to take up in this next month is to work through

[5:34:28] the budget amendment process and just be very clear about that.

[5:34:32] Specifically, some of the things we discussed is that, in fact, we do have access revenue

[5:34:38] for example, because we were purposely more conservative on our sales tax estimate relative

[5:34:43] to the city, if we're in the good position of having some of that, how developing a policy

[5:34:49] to how that would get prioritized, whether it's putting to a reserve, putting to our

[5:34:53] bus stop accessibility, having something that we're thinking being intentional and thoughtful

[5:34:58] about that and bringing that back to the full board to approve.

[5:35:03] Thank you.

[5:35:04] I might also add that one of the other aspects we have not talked about the way in which we will

[5:35:10] fill those reserve buckets, which is something else that we have put off to take up later

[5:35:16] in the Audit and Finance Committee as to whether or not we do 100% of one before going

[5:35:20] to another start filling lower buckets before we fill the first one to the top.

[5:35:25] So that will be something that will take up in Audit and Finance.

[5:35:29] All right.

[5:35:29] I don't have anything down for presentations, but we do have several reports.

[5:35:33] in the first one it looks like is from planning and development on the tugs, that's you.

[5:35:40] Okay, thanks.

[5:35:46] Good afternoon, Todd.

[5:35:46] I mean, send VP planning and development.

[5:35:48] I'll be very brief in recognition of your time today.

[5:35:53] It's a, in fact, no significant planning items to report this month,

[5:36:00] but it can move into the next agenda item, which is this one.

[5:36:05] which is the ridership report as a lead-end to the operations report.

[5:36:11] The performance, while we're moving fast, is obviously

[5:36:22] I'm talking too slow.

[5:36:26] Just under the green here, we're slightly below the target for the month.

[5:36:32] Next slide please.

[5:36:33] And for the year, you can see we continue to track just slightly below 2009.

[5:36:39] I'll give you a preview for the coming month.

[5:36:42] And early numbers looks like the yellow line will move above the blue line.

[5:36:47] And will be in positive territory year over year for August.

[5:36:50] So that's some hint of good news.

[5:36:52] And we're seeing anecdotally similar information for Metro Rail ridership as well.

[5:36:58] And I'll stop there and see if there's any questions.

[5:37:06] Thank you.

[5:37:11] Good afternoon.

[5:37:13] Again, I'm going to try to fly through these pretty quickly.

[5:37:16] It's pretty good news for the most part.

[5:37:19] I know that what staff has been challenged to, and we've been challenged by the Board of Directors,

[5:37:23] is not only to understand what the issues are, but also be able to put a plan in place to address the issues.

[5:37:29] So if there's someone that can put these pretty quickly as I speak,

[5:37:33] Looking at the star trend numbers, what's important to point out is that even though if you look at the on-time performance for the year, which is down at the bottom versus what it is at the top, which is July is the month to date, it's important to note that while on an annual basis we're at 88.4, what's key is we're making progress because when you look at the July number we've moved up beyond the 90% and we've turned that green and so that's the whole goal of the program.

[5:38:02] to be able to understand where we are today and what we're making progress.

[5:38:06] So in this particular one, obviously we're making progress.

[5:38:09] We still continue to struggle with the issue of accident, not quite that fast, please thank you.

[5:38:16] We still continue to struggle with the accident piece, but what I do want to reassure the

[5:38:21] board is that we have a cross-functional team between planning operations and executive staff

[5:38:27] that are working on a plan to redo our service,

[5:38:31] what it looks like on Congress Avenue,

[5:38:34] about 40% of all accidents happen on Congress Avenue.

[5:38:36] And so that's our focal point.

[5:38:37] And we figure that once we get that situation

[5:38:39] and trust, we will see these numbers change drastically

[5:38:41] and look forward to something differently.

[5:38:44] The other thing that's important to note

[5:38:46] is that there's a correlation between accidents

[5:38:48] and on-time performance.

[5:38:50] So I would also hope that as we began to see these numbers

[5:38:53] move in the right direction on accidents

[5:38:55] that we will also see some level of impact on the on-time performance.

[5:39:01] Moving right along to Viola, again, as we look at not just what the numbers are, what

[5:39:07] are we doing to address them?

[5:39:10] The Viola executive staff member, Chris Hager, has taken a significant amount of time to put

[5:39:15] together for me an analysis of what they are doing and what's causing the problems and

[5:39:19] what are they doing.

[5:39:20] And so we've got, they're putting together a Ghost Rider program so that they are able

[5:39:25] to kind of behind the scenes monitor how their operators

[5:39:28] are doing the service that they're delivering.

[5:39:31] They're going to kind of enhance the supervision on the street

[5:39:34] with time checks to impact the service

[5:39:37] and those that are performing poorly,

[5:39:40] the management team will take care of that through training.

[5:39:45] There are, to me, again, if you look at the on-time performance

[5:39:51] for the year, 88.7 and you look at it

[5:39:55] for the month, although it is my new, it is still progress, and that's what we will continue

[5:40:00] to look for.

[5:40:02] On First Transit, I would raise the same issue as it relates to the vehicle accidents,

[5:40:09] going from 2.6 to .68 is significant in a month.

[5:40:13] And there are many things that attribute to accidents that can be weathered a lot of things

[5:40:17] pending.

[5:40:17] When we look at the miles between road calls, that is pretty low.

[5:40:24] And so they have analyzed what the situation is, they have also put together plans to address.

[5:40:31] They've got an alternator problem on four units.

[5:40:35] And so they sent the alternators back and had the manufacturer look at them to determine a root cause analysis on the failures.

[5:40:42] They've also had some overheat problems, so they've got a campaign going.

[5:40:45] So all of that to say they know what the problems are and they're addressing them through their maintenance plan.

[5:40:51] I'll ask a quick question.

[5:40:53] When we talk about complaints per 100,000 passengers,

[5:40:58] do we have a centralized complaint system capital metro that we used to produce those numbers or were we relying on first transit?

[5:41:04] It comes through us.

[5:41:10] Metro access.

[5:41:13] You all know my storylines, so I won't go into that one.

[5:41:19] The almost well, everything is ingrained as it relates to the overall scores, the area where

[5:41:25] we've seen a little bit of slippage is on the vehicle accidents and we are going to

[5:41:29] begin some refresh of training, looking at we've had a new fleet come in and the course

[5:41:33] of the past 12 months and look at what we need to do to address that as well.

[5:41:37] The abandoned call rates is just something that we've struggled with and a lot of it has

[5:41:40] to do with attendance and volume, but most of it is due to attendance, so that's something

[5:41:45] that we're working on. Metro Rail, we're almost all green. We did have three complaints

[5:41:53] and it's just a wide range. It could be a ticket then the machine that didn't work.

[5:41:57] Many things that play into that. And on average, obviously, we would like to see things going a little bit

[5:42:03] in a different direction and that's something that we're going to be working on in the future as well.

[5:42:07] It's a complaint on the rail.

[5:42:09] Hey Lane, can I ask you do we have August ridership numbers?

[5:42:15] Todd?

[5:42:16] Aye.

[5:42:18] Eight seventy-two versus what was it the month for eight forty?

[5:42:25] Some less than eight seventy-two, right?

[5:42:28] Eight seventy was July ridership.

[5:42:31] August is eight seventy-two.

[5:42:32] Okay, thanks.

[5:42:37] And then the overall customer satisfaction,

[5:42:40] Not where I'd like to see it, I think, you know, our goal should be the green.

[5:42:44] However, we will, our goal for next year will begin moving these numbers in a different direction.

[5:42:49] And that's just an overall view.

[5:42:51] And that's just a compilation of all the other scores.

[5:42:55] And basically the impact that we have on customers.

[5:42:58] So in some areas we're doing well.

[5:43:00] And in some areas, obviously we have some room for improvement.

[5:43:04] That's not to say yellow is a bad score.

[5:43:06] It just means there's an opportunity to do better.

[5:43:11] That's fast as fast as I can go on that one. The next one's the whale.

[5:43:15] Can you find it?

[5:43:18] He's good.

[5:43:19] That's okay.

[5:43:22] Again, a ridership report, we just gave you, and this is...

[5:43:25] It's hard to believe we've been at this six months with rail.

[5:43:30] We've had one security incident, some mechanical failures,

[5:43:35] and one slower on the track.

[5:43:36] Some of that slower, I believe, was related to the weather.

[5:43:39] It was a very security incident of the tongue.

[5:43:42] You know, I knew someone would just have to say that yes it was.

[5:43:47] And now I'm not going to go into any detail on that.

[5:43:52] The service interruptions, I'm going to go through this in detail,

[5:43:56] but you all have the report on what happened when we had the storms

[5:44:00] and how quickly Herzog was able to respond.

[5:44:03] So that's been covered at the diocese well as through the media I believe.

[5:44:07] And then the ridership, I believe that we've had some presentations to committee meeting meetings as well as to the board on some of the efforts that are going forward to look at the ridership and increase it in our efforts as far as marking this

[5:44:25] infrastructure.

[5:44:26] John Hasper, John Home, has presented to you the bridge plan and where they are on that schedule.

[5:44:34] Goian Creek is complete.

[5:44:37] The main road, that little bit of work, we anticipate and October completion on that and

[5:44:42] the railroad right away clean up.

[5:44:45] I hope all of you all have been able to not just notice but enjoy the difference in the

[5:44:49] right align with a lot of the debris that's been removed and some of the mowing efforts

[5:44:53] that's going on.

[5:44:55] The rain, I know we all love the rain, but when you have to maintain the right away.

[5:45:00] The rain's not your friend, but requires a lot of mowing to keep it down, but that's fine.

[5:45:07] FRA, let's talk a little bit about what we have going on. We had committed that on a quarterly basis

[5:45:13] that we would update the Board of Directors. It's in the sunset review as part of our plan on FRA issues going on.

[5:45:20] So we have, as part of our waiver, we are required to provide, present and have reviewed the system safety plan.

[5:45:28] Board member Shavis had an opportunity to join us at the pre-autot when they came in.

[5:45:34] They went through, they met with a lot of staff and it's not just rail staff, they meet with human resources,

[5:45:40] they meet with procurement, representatives, and finance to look at our system and understand.

[5:45:44] From a safety perspective and understand everyone's role in ensuring the safety.

[5:45:51] We had an opportunity, and I had an opportunity to sit in the briefing, and the gentleman, as name as James Brown,

[5:45:58] could not say enough about the responsiveness of staff and the plan that he saw on the initial assessment.

[5:46:05] Keep in mind there's an audit to come, but he could not say enough about how responsive and how prepared that staff had been because he left needing nothing.

[5:46:17] So that's a tremendous accomplishment.

[5:46:19] A lot of that has to do with the systems that are in place the way that we manage the information that we now have at our disposal,

[5:46:25] the way that we're tracking data that, you know, we hyperlink a lot of things, so someone asked for report, we can click on a button, there it is, and so we were able to provide him a significant amount of data.

[5:46:36] The FRA, they are here, doing an inspection on our signals, and they will be here most of the week. I have not heard anything from them.

[5:46:45] No news is good news at this point, but we probably would not have a briefing until late this afternoon, possibly Monday before we hear anything.

[5:46:51] We did have one defect when they were in, I think it was about a week and a half ago.

[5:46:58] And please, there's a difference between a defect and a violation.

[5:47:02] This is not a violation, it is a defect.

[5:47:05] The Hazmat training that is offered by Herzog was not completed yet, and they came in and

[5:47:13] they recognized Hazmat training needed to be completed.

[5:47:15] It was completed September 15th and so that's cleared up.

[5:47:22] Would that?

[5:47:23] I am available for questions.

[5:47:28] Just a quick question on Mr. Royale.

[5:47:30] Was there some problem recently with AC on some of the trends?

[5:47:34] I was just reading a statement article.

[5:47:38] There was, we had a mechanical issue.

[5:47:42] I believe it was two days ago, maybe three days ago.

[5:47:44] But what we were able to do is to have a mechanic meet that unit in route and

[5:47:50] Diagnose and treat as they went forward. We did have a reduction in time speed

[5:47:54] We did have to because we were down to one engine and then they were able to take care of that while they were out in the field and so no one pet

[5:48:03] All right

[5:48:04] Before I leave the diast if there are no more questions

[5:48:08] I would like

[5:48:11] I would like to thank the board for all the support that we received on this Metro Access project.

[5:48:18] I know how difficult the decision was.

[5:48:21] I know how cumbersome the process was.

[5:48:25] I've been here 24 years and to be a part of this and knowing how important it is to the agency.

[5:48:31] I appreciate the opportunity to have done it.

[5:48:33] Thank you.

[5:48:34] Thank you, Elaine, and appreciate your comments in that regard.

[5:48:41] All right, so let's see.

[5:48:43] We now got operations plans.

[5:48:49] Good afternoon.

[5:48:49] I'd like to give you a report on where we always

[5:48:51] sales tags through the month of September.

[5:48:55] Our year today's out receipts total,

[5:48:57] 117.6 million dollars.

[5:48:59] And that's about 5.6 million more than budgeted forecast

[5:49:03] for the year today sales tax revenue.

[5:49:08] That's it.

[5:49:09] As soon as no questions are promised, I have a new EP, then we have to say just keep that

[5:49:15] friend going.

[5:49:17] Well, we'll work hard to keep that straight up.

[5:49:19] Thank you.

[5:49:20] The orange above the gray.

[5:49:22] Thank you very much.

[5:49:23] Appreciate it.

[5:49:24] President's report.

[5:49:26] Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.

[5:49:28] I've got three items that I'd like to brief you on.

[5:49:31] The first is a recognition and I don't think the employee I'm recognizing is actually in

[5:49:35] the room.

[5:49:35] but John Hodges has been an employee here for 14 years, and he has been described by the

[5:49:45] employees here as of the highest integrity and a brilliant mind.

[5:49:52] He has literally held many positions, worn many hats, he's been the manager of facility

[5:49:59] designing construction, the director of capital projects, he's currently the director

[5:50:04] property management, but I understand there have been times when he's done all three of those

[5:50:09] jobs as well as others. So we want to wish him well and the best of luck in his future

[5:50:16] endeavors, the organization will truly miss him. And I'd like to turn it over to you for the next

[5:50:21] trick. Thank you. Yeah, no, I will say that I've worked with John Hodges for a number of years.

[5:50:27] We long before joining the board and he was a great representative of Capitol Metro. I suspect

[5:50:32] we're going to feel his loss, I'd like to take the opportunity to recognize an important

[5:50:40] person that has accepted another opportunity, Terry Garcia Cruz, who as I'm sure everyone

[5:50:47] at least in this room knows, is the General Manager of Star Train and has been since March

[5:50:54] of 2008 and she has taken the position of the CEO and General Manager for Southwest Regional

[5:51:02] transit in Cincinnati. Big opportunity, it's certainly, you know, with 400 buses, what is it,

[5:51:12] 900 employees, 900 employees, you know, a great opportunity, how could anyone pass that up,

[5:51:19] I think, Cincinnati's gain is our loss. So I want to thank you, you've had, you know,

[5:51:26] you performed well in a rough roll at times, but you provided good service to capital

[5:51:32] Metro and we appreciate that and we obviously wish you the very best in your new endeavors

[5:51:38] and I guess your last day is what October 18th. So we've sirbed he's got a little under a

[5:51:43] mug to did Terry Farewell. But again thank you for your service to Capitol Metro and

[5:51:49] Star Trek and we really appreciate it. Any other comments? I just cherry you agreed to buy me a

[5:51:54] with Skyline and Julie, next time I'm in the Cincinnati, all right?

[5:52:01] Thank you.

[5:52:02] Thanks a lot, Terry.

[5:52:05] Okay, I also want to thank the sponsors of a reception that was held for me this last Monday.

[5:52:15] In fact, the event sponsor, organizer, host and probably did a lot more things as here with us today.

[5:52:23] Syria, Israel, and I want to thank her in particular for all the work she did to put together

[5:52:29] what was one of the nicest events that anyone has ever held for me, but it was a group

[5:52:38] of a lot of great community people that came together to welcome me to not only capital

[5:52:44] it for a bit to Austin in this surrounding area and I would like to take a minute to recognize

[5:52:52] the organizations and their respected boards of directors that organized and sponsored

[5:53:00] the event.

[5:53:01] It was the Alliance for Public Transportation, the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce,

[5:53:06] Austin Area Research Organization, Downtown Austin Alliance in Vision Central Texas, Greater

[5:53:13] Austin, Hispanic, Chamber, Real Estate, Council of Austin, and also my friends from TTA, the Texas

[5:53:22] Transit Association, and SWAT at the Southwest Transit Association.

[5:53:27] I actually saw a few people there that I haven't worked with or seen in a very long time.

[5:53:34] So, it was a very heartwarming welcome and I really appreciated and loved

[5:53:43] having you put so much time into doing something so nice for me.

[5:53:47] And then the last item I have, I announced to you with a great deal of, I'm extremely impressed with the amount of work that this board and the staff have put together to respond to the sunset report.

[5:54:07] And we are going to be able to roll out next week, next Thursday, on September 30th, not the 31st,

[5:54:16] the 30th.

[5:54:17] The progress update to the community and it's going to be very impressive.

[5:54:22] There's a lot of significant progress that's been made on many of the recommendations and progress well

[5:54:31] away on some of the others that, because of timing issues, could not have been done to date.

[5:54:37] But I have to mention the significant progress that has been made on these.

[5:54:43] Many of the actions, in fact, were taken to date as a result of a lot of hard work.

[5:54:50] The development of a five-year capital improvement program, policies on Metro Access,

[5:54:55] service changes, implementation of reduced fares and elimination of free fares, policies for

[5:55:02] community involvement and board advisory committees, adding transparency to our budget

[5:55:08] development process, posting online, detailed financial information and a check register

[5:55:14] and increasing our agency reserves.

[5:55:17] I know this staff worked tirelessly for a long time to get many of these recommendations.

[5:55:26] And I want to thank them for their hard work in particular Doug Allen for his leadership

[5:55:32] in making sure that the progress was made on these.

[5:55:37] And as much as I love complimenting the staff and the board on this, I do need to say

[5:55:43] the work's not over. There's still a lot that needs to be done over this next year. We've

[5:55:49] got the very difficult issue of the labor structure to deal with and that's one will be working

[5:55:56] on very quickly. We'll also be continuing very aggressively working on our financial sustainability

[5:56:10] issues and that I believe that's it for now. And that's the end of my report, but I'd

[5:56:16] be happy to answer any questions.

[5:56:17] Any questions or comments?

[5:56:19] Well, I would just say that I know I speak on behalf of the entire board and echoing the

[5:56:25] praise of the organization for implementing so quickly, implementing the recommendations

[5:56:31] of the Sunset Report. Those that we felt as a board made sense. It's been a long hard process,

[5:56:37] would also say the same to all of the staff members that are still here. I'd also like to

[5:56:43] thank the members from the community that stuck with us, let's see. So what do we now, six-hour

[5:56:49] board meeting go in from the chamber? We appreciate it, Celia, from APT, Mr. McCloud, from the community

[5:56:55] at large. Thanks a lot, y'all, you know, sitting through this whole thing means a lot, and I recognize

[5:57:01] that they aren't. So any other questions or comments that we can, I'll just make one comment.

[5:57:10] That's six hour of war, but it's still a lot short of a city council meeting.

[5:57:13] Yeah, that's true. So maybe take some pride in that. I would, you know, so we can enjoy all of the

[5:57:20] progress for about five minutes and then get started on the next round of things. Most importantly,

[5:57:25] So thank you with that. I will adjourn this meeting of the Capitol Metro Board of Directors at 357 P.M.

[5:58:01] I don't know how to get out of the park, I don't know how to get out of the park.

Board of Directors Regular Meeting

Transcript