napa valley transportation authority · 13.1 approval of next regular meeting date of october 19,...
TRANSCRIPT
Wednesday, September 21, 20161:30 PM
Napa Valley Transportation Authority625 Burnell Street
Napa, CA 94559
NVTA Conference Room
NVTA Board of Directors
All materials relating to an agenda item for an open session of a regular meeting of the NVTA Board of
Directors are posted on our website at https://nctpa.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx at least 72 hours prior
to the meeting and will be available for public inspection, on and after at the time of such distribution,
in the office of the Secretary of the NVTA Board of Directors, 625 Burnell Street, Napa, California
94559, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., except for NVTA
holidays. Materials distributed to the present members of the Board at the meeting will be available for
public inspection at the public meeting if prepared by the members of the NVTA Board or staff and
after the public meeting if prepared by some other person. Availability of materials related to agenda
items for public inspection does not include materials which are exempt from public disclosure under
Government Code sections 6253.5, 6254, 6254.3, 6254.7, 6254.15, 6254.16, or 6254.22.
Members of the public may speak to the Board on any item at the time the Board is considering the
item. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip, which is located on the table near the entryway, and then
present the slip to the Board Secretary. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Board
on any issue not on today’s agenda under Public Comment. Speakers are limited to three minutes.
This Agenda shall be made available upon request in alternate formats to persons with a disability .
Persons requesting a disability-related modification or accommodation should contact Karrie
Sanderlin, NVTA Board Secretary, at (707) 259-8631 during regular business hours, at least 48 hours
prior to the time of the meeting.
This Agenda may also be viewed online by visiting the NVTA website at
https://nctpa.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx
Note: Where times are indicated for agenda items they are approximate and intended as estimates
only, and may be shorter or longer, as needed.
Agenda - Final
September 21, 2016NVTA Board of Directors Agenda - Final
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Roll Call
4. Adoption of the Agenda
5. Public Comment
6. Chairperson’s, Board Members’ and Metropolitan Transportation
Commissioner's Update
7. Director's Update
8. Caltrans' Update
Note: Where times are indicated for the agenda items, they are approximate and intended as
estimates only and may be shorter or longer as needed.
9. PRESENTATIONS
9.1 2016 Napa Commute Challenge
The Board will acknowledge the overall winner of the 2016 Napa
Commute Challenge.
Recommendation:
1:40 p.m.Estimated Time:
10. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (10.1 - 10.5)
10.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2016 (Karrie
Sanderlin) (Pages 8-14)
Board action will approve the NVTA meeting minutes of July 20,
2016.
Recommendation:
1:50 p.m.Estimated Time:
Draft MinutesAttachments:
Page 2 Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/14/2016
September 21, 2016NVTA Board of Directors Agenda - Final
10.2 Resolution No. 16-22 Adopting the Transportation Fund for
Clean Air (TFCA) Program Manager Projects List for Fiscal
Year End (FYE) 2017 (Diana Meehan) (Pages 15-32)
Board action will approve Resolution No. 16-22 adopting the TFCA
Program Manager Projects List for FYE 2017 allocating $169,196.
Recommendation:
1:50 p.m.Estimated Time:
Staff ReportAttachments:
10.3 Resolution No. 16-23 Adopting the Napa Valley Transportation
Authority (NVTA) Title VI Program for Fiscal Years 2017-2019
(Rebecca Schenck) (Pages 33-97)
Board action will adopt the NVTA Title VI Program Policy for FY
2017-2019.
Recommendation:
1:50 p.m.Estimated Time:
Staff ReportAttachments:
10.4 Change Order Authorization for Purchase of Three (3)
Paratransit Vehicles from Creative Bus Sales (Antonio
Onorato) (Pages 98-101)
Board action will authorize the Executive Director to execute an
amended Purchase Order with Creative Bus Sales for upgrades
associated with the Vine Go rebranding strategy in the amount not
to exceed $23,000.
Recommendation:
1:50 p.m.
Estimated Time:
Staff ReportAttachments:
Page 3 Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/14/2016
September 21, 2016NVTA Board of Directors Agenda - Final
10.5 Solano-Napa Travel Demand Model Agreement (Danielle
Schmitz) (Pages 102-110)
Board action will authorize the Executive Director to enter into an
agreement with Solano Transportation Authority for model
refinement and validation to update the Solano-Napa Travel
Demand Model in an amount not to exceed $60,000.
Recommendation:
1:50 p.m.
Estimated Time:
Staff ReportAttachments:
11. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
11.1 2017 Federal and State Legislative Advocacy Program and
Project Priorities and Legislative and State Bill Matrix Update
(Kate Miller) (Pages 111-139)
Board action will (1) approve the 2017 Federal and State
Legislative Advocacy Program and Project Priorities, and (2)
receive the Federal Legislative update from Steve Palmer, Van
Scoyac Associates, and the State Legislative update from Steve
Wallauch, Platinum Advisors.
Recommendation:
1:50 p.m.
Estimated Time:
Staff ReportAttachments:
11.2 Approval of Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
Agreement No. 16-14 for Legal Services (Kate Miller) (Page
140-221)
Board action will authorize the Executive Director to execute NVTA
Agreement No. 16-14 with Renee Sloan Holtzman Saki LLP for
legal services for a term of three (3) years with up to two (2)
one-year options in an amount not to exceed $375,000.
Recommendation:
2:10 p.m.Estimated Time:
Staff ReportAttachments:
Page 4 Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/14/2016
September 21, 2016NVTA Board of Directors Agenda - Final
11.3 Napa Valley Vine Trail Oak Knoll Project (Kate Miller) (Pages
222-224)
Board action will (1) authorize the executive director to execute
contract change orders (CCO #62&63) to Contract No. 14-15 with
Ghilotti Bros. Inc. (GBI) in the amount not to exceed $178,705.79
bringing the total contract amount to $6,945,889.66 and (2)
approve the staff recommendation to move $38,403.41 from the
project design budget Agreement # 12-29P005 to construction and
$27,887.26 from saving in the Pacific Supply materials Agreement
# 15-1016 to construction, and (3) authorize the executive director
to expend up to a total of $198,000 in new funding ($19,294.21 in
addition to the $178,7016 signal work CCO) to complete the
project.
Recommendation:
2:20 p.m.Estimated Time:
Staff ReportAttachments:
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
13. ADJOURNMENT
13.1 Approval of Next Regular Meeting Date of October 19, 2016 at
1:30 p.m. and Adjournment
2:45 p.m.Estimated Time:
I hereby certify that the agenda for the above stated meeting was posted at a location freely
accessible to members of the public at the NVTA offices, 625 Burnell Street, Napa CA by 5:00 p.m. on
Friday September 16, 2016.
___________________________________________Karalyn E. Sanderlin, NVTA Board Secretary
Page 5 Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/14/2016
Karalyn E. Sanderlin (e-sign) September 14, 2016
Glossary of Acronyms
Latest Revision: 09/16
AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADA American with Disabilities Act
ATP Active Transportation Program
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit District
BATA Bay Area Toll Authority
BRT Bus Rapid Transit
CAP Climate Action Plan
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CIP Capital Investment Program
CMA Congestion Management Agency
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
CMP Congestion Management Program
CTP Countywide Transportation Plan
COC Communities of Concern
CTC California Transportation Commission
DED Draft Environmental Document
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EJ Environmental Justice
FAS Federal Aid Secondary
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FY Fiscal Year
GHG Greenhouse Gas
HBP Highway Bridge Program
HBRR Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
HIP Housing Incentive Program
HOT High Occupancy Toll
HOV High Occupancy Vehicle
HR3 High Risk Rural Roads
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HTF Highway Trust Fund
IFB Invitation for Bid
ITIP State Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
JARC Job Access and Reverse Commute
LIFT Low-Income Flexible Transportation
LOS Level of Service
MAP 21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century
Act
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MTS Metropolitan Transportation System
ND Negative Declaration
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOAH Natural Occurring Affordable Housing
NOC Notice of Completion
NOD Notice of Determination
NOP Notice of Preparation
NVTA Napa Valley Transportation Authority
NVTA-TA Napa Valley Transportation Authority-Tax Agency
OBAG One Bay Area Grant
PA&ED Project Approval Environmental Document
P3 Public-Private Partnership
PCI Pavement Condition Index
PCA Priority Conservation Area
PDA Priority Development Areas
PID Project Initiation Document
PMS Pavement Management System
Prop. 42 Statewide Initiative that requires a portion of gasoline sales tax revenues be designated to transportation purposes
PSE Plans, Specifications and Estimates
PSR Project Study Report
PTA Public Transportation Account
RACC Regional Agency Coordinating Committee
RFP Request for Proposal
RFQ Request for Qualifications
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RM2 Regional Measure 2 (Bridge Toll)
6
Glossary of Acronyms
Latest Revision: 09/16
ROW Right of Way
RTEP Regional Transit Expansion Program
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SAFE Service Authority for Freeways and Expressways
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act-A Legacy for Users
SB 375 Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act 2008
SCS Sustainable Community Strategy
SHOPP State Highway Operation and Protection Program
SNCI Solano Napa Commuter Information
SNTDM Solano Napa Travel Demand Model
SR State Route
SRTS Safe Routes to School
SOV Single-Occupant Vehicle
STA State Transit Assistance
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
STP Surface Transportation Program
TCM Transportation Control measure
TCRP Traffic Congestion Relief Program
TDA Transportation Development Act
TDM Transportation Demand Management Transportation Demand Model
TE Transportation Enhancement
TEA Transportation Enhancement Activities
TEA 21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
TFCA Transportation Fund for Clean Air
TIP Transportation Improvement Program
TLC Transportation for Livable Communities
TLU Transportation and Land Use
TMP Traffic Management Plan
TMS Transportation Management System
TOAH Transit Oriented Affordable Housing
TOD Transit-Oriented Development
TOS Transportation Operations Systems
TPA Transit Priority Area
TPP Transit Priority Project Areas
VHD Vehicle Hours of Delay
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
7
625 Burnell Street
Napa, CA 94559
Napa Valley Transportation
AuthorityMeeting Minutes - Draft
NVTA Board of Directors
1:30 PM NVTA Conference RoomWednesday, July 20, 2016
1. Call to Order
Chair White called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m.
2. Pledge of Allegiance
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited at the preceding Napa Valley Transportation Authority-Tax
Agency (NVTA-TA) meeting.
3. Roll Call
Leon Garcia
James Barnes
Chris Canning
Jill Techel
Keith Caldwell
Mark Luce
Mary Luros
Belia Ramos
Margie Mohler
Paul Dohring
John F. Dunbar
Peter White
4. Adoption of the Agenda
Motion MOVED by CANNING, SECONDED by GARCIA to APPROVE Adoption of the Agenda.
Motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Garcia, Barnes, Canning, Techel, Caldwell, Luce, Luros, Ramos, Mohler, Dohring, Dunbar,
and White
24 -
5. Public Comment
Public Comment provided by the following individuals:
James Hinton, Napa Resident
Phillip Sales, Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition
6. Chairperson’s, Board Members’ and Metropolitan Transportation
Commissioner's (MTC) Update
Board Members' Update
Board Member Canning thanked Kate Miller and Matthew Wilcox for attending the City of
Calistoga Council meeting to address concerns with inconsistencies in the Vine Shuttle service.
MTC Commissioner's Update
Board Member Luce reported on MTC activities to date.
Page 1Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/13/2016
September 21, 2016NVTA Agenda Item 10.1
Action Requested: APPROVE
8
July 20, 2016NVTA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes - Draft
7. Director's Update
Kate Miller, Executive Director
• Introduced the 2016 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Summer Internship
Program interns: Emilia Garcia and Sarahi Alvarez.
• Announced that the ribbon cutting for the Napa Valley Vine Trail continues to be delayed do to
signal issues.
• Announced that a public meeting on the proposed Sheehy Court maintenance facility will be
held at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center (Board room) on August 17th at 5:30 p.m.
• Announced that building on the public's enthusiasm for the Pokémon Go game, the Vine is
offering a free transit ride on Saturday July 23, 2016. Riders aren't required to play the game to
ride free, but riding the Vine offers a unique way in which to play.
8. Caltrans' Update
No oral report was given by Caltrans, however the July 2016 Caltrans Reporting memo was
provided for review.
9. PUBLIC HEARING (TIME CERTAIN 1:40 P.M.)
9.1 Public Hearing on the Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan; Approval of Resolution No.
16-15 Approving and Certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Napa
Countywide Pedestrian Plan and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program; Circulate the Notice of Decision; and Approval of the Napa Countywide
Pedestrian Plan (Diana Meehan) (Pages 9-16)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Chair White opened the Public Hearing at 2:02 p.m.
Staff reviewed the Napa Countywide Pedestrian Plan as well as the process for the plan
development.
As there were no public comment, Chair White closed the Public Hearing at 2:15 p.m.
Board action approved the following:
(1) Motion MOVED by CALDWELL, SECONDED by GARCIA to APPROVE Resolution No. 16-15
approving and certifying the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Napa Countywide Pedestrian
Plan and adopting the Mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program.
(2) Motion MOVED by LUROS, SECONDED by RAMOS to APPROVE directing staff to circulate a
Notice of Decision.
(3) Motion MOVED by RAMOS, SECONDED by CANNING to APPROVE adopting the Napa
Countywide Pedestrian Plan.
Motions carried by the following vote:
Aye: Garcia, Barnes, Canning, Techel, Caldwell, Luce, Luros, Ramos, Mohler, Dohring, Dunbar,
and White
24 -
Page 2Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/13/2016
9
July 20, 2016NVTA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes - Draft
10. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS (10.1 - 10.8)
Consent Item 10.1 was pulled for separate consideration.
Motion MOVED by TECHEL, SECONDED by DOHRING to APPROVE Consent Item 10.2-10.8.
Motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Garcia, Barnes, Canning, Techel, Caldwell, Luce, Luros, Ramos, Mohler, Dohring, Dunbar,
and White
24 -
10.1 Approval of Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2016 (Karrie Sanderlin) (Pages 17-22)
Draft MinutesAttachments:
Board action approved the meeting minutes of June 15, 2016.
Motion MOVED by TECHEL, SECONDED by DOHRING, with RAMOS and MOHLER ABSTAINING,
Consent Item 10.1. Motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Garcia, Barnes, Canning, Techel, Caldwell, Luce, Luros, Dohring, Dunbar, and White21 -
Abstain: Ramos, and Mohler3 -
10.2 Adoption of Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Facilities Maintenance Plan
(Antonio Onorato) (Pages 23-94)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Board action approved the NVTA Facilities Maintenance Plan.
10.3 Resolution No. 16-16 Adopting of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority
Disadvantage Business Enterprise (DBE) Program and Goal Setting for 2016-18
(Antonio Onorato) (Pages 95-128)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Board action approved Resolution No. 16-16 adopting the DBE program and DBE goal of 2.2%
for Fiscal Years 2016-2018.
10.4 Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Overall Work Program for Fiscal Year
(FY) 2016-17 (Antonio Onorato) (Pages 129-198)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Board action approved the NVTA Overall Work Program for Fiscal Year 2016-17.
10.5 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program (Antonio Onorato) (Pages 199-290)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Board action approved and adopted the EEO Program created by Transdev Services, Inc. as it
relates to the operations of transit services.
Page 3Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/13/2016
10
July 20, 2016NVTA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes - Draft
10.6 Active Transportation Advisory Committee (ATAC) Member Appointment (Diana
Meehan) (Pages 291-297)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Board action approved the appointments of Trinity Talbott and Joel King to the ATAC.
10.7 Resolution No. 16-17 Amending the Bylaws of the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC)
(Danielle Schmitz) (Pages 298-309)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Board action approved Resolution No. 16-17 amending the Bylaws of the CAC.
10.8 Resolution No. 16-21 Authorizing the Filing for, Acceptance of, and Execution of all
Documents and Instruments Related to Proposition 1B, and Other State Law
Administered by the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) (Antonio
Onorato) (Pages 310-314)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Board action approved Resolution No. 16-21 authorizing the submittal of the FY 2015-16 Cal OES
Investment Justification grant application in the amount of $9,803 for the purchase of security
cameras for Vine vehicles.
11. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Page 4Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/13/2016
11
July 20, 2016NVTA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes - Draft
11.1 Resolution No. 16-18 Authorizing the Execution of Transit Operations Services
Agreement No. 2016-12 (Antonio Onorato) (Pages 315-343)
Staff ReportAttachments:
At the June 20, 2016 meeting, the Board authorized the NVTA Executive Director to conduct final
negotiations with Transdev Services, Inc. for Vine transit operations and maintenance services.
The contract term is for up to seven (7) years and the full cost, inclusive of all options is
summarized in Table 1 below. Additionally, a 5% yearly contingency will be added to the budget
to allow for minor fluctuation in the services assigned to the contract.
Table 1: Summary of Best and Final cost- Transdev Services
Budget Impact Total
Base Year 1 Sep 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017 $ 6,880,848
Base Year 2 July 1, 2017 - June 30, 2018 $ 8,738,479
Base Year 3 July 1, 2018 - June 30, 2019 $ 9,034,490
Base Year 4 July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020 $ 9,348,650
Base Year 5 July 1, 2020 - June 30, 2021 $ 9,666,045
Total Base Years $43,668,512
Option Year 1 July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 $ 9,996,593
Option Year 2 July 1, 2022 - June 30, 2023
Total Option Years
$10,334,375
$20,330,968
Total Contract Period $63,999,480
Motion MOVED by GARCIA, SECONDED by CALDWELL to APPROVE Resolution No. 16-18
authorizing the Executive Director to execute Agreement No. 2016-12 with Transdev Serviced,
Inc. for transit operations services. The proposed award is a five (5) year base contract from FY
2016-17 through FY 2020-21 for $43,668,512 and two (2) one-year options through FY 2022-23 for
$20,330,968 for a total contract amount of $63,999,480. Motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Garcia, Barnes, Canning, Techel, Caldwell, Luce, Luros, Ramos, Mohler, Dohring, Dunbar,
and White
24 -
11.2 Authorization to Proceed with Sheehy Court Properties Acquisition Process (Antonio
Onorato) (Pages 344-348)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Board action authorized the Executive Director to proceed with the acquisition of the Sheehy
Court properties.
Motion MOVED by CALDWELL, SECONDED by CANNING to APPROVE (1) authorizing the
Executive Director to extend the due diligence and complete the purchase of the Sheehy Court
parcels taking all actions necessary pending the completion of the environmental determination
and general counsel legal review for Sheehy Court parcels - Assessor's Parcel Numbers
057-250-025 and 057-250-036, and (2) authorizing the Executive Director to terminate the
purchase agreement should further investigation reveal the property is not suitable for its
intended use. Motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Garcia, Barnes, Canning, Techel, Caldwell, Luce, Luros, Ramos, Mohler, Dohring, Dunbar,
and White
24 -
Page 5Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/13/2016
12
July 20, 2016NVTA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes - Draft
11.3 Resolution No. 16-19 Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) Mobility on Demand (MOD) Grant Program and Committing the
Necessary Non-Federal Funds (Antonio Onorato) (Pages 349-353)
Staff ReportAttachments:
The FTA released a Notice of Funding Opportunity solicitation and the availability of $8.0 million
in new funding to demonstrate and evaluate innovative approaches to integrated Mobility on
Demand (MOD) solutions within a pubic transportation framework. NVTA proposed to partner
with Via Analytics and the University of California at Berkeley to develop MOD solutions to
improve coordination between the Vine Express Bus service and door-to-door on demand
service.
Motion MOVED by TECHEL, SECONDED by GARCIA to APPROVE Resolution No. 16-19
authorizing the filing of an application for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) grant for the
Public Transportation Innovation Funding Opportunity Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox
Demonstration Program and committing the necessary non-federal funds. Motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye: Garcia, Barnes, Canning, Techel, Caldwell, Luce, Luros, Ramos, Mohler, Dohring, Dunbar,
and White
24 -
11.4 Proposed Organizational Restructure of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority
(NVTA) (Karrie Sanderlin) (Pages 354-362)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Recent staff changes, additional contracting responsibilities and to better serve the needs of the
Authority, staff requested that the Board approve a revised Organizational Restructure, a new
part-time Accounting Technician position, the reclassification of the Public Information Officer to
a full-time position, and the retitling of two Assistant/Associate Program Planner positions to
Transportation Program Planner and Policy Analyst positions.
Motion MOVED by CALDWELL, SECONDED by MOHLER to APPROVE (1) the Organizational
Restructure of NVTA (as provided in Attachment 1); (2) a new part-time Accounting Technician
position, job classification, and salary range of $33,881-$41,004 (as outlined in Attachment 3); (3)
the reclassification of the Public Information Officer (PIO) position from a part-time position to a
full-time position and the salary range of $73,752-$88,464; and (4) retitling two (2)
Assistant/Associate Program Planner/Administrator positions to two (2) Transportation Program
Planner and Policy Analyst positions. Motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Garcia, Barnes, Canning, Techel, Caldwell, Luce, Luros, Ramos, Mohler, Dohring, Dunbar,
and White
24 -
Page 6Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/13/2016
13
July 20, 2016NVTA Board of Directors Meeting Minutes - Draft
11.5 Resolution No. 16-20 Approving the FY 2016-17 Salary Ranges for Napa Valley
Transportation Authority (NVTA) Job Classifications (Karrie Sanderlin) (Pages
363-368)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Board action approved the FY 2016-17 Salary Ranges for NVTA Job Classifications based upon
the Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) ending December 2015 of 2.6%. The CPI adjustment
applies to the salary ranges only and does not imply that employees will receive a raise. Actual
employee salary adjustments are based on each individual employee's performance and
awarded at the time of their annual performance evaluation.
Motion MOVED by LUROS, SECONDED by RAMOS to APPROVE Resolution No. 16-20 approving
the FY 2016-17 Salary Ranges for NVTA Job Classifications based upon the Bay Area Consumer
Price Index (CPI) ending December 2015 of 2.6%. Motion carried by the following vote:
Aye: Garcia, Barnes, Canning, Techel, Caldwell, Luce, Luros, Ramos, Mohler, Dohring, Dunbar,
and White
24 -
11.6 Federal and State Legislative Updates and State Bill Matrix (Kate Miller) (Pages
369-390)
Staff ReportAttachments:
Information Only / No Action Taken
The Board received the monthly Federal and State Legislative update and bill matrix.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None
13. ADJOURNMENT
13.1 Approval of Next Regular Meeting Date of September 21, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. and
Adjournment
The next regular meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.
The meeting was adjourned by Chair White at 2:55 p.m.
____________________________________
Karalyn E. Sanderlin, NVTA Board Secretary
Page 7Napa Valley Transportation Authority Printed on 9/13/2016
14
September 21, 2016 NVTA Agenda Item 10.1
Continued From: New Action Requested: APPROVE
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Board Agenda Letter ______________________________________________________________________
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director REPORT BY: Diana Meehan, Associate Planner
(707) 259-8327 / Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 16-22 Adopting the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program Manager Projects List for Fiscal Year End (FYE) 2017
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION That the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Board approve Resolution No. 16-22 (Attachment 1) allocating $169,196 and adopting the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program Manager Projects List for Fiscal Year End (FYE) 2017. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NVTA adopts a list of projects annually to be funded with TFCA Program Manager Funds generated under Assembly Bill 434 (AB 434). The funds come from a four-dollar vehicle license fee imposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and are known as Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA). Forty percent of these funds are returned to the NVTA for distribution to local projects. The remaining sixty percent is allocated by the BAAQMD under the Regional Program. Projects must have an air quality benefit and be cost effective. BAAQMD rules and statutes only allow funds to be retained for two years unless an extension is requested. Bicycle projects are not allowed an extension and funds programmed to bicycle projects must be expended in 2 years. The TFCA program can fund a wide range of project types, including the construction of new bicycle lanes: shuttle and feeder bus services to train stations; ridesharing programs to encourage carpool and transit use; bicycle facility improvements such as bicycle racks and lockers; electric vehicles and electric vehicle infrastructure; and arterial management projects that reduce traffic congestion such as signal interconnect projects.
15
NVTA Agenda Letter Wednesday, September 21, 2016 Agenda Item 10.2
Page 2 of 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________ COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) recommends that the NVTA Board approve Resolution 16-22 and adopt the TFCA Program Manager Projects List for Fiscal Year Ending (FYE) 2017 at their September 1, 2016 meeting. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Staff Report 2. Public Comment 3. Motion, Second, Discussion and Vote FISCAL IMPACT Is there a Fiscal Impact? Yes, TFCA eligible projects totaling $169,196 (including administrative costs) will be funded with FYE 2017 revenues. Is it currently budgeted? Yes. Where is it budgeted? FYE 2017 funds. Future fiscal impact? No. Consequences if not approved? TFCA FYE 2017 Projects will not be funded. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) is a grant program, funded by a $4 surcharge on motor vehicles registered in the Bay Area. This generates approximately $22 million per year in revenues. The purpose of the TFCA program is to provide grants to implement the most cost-effective projects in the Bay Area that will decrease motor vehicle emissions, and thereby improve air quality. NVTA adopts a list of projects annually to be funded by the TFCA Program Manager funds. Napa County has approximately $203,292 in Program Manager Funds for FYE 2017. This amount includes $9,947 set aside for Administration costs for NVTA in the FYE 2017 Expenditure Plan, leaving $193,345 for eligible projects. On March 16, 2016 the NVTA Board approved the expenditure plan and opened a call for projects for the TFCA Program Manager Funds which closed on April 15, 2016. Three applications were received, but only two met cost effectiveness requirements. The call for projects was extended by the Board at their May 18 meeting. One additional project was received. The proposed final list of projects for FYE 2017 is shown in Table 1 below. All projects have undergone a cost effective analysis and are eligible to receive funds. Approved projects will be submitted to the BAAQMD.
16
NVTA Agenda Letter Wednesday, September 21, 2016 Agenda Item 10.2
Page 3 of 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________ All three projects are at the maximum allowed cost effectiveness, leaving $24,149 in available funds for future programming in FYE 2018. Table 1: Proposed FYE 2017 TFCA Program Manager Projects
FYE 2017 TFCA Expenditures Amount
Administration Costs for FYE 2017 $ 9,947
City of Calistoga-Electric Vehicle Charging Stations $ 8,000
City of American Canyon-Donaldson Way Sidewalk Project $101,249
SNCI-Napa Commute Challenge (2 years) $ 50,000
TOTAL $ 169,196
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachments : (1) Resolution No. 16-22
(2) FYE 2017 TFCA Applications
17
ATTACHMENT 1 NVTA Board Agenda Item 10.2
September 21, 2016
RESOLUTION No. 16-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (NVTA)
ADOPTING THE TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR (TFCA) PROGRAM MANAGER FINAL LIST OF PROJECTS FOR
FISCAL YEAR END (FYE) 2017
WHEREAS, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) has imposed a vehicle license fee as authorized under Assembly Bill 434 to implement actions that will help clean the air; and
WHEREAS, that program is known as the Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager funds; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 434 requires the designation of an overall program manager to receive forty percent of the fees generated in the county to be expended for the improvement of air quality; and
WHEREAS, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) has been designated the overall program manager for the County of Napa; and
WHEREAS, the NVTA has carefully considered the requests it has received for AB 434 funds following the standards for weighing such requests as adopted by the Board.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Napa Valley Transportation Authority adopts the following expenditures for FYE 2017 overall program manager funds:
Project Descriptions
NVTA Administration Costs (17NAP00)
City of Calistoga Electric Vehicle Charging Stations (17NAP01) – City of Calistoga will use TFCA funds to purchase and install charging stations.
City of American Canyon Donaldson Way Sidewalk Project (17NAP02) – City of American Canyon will use TFCA funds to construct a sidewalk along Donaldson Way.
Solano-Napa Commuter Information Napa Commute Challenge (17NAP03) – SNCI will use TFCA funds to fund and administer the 2017 and 2018 Napa Commute Challenge, including marketing materials, outreach, commute incentives and prizes.
18
Resolution No. 16-22
Page 2 of 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Napa Valley Transportation Authority has
determined that these expenditures are the most cost-effective and appropriate uses of these funds to minimize harmful air pollutants.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Executive Director or designee is authorized to submit or request all necessary information to or from other agencies on behalf of the NVTA, and to execute any other documents or certifications to gain and expend these funds as directed. Passed and adopted this 21st day of September, 2016. _____________________ Ayes: Peter White, NVTA Chair Nays: Absent: ATTEST: ____________________________________ Karalyn E. Sanderlin, NVTA Board Secretary APPROVED: Jeffrey M. Richard (via e-signature) Jeffrey M. Richard, NVTA Legal Counsel Date: September 12, 2016
19
Appendix A
PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Project Number: 17NAP01
B. Project Title: Calistoga EV Charge Station
C. TFCA County Program Manager Funds Allocated: $8,000
D. TFCA Regional Funds Awarded (if applicable):$0
E. Total TFCA Funds Allocated (sum of C and D):$8,000
F. Total Project Cost: $14,500
G. Project Description:
The City of Calistoga will use TFCA funds to install a dual port (2) level 2 electric vehicle charge station.
Currently, the City of Calistoga does not have any public EV charge stations. The City plans to purchase a dual port level 2 EV Charge station from ChargePoint, which offers a program to track usage and calculate GHG emission reductions. The dual port station will be installed at 1307 Washington Street, a central downtown public parking lot utilized by residents and tourists.
According to the Calistoga Chamber of Commerce, Calistoga had 1.2 million visitors in 2014. The majority of Calistoga tourists are from the Bay Area, which is roughly 148 miles round trip making Calistoga currently out of range for most EV drivers. Through the installation of a dual port charge station, Calistoga could increase the number of EV visitors by 3,285. Visitors will be given 24 hour access to the charge station, which will enable Calistoga to offer 48 hours of charge time per day.
H. Final Report Content: Final Report form and final Cost Effectiveness Worksheet
See attached Final Report form Clean Air Vehicles and Infrastructure and final Cost Effectiveness Worksheet
I. Attach a completed Cost-effectiveness Worksheet and any other information used to evaluate the proposed project.
J. Comments (if any): See attached site plan for location
ATTACHMENT 2NVTA Board Agenda Item 10.1
September 21, 2016
20
LIGHT-DUTY AND LIGHT HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE PROJECTSFYE 2017 TFCA County Program Manager Fund WorksheetVersion 2017.0, updated 2/05/16
General Information Tab: Complete areas shaded in yellow.
Project Number (17XXXYY) 17NAP01
Project Title Calistoga EV Charging Station
Project Type Code (e.g., 7a) 12b
County (2-3 character abbreviation) NAP
Worksheet Calculated By Anais Hall
Date of Submission 4/15/2016
Project SponsorProject Sponsor Organization City of Calistoga
Public Agency? (Y or N) Y
Contact Name Anais Hall
Email Address [email protected]
Phone Number 707-942-2784
Mailing Address 414 Washington St
City Calistoga
State CA
Zip 94515
Project ScheduleProject Start Date 7/1/2016
Project Completion Date 7/1/2018
Final Report to CMA
21
LIGHT-DUTY AND LIGHT HEAVY-DUTY VEHICLE PROJECTSFYE 2017 TFCA County Progam Manager Fund WorksheetVersion 2017.0, updated 2/05/16
Calculations Tab: Complete areas shaded in yellow only.
Cost Effectiveness Inputs# Years Effectiveness: 5
Total Project Cost: $14,500TFCA Cost 40%: $8,000
TFCA Cost 60%: TFCA Regional Fund Proj. #: (If applicable)
*Total TFCA Cost: $8,000 *Should equal Total Amount Requested column (in table below)
Emission Reduction CalculationsPurchase/Lease of New Vehicles
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U
Vehicle Unit #/IDIncremental
CostAmount
RequestedCurrent
Standard
New Vehicle
Std.
Gross Veh. Weight (lbs.)
Avg Annual Miles
Current Year Emissions Standard (LEV)-- See Emission Factors Table
(gr/mi)
Proposed Vehicle Emission Std. -- See Emission Factors Table (gr/mi)
Emission Reductions (gr/yr)
Cost-Effectiveness ($ / weighted
ton)
Vehicle NOx ROG PM CO2 NOx ROG PM CO2 NOx ROG PM CO2SAMPLE Hybrid #13 $4,000 $500 LEV SULEV Up to 8500 10,000 0.06 0.08 0.01 415 0.02 0.01 0.01 415 400 700 0 0 $82,473
1 charger na $4,000 LEV ZEV Up to 8500 131,400 0.06 0.08 0.01 415 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 7,884 10,512 1,314 42,442,200 $16,2452 charger na $4,000 LEV ZEV Up to 8500 131,400 0.06 0.08 0.01 415 0.00 0.00 0.00 92 7,884 10,512 1,314 42,442,200 $16,2453 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!4 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!5 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!6 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!7 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!8 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!9 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
10 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!11 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!12 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!13 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!14 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!15 LEV 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0!
* Total Amount Requested $8,000 Totals 15,768 21,024 2,628 84,884,400
Cost-Effectiveness Results for Entire Project Annual Lifetime1 ROG Emissions Reduced 0.023 0.116 Tons2 NOx Emissions Reduced 0.017 0.087 Tons3 PM Emissions Reduced 0.003 0.014 Tons4 Weighted PM Emissions Reduced 0.058 0.290 Tons5 CO2 Emissions Reduced 93.57 467.84 Tons6 Unweighted Emission Reductions (ROG, NOx & PM) 0.04 0.22 Tons7 Unweighted TFCA Cost Effectiveness (ROG, NOx & PM) $36,822 /Ton
8 $16,245 /TonTFCA Project Cost - Cost Effectiveness (ROG, NOx & Weighted PM)
22
Notes & AssumptionsProvide all assumptions, rationales, and references for figures used in calculations.
Calistoga does not offer any EV Charging stations. According to the Calistoga Chamber of Commerce, Calistoga had 1.2 million visitors in 2014.The majority of Calistoga tourists are from Bay Area cities, which are roughly 74 miles (SF to Calistoga) away making Calistoga inaccessible to most EV drivers. Assuming visitors can be fully charged in 5 hrs, a dual port charging station would support roughly 8 visitors a day.This would increase the number of EV trips by 3,285 annually.
EV Charging Station Expected Use24 hours per day
720 hours per month8760 hours annually
*Stations are accessible 24hrs / day.Level 2 [charging] adds about 10-20 miles of range per hour of charging time, depending on the vehicle.U.S. Department of Energy. (2013). Developing Infrastructure to Charge Plug-In Electric Vehicles.Retrieved from http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure.htmlUsing the average rate of 15 miles of range per hour of charging time, the average annual miles from electric charge wasdetermined by multiplying this value with the expected annual usage for each of the new electric vehicle charge ports.
Average Annual Miles per EV Charge Station 131,400 miles
It can be assumed that with the new electric vehicle charging station in place, people with plug-in hybrid electric vehicles willhave a place to recharge their vehicle's battery and thus, 131,400 miles per year per station will be driven using electric charge ratherthan using the conventional gasoline engine. The "Calcs" tab of this spreadsheet uses the rate of 131,400 miles as well as the dataprovided in the "Emissions Factors" tab from the California Air Resource Board to determine cost effectiveness of the project.
$7,210 ChargePoint CT4021$100 Shipping$577 Tax$840 Extended Warranty (after 1 yr manufactures warranty)
Cost information
$560 Network (per year)$2,500 Installation
$14,500 Total Cost
23
2 0 1 1
CITY OF CALISTOGA
PE
T.
FO
RE
ST
R
D.
WASHING
TON STR
EET
FIRST STREET
VICINITY MAP
1307 Washington Street Charging Stations
Two PEV Charging Stations
24
PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Project Number: 17NAP02
B. Project Title: Donaldson Way Sidewalk Gap Closure Project (TR16-2600)
C. TFCA County Program Manager Funds Allocated: $101,249
D. TFCA Regional Funds Awarded (if applicable):$______________
E. Total TFCA Funds Allocated (sum of C and D):$101,249
F. Total Project Cost: $500,000
G. Project Description:
Grantee will use TFCA funds to construct pedestrian and bicycle improvements to close the gap
in sidewalk between American Canyon H.S. and Middle School. This project will create a
continuous path between the east and west sides of the City. Most importantly the project will
provide a safe path for both middle and high school students, significantly increasing the number
of students who walk to school. The project also provides a path to the City’s recreation facilities
such as the Community Center, Aquatic Center, Boys and Girls Club and parks for residents
living on the east side or SR29. The project consists of approximately 1,800 LF of 5 Ft wide curb
adjacent sidewalk and Class II bike lane on Donaldson Way West from Carolyn Drive to SR-29.
The project will include traffic calming measures in an effort to make the corridor a less attractive
route for vehicular traffic and safer for pedestrian and bike riders.
The design and construction of the project will achieve emission reductions by increasing the
number of students who walk/bike to and from school thereby by reducing the number of vehicle
trips. The reduction in vehicle trips will also reduce congestion at the SR29/Donaldson Way
intersection. Traffic calming measure may also reduce vehicle trips.
This project is a priority project in the 2015 County-wide Pedestrian Plan
H. Final Report Content: Final Report form and final Cost-effectiveness Worksheet
Final Report Form 3 – Bicycle
I. Attach a completed Cost-effectiveness Worksheet and any other information used to evaluate the
proposed project.
J. Comments (if any):
25
RIDESHARING, BICYCLE, SHUTTLE, AND SMART GROWTH PROJECTSFYE 2017 TFCA Progam Manager Fund WorksheetVersion 2017.0, updated 1/28/2016
General Information Tab: Complete areas shaded in yellow.
Project Number (17XXXYY) NAP17
Project Title Donaldson Way Sidewalk Gap Project
Project Type Code (e.g., 7a) 7b
County (2-3 character abbreviation) NAP
Worksheet Calculated By
Date of Submission 42475
Project SponsorProject Sponsor Organization City of American Canyon
Public Agency? (Y or N) Y
Contact Name Jason Holley
Email Address [email protected]
Phone Number 707-647-4558
Mailing Address 2381 Broadway
City American Canyon
State CA
Zip 94503
Project ScheduleProject Start Date 9/1/2016
Project Completion Date 9/1/2018
Final Report to CMA 3/1/2019
26
RIDESHARING, BICYCLE, SHUTTLE, AND SMART GROWTH PROJECTS Cost Effectiveness InputsFYE 2017 TFCA Progam Manager Fund Worksheet # Years Effectiveness: 10Version 2017.0, updated 1/28/2016 Total Project Cost: $500,000
TFCA Cost 40%: $101,249
Calculations Tab: Complete areas shaded in yellow only. TFCA Cost 60%: Regional Fund Proj. #:Total TFCA Cost: $101,249
Emission Reduction CalculationsStep 1 - Emissions for Eliminated Trips
A B C D E F G H I
# Trips/Day (1-way) Days/Yr Trip Length (1-
way) VMTROG
Emissions (gr/yr)
NOx Emissions
(gr/yr)
Exhaust &Trip End PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr) *
Other PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr) *
CO2 Emissions (gr/yr)
56 180 3 30,240 7,661 4,707 116 7,553 10266983.3140 240 3 28,800 7,296 4,483 110 7,193 9778079.34
Total 59,040 14,957 9,191 226 14,746 20045062.65
Step 2 - Emissions for New Trips to Access Transit/Ridesharing0 0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0 0.00
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
Step 3A - Emissions for Shuttle/Vanpool Vehicles up to GVW of 14,000 lbs. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
# Vehicles, Model Year Emission Std. Vehicle GVW ROG Factor
(gr/mi)NOx Factor
(g/mi)Exhaust PM10 Factor (g/mi)
Total PM10 Factor (g/mi)
CO2 Factor (g/mi) (See
CO2 Table for LD and LHD)
Total Annual VMT (sum all vehicles)
ROG Emissions
(gr/yr)
NOx Emissions
(gr/yr)
Exhaust PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr)
Other PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr)
CO2 Emissions (gr/yr)
0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Step 3B - Emissions for Buses A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
# Vehicles Engine Year, Make, & Model
Retrofit Device Name
ROG Factor (gr/mi)
NOx Factor (g/mi)
Exhaust PM10 Factor (g/mi)
Other PM10 Factor (g/mi)
CO2 Factor (g/mi)
Total Annual VMT (sum all vehicles)
ROG Emissions
(gr/yr)
NOx Emissions
(gr/yr)
Exhaust PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr)
Other PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr)
CO2 Emissions (gr/yr)
0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.00
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
Cost Effectiveness Results Annual Lifetime1. VMT Reduced 59,040 590,400 Miles2. Trips Reduced 19,680 196,800 Trips3. ROG Emissions Reduced 0.02 0.16 Tons4. NOx Emissions Reduced 0.01 0.10 Tons5. PM Emissions Reduced 0.02 0.17 Tons6. PM Weighted Emissions Reduced 0.02 0.21 Tons7. CO2 Emissions Reduced 22.1 221.0 Tons8. Emission Reductions (ROG, NOx & PM) 0.04 0.43 Tons9. TFCA Project Cost - Cost Effectiveness (ROG, Nox & PM) $234,803 /Ton
$211,586 /Ton
See Emission Factor Tab, ARB Table 2 or 7
See Emission Factors Tab, Emissions for Buses Table
10. TFCA Project Cost - Cost Effectiveness (ROG, NOx & Weighted PM). THIS VALUE MUST MEET POLICYREQUIREMENTS.
27
Notes & Assumptions
Provide all assumptions, rationales, and references for figures used in calculations.
Goals:
Increase pedestrian trips from transit hub for students and employees (James Rd. Park & Ride)
Project consists of two components: gap closure of a bike lane and gap closure of a sidewalkBike component for commuter trips to work/school
ADT 5000 40 one-way bike trips .80% ADT closing a gap, length of total facility is > 2 milesProject length 1800 ft .34 miles 240 work daysGap Closure-SR29 to Wetlands Edge-Connecting Bay Trail and Vine Trail
16180 ft 3.06 miles
3 trip length (miles)Trips 240 days Provide $58,357 at $250,000/ton cost effectiveness
1% of target populationMiddle school students 1,033 Sidewalk component for school tripsHigh School students 1,558 28 two-way walk tripsSchool Employees 203 56 one-way walk trips
2,794 28 180 school days3 trip length (miles)
Morning (AM Peak)School Related
Vehicle trips Goal - Reduction in
Vehicle Trips Provide $42,892 at $175,000/ton cost effectivenessMiddle School 692 50% 286High School 390 50% 180
466Afternoon 58,357.00$
42,892.00$ Middle School 692 50% 286 101,249.00$ High School 390 50% 180
466 (reviewed by LH)
Decrease congestion at SR29/Donaldson Way IntersectionIntroduce traffic calming measures to discourage vehicular traffic and encourage pedestrian/bicycle traffic (safety)
Increase pedestrian/bicycle trips to schools (decrease vehicle trips, especially AM Peak)
28
PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Project Number: 17NAP03
17NAP01, 17NAP02 for Napa County. Zero (e.g., 17NAP00) is reserved for County Program
Manager TFCA funds allocated for administration costs.
B. Project Title: __SNCI Napa County Commute Challenge Marketing and Commute Incentives_____
Provide a concise, descriptive title for the project (e.g., “Elm Ave. Signal Interconnect” or
“Purchase Ten Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Light-Duty Vehicles”).
C. TFCA Program Manager Funds Allocated: $__50,000__________
D. TFCA Regional Funds Awarded (if applicable):$______________
E. Total TFCA Funds Allocated (sum of C and D):$_50,000_______
F. Total Project Cost: $__50,000________
Indicate the TFCA dollars allocated (C, D and E) and total project cost (D). Data from Line E
(Total TFCA Funds) should be used to calculate C-E.
G. Project Description:
Project sponsor will use TFCA funds to enhance the effectiveness of the regional rideshare program
by including the following in the Napa FY2016-17 and FY2017-18 Work Program:
1. Implement an annual countywide Napa Employer Commute Challenge through the larger
employers in Napa County. The Challenge will run April through June in 2017 and 2018 and
encourage commuters to use alternatives to driving alone including carpool/vanpool, transit,
walking and biking. Employers with 100+ employees in the City of Napa and 50+ employees in
other Napa County cities/towns will be invited to participate. That equals 102 employers totaling
over 25,000 employees (approx. $45,000).
2. Administer Emergency Ride Home, bicycle, vanpool, and other future commute alternative
incentives that are offered in Solano County (approx. $5,000.)
This project will complement SNCI's existing services as well as the transit services delivered by NVTA.
H. Final Report Content: Final Report form and final Cost Effectiveness Worksheet
Form for Ridesharing, Shuttles, Transit Information, Rail/Bus Integration, Smart Growth, and
Traffic Calming Projects. (Includes Transit Bus Signal Priority.)
I. Attach a completed Cost-effectiveness Worksheet and any other information used to evaluate the
proposed project. attached
J. Comments (if any):
29
RIDESHARING, BICYCLE, SHUTTLE, AND SMART GROWTH PROJECTSFYE 2016 TFCA Progam Manager Fund WorksheetVersion 2016.1, updated 12/22/14
General Information Tab: Complete areas shaded in yellow.
Project Number (16XXXYY) 17NAP03
Project Title SNCI Napa County Marketing and Commute Incentives
Project Type Code (e.g., 7a) 10b, 5c
County (2-3 character abbreviation) NAP
Worksheet Calculated By Judy Leaks
Date of Submission
Project SponsorProject Sponsor Organization Solano Napa Commuter Information (SNCI)
Public Agency? (Y or N) Y
Contact Name Judy Leaks
Email Address [email protected]
Phone Number 707-399-3220
Mailing Address One Harbor Center, Suite 130
City Suisun City
State CA
Zip 94585
Project ScheduleProject Start Date 8/1/2016
Project Completion Date 7/31/2018
Final Report to CMA 8/31/2018
30
RIDESHARING, BICYCLE, SHUTTLE, AND SMART GROWTH PROJECTS Cost Effectiveness InputsFYE 2016 TFCA Progam Manager Fund Worksheet # Years Effectiveness: 2Version 2016.1, updated 12/22/14 Total Project Cost: $50,000
TFCA Cost 40%: $50,000
Calculations Tab: Complete areas shaded in yellow only. TFCA Cost 60%: Regional Fund Proj. #:SAMPLE ENTRIES ARE SHOWN IN LIGHT BLUE Total TFCA Cost: $50,000
Emission Reduction CalculationsStep 1 - Emissions for Eliminated Trips
A B C D E F G H I
# Trips/Day (1-way) Days/Yr Trip Length (1-
way) VMTROG
Emissions (gr/yr)
NOx Emissions
(gr/yr)
Exhaust &Trip End PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr) *
Other PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr) *
CO2 Emissions (gr/yr)
100 250 16 400,000 95,500 94,375 1,026 76,765 135,806,6581997 60 14 1,677,480 411,941 400,319 4,400 321,931 569532379.75463 90 14 583,380 143,261 139,219 1,530 111,958 198067219.70
Total 2,260,860 555,203 539,538 5,930 433,889 767599599.45
Step 2 - Emissions for New Trips to Access Transit/Ridesharing50 250 3 37,500 16,713 11,925 162 7,197 12,731,874
499.3 60 3 89,874 40,054 28,580 388 17,248 30513718.85115.9 90 3 31,293 13,946 9,951 135 6,006 10624494.34
Total 121,167 54,000 38,531 523 23,254 41138213.19
Step 3A - Emissions for Shuttle/Vanpool Vehicles up to GVW of 14,000 lbs. A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
# Vehicles, Model Year Emission Std. Vehicle GVW ROG Factor
(gr/mi)NOx Factor
(g/mi)Exhaust PM10 Factor (g/mi)
Total PM10 Factor (g/mi)
CO2 Factor (g/mi) (See
CO2 Table for LD and LHD)
Total Annual VMT (sum all vehicles)
ROG Emissions
(gr/yr)
NOx Emissions
(gr/yr)
Exhaust PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr)
Other PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr)
CO2 Emissions (gr/yr)
2, 2005 LEV 10,001-14,000 0.23 0.40 0.12 0.33 860 8000 1,840 3,200 960 1,680 6,880,0000 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Step 3B - Emissions for Buses A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
# Vehicles Engine Year, Make, & Model
Retrofit Device Name
ROG Factor (gr/mi)
NOx Factor (g/mi)
Exhaust PM10 Factor (g/mi)
Other PM10 Factor (g/mi)
CO2 Factor (g/mi)
Total Annual VMT (sum all vehicles)
ROG Emissions
(gr/yr)
NOx Emissions
(gr/yr)
Exhaust PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr)
Other PM10 Emissions
(gr/yr)
CO2 Emissions (gr/yr)
0 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.00
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0.00
Cost Effectiveness Results Annual Lifetime1. VMT Reduced 2,139,693 4,279,386 Miles2. Trips Reduced 121,101 242,202 Trips3. ROG Emissions Reduced 0.55 1.10 Tons4. NOx Emissions Reduced 0.55 1.10 Tons5. PM Emissions Reduced 0.46 0.92 Tons6. PM Weighted Emissions Reduced 0.57 1.14 Tons7. CO2 Emissions Reduced 800.8 1601.5 Tons8. Emission Reductions (ROG, NOx & PM) 1.56 3.13 Tons9. TFCA Project Cost - Cost Effectiveness (ROG, Nox & PM) $15,992 /Ton
$14,911 /Ton
See Emission Factor Tab, ARB Table 2 or 7
See Emission Factors Tab, Emissions for Buses Table
10. TFCA Project Cost - Cost Effectiveness (ROG, NOx & Weighted PM). THIS VALUE MUST MEET POLICYREQUIREMENTS.
Linda Hui: C02 values are not updated (12/17/2014)
31
Notes & AssumptionsFor Calendar year 2017 and 2018 Napa Commute ChallengeProvide all assumptions, rationales, and references for figures used in calculations.
10B - Transit Information/Marketing Step 1: see line 13A) Target population is workers employed at Napa County worksites with 50+ employees
24,966 workers employed at 102 Napa County employers (SNCI Employer Database 2016)4% population who will make changes, based on 2012 Napa Green Commute Challenge25889(.04) = 998.6*2 trips/day = 1997
B) 60 work days between April and JuneC) Used 14 miles average one-way commute trip for Napa (Commute Profile 2010)Step 2: see line 19A) 50%*998.6 = 499.3 trips/day (AD default)B) same as Step 1.B (AD default)C) 3 miles (AD default)
5C - Incentive Programs (for any alterntive mode) Step 1: see line 14A) Target population is based on results from a similar program in Solano County; adjustments are made for difference in # of employed workers
231.7 participants (0.034% of 68,152 Napa County employed workers (American Community Survey 2014)*2 trips/day = 463B) Used BAAQMD default value of 90 days max for incentive programsC) Used 14 miles average one-way commute trip for Napa (Commute Profile 2010)Step 2: see line 20A) 50%*231.7 = 115.9 trips/day (assumes 50% will make new trips to access transit/ridesharing)B) same as Step 1.B (AD default)C) 3 miles (AD default)
32
September 21, 2016 NVTA Agenda Item 10.3
Continued From: New Action Requested: APPROVE
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Board Agenda Letter ______________________________________________________________________
TO: NVTA Board of Directors
FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director REPORT BY: Rebecca Schenck, Transportation Program Planner & Policy Analyst
(707) 259-8636 / Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution No. 16-23 Adopting the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Title VI Program Policy for Fiscal Years 2017-2019
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION That the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Board approve Resolution No. 16-22 (Attachment 1) adopting the updated Title VI Program Policy for FY 2017-2019 (Attachment 2) for the Agency. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines to effectively monitor and ensure that the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) is in compliance with all Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Title VI requirements and regulations in order to carry out the provisions of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Title VI Regulations at 49 CFR Part 21. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Staff Report 2. Public Comments 3. Motion, Second, Discussion and Vote FISCAL IMPACT Is there a Fiscal Impact? No
33
NVTA Agenda Letter Wednesday, September 21, 2016 Agenda Item 10.3
Page 2 of 2 ___________________________________________________________________________________ CEQA REQUIREMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Napa Valley Transportation Authority is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of its services on the basis of race, color or national origin, as provided by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Its objective is to:
• Ensure that the level and quality of transportation service is provided without regard to race, color, or national origin;
• Promote the full and fair participation of all affected populations in transportation decision making;
• Prevent the denial, reduction, or delay in benefits related to programs and activities that benefit minority populations or low‐income populations;
• Ensure meaningful access to programs and activities by persons with limited English proficiency.
In this endeavor, staff has updated NVTA’s Title VI policies to meet the requirements outlined in Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST). The new policies involved conducting a four factor limited English proficiency analysis which was used in the development of a Public Participation Plan and Language Assistance Plan. In addition, public transit properties that receive federal funds are required to establish service standards that inform the agency when and how to best make service adjustments. Updated Service Standards will be approved by the Board as part of the Napa County Short-Range Transit Plan (FY 2016-2026) and be included as part of the agency’s overall Title VI Policies and Program. The program will be subject to minor modifications based on Federal Transit Administration review and recommendations after the plan has been submitted to the Regional Civil Rights Officer. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachments: (1) Resolution No. 16-23
(2) Napa Valley Transportation Authority Title VI Program Policy
34
RESOLUTION No. 16-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (NVTA)
ADOPTING THE NVTA TITLE VI PROGRAM POLICY
WHEREAS, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) is designated the
countywide transportation planning agency responsible for Highway, Street and Road, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian planning and programming within Napa County; and
WHEREAS, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires recipients of federal grants and other assistance to operate their programs and services without regard to, or discrimination based on, race, color or national origin; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued Circular FTA C 4702.1B, effective October 1, 2012, setting forth requirements and guidelines for Title VI compliance; and
WHEREAS, the above-referenced Circular details required elements of a Title VIProgram Report, which each recipient of FTA grants and assistance must submit to the FTA every three (3) years to evidence compliance with Title VI;
WHEREAS, NVTA’s current Title VI Program expires on March 31, 2016, therefore necessitating submittal of an updated program report to the FTA by December 1, 2016; and
WHEREAS, NVTA’s Title VI Program Report must include numerous elements, including but not limited to:
1. Information on numerous agency policies, procedures and activities undertaken over the last three years;
2. A public participation plan (PPP); 3. Information on public outreach undertaken over the past three (3) years,
including development and approval of the Vine Transit Title VI Fare Equity Analysis accepted by this Board on January 15, 2015;
4. A plan for engaging persons with limited English proficiency (LEP); 5. System-wide service standards and policies; and
WHEREAS, Staff has developed a proposed Title VI Program Plan, including the
above-referenced items and evidencing NVTA’s compliance with Title VI, for Board consideration and approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby
adopts the NVTA Title VI Program as set forth in the Title VI Program; and
ATTACHMENT 1 NVTA Board Agenda Item10.3
September 21, 2016
35
Resolution No. 16-23
Page 2 of 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Directors authorizes the Executive Director, or designee, to:
1. Include evidence of the Board’s consideration and approval of the Title VI Program;
2. Submit the final Title VI Program to the FTA; and 3. Take any other steps necessary to give effect to this Resolution, including
responding to any follow-up inquiries from the FTA.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, at a regular meeting held on September 21st, 2016, by the following vote: ____________________ Ayes: Peter White, NVTA Chair Nays: Absent: ATTEST: _____________________________________ Karalyn E. Sanderlin, NVTA Board Secretary APPROVED: Jeffrey M. Richard (via e-signature) Jeffrey M. Richard, NVTA Legal Counsel Date: September 12, 2016
36
TITLE VI PROGRAM POLICY __________________________ _______________________ Peter White NVTA Chair Date NVTA Board Approved xx/xx/2016
ATTACHMENT 2 NVTA Board Agenda Item 10.3 September 21, 2016
Formatted: Justified
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold
37
TITLE VI PROGRAM POLICY The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) is committed to ensuring that no person is excluded from participation in, or denied benefits of its transit services on the basis of race, color or national origin, as protected by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If you believe you have been subjected to discrimination under Title VI, you may file a written complaint with the Karalyn Sanderlin Manager of Human ResourcesCivil Rights OfficerCivil Rights Officer, Napa Valley Transportation Authority, 625 Burnell Street, Napa CA, 94558; at (707) 259-8631, or by email to [email protected]. Purpose: The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines to effectively monitor and ensure that the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) is in compliance with all requirements and regulations to carry out the provisions of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Title VI Regulations 49 CFR Part 21. Policy: NVTA will ensure that their programs, policies, and activities all comply with the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Title VI regulations. NVTA is committed to creating and maintaining public transit service that is free of all forms of discrimination. The agency will take whatever preventive, corrective and disciplinary action necessary for behavior that violates this policy or the rights and privileges it is designed to protect. TITLE VI PROGRAM MONITORING The requirement to establish internal monitoring processes and methodologies is applicable to all recipients of Federal assistance. NVTA must monitor its service once per year, or when major service changes or fare increases are proposed, using the procedures outlined in this section.
a. Civil Rights Assurance The aAssurances that are signed by NVTA’s Executive Director, and attested by NVTA’s Legal Counsel, validate the level and quality of transit services and related benefits are provided in a manner consistent with Title VI. Program monitoring is conducted to ensure that NVTA complies with this assurance.
b. Monitoring Procedures NVTA has a complaint procedure to monitor the level and quality of transit service provided to minority communities with overall average services deployed throughout the system in order to affirm the services are distributed equitably and comply with Title VI.
This internal monitoring process was used recently in January 2015 when NVTA performed an equity analysis of a planned seven percent (7%) fare increase. The analysis examined the effect of the proposed fare change on minority and low-income populations. The disparate impact analysis
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.75"
38
determined that although the number of minority riders was greater than the general population, that it was not high enough to constitute a disparate impact. Furthermore, the disproportionate burden analysis showed that the populations under 200% of the federal poverty limit were less likely to be impacted than the general population, and that zero-vehicle households would be more affected by the fare increase. Overall, this last finding related to zero-vehicle households, had to be balanced against the alternative solution to address farebox increases which was service cuts. In the end, the NVTA moved forward with the seven percent (7%) fare increase, its’ first increase since 20121.
c. Subrecipients NVTA is also responsible for monitoring subrecipients for compliance with Title VI, and establishing a schedule of subrecipient Title VI pProgram submissions. NVTA does not have any subrecipients and has not had any over the last three (3) years. In the event that the NVTA would have a subrecipient, the agency wouldwill establish a schedule for subrecipient submissions.
. PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS NVTA disseminates Title VI Program information to NVTA employees, contractors, subcontractors, and beneficiaries. NVTA makes these materials available to the general public by posting information at major transit hubs, on its website (which includes Title VI/Civil Rights complaints procedures), on all of the NVTApublic transit buses, at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center, the major transit hub in the system, buses and by publishing an annual Title VI Policy Statement in local newspapers. The local newspapers that NVTA uses to publish information about public meetings and/or hearings, service changes, and proposed projects have significant circulations in the community. NVTA also publishes information in minority publications. Information about Title VI and NVTA’s policies are also clearly stipulated in NVTA’s postings for contracting and employment opportunities. Specifically:,
a. NVTA’s Title VI Policy and any other related information is made available to the public upon request. More detailed information regarding complaint procedures and Title VI civil rights is included in brochures and other materials distributed to the public by NVTA and ismaterials distributed to the public by NVTA and are available on NVTA’s websites (www.nvta.ca.gov and www.vinetransit.com).
Formatted: Font: Bold
Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75"
39
b. Multilingual Requirements. Where a significant number or portion of the population eligible to be serviced by NVTA needs service information in a language other than English to participate in federally funded programs, NVTA takes every reasonable step to provide information in appropriate languages. In cases where NVTA posts signs warning the general public about dangerous situations, information in other languages when a significant number of the population in non- English speaking. NVTA’s websites are also linked to the Google translator which can provide translation in over 70 languages.
LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY (LEP) FOUR FACTOR ANALYSIS AND LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE PLAN (LAP) NVTA has developed a Language Assistance Plan based on its Four Factor Analysis consistent with the Federal Transit Administrations policy guidelines. The Plan guides NVTA on all service-related planning and policy changes under consideration, NVTA staff will analyzehas analyzed and conducted the four-factor framework provided in the Department of Transportation (DOT) Limited English Proficiency Guidance. NVTA’s complete LAP plan based upon the LEP analysis is included as Appendix 1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN The Public Participation Plan (Appendix 2) outlines the strategies that NVTA uses to engage the public in the process of transportation decisions. This plan is utilized to cultivate relations with the community and encourage interaction with the minority of non-English speaking communities. Public Notices and general information are provided in both English, and Spanish and Filipino.
a. OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
NVTA routinely provides opportunities for public comment, and continually strives to find new and innovative opportunities to solicit public comments and involve all segments of the population. Comments are accepted at any time by phone, fax, email, U.S. mail, in person, or at any open meeting. Examples of these opportunities include:
• The public is notified of monthly NVTA Board and Committee meetings. The public is invited to attend these meetings. Meeting announcements are posted on the website, at the NVTA offices, and at the meeting location if held at a location other than the NVTA offices. The public is invited to comment on general items or specific agenda items.
40
b. ENGAGING TITLE VI PROTECTED GROUPS NVTA realizes that there are large segments of the population from whom input is rarely if ever received. In an effort to hear a truly representative voice of the public, NVTA makes all significant service-related planning and policy publications available in accessible formats. c. PUBLIC OUTREACH NVTA publishes monthly memos and newsletters as an on-going, proactive dissemination of service information and to cultivate public relations. These publications contain articles and features of current issues and projects. Moreover, they serve as a valuable information tool to present transportation planning to the public. d. STAFF ACCESSIBILITY Staff is accessible in person, on the phone, by mail, by fax, or by email. Contact information is provided on the agency’s website and on public notices. e. PROVIDE SERVICE FOR THE DISABLED AND LEP Upon advance notice, special accommodations are provided for public meetings. These services include translators, special assistance, and/or transportation.
COMPLAINTS OF DISCRIMINATION PROCEDURE These procedures cover all complaints filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, relating to any program or activity administered by NVTA as to consultants, and contractors. Intimidation or retaliation of any kind is prohibited by law. The procedures do not deny the right of the complainant to file formal complaints with other state or federal agencies or to seek private counsel for complaints alleging discrimination. Every effort is made to obtain early resolution of complaints at the lowest level possible. The option of informal mediation meeting(s) between the affected parties and the Title VI Coordinator may be utilized for resolution. Complaint Procedure 1. Any person who feels that he or she, individually, or as a member of any class of
persons, on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or low-income status has been excluded from or denied the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance through NVTA may file a written complaint with the Manager of Human ResourcesCivil Rights Officer. The complaint form (Appendix 3) may be found on the NVTA website by clicking the following link: www.nvta.ca.gov/title-vi-0 or is available in hard copy from the NVTA. A Field Code Changed
41
formal complaincomplaint much be filed within 180 days of the alleged occurrence.
2. In cases where the complainant is unable or incapable of providing a written
statement, a verbal complaint may be made. The Manager of Human ResourcesCivil Rights Officer will interview the complainant and if necessary assist the person in converting verbal complaints to writing. All complaints must, however, be signed by the complainant or his/her representative.
3. Complaints shall state, as fully as possible, the facts and circumstances
surrounding the alleged discrimination. 4. NVTA will provide the complainant or his/her representative and any contractor
(respondent) with a written acknowledgement that NVTA has received the complaint within five (5) working days of receipt.
5. A copy of the complaint will be forwarded to NVTA’s legal counsel for review. 6. The Manager of Human ResourcesCivil Rights Officer will appoint one or more
staff review officers, as appropriate, to evaluate and investigate the complaint. 7. The review officer(s) will determine if the complaint has investigative merit:
a. It was received within 180 days of the alleged occurrence. b. It is does not appear to be frivolous or trivial. c. It involves NVTA or NVTA contractors and not another entity. d. A complaint against a contractor involves a NVTA Federally Funded
contract.
8. The complainant and contractor or other party to the complaint will be notified of the status of the complaint within ten (10) days of receipt of the complaint, by registered mail;
a. That the complaint will not be investigated and the reasons why the complaint does not have investigative merit.
b. That the complaint will be investigated and a request for additional information needed to assist the investigator.
9. The complainant or contractor must submit the requested information within 60 working days from the date of the original request. Failure of the complainant to submit additional information within the designated timeframe may be considered good cause for a determination of no investigative merit. Failure of the contractor to submit additional information within the designated timeframe may be considered good cause for a determination of noncompliance under the contract.
10. The review officer(s) and/or contractor must within 15 working days, supply the
Executive Director with status report of their investigation and/or resolution of the complaint.
42
11. Within 60 working days of the receipt of the complaint, the Manager of Human
ResourcesCivil Rights Officer will prepare a written report for the Executive Director. The report shall include:
a. A narrative description of the incident. Including persons or entities involved.
b. A statement of the issues raised by the complainant and the respondent’s reply to each of the allegations.
c. Citations of relevant Federal, State and local laws, NVTA policy etc. d. Description of the investigation, including list of the persons contacted and
a summary of the interviews conducted. e. A statement of the investigator’s finding and recommendations for
disposition.
12. The investigative report and findings of the complaint will be sent to legal counsel for review.
13. The Executive Director shall, based on the information before him or her and in
consult with legal counsel, make a determination on the disposition of the complaint. Determination shall be made within ten (10) days from Executive Director’s receipt of the investigator’s report. Examples of disposition are as follows:
a. Complainant is found to have been discriminated against. NVTA or cContractor is therefore in noncompliancenoncompliant with Title VI regulations. Reasons for the determination will be listed. Remedial actions that NVTA or the cContractor must take will be listed.
b. Complaint is found to be without merit. Reasons why will be listed.
14. Notice of the Executive Director’s determination will be mailed to the complainant and contractor. Notice shall include information regarding appeal rights of complainant and instructions for initiating such an appeal. Example of a notice of appeal follows:
a. NVTA will only reconsider this determination, if new facts, not previously considered.
b. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the determination and/or resolution set forth by NVTA, the same complaint may be submitted to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for investigation. Complainants will be directed to contact Federal Transit Administration, Office of Civil Rights, San Francisco Federal Building 90, 7th Street, Suite 15-300 San Francisco, CA 94103. (415) 734-9490. .
15. A copy of the complaint and NVTA’s investigation report/letter of finding and Final
Remedial Action Plan will be issued to FTA within ninety (90) days of the receipt of the complaint.
43
16. After receiving FTA’s comments, briefings may be scheduled with all relevant parties to the complaint.
17. A summary of the complaint and its resolution would be included in the annual report to the FTA.
GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), states the following: “No person in the United States shall, on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal Financial assistance.” The Department of Justice and the Department of Transportation regulations implementing Title VI, require Federal agencies to collect data and other information to enforce Title VI. In this regard the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA), as an applicant and/or recipient receiving Federal funding, hereby provides to FTA the following information:
• There are no active lawsuits or complaints naming NVTA nor were there any investigations, complaints, or lawsuits in the past three (3) years, which allege discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin with respect to service or other transit benefits.
• The NVTA maintains a log of Title VI complaints received. The log includes the date the complaint was filed, a summary of the allegations (which included the basis of complaint), the status of the complaint status, and action(s) taken. in response to the complaint. There have been two (2) complaints filed within the last three (3) years which alleged discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin with respect to service or other transit benefits. Appendix 6 presents a copy of the log and details on theof past complaints.
• There are currently no pending construction projects which would negatively
impact minority communities being performed by NVTA. SERVICE STANDARDS
In order to insure compliance with the Title VI Program and to accomplish the goal of providing efficient and effective service to the residents of Napa County, NVTA developed updated the agency’sa series of service standards (Appendix 4) that provide a framework for service allocation as well as measures to continually examine public transit service to ensure that they meet efficiency and effectiveness standards in accordance with stated objectives as part of the Chapter 3 of the agency’s Napa County Short Range Transit Plan (FY 2016-2026) (Appendix 4).
Formatted: Justified, Bulleted + Level: 1 +Aligned at: 0.25" + Tab after: 0.5" + Indentat: 0.5", Adjust space between Latin and Asiantext, Adjust space between Asian text andnumbers
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0"
44
RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS The Manager of Human ResourcesCivil Rights Officer shall ensure that all records relating to NVTA’s compliance to Title VI are maintained for a minimum of seven (7) years. Records must be available for compliance review audits. Copies of the following material will be kept available by the Manager of Human ResourcesCivil Rights Officer for dissemination to the public upon demandrequest:
• NVTA’s Title VI policy • Annual reports to FTA • Audit report findings and recommendations • Summaries of actions taken by NVTA to remedy audit findings • Complaints received and a summary of their disposition • Annual report to Executive Director regarding Title VI compliance
APPENDICES Appendix 1 NVTA Plan for Language Assistance Plan to Limited English Proficient
(LEP) Populations Appendix 2 Public Participation Plan Appendix 3 Title VI Complaint Form Appendix 4 Service Standards and DesignNapa County Short Range Transit Plan (FY 2016-2026)Systemwide Service Standards and Policies Appendix 5 Title VI Notice to the Public Appendix 6 List of Transit-Related Title VI Investigations, Complaints, and Lawsuits Appendix 7 Racial Breakdown of the Membership of Transit-Related Advisory
Committees Appendix 8 NVTA Board of Directors Minutes of 129//2118/20163Resolution 16-XX23
aApproving the NVTA Title VI Program Policy (Item x.x8.2) Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
45
APPENDIX 1
Language Assistance Plan to
Limited English Proficient (LEP) Populations
September 17, 2016
Also available in Spanish and Filipino
Napa Valley Transportation Agency 625 Burnell Street
Napa, CA 94559 [email protected]
(707) 259-8631 Para solicitar una copia en español del Plan de Servicios de Lenguaje para Poblaciones con Conocimiento Limitado del Inglés por favor llame al (707) 259-8631 Upang humiling ng isang kopya ng Language Assistance Plan in Filipino, pakitawagan (707) 259-8631
46
2 | P a g e
Language Assistance Plan for
Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA)
Introduction
The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) serves as the congestion management agency and public transit provider for the jurisdictions in Napa County, and is one of the nine (9) Bay Area counties within the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) region. NVTA’s service area includes a population of 150,000 residents over 740 square miles of land, consisting mostly of smaller, rural communities and agricultural land. The service area is diverse, with large numbers of residents speaking a language other than English as their primary means of communication. Individuals with a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English are considered to be Limited English Proficient, or “LEP.” In compliance with guidance and rules issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, NVTA has taken reasonable steps to ensure that all persons have meaningful access to its programs, services, and information, at no additional cost. This includes the following plan for LEP persons within NVTA’s jurisdiction. A Language Assistance Plan starts with an assessment to identify LEP individuals who need assistance. NVTA also plans to conduct surveys with transit operators, dispatch, customer service and ticket sales staff, regarding frequency of contact with LEP individuals or groups. Once the assessment is complete, the Language Assistance Plan is drafted and adopted by the agency. Implementation of the Language Assistance Plan includes the development of language assistance measures, staff training, notification measures to LEP individuals, and monitoring and updating of the plan on a yearly basis.
Purpose
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. One critical concern addressed by Title VI is the language barrier that Limited English Proficiency (LEP) persons face with respect to accessing information about and using transit service. Transit operators must ensure that this group has adequate access to the agency’s programs and activities, including public participation opportunities. Executive Order 13166, titled “Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency,” forbids funding recipients from “restrict(ing) an individual in any way in the enjoyment of any advantage or privilege enjoyed by others receiving any service, financial aid, or other benefit under the program,” or from “utilize(ing) criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respects to individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.”
47
3 | P a g e
FTA Circular 4702.1B was developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and details the administrative and reporting requirements for recipients of FTA financial assistance to comply with Title VI and related executive orders including on LEP. The U.S. DOT’s FTA Office of Civil Rights’ publication “Implementing the Department of Transportation’s Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients’ Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient Persons – A Handbook for Public Transportation Providers” was used in the preparation of this plan.
Contents
This plan contains:
A. A needs assessment based on the four-factor analysis
B. Language assistance measures
C. Staff training plan
D. Contractor training
E. Methods for notifying LEP persons about available language assistance
F. Methods for monitoring, evaluating and updating plan
A. LEP Needs Assessment – the Four-Factor Analysis
Determination of Need
In order to prepare this Plan, NVTA implemented the U.S. Department of Transportation’s four factor LEP analysis, which considers the following:
1. The Number and Proportion of LEP Persons Served or Encountered in the Eligible Service Population
2. The frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with NVTA programs, activities or services
3. The Importance to LEP Persons of NVTA’s Program, Activities and Services 4. The resources available to NVTA and overall cost to provide LEP assistance
Factor 1: Number and proportion of LEP persons served or encountered NVTA used the American Community Survey (ACS) 5 Year survey data for 2010-2014 for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Populations in Napa County to estimate the number or proportion of LEP persons who might use or want to use NVTA’s services. The American Community Survey (ACS) 5 Year survey data identifies people who speak English “less than very well” as Limited English Proficient persons. The survey data is broken down by the languages spoken at home, and by ability to speak English, for persons five (5) years of age and older, with number
48
4 | P a g e
and percentage broken out by county. For Napa County, the ACS data indicates that approximately half of the residents identified as speaking a “language other than English”, and whose primary language is categorized as “Spanish or Spanish Creole”, were identified as speaking English “less than very well”. The ACS study data also indicates that nearly 40% of the Asian and Pacific Islanders in Napa County speak English “less than very well”. Total Percent of specified language speakers 2010-2014 American
Community Survey Speak English less than "very well"
Language Spoken at Home Estimate Margin of Error
Estimate Margin of Error
Population 5 years and over 127,288131,368 +/-7659 16.5% +/-1.0 Speak only English 65.964.6% +/-1.10.9 (X) (X) Speak a language other than English 34.135.4% +/-0.91.1 48.316.3% +/-0.72.5 Spanish or Spanish Creole 26.727.9% +/-0.81.0 52.449.8% +/-3.00.7 Other Indo-European languages 2.72.5% +/-0.42 2419.4% +/-5.30.2 Asian and Pacific Island languages 4.44.7% +/-0.40.3 41.8-38.3% +/-5.30.2 Other languages 0.3% +/-0.1 33.73% +/-14.10.1
• The ACS data above estimates the total population of the NVTA Napa County service area to be: 142,456
• The ACS data above estimates the total number of people who speak a language other than English in the NVTA Napa County service area is estimated to be: 46,508 or 35.4% of the population.
• The ACS data above estimates the total number of LEP persons (those who speak English less than “very well”) in the NVTA-Napa County service area is estimated to be: 21,443 or 16.3 of the population.
49
5 | P a g e
Factor 2: Frequency of LEP populations’ contact with existing programs, activities, and services Statistical data regarding individual requests from LEP persons will be tracked as resources permit; however since several transit routes serve Napa County social service and non-profit agencies, it is likely that NVTA is providing services to many LEP individuals.
The main language spoken by LEP individuals within the NVTA service area is primarily Spanish and Filipino.
Factor 3: Importance to LEP population of programs, activities, and services NVTA considers public transit to be an important and essential service for many residents, commuters, and visitors in the local service area. This includes local buses and buses servicing neighboring counties and the regional Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system, paratransit, and services for seniors. These services are used by people from all walks of life, including commuters, students, visitors, the elderly, and those with limited mobility.
There are a number of key interaction points with the bus system which could be problematic for LEP populations: NVTA’s websites- www.nvta.ca.gov and www.vinetransit.com
Vine Transit’s customer service phone line
Bus stop signage
Printed schedules
Fare payment
Driver inquiries
Onboard announcements
Other printed materials Ensuring that critical information at these interaction points is available in languages commonly spoken is crucial to providing equitable access to Vine Transit’s bus service for LEP populations. While Customer Service personnel have access to translation services and the NVTA websites has a tool allowing the website’s content to be translated into more than 70 different languages, much of the critical information onboard buses and at the bus stops is not available in many of the languages identified in this document through the Census and customer surveys.
50
6 | P a g e
Opportunities for Improvement Currently NVTA disseminates all information in English, with some critical information available in Spanish. Customer service personnel all speak English, with some speaking Spanish. Given that Filipino language falls within the federal “Safe Harbor” guidelines, NVTA is obligated to expand the translation of vital materials into Spanish and Filipino. With respect to other languages represented by fewer residents, NVTA currently meets basic requirements for access to information via website translation tool. Despite the efforts to ensure access to information about its bus service among LEP populations, some key improvements can be made:
• Take into consideration that, according to a local Filipino newspaper, Filipinos may prefer to read materials in English rather than Tagalog.
• Representing Google Translate options on the NVTA’s websites in each respective language rather than listing them all in English. It should also be noted that FTA does not consider Google Translate as a sufficient translation tool for vital documents.
• Locate the Google Translate tool on the NVTA websites in a more prominent location (currently located at the bottom right corner of each page).
• Translate printed information disseminated to the public into more languages (currently only translated into Spanish).
• Advertise in more media outlets that target languages other than English and Spanish. • Translate information about fare payment and pass sales into more languages or use symbols to
illustrate key ideas. • Improve communication with targeted organizations such as Community-Based Organizations
(CBOs) to ensure that more LEP individuals participate in outreach efforts. • Provide more bus rider presentations to various organizations, such as CBOs. • Increase outreach/marketing efforts to include social media and traditional media (in various
languages) so that higher LEP participation for outreach events focused on accessing information can be achieved. The placement of traditional media at bus stops and on buses may be especially critical toward improving information accessibility.
Factor 4: Resources available to NVTA and overall cost to provide LEP assistance NVTA makes every reasonable effort to communicate with LEP persons about available transit services, including providing the funding for translation of current services and bilingual materials. As resources permit, NVTA will include training for all drivers on best practices for serving LEP individuals.
In addition to using a translation service, NVTA recently hired additional Spanish-speaking staff at the Soscol Gateway Transit Center ticket office to better serve LEP individuals. NVTA has also translated key website pages into Spanish, Filipino and other languages.
51
7 | P a g e
In an effort to better serve the transit service needs of its users, NVTA recently completed construction of its new Transit Center facility. The expanded facility will allow NVTA to better communicate its transit services and serve the needs of the traveling public, including those of LEP populations.
NVTA works with many advocacy groups serving LEP individuals to gain insight regarding their needs and concerns about local transit services. This includes Napa County Department of Health and Human Services, Community Action Napa Valley, SOMOS Napa, Hispanic Network, Non-profit Coalition, and Legal Aid of Napa Valley. NVTA is continually exploring options for the best methods of delivering information and meeting the transit needs of all LEP persons and Napa County residents. NVTA undertook significant Spanish-language outreach during its Agricultural Worker Vanpool Program and continues to expand community outreach efforts agency-wide. B. Language Assistance Measures
Language measures currently used and planned to be used by the NVTA transit system to address the needs of LEP persons include the following:
• Translating vital documents in the following language(s): Spanish and Filipino.
• Translating key website pages
• Coordination of Oral and Written Translation Services
• Communication with LEP advocacy groups about transit services
• Increased use of signage with graphic visual images and pictograms to promote universal understanding
• Posting of bilingual notices informing LEP persons of available services
• Other (description of services): training new residents on how to use transit system
• NVTA provides bilingual (Spanish speaking) staff at public hearings and neighborhood meetings.
• The Customer Service staff for both telephone and in person assistance includes bilingual (Spanish speaking) staff.
• All public timetables include a note in Spanish on how to use the language line to get transit
information.
• System maps and riders guides are printed in both English and Spanish.
C. Staff Training
To ensure effective implementation of this plan, NVTA will schedule orientations for new staff and annual training for all employees whose position requires regular contact with the public. Training will
52
8 | P a g e
include a review of this plan and how to handle verbal requests for transit service in a language other than English.
D. Contractor Training
To ensure effective implementation of this plan, Vine Transit’s contractor will schedule orientations for new employees and semi-annual training for all employees whose position requires regular contact with the public. Training will include a review of this plan and how to handle verbal requests for transit service in a language other than English.
E. Notice to LEP Persons about Available Language Assistance
NVTA will notify LEP individuals about the language assistance services available to them without cost by using the following methods:
• Brochures
• Sending information to local organizations serving LEP populations
• Website notices
• Including contact information for translation requests on all printed materials
• Posting of bilingual flyers at libraries, churches, schools, cultural and community centers
• Audio programs and radio ads
• Participation in local community events
Translated documents include ad cards, direct mailers, bus stop signs, customer brochures, meeting notices, and other customer outreach materials like construction-related notices and information pieces. Most translation is into Spanish, which covers the majority of NVTA’s customer base. Additional “Safe Harbor” languages are translated as resources allow and circumstances dictate.
NVTA needs additional services to provide more meaningful access to LEP groups. The following are recommendations that can be implemented:
• Provide complaint forms in multiple languages.
• Increased use of universal pictograms or other symbols at bus stops or on buses.
• Increased translations of documents.
• Conduct more language-specific outreach beyond focus groups associated with the development of this plan.
53
9 | P a g e
• Provide a short survey regarding LEP needs on buses in various languages for LEP individuals who cannot make it to outreach meetings, where these individuals can voice their concerns and opinions directly to NVTA.
F. Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating Plan
NVTA staff will review this plan annually, including:
• Assessing the sufficiency of staff training and budget for language assistance,
• Reviewing current sources for assistance to ensure continuing availability, and
• Reviewing any complaints, comments and suggestions from LEP persons, or agencies serving LEP populations, received during the past year.
Annual plan revisions will be approved by the agency’s Executive Director and dated accordingly.
G. Dissemination of Plan
This plan is available on the NVTA website’s at www.nvta.ca.gov and www.vinetransit.com
This plan is also available at no cost in English, Spanish, or Filipino upon request by telephone, fax, U.S. Postal Service mail, e-mail, or in person at the NVTA’s office.
H. Contact Information
Questions or comments about this plan may be submitted to:
Napa Valley Transportation Agency ATTN: Civil Rights Officer 625 Burnell Street Napa, CA 94559 (707) 259-8631 (707) 259-8638
Published: -------, 2016
54
APPENDIX 2
Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency (NCTPANVTA)
Title VI/Environmental Justice/Public Participation Plan
September 2016
Also available in Spanish and Filipino
Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) 625 Burnell Street
Napa, CA 94559
55
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 2
A. PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN ............................................................................... 2
B. SUMMARY OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................ 2
2. NAPA COUNTY PROFILE ........................................................................................................................ 3
A. COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................................................. 3
B. DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................................................ 3
E. TRADITIONALLY UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES .............................................................................. 5
3. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ........................................................ 6
A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 6
B. TARGET POPULATION AND NEEDS ................................................................................................... 7
C. PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS (CBOS) .............................................. 7
D. TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETIVE SERVICES ................................................................................... 7
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGIES..................................................................................................... 8
A. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 8
B. EXISTING NVTA OUTREACH ............................................................................................................... 8
C. RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES ........................................................................................................... 8
5. PERFORMANCE METRICS AND GOALS .................................................................................................. 9
A. MONITORING AND RECORDING ....................................................................................................... 9
B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OUTCOMES ............................................................................................... 10
56
Page 1 of 20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The mission of the Napa CountyValley Transportation Authority & Planning Agency (NNVTACTPA) is to ensure the development of an efficient, effective and equitable transportation system for the residents, businesses and visitors to the Napa region, through a coordinated inter-jurisdictional decision making process. In order to carry out its mission to its fullest potential, NCTPANVTA solicits and receives input from all of its stakeholders, regardless of race, language or socioeconomic status.
Multicultural outreach and environmental justice initiatives are founded on the recognition of a community’s cultural and economic diversity, as well as the awareness that some groups have not always enjoyed equal access to information, services, or other resources. Recent U.S. Census reports1 indicate that Napa County fares better than many parts of the state: average rates of poverty in Napa County are below state averages, and average income is higher than the state average. However, these assessments cannot take into account the many cultural and economic challenges with which some individuals and groups are faced. As in other parts of California, the ethnic composition of Napa County is changing. Once predominantly Caucasian, the population of Hispanic or Latino residents has grown considerably in the last decade. Populations of Asian, African-American, Indo-European, Pacific Islander and Middle-Eastern people have also grown.
This Title VI Public Participation Plan (PPP) aims to identify communities that have been traditionally underserved by NCTPANVTA and determine the most effective ways to encourage the participation of these communities. The PPP is designed to be a living document that will be updated yearly to incorporate new data, methods, and outcomes, as identified through local outreach activities and best practices in the field. The NCTPA NVTA will work with community partners to identify and implement strategies that remove barriers to access and participation for diverse community members.
1 U.S. Census, American Communtites Survey 2010-20142 Estimates, Quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06055.html
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
57
Page 2 of 20
1. INTRODUCTION NCTPANVTA serves as the congestion management agency and public transit provider for the jurisdictions within Napa County, one of the nine Bay Area counties within Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) region. According to 20152 population estimates, nearly 1420,5000 people reside on the roughly 740 square miles of land in Napa County. Land types include a mixture of smaller, rural communities and agricultural land. NCTPANVTA provides services to a diverse group of stakeholders, with a mixture of English and non-English speakers from a variety of cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. The NCTPANVTA makes every reasonable effort to address the needs of all stakeholders by providing equal access and opportunities for ongoing involvement and participation in its operations. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origins in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Under federal regulations, transit operators must take reasonable steps to ensure persons have access to their activities and programs. Public participation opportunities, already provided to the public in English, should also be made accessible to persons who have a limited ability to speak, write, read, or understand English.
A. PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN This Plan attempts to identify all minority, low-income, and Limited English Proficient (LEP) populations located within the NCTPANVTA service area. The Plan describes existing outreach methods that are used to communicate NCTPANVTA programs and services to the public. It also addresses strategies that can be applied to increase the involvement of traditionally underrepresented or underserved groups in order to develop more inclusive plans for the future.
B. SUMMARY OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT
To assist in the preparation of this report, NCTPANVTA conducted interviews with agency staff to gain an understanding of how inclusivity is currently incorporated in the planning process. The agency also engaged a wide array of community groups to identify key concerns among the distinct populations in the region. For a list of community groups that were contacted, see Appendix A. This effort also included an attempt to thoroughly account for all minority and low-income populations served by NCTPANVTA. As described in the 20173 Language Assistance Plan developed by NCTPANVTA (see Appendix 1B), the agency will perform an on-board survey in the spring of 2014 to assess the frequency of employees’ contact with minority, low-income, and other disadvantaged individuals and identify any existing barriers to effectively serving those populations. Pplans exist to conduct additional interviewstraining with operations, customer service, and dispatch staff in the future.
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
58
Page 3 of 20
2. NAPA COUNTY PROFILE
A. COMMUNITIES NCTPANVTA serves all of Napa County. This includes connections to portions of Solano County (Fairfield, Suisun, and Vallejo) and the BART Station in the City of El Cerrito. According to the 2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates US Census figures for Napa County, the total population was estimated to be 139,2536,484 residents. The City of Napa has the largest population, followed by the cities of American Canyon, St. Helena, Calistoga and Yountville respectively. In addition to the five incorporated cities and town listed above, there are several unincorporated communities within Napa County whose residents also depend on NCTPANVTA to meet their many and diverse transportation needs:
• Aetna Springs • Angwin • Berryessa Highlands • Capell Valley • Chiles Valley • Circle Oaks • Deer Park • Dry Creek • Gordon Valley • Lokoya
• Los Carneros • Moskowite Corner • Mt. Veeder • Oakville • Pope Valley • Rutherford • Silverado Resort • Soda Canyon • Spanish Flat • Vichy Springs
B. DEMOGRAPHICS NCTPANVTA reviewed Census maps and data for Napa County in order to establish context for this PPP. According to the data available, the majority of Napa County residents identify themselves as Caucasian. A significant percentage of the local population identified as Hispanic or Latino, with a smaller number of respondents identifying as Asian, African American, or more than one race. According to a recent study2, “immigrants are contributing to very rapid demographic change in Napa County, particularly in the urban areas in southern Napa County and Calistoga. This demographic shift is most evident in the student and young working-adult populations.” Nearly one-thirdApproximately 33% of Napa County residents identify themselves as Hispanic or Latino, and another 7.46.8% identify as Asian. Small enclaves of ethnically and culturally-diverse groups, such as Sikhs, Filipinos, and Native Americans live within NCTPANVTA’s service area, in addition to a significant population of year-round agricultural workers. Given the predominance of undocumented immigrants working in agricultural labor as well as the use of contract firms based outside of Napa County, these numbers may underestimate the actual number of minority populations residing and working in Napa County.
2 “Profiles of Immigrants in Napa County”, Migration Policy Institute, May 2012, www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/napa-profile
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Field Code Changed
59
Page 4 of 20
A breakdown of the racial demographics in Napa County, as measured during the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates U.S. Census, are shown in Table 1 below: Table 1: Racial Demographics in Napa County (Source: US Census, 2010-2014 Napa County Demographic Profile and Housing DataEstimates) Total Population 139,253 One Race 134,303 96.4% White 107,543 77.2% Black or African American 2,992 2.1% American Indian or Alaska Native
696 0.5%
Asian 10,362 7.4% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 356 0.3% Two or more Races 4,950 3.6% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 45,937 33.0% Outside of the Napa County service area, Hispanic or Latino peoples comprise approximately 26% of the population in the Solano County cities of Fairfield and Suisun. C. LANGUAGE In Napa County, approximately 843% of the population speaks English “very well” according to U.S. Census standards. This figure includes both native English speakers and speakers of multiple languages. Of the total population, 354% of all people speak a language other than English. Approximately half of those people, or 17%, are considered to speak English “less than very well.” These communities are the focus of this study. Table 2 shows a numerical breakdown of languages spoken at home in Napa County. Table 2: Language Spoken at Home in Napa County (Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 201007-20141, Napa County) Speak English Very Well 843% Speak English Less Than Very Well 167% Speak only English 645.69% Speak a language other than English 34.135.4% Spanish or Spanish Creole 2276.97% Other Indo-European languages 2.52.7% Asian and Pacific Island languages 4.74.4% Other languages 0.3%
Please see the NCTPANVTA’s 20173 Language Assistance Plan for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Populations (Appendix 1B) for more information. D. ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
The U.S. Census Bureau studied labor patterns in Napa County between 200107 and 20141. According to this study, there are approximately 63,45067,310 people employed in Napa County. Of these workers, 1.04% were identified as relying on public transportation to commute to work. This figure is below the
Formatted: Font: Not Bold
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
60
Page 5 of 20
state’s average of 5.21%, and may represent an opportunity for NCTPANVTA to increase its transit ridership. There are approximately 49,6340 households in Napa County. An analysis of income per household is presented in Table 3. A map of Napa County mean income is shown in Figure 1. Table 3: Household Income in Napa County (Source: US Census Bureau, American Community Survey 200107-20141, Napa County) Total Households 49,631 Less than $10,000 1,714 3.5% $10,000 to $14,999 2,105 4.2% $15,000 to $24,999 4,134 8.3% $25,000 to $34,999 3,727 7.5% $35,000 to $49,999 6,250 12.6% $50,000 to $74,999 8,199 16.5% $75,000 to $99,999 6,723 13.5% $100,000 to $149,999 8,724 17.6% $150,000 to $199,999 3,690 7.4% $200,000 or more 4,365 8.8% Napa County has an average (mean) income of $94,8942,291, which is nearly $510,000 higher than the state average of $85,1487,087. Also, the rate of poverty, i.e. the percentage of total households families with an income below thresholds that vary by family size and compositionincome below $35,000, is 7.36.7%. This figure is below the California average of 10.812.3% of all householdsfamlies. Figure 1: Mean Income by US Census Tracts, Napa County, 2011
E. TRADITIONALLY UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES To determine which communities qualify for consideration as low-income and minority populations, NCTPANVTA analyzed U.S. Census Data and established partnerships with local community-based organizations and city and county agencies that serve these populations. NCTPANVTA acknowledges that sub-groups exist within traditionally underrepresented ethnic and income groups (e.g. individuals who are mentally or physically handicapped or homeless, etc.) and makes a reasonable effort to serve those sub-groups, as resources and staff permit. Agricultural laborers in Napa County are reported to have lower levels of formal education, as well as limited English proficiency and other cultural and socio-economic barriers that may prohibit access to information and services. Figure 12 shows the education level of Napa County workers using the five year estimates 2010-2014 ACS dataduring select years between 1995 and 2012. Figure 3 shows the education level of Napa County Vineyard Workers between the years of 1995 and 2012.
Figure 2: Napa County Employment Education Level, 1995 -– 2012
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
Formatted: Highlight
61
Page 6 of 20
Source: ACS (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml)
Figure 3: Napa County Vineyard Jobs and Education Level, 1995 - 2012
3. OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
A. INTRODUCTION The NCTPANVTA faces a wide range of socio-economic challenges and ethnicity-based differences in meeting the needs of Napa County residents and visitors classified under Title VI regulations. Napa County’s unique agricultural heritage and reputation attract people from every part of the world. Napa County is becoming more ethnically diverse and beginning to more closely reflect regional population patterns. Many people in Napa County are employed in the wine and hospitality industries, including many agricultural laborers. The interconnections that exist between industries in Napa County, such as between the wine and hospitality industries, also extend to, and have economic impacts on, other businesses and residents of Napa County. The wine industry continues to use an increasing amount of contract labor from third parties outside Napa, which is not reflected in the U.S. Census Bureau statistics for the area or their estimates for reliance on public transportation by this segment of the population.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Population 25 years and over
Less than 9th grade
9th to 12th grade, no diploma
High school graduate (includes equivalency)
Some college, no degree
Associate's degree
Bachelor's degree
Graduate or professional degree
Formatted: Centered
Formatted: Centered
62
Page 7 of 20
B. TARGET POPULATION AND NEEDS Vineyard workers in Napa County have been identified as predominantly Hispanic or Latino and relatively young. Along with their extended families, these laborers represent a growing audience for the NCTPANVTA’s Title VI community outreach efforts. Farmworker Housing Centers, churches, schools and community organizations serving the local Hispanic or Latino community, are provided with copies of translated NCTPANVTA materials and information on how to access Spanish-speaking staff or translators. Ongoing outreach to other ethnically, culturally or economically-disadvantaged groups throughout Napa County is maintained through regular contact with representatives from community based organizations (CBOs) and local agencies that serve these populations. Specific methods used for outreach to LEP individuals are also outlined in NCTPANVTA’s 20173 Plan for Language Assistance (Appendix 1B).
Several current studies3 indicate that the average age of employees outside of agriculture, both in and out of Napa County, is shifting to relatively older workers. This is particularly true for many hospitality industry employees. Napa County has a significant senior population, many of whom live on fixed incomes and have limited access to transportation due to economic, geographic, or physical limitations.
C. PARTNERSHIPS WITH COMMUNITY BASED ORGANIZATIONS (CBOs) NCTPANVTA has identified and maintains contact with a network of representatives from local Community Based Organizations (CBOs), non-profit, faith-based and volunteer groups, health care, legal aid and social service agencies, educators and administrators. The agency relies on these groups to provide input and feedback on their programs and services, as well as to disseminate information to the populations served by or involved with these groups and organizations. Enhanced outreach to these groups includes regular distribution of bilingual (Spanish and English) collateral materials with current route and scheduling information, as well as updates on new programs and services provided by telephone, email, website links and social media posts.
D. TRANSLATION AND INTERPRETIVE SERVICES NCTPANVTA continues to enhance its efforts to provide equal access to low-income, minority and LEP populations. This is accomplished by translating website pages; distributing route schedules, reports and other agency materials; and making translation services more widely available at public venues and community events.
3 “The Labor Market in Napa County, California: Opportunities and Challenges for the Wine Industry”, IMPACT Napa Conference, North Bay Business Journal, August 29, 2013, http://www.northbaybusinessjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/Robert-Eyler-economics-presentation-for-Impact-Napa-2013.pdf; “Economic Opportunity and Workforce Development in Napa County”, Prepared for the Napa County Workforce Investment Board, September 2010, www.napaworkforce.org/portals/3/downloads/report/NapaEconRpt10.pdf; “Profiles of Immigrants in Napa County”, Migration Policy Institute, May 2012, www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/napa-profile
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
Field Code Changed
63
Page 8 of 20
4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STRATEGIES
A. INTRODUCTION Effective public participation strategies utilize a variety of methods to engage the greatest number of people. NCTPANVTA continually strives to meet this strategic objective with existing staff and other resources. The following factors guide NCTPANVTA staff in the design and implementation of public participation strategies:
• Size and/or scale of the plan or project (regional or county-wide, neighborhood level, etc.) • Level of potential impacts, including social, economic and environmental impacts
B. EXISTING NCTPANVTA OUTREACH NCTPANVTA has and will continue to use a broad array of communication tools and resources to reach out to Napa County residents, businesses, CBOs, service agencies, neighborhood and community groups, visitors, commuters and other potential transit users groups, all of which have the potential to include Title VI-qualifying communities. Some of the tools and methods used by NCTPANVTA to effectively disseminate information to Title VI groups and the larger community include:
• Implementing the language assistance measures outlined in the 20173 NCTPANVTA Plan for LEP Populations (Appendix 1B)
• Translation of NCTPANVTA key website pages, documents and reports • Making translators available at public meetings and events • Using translation services for responses to individual public requests and service inquiries • Including contact information for translation requests on all printed material • Use of local bilingual radio, television and newspaper advertising • Distribution of translated or bilingual collateral materials to local CBOs and community agencies • Use of social media tools and resources • Participation in local community events • Hosting of public meetings at appropriate community venues
C. RECOMMENDED STRATEGIES Pursuant to Title VI regulatory guidance, NCTPANVTA will continue to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to underserved populations identified within their service area. This includes ongoing efforts to improve access and opportunities for involvement in the identification of social, economic, and environmental impacts of proposed transportation decisions and programs. All public participation activities normally provided in English will continue to be made available to low-income, minority and LEP populations, using the methods and tools deemed most effective for reaching those audiences, including:
• Continued implementation of the 20173 NCTPANVTA Plan for LEP Populations and training for NCTPANVTA operations, driver and customer service staff on key plan components
• Expanded use of local and regional bilingual radio, television and newspaper advertising • Continued use of translators and translated materials
64
Page 9 of 20
• Expansion and continued use of the NCTPANVTA’s contact database of CBO and other community-focused organizations to maintain open communication, provide input and receive feedback
• Increased use of graphic signage and visually enhanced materials • Increased use of website applications, posting of website notices and links to information • Continued posting and distribution to local CBOs, churches, schools, libraries, cultural and
community centers and service agency representatives of bilingual flyers, postcards and brochures
• Increased participation in community events • Continued hosting of public meetings
NCTPANVTA also plans to distribute copies of the agency’s Public Participation Plan in English, and Spanish and Filipino. In addition, NCTPANVTA will draft and implement project-specific public participation plans for any major projects or initiatives conducted by the agency. These plans will take into account the audiences affected by the project or initiative, their communication needs, as well as the strategies listed above.
5. PERFORMANCE METRICS AND GOALS
A. MONITORING AND RECORDING NCTPANVTA is committed to accountability and transparency throughout its operations. NCTPANVTA staff will continue to monitor and track public participation methods and make the results of those efforts available for review. Complaints, comments, and suggestions from Title VI individuals or groups will be monitored and tracked by designated NCTPANVTA staff.
NCTPANVTA has collected some existing information about the reach and effectiveness of its current methods and will continue to expand and use that information to improve access, programs and services. Some of the measurable objectives that the NCTPANVTA currently tracks or will implement as resources permit, include:
• Regular updates to contacts in the community partners database and outreach to low-income, minority and LEP individuals
o NVTA currently communicates, collaborates, and coordinates with a host of social service organizations in Napa County including: Queens Carriage, Queen of the Valley Hospital, Napa CA Molly's Angels, non-profit volunteers, Napa CA Adult Day Services, day program center in Napa CA Napa Valley Support Services, day program center & employer, Napa CA Davila Dialysis, Napa CA Napa Valley Dialysis Center, Napa CA PSI, work center for disabled individuals, Napa CA CARE, support network for Queen of the Valley Hospital, Napa CA Napa Valley Family Services, Napa CA Napa Valley Community Housing, Napa CA
Formatted: No Spacing, Bulleted + Level: 1 +Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: No Spacing, Bulleted + Level: 2 +Aligned at: 0.75" + Indent at: 1"
Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Formatted: No underline
Formatted: Font: 11 pt
Formatted: No Spacing, Bulleted + Level: 3 +Aligned at: 1.25" + Indent at: 1.5"
Formatted: Font: 11 pt, Font color: Auto
Formatted: Font: 11 pt
65
Page 10 of 20
Vine Village, day program, Napa CA Napa Valley Volunteer Center, Napa CA Clinic Ole & Sister Mary Ann's, low income medical clinic, Napa & Calistoga, CA St. Helena Hospital, Deer Park CA Napa Senior Center, Napa CA Golden Living Center, nursing home, Napa CA Napa Nursing Center, nursing home, Napa CA American Cancer Society, Napa CA North Bay Regional Center (NBRC), Napa CA Napa County HHSA, Napa CA Department of Rehabilitation, Napa CA Napa Valley Unifed School District, Napa CA Napa Valley Low Vision Support Group, Napa CA Womens Center of St. Helena, St. Helena CA Aldea, family services, Napa CA Napa County Public Authority, In-Home Supportive Services, Napa CA • Napa Valley College, adaptive PE classes, Napa CA
• Tracking the number and type of Title VI participants attending NCTPA public meetings and events
• Tracking the number and percentage of comments or feedback received in languages other than English
•o NVTA has been tracking all inquiries, comments, and complaints beginning in FY 2016-2017. Prior to that point, NVTA was only tracking service and shelter requests. There have been 23 submissions in FY 2016-2017 so far and an additional 305 submissions in 2015-2016. Of all of the submissions between FY 2015-2017, only six were in Spanish. The physical comment cards are avaialbe in Spanishs, and there is the option to submit online in Spanish. All submission received were translated into English and repaonses were given in Spanish as long as contact information was provided.
• Analyzing website statistics, webpage downloads and time spent on key webpages • Tracking internal (staff) and external (transit users) survey results • Tracking the number and type of Title VI public complaintsinquiries that the NCTPANVTA staff
receive via phone, email and in-person visits
B. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OUTCOMES The Title VI Public Participation Plan is designed to identify opportunities for greater community involvement through implementation of thoughtful outreach methods and all tools available. These strategies will be applied with the goal of engaging the greatest possible number of residents and visitors, based on available resources and recognition of the unique characteristics, strengths and challenges of the Napa County transportation service area.
As NCTPANVTA increases its efforts to solicit involvement from these Title VI-qualifying communities, the agency hopes to see increased engagement from diverse community members. Ongoing engagement and participation will foster a two-way dialogue between transit providers and transit users, leading to improved efficiency and service. NCTPANVTA will be able to better serve its customers and its customers will realize greater benefits from the use of NCTPANVTA’s services.
Formatted: Normal, Bulleted + Level: 1 +Aligned at: 1.25" + Indent at: 1.5"
Formatted: Font color: Black
Formatted: No Spacing, Bulleted + Level: 1 +Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted
Formatted: Not Highlight
Formatted: Not Highlight
66
Page 11 of 20
APPENDIX A
Community Groups Contacted for the Language Assistance Plan
• American Canyon Family Resource Center • Boys & Girls Clubs of Napa Valley • Napa County Hispanic Network • Napa Valley Adult School • Napa Valley College • Napa Valley Community Housing (Mayacamas Village) • Napa Valley Non-Profit Coalition • Puertas Abiertas • Somos Napa • VOICES (Voice Our Independent Choices for Emancipation)
Formatted: Highlight
67
Page 12 of 20
APPENDIX B
Language Assistance Plan for
Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency
Introduction
NCTPA serves as the congestion management agency and public transit provider for the jurisdictions in Napa County, and is one of the nine Bay Area counties within the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) region. NCTPA’s service area includes a population of some 139,000 residents in over 740 square miles of land, consisting mostly of smaller, rural communities and agricultural land. The service area is diverse, with large numbers of residents speaking a language other than English as their primary means of communication. Individuals who have a limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English are considered to be limited English proficient, or “LEP.” In compliance with guidance and rules issued by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, NCTPA has taken reasonable steps to ensure that all persons have meaningful access to its programs, services, and information, at no additional cost. This includes the following plan for LEP persons within NCTPA’s jurisdiction. A Language Assistance Plan starts with an assessment to identify LEP individuals who need assistance. NCTPA will perform an on-board rider survey in the spring of 2014 and the survey results will be available in summer 2014. NCTPA also plans to conduct internal surveys with transit operators, dispatch, customer service and ticket sales staff, regarding frequency of contact with LEP individuals or groups. Once the assessment is complete, the Language Assistance Plan is drafted and adopted by the agency. Implementation of the Language Assistance Plan includes the development of language assistance measures, staff training, notification measures to LEP individuals, and monitoring and updating of the plan on a yearly basis.
Purpose
The purpose of this Language Assistance Plan (hereinafter “plan”) is to ensure members of the public have access to public information and services provided by NCTPA and to meet Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) requirements to comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. As a subrecipient of FTA funds, NCTPA is required to take reasonable steps to provide meaningful access to its transit services for persons who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English. The FTA refers to these persons as Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons.
The U.S. DOT’s FTA Office of Civil Rights’ publication “Implementing the Department of Transportation’s Policy Guidance Concerning Recipients’ Responsibilities to Limited English Proficient Persons – A Handbook for Public Transportation Providers” was used in the preparation of this plan.
68
Page 13 of 20
Contents
This plan contains:
A. A needs assessment based on the four-factor analysis
B. Language assistance measures
C. Staff training plan
D. Methods for notifying LEP persons about available language assistance
E. Methods for monitoring, evaluating and updating plan
A. LEP Needs Assessment – the Four-Factor Analysis
Determination of Need
In order to prepare this Plan, NCTPA implemented the U.S. Department of Transportation’s four factor LEP analysis, which considers the following:
1. The Number and Proportion of LEP Persons Served or Encountered in the Eligible Service Population
2. The frequency with which LEP persons come in contact with NCTPA programs, activities or services
3. The Importance to LEP Persons of NCTPA’s Program, Activities and Services 4. The resources available to NCTPA and overall cost to provide LEP assistance
Factor 1: Number and proportion of LEP persons served or encountered NCTPA used the American Community Survey (ACS) 5 Year survey data for 2007-2011 for Limited English Proficient (LEP) Populations in Napa County to estimate the number or proportion of LEP persons who might use or want to use NCTPA’s services. The American Community Survey (ACS) 5 Year survey data identifies people who speak English “less than very well” as Limited English Proficient persons. The survey data is broken down by the languages spoken at home, and by ability to speak English, for persons five years of age and older, with number and percentage broken out by county. For Napa County, the ACS data indicates that approximately half of the residents identified as speaking a “language other than English”, and whose primary language is categorized as “Spanish or Spanish Creole”, were identified as speaking English “less than very well”. The ACS study data also indicates that nearly 40% of the Asian and Pacific Islanders in Napa County speak English “less than very well”.
69
Page 14 of 20
Total Percent of specified language speakers 2007-2011 American
Community Survey Speak English "very
well" Speak English less than "very well"
Language Spoken at Home Estimate Margin of Error
Estimate Margin of Error
Estimate Margin of Error
Population 5 years and over 127,288 +/-76 83.5% +/-1.0 16.5% +/-1.0 Speak only English 65.9% +/-1.1 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than English 34.1% +/-1.1 51.7% +/-2.5 48.3% +/-2.5 Spanish or Spanish Creole 26.7% +/-1.0 47.6% +/-3.0 52.4% +/-3.0 Other Indo-European languages 2.7% +/-0.4 80.6% +/-5.3 19.4% +/-5.3 Asian and Pacific Island languages 4.4% +/-0.4 58.2% +/-5.3 41.8% +/-5.3 Other languages 0.3% +/-0.1 66.3% +/-14.1 33.7% +/-14.1 SPEAK A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH
Spanish or Spanish Creole 33,979 +/-1,234 47.6% +/-3.0 52.4% +/-3.0 5-17 years 8,954 +/-586 69.2% +/-5.5 30.8% +/-5.5 18-64 years 23,481 +/-860 39.8% +/-3.1 60.2% +/-3.1 65 years and over 1,544 +/-152 39.7% +/-11.0 60.3% +/-11.0 Other Indo-European languages 3,419 +/-555 80.6% +/-5.3 19.4% +/-5.3 5-17 years 314 +/-148 87.9% +/-15.9 12.1% +/-15.9 18-64 years 2,261 +/-446 82.1% +/-7.5 17.9% +/-7.5 65 years and over 844 +/-204 73.9% +/-10.1 26.1% +/-10.1 Asian and Pacific Island languages 5,649 +/-476 58.2% +/-5.3 41.8% +/-5.3 5-17 years 715 +/-183 68.3% +/-14.6 31.7% +/-14.6 18-64 years 4,054 +/-355 63.0% +/-6.0 37.0% +/-6.0 65 years and over 880 +/-152 28.2% +/-13.2 71.8% +/-13.2 Other languages 365 +/-166 66.3% +/-14.1 33.7% +/-14.1 5-17 years 65 +/-90 58.5% +/-22.3 41.5% +/-22.3 18-64 years 242 +/-107 71.9% +/-18.9 28.1% +/-18.9 65 years and over 58 +/-45 51.7% +/-37.1 48.3% +/-37.1 CITIZENS 18 YEARS AND OVER All citizens 18 years and over 87,477 +/-993 92.5% +/-0.8 7.5% +/-0.8 Speak only English 78.7% +/-1.0 (X) (X) (X) (X) Speak a language other than English 21.3% +/-1.0 65.0% +/-3.3 35.0% +/-3.3 Spanish or Spanish Creole 14.5% +/-0.9 63.8% +/-4.2 36.2% +/-4.2 Other languages 6.8% +/-0.5 67.5% +/-4.3 32.5% +/-4.3
• The ACS data above estimates the total population of the NCTPA Napa County service area to be:
127,288.
• The ACS data above estimates the total number of people who speak a language other than English in the NCTPA Napa County service area is estimated to be: 43,405 or 34.1% of the population.
• The ACS data above estimates the total number of LEP persons (those who speak English less than “very well”) in the NCTPA Napa County service area is estimated to be: 21,702 or 17% of the population.
70
Page 15 of 20
Factor 2: Frequency of LEP populations’ contact with existing programs, activities, and services Statistical data regarding individual requests from LEP persons will be tracked as resources permit; however since several transit routes serve Napa County social service and non-profit agencies, it is likely that NCTPA is providing services to many LEP individuals.
The main language spoken by LEP individuals within the NCTPA service area is primarily Spanish.
Factor 3: Importance to LEP population of programs, activities, and services NCTPA considers public transit to be an important and essential service for many residents, commuters, and visitors in the local service area. This includes local buses and buses servicing neighboring counties and the regional BART system, paratransit, and services for seniors. These services are used by people from all walks of life, including commuters, students, visitors, the elderly, and those with limited mobility.
Factor 4: Resources available to NCTPA and overall cost to provide LEP assistance NCTPA makes every reasonable effort to communicate with LEP persons about available transit services, including providing the funding for translation of current services and bilingual materials. As resources permit, NCTPA will include training for all drivers on best practices for serving LEP individuals.
In addition to using a translation service, NCTPA recently hired additional Spanish-speaking staff at the ticket desk to better serve LEP individuals. NCTPA has also translated key website pages into Spanish.
In an effort to better serve the transit service needs of its users, NCTPA recently completed construction of its new Transit Center facility. The expanded facility will allow NCTPA to better market and communicate its transit services and serve the needs of the traveling public, including those of LEP populations.
NCTPA works with many advocacy groups serving LEP individuals to gain insight regarding their needs and concerns about local transit services. This includes Napa County Department of Health and Human Services, Community Action Napa Valley, SOMOS Napa, Hispanic Network, Non-profit Coalition, and Legal Aid of Napa Valley. NCTPA is continually exploring options for the best methods of delivering information and meeting the transit needs of all LEP persons and Napa County residents. NCTPA undertook significant Spanish-language outreach during its Agricultural Worker Vanpool Program and continues to expand community outreach efforts agency-wide. B. Language Assistance Measures
Language measures currently used and planned to be used by the NCTPA transit system to address the needs of LEP persons include the following:
__X__ Translating key documents in the following language(s): Spanish (other languages as needed)
__X__ Translating key website pages
__X__ Coordination of Oral and Written Translation Services
71
Page 16 of 20
__X__ Communication with LEP advocacy groups about transit services
__X__ Increased use of signage with graphic visual images and pictograms to promote universal understanding
__X__ Posting of bilingual notices informing LEP persons of available services
__X__ Other (description of services): training new residents on how to use transit system
C. Staff Training
To ensure effective implementation of this plan, NCTPA will schedule orientations for new staff and annual training for all employees whose position requires regular contact with the public. Training will include a review of this plan and how to handle verbal requests for transit service in a language other than English.
D. Notice to LEP Persons about Available Language Assistance
NCTPA will notify LEP individuals about the language assistance services available to them without cost by using the following methods:
__X__ Brochures
__X__ Sending information to local organizations serving LEP populations
__X__ Website notices
__X__ Including contact information for translation requests on all printed materials
__X__ Posting of bilingual flyers at libraries, churches, schools, cultural and community centers
__X__ Audio programs and radio ads
__X__ Participation in local community events
E. Monitoring, Evaluating and Updating Plan
NCTPA staff will review this plan annually, including:
• Assessing the sufficiency of staff training and budget for language assistance,
• Reviewing current sources for assistance to ensure continuing availability, and
• Reviewing any complaints, comments and suggestions from LEP persons, or agencies serving LEP populations, received during the past year.
Annual plan revisions will be approved by the agency’s Executive Director and dated accordingly.
72
Page 17 of 20
F. Dissemination of Plan
This plan is available on the NCTPA website at www.nctpa.net.
This plan is also available at no cost in English or Spanish upon request by telephone, fax, U.S. Postal Service mail, e-mail, or in person at the NCTPA office.
G. Contact Information
Questions or comments about this plan may be submitted to:
Napa County Transportation and Planning Agency ATTN: Civil Rights Officer 625 Burnell Street Napa, CA 94559 (707) 259-8631 (707) 259-8638
73
APPENDIX 3
Page 1 of 2
TITLE VI Compliant Form (Also available in Spanish and Filipino languages) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
Title 42 U.S.C. Section 2000d Please provide the following information necessary in order to process your complaint. A formal complaint must be filed within 180 days of the occurrence of the alleged discriminatory act. Assistance is available upon request. Please contact NVTA at (707) 259-8631. Complete this form and return to:
Civil Rights Officer Napa County Valley Transportation and Planning AgencyAuthority 625 Burnell Street Napa, CA 94559
Complainant's Name:
Address: City:
State: Zip Code:
Telephone (Home): (Work): Person(s) discriminated against (if other than complainant)
Name:
Address: City:
State: Zip Code:
Telephone (Home): (Work): What is the discrimination based on?
Race/Color National Origin Sex Disability
Low Income Limited English Proficiency
Date of the alleged discrimination: Location:
74
Page 2 of 2
Agency or person that who was responsible for alleged discrimination:
Describe the alleged Discrimination. Explain what happened and whom you believe was responsible (for additional space, attach additional sheets of paper to this form.
List names and contact information of persons who may have knowledge of the alleged discrimination.
How can this complaint be resolved? How can the problem be corrected?
Please sign and date. The complaint will not be accepted if it is has not been signed. You may attach any written materials or other supporting information that you think is relevant to your compliant.
Signature Date
75
APPENDIX 4
Page 1 of 15
Systemwide Title VI Service Standards and Policies
In preparation for the Title VI update, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority is required to adopt and then apply Vine Transit’s Systemwide Service Standards and Policies to fixed route service. Some of these standards and policies already exist; some need updating, and some need creating. This document establishes standards to be used in the 2017 Title VI Plan and will supersede those previously adopted. The required Title IV standards are:
• System-wide Service Standards a. Vehicle Load b. Vehicle Headways c. On-time Performance d. Service Availability
• System-wide Service Policies
a. Vehicle Assignment b. Transit Amenities
Systemwide Service Standards
Vehicle Load Factor is described as follows by FTA Circular 4702.1B:
Vehicle load can be expressed as the ratio of passengers to the total number of seats on a vehicle. For example, on a 40-seat bus, a vehicle load of 1.3 means all seats are filled and there are approximately 12 standees. A vehicle load standard is generally expressed in terms of peak and off-peak times.
Vine Calculates vehicle load factor based on the following performance measures and standards:
Fixed Route: Less than 1.5 in peak for local service, less than or equal to 1.0 in off peak for local service. All commuter services should be equal to or less than 1.0 during all times of day. Paratransit: Never exceed 1.0 Community Shuttles: Less than 1.5 in peak for local service, less than or equal to 1.0 in off peak.
Vehicle Load Factor is monitored regularly and used to determine whether additional capacity needs to be added to specific trips or routes based on changing demand patterns.
76
Page 2 of 15
Vehicle Headway is described as follows by FTA Circular 4702.1B:
Vehicle headway is the amount of time between two vehicles traveling in the same direction on a given line or combination of lines. A shorter headway corresponds to more frequent service. Vehicle headways are measured in minutes (e.g., every 15 minutes. Headways and frequency of service are general indications of the level of service provided along a route. Vehicle headway is one component of the amount of travel time expended by a passenger to reach his/her destination.
Vine Routes 1 – 8 provide service to the residents of the City of Napa. The majority of these routes are deployed in one way loops creating a coverage based system ensuring that most residents are within walking distance of fixed route transit. On weekdays Routes 2 – 5, 7, and 8 operate on half hourly headways while the Routes 1 and 6 run every forty-five minutes. On Saturdays all local routes run every forty-five minutes with no service on Sundays.
Vine intercity Routes 10 and 11 operates between the communities in the County of Napa as well as the City of Vallejo. The Route 10 runs from the City of Calistoga in northern Napa County to the Napa Valley College (NVC) campus in the south part of the City of Napa. The Route 11 runs from the Redwood Park and Ride Lot in the northern part of the City of Napa to the City of Vallejo serving the Vallejo Ferry Terminal, the Vallejo Transit Center in downtown, and Kaiser Vallejo. These routes intersect in the City of Napa along the main corridors of Soscol Avenue and Trancas Street. Each service runs on hourly headways but Route 10 and 11 schedules are staggered in order to operate at a minimum of half hour frequencies between Napa Valley College and Redwood Park and Ride during peak periods. Service is provided Sunday through Saturday with more limited service on the weekends. On-Time Performance is described as follows by FTA Circular 4702.1B:
On-time performance is a measure of runs completed as scheduled. This criterion first must define what is considered to be “on time.” For example, a transit provider may consider it acceptable if a vehicle completes a scheduled run between zero and five minutes late in comparison to the established schedule. On-time performance can be measured against route origins and destinations only, or against origins and destinations as well as specified time points along the route. Some transit providers set an on-time performance standard that prohibits vehicles from running early (i.e., ahead of schedule) while others allow vehicles to run early within a specified window of time (e.g., up to five minutes ahead of schedule). An acceptable level of performance must be defined (expressed as a percentage). The percentage of runs completed system-wide or on a particular route or line within the standard must be calculated and measured against the level of performance for the system.
Vine Transit defines a bus as late if it departs the “time point” five (5) or more minutes later than the published time. Buses are considered early if they depart from a published time point at any time prior to the scheduled departure. Current Standard: Vine Transit has an adopted on-time performance goal of 90 percent. On-time performance is tracked and included within monthly performance reports to the Vine Transit’s Board of Directors.
77
Page 3 of 15
Service Availability is described as follows by FTA Circular 4702.1B:
Service availability is a general measure of the distribution of routes within a transit provider’s service area. For example, a transit provider might set a service standard to distribute routes such that a specified percentage of all residents in the service area are within a one-quarter mile walk of bus service or a one-half mile walk of rail service. A standard might also indicate the maximum distance between stops or stations. These measures related to coverage and stop/station distances might also vary by population density.
Vine Transit determines transit service availability by mapping all active bus stops within the system and then calculating the population that resides within three-quarter mile radii of those stops. This information is then compared to the total service area population.
Systemwide Service Policies The FTA requires fixed-route transit providers to develop a policy for each of the following service indicators. The following policies differ from service standards in that they are not based on meeting a quantitative threshold, but rather qualitative evaluation results.
Vehicle Assignment is described as follows by FTA Circular 4702.1B:
Vehicle assignment refers to the process by which transit vehicles are placed into service in depots and on routes throughout the transit provider’s system. Policies for vehicle assignment may be based on the age of the vehicle, where age would be a proxy for condition. For example, a transit provider could set a policy to assign vehicles to depots so that the age of the vehicles at each depot does not exceed the system-wide average. The policy could also be based on the type of vehicle. For example, a transit provider may set a policy to assign vehicles with more capacity to routes with higher ridership and/or during peak periods.
Vine Transit currently has four (4) general types of fixed-route buses in the fleet, all of which are maintained to the same strict standards:
• 28-foot medium-duty transit buses • 30-foot heavy-duty transit buses • 35-foot heavy-duty transit buses • 40-foot heavy-duty transit buses
78
Page 4 of 15
Proposed Policy: All buses have the same level of amenities (i.e. air conditioning, wheelchair lifts, automated stop announcements), available to riders. Buses are not assigned to specific communities within Vine Transit’s service area based on vehicle age, but rather to serve specific routes that call for vehicles of differing lengths based street limitations. Many of the routes serve multiple communities with diverse populations. Given Vine Transit’s strict standards with respect to maintenance, age does not serve as a viable proxy for diminished quality.
Transit Amenities are described as follows by FTA Circular 4702.1B:
Transit amenities refer to items of comfort, convenience, and safety that are available to the general riding public. Fixed-route transit providers must set a policy to ensure equitable distribution of transit amenities across the system. Policies in this area address how these amenities are distributed within a transit system, and the manner of their distribution determines whether transit users have equal access to these amenities. This…is not intended to impact funding decisions for transit amenities. Rather, this…applies after a transit provider has decided to fund an amenity.
Proposed Policy: Transit amenities are distributed on a system-wide basis. Transit amenities include shelters, benches, and real time signage. The location of transit amenities is determined by factors such as ridership, individual requests, staff recommendations, and vendor preference (in the case of shelters which feature advertisements).
79
Page 5 of 15
80
Page 6 of 15
Chapter 3: Goals, Objectives, & Standards
1.1 Process for Establishing, Reviewing, and Updating Goals, Objectives, and Standards
Goals, objectives, and standards for Vine fixed route, VineGo paratransit, and NVTA’s community shuttles are reviewed on an annual basis, in conjunction with updating the Short Range Transit Plan. Goals and objectives as stated in the short range transit plan provide the agency with a concrete and consistent direction of operating and improving upon its transit services. Performance against adopted service standards is evaluated on a quarterly and annual basis. This review allows planning staff to react to poor performance and develop an action plan to remediate any deficiencies. Monthly reports are also produced to measure performance of the system to help staff and board members make informed decisions. These reports do not cover all standards set forth in this SRTP; however they do cover the key performance indicators as outlined in Chapter 2.
1.2 Napa Valley Transportation Authority Goals NVTA staff has developed the following goals:
1. Provide high-quality transit services. 2. Operate safe, comfortable, and reliable services. 3. Efficiently use NVTA resources. 4. Be a forward-thinking organization meeting the needs of an evolving and diverse community.
1.3 Napa Valley Transportation Authority Objectives The sixteen (16) objectives below were developed to support the achievement of the goals stated in the previous section. NVTA has elected to present them as a group, rather than listing specific objectives under each goal recognizing that an individual objective can correlate to multiple goals. NVTA‘s objectives for planning, funding, and delivery of Vine services as part of a multi-modal transportation system in the County of Napa are: Objective 1: Provide transit services that are cost-efficient.
Objective 2: Provide transit services that are reliable.
Objective 3: Provide transit services that are safe and secure.
Objective 4: Provide transit services that are convenient.
Objective 5: Provide transit services that are comfortable.
81
Page 7 of 15
Objective 6: Provide transit services that are an attractive option for individuals who have other transportation mode options available to them.
Objective 7: Design service to better coordinate with other operators inside and outside of Napa County
Objective 8: Deploy all services in the most efficient manner possible.
Objective 9: Maintain fleet and facilities in a constant state of good repair.
Objective 10: Strive to replace fleet vehicles at the end of their useful life.
Objective 11: Attempt to utilize alternative fuel vehicles where financially and operationally feasible.
Objective 12: Monitor financial and performance data on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis.
Objective 13: Ensure compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations.
Objective 14: Ensure the consideration of transit needs in all local land use decisions.
Objective 15: Promote partnerships with other organizations to support common interests and goals.
Objective 16: Promote public participation in service planning decisions.
1.4 Napa Valley Transportation Authority Measures and Performance Standards
The following tables will outline what goals NVTA’s measures and performance standards fall under and which objective or objectives they coincide with. The performance standards consist of both qualitative and quantitative definitions of acceptable performance. Actual performance is measured against these standards on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis. This amount of review allows staff to be more proactive in ensuring the Vine services are operating at maximum efficiency.
82
Page 8 of 15
1.4.1 Goal 1 – Provide High Quality Transit Services In order to meet the mobility needs of the residents of Napa County, NVTA strives to implement the highest quality transit services possible. The measures and performance standards ensure that NVTA can monitor and responded to any deficiencies that may be the outcome of poor quality of service.
Table 3-1: Goal 1 Performance Measures & Standards Measure Standard Objective(s)
Total Ridership Fixed Route: Increase over prior fiscal year 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, &
16 Paratransit: Growth should not lead to denials Community Shuttles: Growth should not lead to excessive wait times
Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour Fixed Route: Greater than 80% of system average 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, &
16 Paratransit: Greater than 2.0 Community Shuttles: Greater than 4.0
Load factor
Fixed Route: Less than 1.5 in peak for local service, less than or equal to 1.0 in off peak for local service. All commuter services should be equal to or less than 1.0 during all times of day. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, &
16 Paratransit: Never exceed 1.0 Community Shuttles: Less than 1.5 in peak for local service, less than or equal to 1.0 in off peak.
Percent Missed Trips per Trip Miles Fixed Route: Less than .01% Paratransit: 0% Community Shuttles: Less than .01%
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, & 16
Scheduled On-Time Arrivals
Fixed Route: Equal or greater than 90% on-time
2, 4, 6, & 12 Paratransit: Equal or greater than 97% on-time Community Shuttles: 90% of service will arrive within 30 minutes of request for service.
Passenger Injuries All Modes: Less than 1 per 100,000 passenger trips 3, 9, & 10 Preventable Accidents All Modes: Less than 1 per 100,000 revenue miles 3, 9, & 10
Complaints Fixed Route: Less than 1 per 100,000 revenue miles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, &
16 Paratransit: No more than 1 complaint for every 600 passenger trips. Community Shuttles: Less than 1 per 5,000 revenue miles
Percent of Trips Denied Paratransit: 0% 2, 4, 7, 8, & 16
83
Page 9 of 15
Measure Standard Objective(s) Cleanliness of Buses Interiors and exteriors cleaned daily 2, 3, 5, 6, & 9
Proximity to Service
Fixed Route: 95% of dwelling units in areas having six or more units per acre to be located with 1-4 mile of a stop, all major destinations to be within 1-8 of a mile of a stop. Paratransit: Service will be available to all qualifying residents of Napa County with residences, destinations, or the ability to find alternate means to come within 3-4 of a mile from Vine fixed route service.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, & 16
Frequency of Service
Fixed Route: Frequency of service should never be more than one bus per hour for local and intercity buses. Commuter service frequency should never be more than one bus per one and half hours. System average should be 45 minutes or less.
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 16
Percentage of ADA Accessible Stops 100% of all new stops shall be ADA accessible, existing stops should be made accessible to the greatest extent possible. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, & 16
Bus Stop Amenities Stops which average 50 or more riders a day should have a shelter installed if feasible. 3, 4, 5, 6, & 8
Trip length Paratransit: Trips should not exceed 1.25 times that of an equivalent trip on fixed route transit. 2, 4, 5, 6, & 8
84
Page 10 of 15
1.4.2 Goal 2 – Operate Safe, Reliable, and Comfortable Service Safe, reliable, and comfortable service are NVTA’s top priorities. Promoting safe habits for drivers and delivering service people want to use benefits the agency as well as the community. Table 3-2: Goal 2 Performance Measures & Standards Measure Standard Objective(s)
Average Age of Fleet by Vehicle Type Fixed Route: Average age should not exceed 12 years.
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, & 13 Paratransit: Average age should not exceed 4 years. Community Shuttles: Average age should not exceed 4 years.
Average Mileage of Fleet by Vehicle Type
Fixed Route: Average should not exceed 500,000 miles. Paratransit: Average should not exceed 100,000 miles. Community Shuttles: Average should not exceed 100,000 miles.
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, & 13
Scheduled On-Time Arrivals
Fixed Route: Equal or greater than 90% on-time
2, 4, 6, & 12 Paratransit: Equal or greater than 97% on-time Community Shuttles: 90% of service will arrive within 30 minutes of request for service.
Passenger Injuries All Modes: Less than 1 per 100,000 passenger trips 3, 9, & 10 Preventable Accidents All Modes: Less than 1 per 100,000 revenue miles 3, 9, & 10
Complaints Fixed Route: Less than 1 per 100,000 revenue miles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15,
& 16 Paratransit: No more than 1 complaint for every 600 passenger trips. Community Shuttles: Less than 1 per 5,000 revenue miles
Percent of Trips Denied Paratransit: 0% 2, 4, 7, 8, & 16 Cleanliness of Buses All Modes: Interiors and exteriors cleaned daily 2, 3, 5, 6, & 9
Percent Missed Trips per Trip Miles Fixed Route: Less than .01% Paratransit: 0% Community Shuttles: Less than .01%
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, & 16
Preventative Maintenance Work Completed On-Time Greater than 99% 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, & 13
Vehicle Service Miles Between Road Calls Greater than 25,000 miles 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, & 13
85
Page 11 of 15
Measure Standard Objective(s)
Load factor
Fixed Route: Less than 1.5 in peak for local service, less than or equal to 1.0 in off peak for local service. All commuter services should be equal to or less than 1.0 during all times of day. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, & 16 Paratransit: Never exceed 1.0 Community Shuttles: Less than 1.5 in peak for local service, less than or equal to 1.0 in off peak.
Frequency of Service
Fixed Route: Frequency of service should never be more than one bus per hour for local and intercity buses. Commuter service frequency should never be more than one bus per one and half hours. System average should be 45 minutes or less.
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 16
Percentage of ADA Accessible Stops 100% of all new stops shall be ADA accessible, existing stops should be made accessible to the greatest extend possible 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, & 16
Bus Stop Amenities Stops which average 50 or more riders a day should have a shelter installed if feasible. 3, 4, 5, 6, & 8
Trip length Paratransit: Trips should not exceed 1.25 times that of an equivalent trip on fixed route transit. 2, 4, 5, 6, & 8
86
Page 12 of 15
1.4.3 Goal 3 – Efficiently Use of Resources NVTA strives to use its resources in an efficient and responsible manner. Ensuring needs are met and budgets are not overrun are two of NVTA’s top financial goals. Table 3-3: Goal 3 Performance Measures & Standards Measure Standard Objective(s)
Total Ridership
Fixed Route: Increase over prior fiscal year
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, & 16 Paratransit: Growth should not lead to denials Community Shuttles: Growth should not lead to excessive wait times
Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour Fixed Route: Greater than 80% of system average
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, & 16 Paratransit: Greater than 2.0 Community Shuttles: Greater than 4.0
Subsidy per Passenger Fixed Route: At or less than $6.50
1, 8, & 12 Paratransit: At or less than $40 Community Shuttles: At or less than $15
Operating Cost per Service Hour Fixed Route: At or less than $60 1, 8, & 12
Operating Cost per Revenue Hour Paratransit: At or less than $90 Community Shuttles: 1, 8, & 12
Operating Cost per Passenger Fixed Route: At or less than $4.50
1, 8, & 12 Paratransit: At or less than $24 Community Shuttles: At or less than $75
Farebox Recovery Ratio Fixed Route: Meet or exceed 15%.
1, 6, 7, 8, 12, & 14 Paratransit: Meet or exceed 10%. Community Shuttles: Meet or exceed 10%.
Load factor
Fixed Route: Less than 1.5 in peak for local service, less than or equal to 1.0 in off peak for local service. All commuter services should be equal to or less than 1.0 during all times of day. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, & 16 Paratransit: Never exceed 1.0 Community Shuttles: Less than 1.5 in peak for local service, less than or equal to 1.0 in off peak.
Percent Missed Trips per Trip Miles Fixed Route: Less than .01% Paratransit: 0% 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, & 16
87
Page 13 of 15
Measure Standard Objective(s) Community Shuttles: Less than .01%
Scheduled On-Time Arrivals
Fixed Route: Equal or greater than 90% on-time
2, 4, 6, & 12 Paratransit: Equal or greater than 97% on-time Community Shuttles: 90% of service will arrive within 30 minutes of request for service.
Complaints
Fixed Route: Less than 1 per 100,000 revenue miles
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, & 16 Paratransit: No more than 1 complaint for every 600 passenger trips. Community Shuttles: Less than 1 per 5,000 revenue miles
Percent of Trips Denied Paratransit: 0% 2, 4, 7, 8, & 16
Stop Spacing Stops should be spaced no closer than 1-4 of a mile and no further than 1-3 of a mile unless infrastructure constraints are present. 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, & 14
Proximity to Service
Fixed Route: 95% of dwelling units in areas having six or more units per acre to be located with 1-4 mile of a stop, all major destinations to be within 1-8 of a mile of a stop. Paratransit: Service will be available to all qualifying residents of Napa County with residences, destinations, or the ability to find alternate means to come within 3-4 of a mile from Vine fixed route service.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, & 16
Frequency of Service
Fixed Route: Frequency of service should never be more than one bus per hour for local and intercity buses. Commuter service frequency should never be more than one bus per one and half hours. System average should be 45 minutes or less.
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 16
88
Page 14 of 15
1.4.4 Goal 4 – Be a Forward Think Organization Meeting the Needs of an Evolving and Diverse Community
NVTA is always looking for new and useful technology that will make operating the system more efficient as well as attract new riders. By listening to the needs and wants of the community as well as introducing useful tools to the system NVTA will be able to create a strong and vibrant transit system. Table 3-4: Goal 4 Performance Measures & Standards Measure Standard Objective(s)
Stop Spacing
Stops should be spaced no closer than 1-4 of a mile and no further than 1-3 of a mile in urban areas. Stops located in rural areas will be evaluated on a case by case basis to ensure that ADA accessibility requirements are met and there is a clear and present demand.
1, 4, 6, 7, 8, & 14
Proximity to Service
Fixed Route: 95% of dwelling units in areas having six or more units per acre to be located with 1-4 mile of a stop, all major destinations to be within 1-8 of a mile of a stop. Paratransit: Service will be available to all qualifying residents of Napa County with residences, destinations, or the ability to find alternate means to come within 3-4 of a mile from Vine fixed route service.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, & 16
Frequency of Service
Fixed Route: Frequency of service should never be more than one bus per hour for local and intercity buses. Commuter service frequency should never be more than one bus per one and half hours. System average should be 45 minutes or less.
1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, & 16
Percentage of ADA Accessible Stops 100% of all new stops shall be ADA accessible, existing stops should be made accessible to the greatest extend possible 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, & 16
Bus Stop Amenities Stops which average 50 or more riders a day should have a shelter installed if feasible. 3, 4, 5, 6, & 8
Average Age of Fleet by Vehicle Type Fixed Route: Average age should not exceed 12 years.
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, & 13 Paratransit: Average age should not exceed 4 years. Community Shuttles: Average age should not exceed 4 years.
89
Page 15 of 15
Measure Standard Objective(s)
Average Mileage of Fleet by Vehicle Type
Fixed Route: Average should not exceed 500,000 miles. Paratransit: Average should not exceed 100,000 miles. Community Shuttles: Average should not exceed 100,000 miles.
1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, & 13
Total Ridership
Fixed Route: Increase over prior fiscal year
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, & 16 Paratransit: Growth should not lead to denials Community Shuttles: Growth should not lead to excessive wait times
Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour Fixed Route: Greater than 80% of system average
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, & 16 Paratransit: Greater than 2.0 Community Shuttles: Greater than 4.0
Maintain an up-to-date list of stakeholders Contact individuals and organizations yearly to ensure information is up-to-date on contact list. 14, 15, & 16
Implement Public Outreach in Accordance with the Title VI Public Participation Plan
Complete check-list of required processes in accordance with Title VI Public Participation Plan prior to an outreach event. 15 & 16
Land Use Coordination Comment on all design referrals with obvious transit nexus. Ensure participation on any TAC for major local land use projects
14, 15, & 16
90
APPENDIX 5
Title VI Notice to the Public
The Napa Valley Transportation Authority (Vine Transit) grants all citizens equal access to its transportation services in Napa County. NVTA and Vine Transit is committed to a policy of nondiscrimination in the conduct of its business, including its responsibilities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provides that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under its program of transit services delivery.
A complainant may file a complaint directly with the Federal Transit Administration by filing a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights, Attention: Title VI Program Coordinator, East Building, 5th Floor-TCR, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590
If information is needed in another language, contact 707-259-8631
Title VI Complaint Procedures
If you believe that you have received discriminatory treatment based on race, color or national origin with regard to transit services delivery, you have the right to file a Title VI complaint with the Authority’s Civil Rights Administrator. Federal and State laws require complaints to be filed within one-hundred and eighty (180) calendar days of the last alleged incident. You may download a complaint form by visiting www.nvta.ca.gov or www.vinetransit.com. You may also call customer service and ask for a Title VI complaint form to be mailed to you. You may also submit a written statement that contains all the information listed below. Complaints should be mailed or delivered to:
Napa Valley Transportation Authority Civil Rights Officer 625 Burnell St. Napa, CA 94559
All complaints should include the following information:
1. Name, address, and telephone number of the complainant. 2. The basis of the complaint; (e.g, race, color, or national origin). 3. The date(s) on which the alleged discriminatory event occurred. 4. The nature of the incident that led the complainant to feel discrimination was a factor. 5. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons who may have knowledge of the event. 6. Other agencies or courts where complaint may have been filed and a contact name.
Declaración de la política La Autoridad de tránsito de Napa Valley Transportation Authority (Vine Transit) otorga a todos los ciudadanos igual acceso a sus servicios de transporte en Napa Valley Transportation Authority. Vine Tranit está comprometida con una política de no discriminación al llevar a cabo sus negocios, incluso sus responsabilidades bajo el Título VI de la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964, la cual establece que ninguna persona deberá, con base en su raza, color de piel o país de origen, ser excluida de participar, que se le nieguen, beneficios o estar sujeta a discriminación bajo su programa de prestación de servicios de tránsito. Un demandante puede presentar una queja directamente ante la Administración Federal de Tránsito al presentar una queja ante la Oficina de Derechos Civiles, Atención: Title VI Program Coordinator, East Building, 5th Floor-TCR, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590 Si necesita la información en otro idioma, comuníquese llamando al 707-259-8631 Procedimientos de cumplimiento del Título VI Si considera que ha sido tratado de forma discriminatoria con base en la raza, el color de piel o el país de origen en relación con la prestación de los servicios de tránsito, tiene derecho a presentar una queja del Título VI ante el Administrador de Derechos Civiles de la Autoridad. Las leyes federales y estatales requieren que las quejas se presenten en un plazo de ciento ochenta (180) días calendario del supuesto incidente. Puede descargar una queja al visitar www.nvta.ca.gov o www.vinetransit.com. También puede llamar a servicios al cliente y pedir que le envíen por correo un formulario de quejas del Título VI. También puede enviar una declaración por escrito que contenga toda la información que se indica a continuación. Las quejas se deben enviar por correo o entregarlas en:
91
Napa Valley Transportation Authority Civil Rights Officer 625 Burnell St. Napa, CA 94559 Todas las quejas deben incluir la información siguiente: 1. Nombre, dirección y número de teléfono del demandante 2. El fundamento de la queja (p. ej. raza, color de la piel o país de origen). 3. La fecha en la que ocurrió el supuesto suceso de discriminación. 4. La naturaleza del incidente que causó que el demandante considerara que la discriminación era un factor. 5. Nombres, direcciones y números de teléfono de las personas que podrían tener conocimiento del suceso. 6. Otras agencias o tribunales en donde el demandante podría haber presentado la queja y un nombre de contacto. Pahayag ng Patakaran Pinagkakalooban ng Central Contra Costa Transit Authority (County Connection) ang lahat ng mamamayan ng pantay-pantay na akses sa mga serbisyo nito ng transportasyon sa Central Contra Costa. Dedikado ang Vine Transit sa patakarang walang-diskriminasyon sa pagpapatakbo ng negosyo nito, kabilang ang mga responsibilidad nito sa ilalim ng Title VI ng Civil Rights Act of 1964 na nagsasaad na dapat ay walang tao, na hindi pahihintulutan sa pakikilahok, pagkakaitan ng mga benepisyo, o sasailalim ng diskriminasyon sa ilalim ng programa nito sa paghahatid ng mga serbisyong transportasyon dahil sa kanyang lahi, kulay o bansang pinagmulan. Ang isang nagrereklamo ay maaaring direktang maghain ng reklamo sa Federal Transit Administration sa pamamagitan ng paghahain ng reklamo sa Office of Civil Rights, Attention: Title VI Program Coordinator, East Building, 5th Floor-TCR, 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE, Washington, DC 20590 Kung kinakailangan ang impormasyon sa iba pang wika, makipag-ugnayan sa 707-259-8631. Mga Pamamaraan ng Reklamo ukol sa Title VI Kung naniniwala kang nakatanggap ka ng pakikitungong may-diskriminasyon batay sa lahi, kulay o bansang pinagmulan kaugnay sa paghahatid ng mga serbisyong transportasyon, may karapatan kang maghain ng reklamo sa Title VI sa Civil Rights Administrator ng Authority. Hinihingi ng mga batas na Pederal at Pang-estado na ihain ang mga reklamo sa loob ng isangdaan at walumpung (180) araw sa kalendaryo mula sa sinasabing insidente. Maaari mong i-download ang form para sa paghain ng reklamo sa pamamagitan ng pagbisita sa www.nvta.ca.gov o www.vinetransit.com . Maaari ka ring tumawag sa customer service at hilinging mapadalhan ka sa koreo ng form ng reklamo sa Title VI. Maaari mo ring isumite ang isang nakasulat na pahayag na naglalaman ng lahat ng impormasyong nakalista sa ibaba. Dapat ipakoreo o ipahatid ang mga reklamo sa: Napa Valley Transportation Authority Civil Rights Officer 625 Burnell St. Napa, CA 94559 Dapat kasama sa lahat ng reklamo ang mga sumusunod na impormasyon:
1. Pangalan, address, at numero ng telepono ng nagrereklamo. 2. Ang batayan ng reklamo; (hal., lahi, kulay, o bansang pinagmulan). 3. Ang (mga) petsa kung kailan nangyari ang sinasabing pangyayaring may diskriminasyon. 4. Ang uri ng insidente na nagbigay-daan upang maramdaman ng nagrereklamo na isang salik ang diskriminasyon. 5. Mga pangalan, address at numero ng telepono ng mga taong maaaring may alam sa pangyayari. 6. Iba pang ahensiya o hukuman kung saan maaaring inihain ang reklamo at pangalan ng nakaugnayan.
92
APPENDIX 6
Page 1 of 2
Formatted: Justified
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold
Formatted: Left
List of Transit-Related Title VI Investigations, Complaints and Lawsuits In order to comply with the requirements of Circular 4702.1B, FTA requires all recipients to prepare and maintain a list of any of the following that allege discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin: active investigations conducted by the entities other than FTA; lawsuits; and complaints naming the recipient. This list shall include the date that the investigation, lawsuit, or complaint was filed; summary of the allegation(s); the status of the investigation, lawsuit, or complaint; and actions taken by the recipient in response, or final findings related to, the investigation, lawsuit, or complaint. Napa County Valley Transportation and Planning AgencyAuthority has not received any Title VI Investigations, Complaints or Lawsuits since the submission of its last Title VI Program. The NVTA did receive two complaints in 2014 as outlined below. No complaints were received in 2015 or 2016. Below is the list that will be used for tracking these incidents:
Title VI Investigations, Lawsuits and Complains
Date
(Month, Day, Year)
Summary (Include basis of
complaint: race, color, or national origin)
Status Action Taken
Investigations
1. N/A
Lawsuits
1. N/A
Complaints
1. N/A1/29/14
Title VI complaint was made against the VINE Valentine's Day Decorated Bus free ride promotion. One of our Transit buses
Closed
The complaint was reviewed by the NVTA Board of Directors at their February 29, 2014
Formatted Table
93
APPENDIX 6
Page 2 of 2
Formatted: Justified
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold
Formatted: Font: 10 pt
Formatted: Font: 10 pt, Bold
Formatted: Left
was decorated for Valentine's Day and passengers rode this bus free of charge. This bus was randomly rotated thoughout the day to serve each of our local Transit routes. A Title VI complaint was file on the basis of being denied service because the passenger felt he is being denied the benefit of riding the bus free of charge as the Valentine's Bus did not service his route at the time of his ride. I asked if the driver explained the Valentine’s Day free bus ride program to him and Mr. Bravo stated that the driver did not.
meeting. The Board of Directors voted unanimously to deny the Title VI complaint. The Board acknowledged, however, that the passenger may have received poor customer service because the Valentine’s Day bus promotion was not adequately explained to him. Future promotionals will be adequately explained to VINE Transit passengers.
2. 10/21/2014N/A
Per VINE transit passenger complaint was filed as a Title VI violation, because the passenger didn’t know what other recourse to take as she felt her complaint to the VINE Go service provider (Transdev) of her injury and damage to her wheelchair wasn’t being taken seriously. Passenger further stated that VINE Go has left her at the Napa Valley College on several occasions but couldn’t give specific dates/times. Passsenger was encouraged to keep record of dates/times of these occurrences and if necessary to file a formal Title VI complaint so that is issue can be investigated.
Closed
The complaint was reviewed by the NVTA Board of Directors at their November 19, 2014 meeting. The Board of Directors voted unanimously to deny the Title VI complaint.
94
APPENDIX 7
Page 1 of 1
Racial Breakdown of the Membership of Transit-Related Advisory Committees
Paratransit
Coordinating Council (PCC)
Citizens Advisory Committee
(CAC)
Approved Membership Positions 9 19
Filled Membership Positions 7 15
Members Completing Survey 7 7 American Indian/Alaskan Native
Black or African American (Non-Hispanic Origin) 1
White or Caucasian 7 5
Hispanic (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Central or South African or other Spanish Origin)
Asian/Pacific Islander 1
Outreach Efforts to Encourage Participation NVTA values the ethic and cultural diversity of the public it serves in Napa County. Accordingly, when committee vacancies occur, NVTA will ensure that effective efforts are made to encourage the participation of minorities on such committees. NVTA will utilize a number of strategies to promote meaningful participation by underrepresented groups, including targeted outreach. Methods may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
• Paid and free notices in the local media, especially those ethically, culturally-based for the targeted group NVTA is trying to reach. This effort includes print, electronic and social media.
• Translating notices into the native language of the targeted group. • Posting the vacancy on NVTA’s website. • Outreach to civic, cultural or human services organizations known to serve the
targeted group informing them of the opportunity and need and enlisting their help.
• Notifying the municipalities within the county of the vacancy and underrepresentation.
• Placing informational signs on the Vine buses, bus stops/shelters, Customer service, NVTA office, and other facilities.
95
APPENDIX 8
RESOLUTION No. 16-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (NVTA)
ADOPTING THE NVTA TITLE VI PROGRAM POLICY
WHEREAS, the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) is designated the
countywide transportation planning agency responsible for Highway, Street and Road, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian planning and programming within Napa County; and
WHEREAS, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires recipients of federal grants and other assistance to operate their programs and services without regard to, or discrimination based on, race, color or national origin; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued Circular FTA C 4702.1B, effective October 1, 2012, setting forth requirements and guidelines for Title VI compliance; and WHEREAS, the above-referenced Circular details required elements of a Title VI
Program Report, which each recipient of FTA grants and assistance must submit to the FTA every three (3) years to evidence compliance with Title VI:
WHEREAS, NVTA’s current Title VI Program expires on March 31, 2015, therefore necessitating submittal of an updated program report to the FTA by December 1, 2016; and
WHEREAS, NVTA’s Title VI Program Report must include numerous elements, including but not limited to:
1. Information on numerous agency policies, procedures and activities undertaken over the last three years;
2. A public participation plan (PPP); 3. Information on public outreach undertaken over the past three (3) years,
including development and approval of the Vine Transit Title VI Fare Equity Analysis accepted by this Board on January 15, 2015;
4. A plan for engaging persons with limited English proficiency (LEP); 5. System-wide service standards and policies; and
WHEREAS, Staff has developed a proposed Title VI Program Plan, including the
above-referenced items and evidencing NVTA’s compliance with Title VI, for Board consideration and approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby
adopts the NVTA Title VI Program as set forth in the Title VI Program; and
96
Resolution No. 16-23
Page 2 of 2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Directors authorizes the Executive Director, or designee, to:
1. Include evidence of the Board’s consideration and approval of the Title VI Program;
2. Submit the final Title VI Program to the FTA; and 3. Take any other steps necessary to give effect to this Resolution, including
responding to any follow-up inquiries from the FTA.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Napa Valley Transportation Authority, at a regular meeting held on September 19th, 2016, by the following vote: ____________________ Ayes: Peter White, NVTA Chair Nays: Absent: ATTEST: _____________________________________ Karalyn E. Sanderlin, NVTA Board Secretary APPROVED: ________________________________ Jeffrey M. Richard, NVTA Legal Counsel Date: ________________
97
September 21, 2016 NVTA Agenda Item 10.4
Continued From: New Action Requested: APPROVE
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Board Agenda Letter ______________________________________________________________________
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director REPORT BY: Antonio Onorato, Program Manager- Finance
(707) 259-8635 / Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Change Order Authorization for Purchase of Three (3) Paratransit Vehicles from Creative Bus Sales
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION That the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Board authorize the Executive Director to execute an amended Purchase Order with Creative Bus Sales for upgrades associated with the Vine Go rebranding strategy in an amount not to exceed $23,000. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The NVTA Board of Director’s approved staff request for a purchase order amendment to Creative Bus Sales #16-1004 for the acquisition of three (3) Vine Go paratransit vehicles at its March 16, 2016 board meeting. The change order modifies the order to incorporate NVTA’s rebranding. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Staff Report 2. Public Comments 3. Motion, Second, Discussion and Vote
98
NVTA Agenda Letter Wednesday September 19, 2016 Agenda Item 10.4
Page 2 of 3
FISCAL IMPACT Is there a Fiscal Impact? Yes. $19,461. The fiscal year budget already incorporates this increase. As such, an increase in the appropriation is not necessary. The increase is in the contract amount. Is it currently budgeted? Yes. The adopted budget reflects this increase. Where is it budgeted? Vine Go Capital Budget. Future fiscal impact: None Consequences if not approved: Keeping with the original purchase order will be inconsistent with NVTA and Vine Transit’s new branding. CEQA REQUIREMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION In 2015, NVTA was awarded $210,000 in Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5310 grant funds supplemented with Transportation Development Act (TDA) funds of $131,000 to replace three (3) paratransit vehicles that have reached the end of their useful life. When the Board approved the original purchase agreement at its March 16, 2016 meeting, the sales quote was pending. Staff estimated the total cost to be a $341,000. When the sales quote was finalized with new enhancements including the new “Vine Go brand seat upgrades, and other amenities, the quote was roughly $20,000 higher. A $3,539 contingency will be added to the budget for the allowance of minor fluctuations to this contract. Table 1 and 2 compares the initial cost estimate with the adjusted cost.
99
NVTA Agenda Letter Wednesday September 19, 2016 Agenda Item 10.4
Page 3 of 3
Table 1: Expenditure Plan- Estimate Description Quantity Unit Price Total Paratransit Vehicles 3 $70,000 $210,000 Add Options & Contingency $35,000 $105,000 Sales Tax at 8% $ 26,000 Estimated Total $341,000
Table 2: Expenditure Plan- Actual Sales Quote Description Quantity Unit Price Total Paratransit Vehicles 3 $49,864 $149,592 Add Options $61,175 $183,525 Sales Tax at 8% and Fees $ 27,344 Estimated Total $360,461
A contingency of $3,539 will be added to the total project budget to allow for minor fluctuations in the contract. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachment: (1) Purchase Order #16-1004
100
Phone: 707-259-8631 Fax: 707-259-8636 Web: nvta.ca.gov
Napa Valley Transportation Authority 625 Burnell Street Napa, CA 94559
Business Name
Requested By Ship Date Ship Via FOB Buyer Terms Tax ID
Roberts SEE SCHEDULE
- DEST Kulick NET 30 68-471080
QTY Item # Units Description Discount Taxable Unit Price Total
3 EA BUS, CLASS B, STARCRAFT ALLSTAR,
MEDIUM, FORD E-450, GAS
$1127,16.84 $ 338,150.52
Quote #DTD 3/22/2016
Subtotal $ 338,150.52
Tax $ 22,310.88
Ship -
Misc -
Balance $ 360,461.40
Purchase Order
NVTA - VINE Transit Yard 720 Jackson Street Napa, CA 94559 POC: Antonio Onorato, 707-259-8780
Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) ATTN: Accounts Payable 625 Burnell Street Napa, CA 94559
Bill To: Ship To:
Purchase Order #: 16-1004 Date: 03/22/2016 Vendor ID: 35349
Creative Bus Sales 13501 Benson Street Chino, CA 91710 POC: Dan Williams, 800-326-2877 [email protected]
VENDOR
NOTICE OF INCLUDED TERMS AND CONDITIONS This purchase order is a federally funded contract and as such, certain mandatory terms and conditions apply to this purchase order. These provisions include, but are not limited to the provisions of Buy America 49 U.S.C. §5323(j), 49 C.F.R. Part 661; Cargo Preference 46 U.S.C. § 55305, 46 C.F.R. Part 381; Fly America 49 U.S.C. § 40118, 41 C.F.R. §§ 301-10.131 through 301-10.143; Bus Testing 49 C.F.R. Part 665; U.S. DOT Third Party Procurement Regu-lations 49 C.F.R. §18.36 or 40 C.F.R. §§19.40 through 19.48, FTA Circular 4220.1F (including all mandated terms and conditions contained in Appendix D-4) and FTA Master Agreement FTA MA(17).
VENDOR ACCEPTANCE Vendor agrees to furnish and deliver all items or perform all the services set forth or otherwise identified above and on any continuation sheets for the consideration herein. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be subject to and governed by the following documents: (a) contract/purchase order, (b) the solicitation, if any, and (c) such provisions, representa-tions, certifications, and specifications, as are attached or incorporated by reference herein. (Attachments are listed herein.)
______________________________________________________
NAME AND TITLE DATE (Signature of person authorized to sign)
ORDER AWARDED AND ISSUED BY Individual listed below is hereby authorized to award ordered
material/services as specified, or incorporated by reference herein,
on behalf of the Napa County Transportation and Planning Agen-
cy.
_____________________________________
KATE MILLER, Executive Director DATE
FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY
FUND APPROPRIATION: FUND ________ DEPT ________ DIV ___________ SUB __________
THIS ORDER WILL BECOME VALID UPON RECEIPT OF VENDOR ACCEPTANCE.
All terms and conditions of the CalACT/MBTA Agreement __11-03_________
Are included herein as if fully set forth and the parties hereto agree that NCTPA is an assignee/third party beneficiary of that agreement and may en-force any and all rights contained in that agreement without limitation.
ATTACHED / (CONT. ON PG 2 OF 19) AS PER
ATTACHMENT 1 NVTA Board Agenda Item 10.4
September 21, 2106
101
September 21, 2016 NVTA Agenda Item 10.5
Continued From: New Action Requested: APPROVE
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Board Agenda Letter ______________________________________________________________________
TO: NVTA Board of Directors
FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director REPORT BY: Danielle Schmitz, Planning Manager
(707) 259-5968 / Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Solano-Napa Travel Demand Model Agreement ______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION That the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Board authorize the NVTA Executive Director to enter in to an agreement with Solano Transportation Authority (STA) for model refinement and validation to update the Solano-Napa Travel Demand Model (Attachment 1) in an amount not to exceed $60,000. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY An effective traffic forecasting tool is necessary to properly plan and program transportation needs. NVTA has worked with the Solano Transportation Authority (STA) over the past twelve years to develop a cost effective way of modeling future traffic in Solano and Napa counties. Currently, Cambridge Systematics is the modeling contractor for the Solano-Napa Travel Demand Model. To interact better with the regional model maintained by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) STA updated the Solano-Napa Model to an activity-based model. The activity-based model is more sophisticated than the previous trip-based model because it tracks individual travel behavior (each person and each household are treated individually), compared to the trip-based model which aggregates and averages data to travel analysis zones (TAZs). To remain compatible to the regional model Cambridge Systematics updated the Solano-Napa Model to an Activity-Based Model earlier this year. As a result of the update it was apparent to NVTA staff that many refinements were needed to bring the
102
NVTA Agenda Letter Wednesday, September 21, 2016 Agenda Item 10.5
Page 2 of 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________ Napa side of the model to a point where data from the model could be reliable and verified. Work needed to complete the model update is as follows:
• Define additional Travel Analysis Zones (TAZs) – additional zones provide greater geographic detail and provide more specific output results.
• Clean & refine the transportation network in Napa County – this has not been done for several years and is needed to provide more accurate results.
• Data collection in the form of traffic counts which will be used for model validation purposes – accurate and recent traffic counts are needed to validate the model.
• Model validation - currently the Napa side of the model is not validated. For the model to be a trusted and reliable source of information it needs to be validated.
The model update is anticipated to take 3 to 5 months. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Staff Report 2. Public Comments 3. Motion, Second, Discussion and Vote FISCAL IMPACT Is there a Fiscal Impact? Yes, $60,000. Additional budget appropriation is $0. NVTA will use currently budgeted funds through project efficiencies and other savings efforts. Is it currently budgeted? Yes Where is it budgeted? Under the Travel Demand Model Update and Website Enhancements Major Updates Future fiscal impact: None Consequences if not approved: The model will not be updated and will be insufficient in providing for Napa’s modeling needs. CEQA REQUIREMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Traffic models work in a variety of ways, but essentially they require updated information about current land use, population and economic conditions, the forecast split in modal usage (e.g. auto verses transit) and the existing transportation
103
NVTA Agenda Letter Wednesday, September 21, 2016 Agenda Item 10.5
Page 3 of 3 ___________________________________________________________________________________ infrastructure. This updated model can be used to review the impact of major development proposals, transportation projects, and will be useful in the production of NVTA planning documents and studies like the Countywide Transportation Plan and the Travel Behavior Study. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachments: (1) Draft Solano-Napa Travel Demand Model Update Agreement
104
1
SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AGREEMENT NO._____
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AGREEMENT NO. 16-18
FUNDING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of this day of ______ September, 2016, by and between the SOLANO TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, a joint powers entity organized under Government Code section 65000 et seq. ("STA"), and THE NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHOIRTY, a joint powers entity organized under Government Code section 6500 et seq. (“NVTA").
RECITALS
WHEREAS, NVTA desires to update and refine the two-county centered traffic demand model (“Solano Napa Travel Demand Model”); and
WHEREAS, STA and NVTA have previously jointly financed the services
of a professional traffic model consultant; specifically, STA has contracted with the Cambridge Systematics; and
WHEREAS, STA and NVTA desire to jointly contribute to the work of
maintaining, operating and upgrading the two-county centered traffic demand model.
TERMS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises of STA and NVTA contained herein, STA and NVTA agree as follows:
1 Term of the Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall cover the time period from September 21, through December 31, 2017. 2. Use of Funds by STA. STA hereby agrees to use all funds conveyed to STA by NVTA under this Agreement for the sole purpose of obtaining model consultant services to update and refine the Solano-Napa Travel Demand Model, as well as to train STA and/or NVTA staff on use of the model and model software, pursuant to the scope of work attached and incorporated as Exhibit A. 3. Payment of Funds by NVTA to STA. NVTA shall pay the STA up to sixty thousand ($60,000) for the provision of the services described in Exhibit A. All payments for compensation and reimbursement for expenses shall be made only upon
ATTACHMENT 1 NVTA Board Agenda Item 10.5
September 21, 2016
105
2
presentation by STA to NVTA of a billing invoice in a form acceptable to the NVTA Finance Manager which indicates, at a minimum, STA's name, address, Taxpayer Identification Number. STA shall submit invoices to the NVTA Planning Manager who, after review and approval as to form and content, shall submit the invoice to the NVTA Finance Manager no later than fifteen (15) calendar days following receipt. NVTA agrees to pay STA within thirty (30) days of receipt of invoice documenting the services performed. 4. Records and Monitoring. STA shall maintain financial and statistical records which fairly reflect the activities of STA pertaining to the services described in Exhibit "A" and the actual costs thereof. Upon reasonable request by NVTA, STA shall make available for inspection and audit by representatives of NVTA all books, financial records, program information and other records pertaining to the overall operations of STA in relation to the services described in Exhibit "A", and shall allow such representatives to review and inspect STA's facilities and program operations relating to the services described in Exhibit "A". 5. Independent Contractor. STA shall perform this Agreement as an independent contractor. STA and the officers, agents, employees, and contractors of STA are not, and shall not be deemed, NVTA employees for any purpose, including workers' compensation. STA shall, at its own risk and expense, determine the method and manner by which
the obligations of STA to NVTA under this Agreement shall be performed; provided however that NVTA may monitor the progress of the activities of STA and its officers, employees, agents and contractors in relation to completion of the Project. STA and its officers, employees, agents and contractors shall be entitled to none of the benefits accorded to a NVTA employee. NVTA shall not deduct or withhold any amounts whatsoever from the compensation paid to STA. As between STA and NVTA, STA alone shall be responsible for all such payments.
6. Indemnification. STA and NVTA shall each defend, indemnify and hold harmless each other as well as their respective officers, agents and employees from any claim, loss or liability including without limitation, those for personal injury (including death) or damage to property, arising out of or connected with any acts or omissions of that party or its officers, agents, or employees when performing any activities or obligations required of that party under this Agreement. 7. Non-Discrimination Clause. (a) During the performance of this Agreement, STA and its subcontractors shall not deny the benefits thereof to any person on the basis of religion, color, ethnic group identification, sex, age, physical or mental disability, nor shall they discriminate unlawfully against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, age, sex or other protected status. STA shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of employees and applicants for employment are free of such discrimination.
106
3
(b) STA shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code section 12900, et seq.), the regulations promulgated thereunder (Title 2, California Code of Regulations, section 7285.0, et seq.), the provisions of Article 9.5, Chapter 1, Part 1, Division 3, Title 2 of the Government Code (sections 11135-11139.5) and any State or local regulations adopted to implement any of the foregoing. 9. Termination for Cause. If either party shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner that party's obligations under this Agreement or otherwise breach this Agreement and fail to cure such failure or breach within ten (10) days of receipt of written notice from the other party describing the nature of the breach, the non-defaulting party may, in addition to any other remedies it may have, terminate this Agreement by giving five (5) days written notice to the defaulting party in the manner set forth in Paragraph 13 (Notices). 10. Termination for Convenience. This Agreement may be terminated by either party for any reason and at any time by giving no less than thirty (30) days written notice of such termination to the other party and specifying the effective date thereof. In the event this Agreement is terminated for convenience, NVTA agrees to pay STA for all reasonable expenses incurred under this Agreement up to the date of notice of termination. 11. No Waiver. Waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any requirement of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any such breach in the future, or of the breach of any other requirement of this Agreement. 12. Notices. All notices required or authorized by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered in person or by deposit in the United States mail, by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested. Any mailed notice, demand, request, consent, approval or communication that either party desires to give the other party shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of the change of address. Any notice sent by mail in the manner prescribed by this paragraph shall be deemed to have been received on the date noted on the return receipt or five days following the date of deposit, whichever is earlier. STA NVTA
Daryl Halls Kate Miller Executive Director, STA Executive Director, NVTA One Harbor Center, Suite 130 625 Burnell Street Suisun City, CA 94585 Napa, CA 94559
13. Amendment/Modification. Except as specifically provided herein, this Agreement may be modified or amended only in writing and with the prior written consent of both parties.
107
4
14. Compliance with laws. STA shall observe and comply with all applicable federal, State and local laws, ordinances, and codes, including, without limitation, all laws applicable to municipal corporations. 15. Interpretation. The headings used herein are for reference. The terms of the Agreement are set out in the text under the headings. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 16. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement, or any portion thereof, is found by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, such provision shall be severable and shall not in any way impair the enforceability of any other provision of this Agreement. 17. Entirety of Contract. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject of this Agreement and supersedes all previous agreements, promises, representations, understandings and negotiations, whether written or oral, among the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized representatives of the parties to this Agreement have executed it as of the date first above written. STA NVTA
By: By:
____________________________ _________________________ Daryl K. Halls, Executive Director Kate Miller, Executive Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
By: ______________________ By: ___________________________ STA Legal Counsel NVTA Legal Counsel
108
5
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF WORK
Memorandum
TO: Napa Valley Transit Authority (NVTA)
FROM: Ronald West, Srinath Ravualaprthy, Xuan Liu
DATE: September 9, 2016
RE: Scope of Work – Napa County Area Model Refinement and Validation DRAFT ONLY
This memo summarizes list of potential tasks and related items for updating and validating the 2015 Solano-Napa Activity Based Model (SNABM) with a detailed focus in Napa County area.
Task 1 – Define additional zones (or TAZs) in Napa County ($6,000)
• Identify jurisdictions with potential for zone splits.
• Update the geography with new additional zones.
• Update the entire 2015 SNABM model structure to reflect this new addition, with a maximum 6 zones.
Task 2 – Clean & refine network detail representation and SED in Napa County ($15,000)
• Clean existing 2015 network in Napa County to reflect observed network detail and connectivity.
• Add more network detail/links based on identified corridors in the area.
• Socioeconomic (SED) data will also be updated to reflect refined zonal structure and also check consistency with MTC and ABAG forecasts.
Task 3 – Data collection efforts for traffic counts for model validation purposes ($15,000)*
• Primary task will be in collecting traffic counts to be used for model validation
109
6
• PeMS data along with Caltrans Count Book can be used throughout the major freeways/highways in Napa County.
• Recent traffic counts from local jurisdictions will be used are part of the overall traffic counts database. We suggest counts collected between 2014 and 2016 will be most useful.
• Additional data can be collected for the potential local roads identified and intersections. Turn movements counts cost about $115 per hour per intersection ($230 for AM and PM peak hour counts).
• Local roads or corridor counts will cost around $300 for 24 hours of counts. Besides, these counts also have the added benefit of being able to distinguish vehicle classifications (such as automobiles and trucks).
• For budgeting purpose, at this point we only estimate the $15,000 will be for assembling the count data from local jurisdictions along with processing and analysis.
Task 4 – Model validation efforts based on the updated model structure ($20,000)
• Based on identified set of validation targets from data collection, a reasonable effort will be made to meet all validation targets.
• Model validation will also include a check for reasonableness with updated zonal structure and refined network, in such a way that previous validation efforts outside of Napa County (or at Napa County gateways) are consistent with 2015 Solano-Napa Activity Based Model.
• Validation efforts will also not introduce any factoring methods, to be consistent with current 2015 SNBAM validation guidelines.
*May need to collect some traffic counts so a 7% contingency is being added to the total scope of work bringing the grand total to $60,000.
110
September. 21, 2016 NVTA Agenda Item 11.1
Continued From: New Action Requested: APPROVE
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Board Agenda Letter ______________________________________________________________________
TO: NVTA Board of Directors
FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director REPORT BY: Mike Blasky, Public Information Officer
(707) 253-4599 / Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: 2017 Federal and State Legislative Advocacy Program and Project Priorities and Legislative and State Bill Matrix Update
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION That the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Board (1) approve the 2017 Federal and State Legislative Advocacy Programs and Project Priorities (Attachment 1), and (2) receive the Federal Legislative update from Steve Palmer, Van Scoyoc Associates, and the State Legislative update from Steve Wallauch, Platinum Advisors. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Attachment 1 contains the proposed 2017 Federal and State Legislative Program and Project Priorities. The Program and Priorities is a strategy to help focus agency efforts in order to meet agency key goals and objectives. A summary of the revisions from the 2016 Federal and State Legislative Agenda and Project Priorities are included below. Attachment 2 is the Federal Legislative Update from Van Scoyoc Associates. Attachment 3 is the State Legislative Update from Platinum Associates. Attachment 4 is the State Bill Matrix and includes several bills released as part of the extraordinary session with staff recommendations requesting Board action. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Staff Report 2. Public Comments 3. Motion, Second, Discussion and Vote
111
NVTA Agenda Letter Wednesday, September 21, 2016 Agenda Item 11.1
Page 2 of 2 ___________________________________________________________________________________ FISCAL IMPACT Is there a Fiscal Impact? No. CEQA REQUIREMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Each year the NVTA Board approves the Federal and State Legislative Programs and Project Priorities to establish direction and to authorize staff to advocate for various policy principals and projects. Attachment 1 is the proposed 2017 Programs and Projects list showing the minor changes from 2016. Key changes include emphasizing the need for increased investments in transportation and transit infrastructure at both the federal and state government level, such as advocating that some of California’s Cap & Trade offsets be used to fund transit projects. Additional minor edits were made to streamline the document or updating outdated items (such as replacing MAP-21 federal authorization with the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Project priorities that were eliminated included a Vine Transit Fueling Facility in anticipation of developing an alternative fuels program. The Vine Transit Communication Systems Upgrade was removed after NVTA completed its purchase and installation of a new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) system for its fleet. Attachments 2 and 3 are the Federal and State Legislative Updates respectively and Attachment 4 is the State Bill Matrix with several bills coming out of the extraordinary session for the Board’s consideration. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachments: (1) 2017 Federal and State Legislative Advocacy Programs and Project
Priorities (2) September 1, 2016 Federal Legislative Update (Van Scoyoc
Associates) (3) September 1, 2016 State Legislative Update (Platinum Advisors) (4) August 29, 2016 State Bill Matrix (Platinum Advisors)
112
ATTACHMENT 1 NCTPA NVTA Board Agenda Item 11.1
September 21, 2016
2016 2017 Federal and State Legislative Advocacy Program and Project Priorities
Federal Legislative Advocacy Program
• Revenues o Work closely with legislators, Caltrans, regional agencies, and transportation
partners on a new Transportation Authorization that sufficiently increases transportation revenues and builds on the framework established by Congress in Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21).
o Support efforts to stabilize and increase revenues that flow to the Highway Trust Fund.
o Support efforts to expand competitive grant programs. o Advocate for grant programs that fund clean fuel technologies, including the
FTA Low and No Emission Vehicle Deployment program. o As Congress develops the next surface transportation bill, support efforts that
preserve the flow of federal gas tax revenues to the Highway Trust Fund and Mass Transit Account.
o Advocate for increased multi-year funding for bus and bus facilities, with a significant portion of those funds available for discretionary grants.
o Advocate for increased appropriations for the New Starts and Small Starts program, as well as establishing a robust set aside for Small Starts projects.
o Advocate for increased appropriations for DOT’s Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program and preserve eligibility for bicycle and pedestrian projects.
o Support efforts that ensure continued protection of transportation programs subject to across-the-board cuts through budget sequestration. Respond to Federal Transit Administration’s and Federal Highway Administration’s implementation of MAP-21 (or successor authorizations)Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST), as it issues rulemakings, circulars, and other administrative actions are issued.
o Support efforts to educate the next Administration on the need for increased investment in transportation infrastructure.
113
2
State Legislative Advocacy Program • Revenues
o Work closely with state legislators and agencies to maximize AB 32 Cap and Trade revenues for transportation projects, specifically expanding eligibility to include travel demand management program and traffic congestion relief, grow the transit program, and identify measures to advance funds.
o Support efforts that would support investments in transit infrastructure projects eligible for Cap & Trade offsets.
o Support efforts to lower the 2/3rds voting threshold for local transportation sales tax measures.
o Support efforts that identify longer term and permanent solutions to address transportation infrastructure funding shortfalls, including identifying priorities for the 40% unallocated Cap & Trade funds..
o Support funding innovations such as user-based fees that stabilize and or generate new revenues for transportation such as voluntary mileage based program (that might arise from SB 1077 or other).
o Protect transportation funds from strategies that allow diversion of these transportation revenues for general fund purposes.
o Protect existing formulas that maximize local and regional control of state transportation funds.
o Support efforts to identify new revenues and mechanisms to implement redevelopment projects and support priority development areas.
o Support efforts that maximize program flexibility in the Active Transportation Program.
o Identify and advocate for measures that would preserve and grow local streets and road revenues.
o Support efforts that encourage and fund affordable housing programs that honor existing urban growth boundaries, preserving agricultural lands and open space areas.
• Project Delivery o Support efforts to streamline project delivery requirements and reduce costs
for delivering projects. o Support efforts that streamline California Environmental Quality Act
processes. o Support efforts to expand local and regional authority to enter into public-
private partnerships for transportation improvement projects. • Environment
o Support regulatory and legislative efforts to encourage van pools, transit use, and alternative commute options.
o Support programs that assist employers in meeting the SB 1339 requirements.
• Congestion Relief • Support efforts to establish and maintain HOV lanes on State Highways.
114
3
• Support Caltrans efforts to expand traveler information and other solutions that reduce congestion and increase throughput.
• Regulatory Reform • Support legislation to exempt public transit vehicles from state and local
truck route ordinances. • Support efforts that exempt or substantially delay compliance for small
operators, and eliminate unreimbursed costs associated with revisions to the California Air Resources Board’s proposed Advanced Clean Transit regulations.
115
4
Project Priorities
• Improvements to State Route 29 prioritized in the State Route 29 Gateway Corridor
Plan, including improvements to key intersections such as Soscol Avenues (SR 29/SR121/SR12) and Carneros (SR 221/SR 29/SR12).
• Projects located in the County’s two Priority Development Areas
• Transit Maintenance Facility
• Fueling Facility
• Technology projects that increase transit operating efficiencies and reduce emissions.
• Technology projects that improve highway and local street and road operations.
• Projects included in Plan Bay Area and successor Regional Transportation Plans for Napa’s jurisdictions.
• Transit System Communications Upgrades
• Vine Trail
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Infrastructure, Wayfinding, and Safety
• Rapid Bus corridor improvements on major corridors.
• Upgrades to Soscol Gateway Transit Center
• Major Corridor Management, Operations and Control Center Projects
116
TO: Kate Miller, NVTA FROM: Steve Palmer, Channon Hanna, and David Haines DATE: September 1, 2016 SUBJECT: Federal Legislative Update The following is a summary of federal legislative activities related to transportation, housing, and environmental issues over the last month. Congress has been in recess since the end of July, so legislative activity has been minimal. The House and Senate return to legislative session on September 6th. Congressional Hearings California High-Speed Rail Project. On August 29, the House Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials held a field hearing to examine the status and evolving scope of the high-speed rail project in California and what levels of federal and state support are needed in order to see the project to completion. Witnesses included representatives from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), California High-Speed Rail Authority, Caltrans, and the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California. Impact of U.S. EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service Regulations. On August 30, the Senate Subcommittee on Superfund, Waste Management and Regulatory Oversight held a field hearing to provide oversight over the impact of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) regulations on private property rights. Executive Branch Bus Testing, Safety, Reliability. On August 1, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) announced a final rule intended to help ensure the safety and reliability of new transit buses funded with FTA dollars. The new rule established minimum performance standards, a standardized scoring system, and a pass-fail threshold that will better inform local transit agencies as they evaluate and purchase buses. Five-Year Research Strategic Plan. On August 1, FTA invited participation in the National Online Dialogue to inform the agency’s Research Strategic Plan. The Plan will set the stage for what types of research FTA should support and highlight pathways for translating proven research solutions into new and better ways of doing business. The dialogue closes on September 8.
Attachment 2 NVTA Board Agenda Item 11.1
September 21, 2016
117
Battery-Powered Portable Electronic Smoking. On August 3, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issued a safety advisory to provide notice to owners and operators of commercial motor vehicles concerning incidents that have occurred relating to the possession and use of battery-powered portable electronic smoking devices and the transportation risks associated with the use of these devices. Definition of Service Agent. On August 8, DOT issued a final rule changing the definition of the term “service agent” in the DOT drug and alcohol testing regulation to match the definition found in MAP-21. The final rule also revises the definition of “service agent” to include all entities that provide services for DOT mandated drug and alcohol programs. The final rule was effective on August 8. Railroad Safety Advisory Committee. On August 10, FRA announced a meeting of the Rail Safety Advisory Committee on September 15. The Remote Control Locomotive, Track Standards, Hazardous Materials Issues, and Rail Integrity Working Groups, and Engineering Task Force will provide status reports. Informational presentations will be provided on the high-speed passenger rail equipment (Tier III) rulemaking; the System Safety Plan rulemaking; the status of Positive Train Control implementation; the Maintenance-of-Way, Drug and Alcohol, and Roadway Worker Protection final rules; and the potential certification of dispatchers and signal maintainers. Public Transportation Safety Program. On August 11, FTA issued a final rule establishing substantive and procedural rules for FTA’s administration of a comprehensive safety program to improve the safety of public transportation systems. The final rule provides the framework for the FTA to inspect, investigate, oversee, and enforce transit safety based on the methods and principles of Safety Management Systems. The rule is effective on September 12. Codifying Several Changes to FHA's Home Equity Conversion Mortgage Program. On August 11, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced the opening of the public comment period for a proposed rule that would codify several significant changes to FHA's Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program that were previously issued under the authority granted to HUD in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 and the Reverse Mortgage Stabilization Act of 2013, and to make additional regulatory changes. The Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program is FHA's reverse mortgage program that enables seniors who have equity in their homes to withdraw a portion of the accumulated equity. The intent of the Home Equity Conversion Mortgage program is to ease the financial burden on elderly homeowners facing increased health, housing, and subsistence costs at a time of reduced income. Comments are due on September 12. Safety Research and Demonstration Program. On August 11, FTA announced the availability of $7 million in public transportation innovation grant funds to demonstrate and evaluate innovative technologies and safer designs to improve public transportation safety. FTA is seeking to fund cooperative agreements to engage in demonstration
118
projects focused in the following two thematic areas: collision avoidance and mitigation and transit worker safety protection. Complete proposals are due on October 14. System Safety Program. On August 12, FRA issued a final rule mandating that commuter and intercity passenger railroads develop and implement a system safety program (SSP) to improve the safety of their operations. An SSP is a structured program with proactive processes and procedures, developed and implemented by commuter and intercity passenger railroads to identify, mitigate, or eliminate hazards and the resulting risks on each railroad's system. The rule is effective October 11 and petitions for reconsideration must be received on or before October 3. Fuel Efficiency Standards for Heavy-Duty Trucks. On August 16, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and EPA announced final fuel efficiency standards for medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. The final phase-two standards were called for in President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, and respond to the President’s directive to develop new standards that run into the next decade. Competitive Passenger Rail Service Pilot Program. On August 22, FRA published a notice of a pilot program for competitive selection of eligible petitioners in lieu of Amtrak to operate not more than three long-distance routes operated by Amtrak. FRA is announcing a public hearing to provide interested persons an opportunity to provide oral comments on the proposal. FRA is also extending the comment period to October 7 to allow time for interested parties to submit written comments in response to views or information provided at the public hearing. Right-of-Way and Real Estate. On August 23, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) posted a final rule to revise its rules on the acquisition, management, and disposal of real property for transportation programs and projects receiving funds under title 23, United States Code. The rule addresses the use of new early acquisition flexibilities. FHWA is also updating the real estate regulations to reflect the agency's experience with the Federal-aid highway program since the last comprehensive rulemaking for part 710, which occurred more than a decade ago. The update clarifies the Federal-State partnership, streamlines processes to better meet current Federal-aid highway program needs, and eliminates duplicative and outdated regulatory language. The rule is effective September 22. Emergency Route Working Group. On August 24, FHWA requested nominations for members of the Emergency Route Working Group (ERWG) for a two-year period. The ERWG will provide the Secretary of Transportation with advice and recommendations for the implementation of best practices for expeditious state approval of special permits for vehicles involved in emergency response and recovery. The ERWG is tasked with providing the Secretary a written report by December 4, on its findings and recommendations. Nominations for the working group are due by September 23.
119
Webinar on Price Managed Lanes. On August 24, DOT announced a webinar that will examine different approaches that state departments of transportation have taken with regard to the development, funding/financing, and operation of priced managed lanes projects. The webinar will include an overview of priced managed lanes, highlights of the featured projects, including interviews with key project participants, and an overview of the resources available from the FHWA Offices of Operations and Innovative Program Delivery. The webinar will be held on September 22. Transit Advisory Committee for Safety. On August 25, FTA issued a final reminder to submit TRACS membership nominations by August 31, 2016. Nominees should be knowledgeable of trends or issues related to rail transit and bus transit safety. Candidates will be evaluated on factors including leadership and organizational skills, geographic representation, diversity characteristics, and the overall balance of industry representation. Members serve two-year terms and are subject to reappointment by the Secretary. Self-nominations are acceptable. North American Freight Numbers. On August 25, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) released the latest North American freight numbers. BTS found that all modes except air carried less cross-border freight by value in June 2016 compared to June 2015 resulting in a 6.4 percent decrease to $92.7 billion in the total current value of freight moved. Speed Limiting Devices. On August 26, NHTSA and FMCSA issued a proposed regulation that would require vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 26,000 pounds to be equipped with a speed-limiting device. The proposed rule would also require each vehicle, as manufactured and sold, to have its device set to a speed not greater than a specified speed and to be equipped with means of reading the vehicle’s current speed setting and the two previous speed settings (including the time and date the settings were changed) through its On-Board Diagnostic connection. Government Twitter Chat. On August 29, the Department of Transportation (DOT) hosted a twitter chat to hear suggestions and build on the progress on DOT’s biennial Open Government Plans.
###
120
1
September 1, 2016 TO: Kate Miller, Executive Director Napa Valley Transportation Authority FR: Steve Wallauch Platinum Advisors RE: Legislative Update The End: The Legislature completed the 2015-16 legislative session finally gaveling to a close at about 1:00 a.m. As the clock wound down, the Legislature ended up sending the Governor bills on reducing short lived climate pollutants, installing sub-meters on apartments, and creating a state run retirement program for all residents. Governor Brown now has until September 30th to sign or veto the measures sent to his desk, and the Legislature is not scheduled to return to Sacramento until December 5th. There remains, however, a slight chance that they will return for a lame duck session after to the November elections to complete its work in the transportation special session. Fits & Starts: As with any end of session, dead bills find new life as deals are struck in the waning hours. This included two transportation bills related to goods movement and funding the high speed rail bookend projects. Assemblyman Frazier dropped AB 2170, when it was amended against his will by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Committee inserted language that would require the expenditure of any federal freight funding provided by FAST Act to be consistent with CARB’s Sustainable Freight Movement Plan. AB 2170 proposed to simply allocate the freight funds in FAST Act in accordance with the Trade Corridors Investment Fund process. Late night negotiations led to movement on a deal to amend AB 2170. Blame it on Russian hackers, but moments prior to amending AB 2170, the Senate’s computers crashed. Since the clock still worked, there was no time to waste. Public comments were made Pro Tem de Leon that legislation would be introduced next year to clean-up the bill, and Senator Beall is submitting a letter to Journal stating this intention and the intention that the amendments would not impact jobs at California ports. With that the bill was whisked through both houses, and sent to the Governor for consideration. It is unclear what if any role the Governor played in
ATTACHMENT 3 NVTA Board Agenda Item 11.1
September 21, 2016
121
2
these negotiations, so it is unknown if the Governor will sign or veto this bill and any clean-up legislation. Another stalemate was broken with Assemblyman Mullin’s AB 1889. This bill was substantially redrafted in the Senate, and Assemblyman Frazier initially refused to hear the bill when it was sent to Assembly Transportation for a concurrence hearing. Cooler head prevailed, and AB 1889 was approved by Assembly Transportation late Wednesday afternoon, and subsequently approved by the Assembly. As sent to the Governor, AB 1889 would essentially exempt the high speed rail bond funds dedicated to the “bookend” projects from specified reporting requires. This will allow for these funds to be spent and the bookend projects to proceed. Appropriating Prior Proceeds: On the final day of session, an agreement was announced by the Governor, Senate Pro Tem de Leon, and Speaker Rendon to appropriate $900 million in cap & trade funds. This is much less than the $1.2 billion originally proposed by the Senate in its effort to push negotiations forward. The funding plan has been amended into AB 1613 and SB 830, whereby both houses approved and sent AB 1613 to the Governor. The compromise agreement settled on a lower appropriation in order to provide a reserve to cushion against continued poor auction returns. The lack of an agreement last year and failure to agree on an expenditure plan as part of the budget in June increased the pressure to get these funds on the streets before the end of session. AB 1613 would appropriate $900 million of the $1.4 billion in available auction revenue. This amount represents the 40% of auction revenue that is annually appropriated, with the 60% being continuously appropriated to the various transportation programs. The agreement includes the following appropriations:
• $135 million to the Transportation Agency for the Transit and Intercity Rail Program. While these funds can be used for new projects, given the poor auction returns these funds will likely be used to keep the recent announcement awarding $390 million to projects whole.
• $10 million to the Department of Transportation for the Active Transportation Program. • $368 million to the Air Resources Board, including:
o $133 million to the Clean Vehicle Rebate Program. o $80 million to the Enhanced Fleet Modernization Program, Plus-Up Pilot Project
and up to $20 million of this amount may be used for other light-duty equity pilot projects
o $150 million for heavy-duty vehicles and off-road equipment investments. These funds can be used to fund those projects approved by CARB contingent upon an appropriation.
o $5 million for black carbon wood smoke programs • $140 million to the Office of Planning and Research for the Strategic Growth Council to
provide transformative climate communities grants. This is a new program created by AB 2722 (Burke) that is also pending on the Governor’s desk. The program does not identify specific projects or plans, but it would provide funding for neighborhood level projects that involve multiple stakeholders, reduce GHGs and benefit disadvantaged
122
3
communities. This could include investments in transportation, transit, active transportation, housing, energy, water efficiency, and urban greening.
• $80 million to the Natural Resources Agency for the Urban Greening program. This is another new program that would be implemented by provisions within SB 859, which is pending on the Governor’s desk. This program would also fund a wide range of greening projects, but priority would be given to project that expand or provide recreational opportunities to underserved areas.
• $65 million to the Department of Food and Agriculture, including: o $50 million for the early and extra methane emissions reductions from dairy and
livestock operations. • $7.5 million for the Healthy Soils Program. • $7.5 for the State Water Efficiency and Enhancement Program (SWEEP). • $40 million to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, including:
o $25 million for the Healthy Forest Program. o $15 million for urban forestry programs.
• $40 million to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery for waste diversion and greenhouse gas reduction financial assistance.
• $20 million to the Department of Community Services and Development for weatherization and renewable energy projects.
• $2 million to the Office of Planning and Research for the Strategic Growth Council to provide technical assistance to disadvantaged communities.
STA Fix: The Legislature finally moved to the Governor the transportation budget trailer bill. The Senate approved SB 838, which is currently pending in the Governor’s office. SB 838 contained numerous provisions necessary to implement the 2016-17 budget. This included the “time-out” language on the State Controller’s Office (SCO) reinterpretation of how the revenue portion of STA funds is allocated. The language would put a freeze on how the revenue portion of STA funds is allocated. The language would direct the Controller’s Office to allocate the remaining 2015-16 funds (the 3rd and 4th quarter funds) and all of the 2016-17 and 2017-18 funds pursuant to the formula used to allocate the STA revenue funds in the 2014-15 fiscal year. This “timeout” would provide time for transit operators to work with the Controller on implementing any needed statutory changes next year. The California Transit Association has already commenced working on the “fixes” needed in anticipation of introducing legislation next year. Transportation Funding: The biggest disappointment from the last two-years was the inability to reach an agreement on transportation funding. However, we must applaud Senator Beall and Assemblyman Frazier on their tireless efforts to craft a proposal to address the dire funding outlook for transportation and transit projects. While the regular session has ended, the special session called by the Governor to address transportation funding remains viable until the end of November. There is talk/hope that the Legislature will reconvene after the November elections in an effort to push through a funding
123
4
package. The likelihood of them returning will largely depend on the outcome of the elections. If the Democrats in either house secure a 2/3 majority in either house, they will likely wait until the new session to start again on developing a consensus package. During the final weeks of session, Senator Beall and Assemblyman Frazier released a joint proposal that would generate $7.4 billion in revenue to repair and maintain our highways and local roads, invest in trade corridors, and support public transit and active transportation. Attached is a summary from the author’s outlining this package. This proposal was amended into Senator Beall’s SBX 1, and Assemblyman Frazier introduced ABX 26 -- both measures are identical. There are many similarities with prior proposals; however there are some key changes.
• $200 million annually allocated to a State and Local Partnership Program that would be open to all existing and future transportation sales tax counties. The language specifies eligible matching sources include voter approved taxes or fees, including uniform developer fees dedicated to transportation improvements.
• $150 million annually dedicated to Active Transportation Program projects. The language would allocate $80 million from the Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation Program account and $70 million from savings identified by Caltrans through operational efficiencies. These funds would be subject to annual budget act appropriations.
• $900 million annually for goods movement investments derived from increasing and indexing the diesel fuel excise tax by 30 cent per gallon. The proposal updates the Trade Corridors Improvement Fund (TCIF) statutes, which would be how $900 million is allocated.
• $516 million annually for transit capital and operations. This total is a combination of revenue sources including an increase from 5% to 10% the amount of GGRF funds dedicated to the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, and a 3.5% increase to the diesel fuel sales tax. The $216 million generated by the sales tax increase must be used for capital projects, but transit operation is eligible if the service complements local transportation infrastructure improvements.
• $534 million annually to regions to restore cuts to the STIP. These funds are partially the result of recapturing gasoline excise tax revenue sold for off highway uses.
Another Bummer: It was not shocking that the August 16th cap & trade auction resulted in a dismal return of only of $8 million. This represents the sale of only 1% of the available allowances. The LAO states there are likely several factors for the poor results. These factors include the oversupply of allowances and the continued legal uncertainty of the auction as reasons for suppressing demand for allowances. The oversupply factor could continue to impact future auctions. The past two auctions generated only $18 million of an expected $1 billion in auction revenue. This meager amount will impact programs. CalSTA recently awarded a multi-year allocation of Transit & Intercity Rail Program funds totaling $390 million. This includes nearly $200 million in auction revenue generated in 2015-16, but the balance is expected to come from auctions in
124
5
2016-17 fiscal year. In addition, these low auction returns will impact available funds for High Speed Rail, the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program, and the Sustainable Communities & Affordable housing program. The Future of Cap & Trade: SB 32 (Pavley) and AB 197 (Garcia, Eduardo) are heading to Governor Brown who has already vowed to sign them. On the passage of SB 32, Governor Jerry Brown released a statement scolding “the brazen deception of the oil lobby and their Trump-inspired allies who deny science and fight every reasonable effort to curb global warming.” SB 32 was approved by the Assembly on a 48-31 vote, and the Senate’s passage was by a strict party line vote. In the Assembly, Assemblywoman Catherine Baker was the lone Republican to vote in favor of SB 32. While Assemblywoman Baker abstained on the companion measure, AB 197, two other Republican Assembly members, Brian Dahle and David Hadley, voted for AB 197. While SB 32 builds on the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), it was scaled back from prior versions to provide the minimum authority needed for CARB to set emission reduction targets beyond 2020. SB 32 does not mention the cap & trade program, nor does it address any of the legal uncertainty surrounding the cap & trade program. However, Governor Brown tried to insert language to shore-up the cap & trade program, but he was rebuffed by legislative leaders. It is believed that even this scaled back version sends strong market signals that should help with future cap & trade auctions. As approved, SB 32 would simply require CARB to ensure that statewide greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. In addition, there is widespread concern, particularly within the Assembly, on the broad authority AB 32 granted CARB. To take a step toward addressing these concerns and insert some legislative oversight and transparency into CARB’s decisions, SB 32 was joined to AB 197. AB 197 was characterized as a first step toward providing greater legislative control. AB 197 does not go far enough for many, and several of the more moderate Democrats voted “No” or abstained on this bill. AB 197 would create a legislative oversight committee, place 6 year terms (but no term limits) on CARB board members, and add two legislators to the Board as non-voting members. The bill requires CARB to prioritize regulations that result in direct emission reductions at large stationary, mobile, and other sources. In addition, AB 197 would require CARB to place on its website the emissions of GHGs, criteria pollutants, and toxic air contaminants throughout the state broken down to a local and sub-county level for stationary sources and to at least a county level for mobile sources. Requires the emissions reported to include data on the emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants emitted by stationary sources as provided to ARB by air districts. At a policy hearing prior to the Assembly Floor vote, oil industry representatives stated that AB 197 will result in certain litigation given the ambiguity of the language in the bill.
125
1
August 29, 2016
Existing Positions
Bills Subject Status Client - Position
AB 1591 (Frazier D) Transportation funding.
AB 1591 which would generate nearly $8 billion annually for transportation investments. This proposal shares many elements with Senator Beall’s proposal, and the other funding proposals released last year. The bill includes the following funding elements:
• $3.3 billion annually by increasing the gasoline excise by 22.5 cents. This new base rate would be adjusted for inflation. 5% of these funds would be set aside for a State and Local Partnership Program for counties currently without a local transportation sales tax program. The remaining would be placed in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, where the funds would be split equally with 50% allocated to state highway maintenance projects and 50% allocated to cities and counties for street and road maintenance projects.
• $840 million annually by increasing the diesel fuel excise tax by 30 cents, and indexing it for inflation. This revenue would be dedicated the Trade Corridor Investment Fund.
• $1.24 billion by increasing vehicles registration fees by $38. These funds would be deposited in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account.
Assembly Trans SUPPORT
ATTACHMENT 4 NVTA Board Agenda Item 11.1
September 21, 2016
126
2
AB 1591 (Frazier D) Transportation funding. (cont.)
• $16 million by imposing an annual surcharge of $165 on all zero emission vehicles. These funds would be deposited in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account.
• Return nearly $1 billion in truck weight fees annually to the State Highway Account. This halts the use of truck weight fees for transportation bond debt payments.
• Repay over two years $879 million in outstanding loans made from various transportation accounts to the general fund. This one time revenue would be allocated to cities and counties for road improvement projects.
• Increase the share of cap & trade auction revenue appropriated to the Transit & Intercity Rail Program from 10% to 20%. This would increase this Program from $200 million annually to $400 million annually.
• Annually appropriate 20% of cap & trade auction revenue, about $400 million per year, to the Trade Corridor Investment Fund. This new program would use cap & trade revenue to improve the state’s freight corridors.
AB 1550 (Gomez D) Greenhouse gases: investment plan: disadvantaged communities.
AB 1550 amends existing law to require the expenditure plan for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Fund revenue to invest 25% of the available moneys in the fund to projects located within disadvantaged communities and an additional 10% to projects that benefit low-income households. Enactment of AB 1550 has also been tied to AB 1613, the cap & trade appropriation bill.
SENATE RULES Watch
127
3
AB 1555 (Gomez D) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.
AB 1555 included legislative intent language to appropriate $1.7 billion in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund revenue that was not appropriated in 2015-16 fiscal year. This is essentially a spot bill that might be used to appropriate these funds if an agreement is reached
ASSEMBLY DEAD Watch
AB 1569 (Steinorth R) California Environmental Quality Act: exemption: existing transportation infrastructure.
AB 1569 would exempt from CEQA specified types of roadway projects. The exemption would apply to the issuance of a permit for a project that consists of the inspection, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, replacement, or removal of, or the addition of an auxiliary lane or bikeway to, existing transportation infrastructure. The project must still comply with local permitting requirements, water quality act requirements, fish and game and endangered species act requirements
ASSEMBLY DEAD Support
AB 1572 (Campos D) School transportation.
AB 1572 would entitle a pupil who attends a school that is eligible for Title 1 federal funding to free transportation to and from school provided by the local educational agency, if certain conditions are met.
ASSEMBLY DEAD Watch
AB 1592 (Bonilla D) Autonomous vehicles: pilot project.
AB 1592 would authorize the Contra Costa Transportation Authority to conduct a pilot project for the testing of autonomous vehicles that are not equipped with a steering wheel, a brake pedal, an accelerator, or an operator inside the vehicle. The testing must be conducted only at specified locations and the autonomous vehicle operates at speeds of less than 35 miles per hour.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR -- CONCURRENCE
Support
AB 1595 (Campos D) Employment: human trafficking training: mass transportation employers.
AB 1595 was unanimously approved by the Assembly Committee on Labor. This bill would require a public or private employer that provides mass transportation services to train its employees to recognize the signs of human trafficking and how to report those signs to law enforcement. The bill requires the Department of Justice to develop the guidelines for the training program. By January 1, 2018, this
ASSEMBLY APPR Held on Suspense -- DEAD
Watch
128
4
AB 1595 (Campos D) Employment: human trafficking training: mass transportation employers. (cont.)
training program shall be incorporated into the training process for all new employees, and all existing employees must complete the training by January 1, 2018.
AB 1641 (Allen, Travis R) Shuttle services: loading and unloading of passengers.
Similar to AB 61 from last year, AB 1641 would allow a local government to permit private shuttle bus services to use public transit stops if an agreement is reached between the public transit operator and the private shuttle operator. Since AB 1641 contains an urgency clause, it is exempt from the hearing deadlines, and is not technically dead even though it is in its initial policy committee. This bill is not likely to move this year.
ASSEMBLY TRANS. -- DEAD
Watch
AB 1746 (Stone, Mark D) Transit buses.
Although AB 1746 was unanimously approved by the Assembly, it ran into a wall in Senate Transportation. With the strong opposition from the Highway Patrol Officers Association, Senator Beall expressed concerns regarding the safety of operating on shoulders. This resulted in Assemblyman Stone pulling the bill earlier this week, thus AB 1746 is dead for this year. AB 1746 would add several transit operators to an existing program that allows buses to operate on the shoulder of a state highway upon approval of Caltrans and the CHP. This was initially a pilot program that authorized Monterey-Salinas Transit District and the Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District to utilize shoulders along heavily congested highways.
SENATE T &H DEAD-Failed hearing Deadline
Watch
129
5
AB 1780 (Medina D) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: Sustainable Trade Corridors Program.
Starting with the 2016-17 fiscal year, AB 1780 would continuously appropriate 20% of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund revenue to the California Transportation Commission for the Sustainable Trade Corridors Program, which the bill creates.
ASSEMBLY APPR Held on Suspense -- DEAD
Watch
AB 1886 (McCarty D) California Environmental Quality Act: transit priority projects.
CEQA exempts from its requirements transit priority projects meeting certain requirements, including the requirement that the project be within 1/2 mile of a major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor included in a regional transportation plan. In addition, 25% of the transit priority project area must be within ½ mile of the major transit stop or corridor. AB 1886 would amend this exemption to require at least 50% of the project area be within ½ mile of the major transit stop or corridor.
SENATE E. Q. – DEAD
Watch
AB 1938 (Baker R) Toll facilities: Metropolitan Transportation Commission
AB 1938 failed passage in the Assembly Committee on Transportation. The bill was granted reconsideration, which allows the Committee to revisit this bill. Current law authorizes the Bay Area Toll Authority to make direct contributions to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, including contributions in the form of personnel services, office space, overhead, and other funding necessary to carry out the function of the authority, but those contributions shall not to exceed 1% of the gross annual bridge revenues. AB 1938 would expand the 1% limitation to apply to any revenues derived from bridge tolls, fees, or taxes, regardless of classification
ASSEMBLY TRANS. – DEAD
Watch
130
6
AB 1964 (Bloom D) High-occupancy vehicle lanes: vehicle exceptions.
AB 1964 creates a new sticker program (upon expiration of the existing program) to allow plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) access to high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes for a three-year period. The bill would also eliminate the cap on the number of stickers that can be issued. Beginning on January 1, 2019, the DMV would be prohibited from issuing a sticker to an applicant who has received a CVRP rebate, unless the applicant's income falls below the following income limits: $125,000 for a single filer, $170,000 for a head-of-household filer, or $250,000 for a joint filer. In addition, to address concerns regarding congestion in HOV lanes the bill would allow Caltrans, with the concurrence of the regional transportation agency, to eliminate access to HOV lanes by stickered cars if specified conditions are met.
SENATE FLOOR Watch
AB 1982 (Bloom D) Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: traffic signal synchronization.
Current law authorizes the allocation of moneys in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for investment in a traffic signal synchronization project as a sustainable infrastructure project if the project is designed and implemented to achieve cost-effective reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and includes specific reduction targets and metrics to evaluate the project's effect. AB 1982 would additionally require that an eligible traffic signal synchronization project be timed to move vehicles at an average speed of 12 to 15 miles per hour.
ASSEMBLY TRANS – DEAD - Failed Deadline
Watch
AB 2090 (Alejo D) Low Carbon Transit
AB 2090 would amend the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) to allow a transit operator to expend its share of LCTOP funds to operate existing
SENATE APPR – DEAD Held of Suspense
Support
131
7
Operations Program.
transit service if the governing board of the transit operator declares a fiscal emergency and makes specified findings. An operator could not ask for this use of LCTOP funds for more than 3 consecutive years, and the operator must declare a fiscal emergency for each year LCTOP funds will be used for existing operations.
AB 2094 (Obernolte R) Transportation: Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund: state and local transportation funds
In short, AB 2094 would swap existing transit revenue with cap & trade auction revenue, and then dedicate the transit revenue to roadway repairs. As amended, AB 2094 would continuously appropriate $1 billion of cap & trade auction revenue to the local transportation fund within the Retail Sales Tax Fund. The local transportation fund is the ¼ cent sales tax revenue that is dedicated primarily to fund public transit service, which was enacted as part Transit Development Act. In addition, AB 2094 would then transfer $1 billion from the local transportation and split these funds equally between state highway projects and local streets and roads.
ASSEMBLY TRANS DEAD-Failed Deadline
Oppose
AB 2222 (Holden D) Transit passes.
As introduced AB 2222 would create a new program that would continuously appropriate $50 million annually from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund for a Transit Pass Program. The Assembly Appropriations Committee amended AB 2222 to remove the appropriation of cap & trade funds and limit the use of the funds to provide free or reduced price transit passes to low income student. While the funding is contingent on a future appropriation, the bill continues to direct Caltrans to work with the Air Board on developing guidelines for this program. In addition, the funds would be allocated pursuant to the STA formula, but it would provide that each operator would receive at least $20,000.
SENATE APPR – DEAD Held of Suspense
Watch
132
8
AB 2289 (Frazier D) Department of Transportation: capital improvement projects.
AB 2289 was unanimously approved by the Assembly. This bill makes a small but significant change to existing law that expands the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) to also include capital projects relative to the operation of state highways.
Signed into Law Chapter 76, Statutes of 2016
Watch
AB 2332 (Garcia, Eduardo D) Transportation.
AB 2332 gutted and amended to include provisions aimed at expanding the number of complete streets project undertaken by Caltrans. The bill would require greater investment in projects that provide meaningful benefits to the mobility and safety needs of disadvantaged community residents.
ASSEMBLY TRANS. DEAD - Failed Deadline
Watch
AB 2411 (Frazier D) Transportation revenues.
AB 2411 would redirect what is called non-Article 19 revenue from being used for debt service and use it for highway projects. Non-Article 19 funds primarily consist of lease and rental income that Caltrans receives, among other fees collected, and usually totals less than $80 million annually. Prior to the gas tax swap, non-Article 19 funds were deposited in the Public Transportation Account. However, AB 2411 would restrict the use of these funds to projects consistent with Article 19, which means they can only be used for highway projects or fixed guideway projects.
SENATE T & H DEAD-Failed hearing Deadline
Watch
AB 2432 (Brown D) Designated state and local truck routes and services.
AB 2432 would require Caltrans to prepare an inventory of all state and locally designated truck routes and services, publish a statewide Truck Route Network Internet Web site, and prepare a plan and schedule for addressing all inefficiencies and truck transportation network gaps, including an estimate of the annual cost and the total cost of carrying out the plan.
ASSEMBLY TRANS DEAD – Failed Deadline
Watch
133
9
AB 2509 (Ting D) Operation of bicycles: speed.
AB 2509 would require a person operating a bicycle to ride as close as is either safe or practicable to the specified curb or roadway edge. The bill would expand the exceptions to riding as close as safe or practicable to the right-hand curb or roadway edge to include, among others, when riding in class I, class II, or class IV bikeways, as specified.
SENATE T & H -- DEAD
Watch
AB 2673 (Harper R) Sales and use tax exemption: income tax credits hydrogen refueling station equipment.
AB 2673 would exempt both state and local sales taxes from the purchase of hydrogen refueling station equipment, as defined, that is purchased by a recipient of an Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program grant. This bill should be amended to not apply the exemption on local sales taxes.
ASSEMBLY REV & TAX – SUSPENSE FILE -- DEAD
Oppose Unless Amended
AB 2796 (Bloom & Low D) Active Transportation Program.
AB 2796 amends the Active Transportation Program to require a minimum of 5% of available funds in each of the 3 distribution categories to be awarded for planning and community engagement for active transportation in disadvantaged communities. The categories include the fund allocated to metropolitan planning organizations, the funds allocated for small urban and rural areas, and the statewide competitive program. In addition, AB 2796 requires that at least 10%, but not more than 30%, of the funds in each category shall be programmed for non-infrastructure activities, such as safe routes to schools.
SEANTE APPR – DEAD Held on Suspense
Support
AB 2847 (Patterson R) State highways: transfer to local agencies: pilot program.
AB 2847 has been amended to add additional required elements for inclusion in the California High-Speed Rail Authority's (Authority) Business Plan and Project Update Report.
Governor’s Desk Watch
ABX1 7 (Nazarian D) Public transit: funding.
ABX 7 would increase the share of cap & trade funds dedicated to transit. The bill would increase the amount allocated to the Low Carbon Transit Operations
ASSEMBLY PRINT SUPPORT
134
10
Program from 5% to 10%, and increase the amount allocated to the Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program from 10% to 20%.
ABX1 8 (Chiu D) Diesel sales and use tax.
Starting on July 1, 2016, ABX 8 would impose a sales tax on diesel fuel sales of 5.25%. This revenue would be deposited into the Public Transportation Account and allocated to operators through the State Transit Assistance formula. The bill would also sunset the existing 1.75% gas tax swap add-on sales tax imposed on diesel fuel sales on July 1, 2016. Thus replacing the existing 1.75% rate with the 5.25% rate.
ASSEMBLY PRINT SUPPORT
ABX1 25 (Allen, Travis R) Shuttle services: loading and unloading of passengers.
ABX 25 is the special session version of AB 1641. These bills would allow a local government to permit private shuttle bus services to use public transit stops if an agreement is reached between the public transit operator and the private shuttle operator.
ASSEMBLY PRINT Watch
ACA 4 (Frazier D) Local government transportation projects: special taxes: voter approval.
ACA 4 would amend the Constitution to lower approval threshold to impose a special sales tax that provides funding for local transportation project to 55%. Local transportation projects are defined to include the funding needs for local streets and roads, state highways and freeways, and public transit systems. ACA 4 does not lower the voter threshold for parcel taxes.
ASSEMBLY APPR Suspense File
SUPPORT
SB 254 (Allen D) Campaign finance: Advisory election
SB 254 has been gutted and amended to now deal with campaign finance issues. Previously the bill contained a proposal to streamline the relinquishment process.
Signed Into Law SUPPORT – prior version
SB 321 (Beall D) Motor vehicle fuel taxes: rates:
SB 321 is intended to smooth out the up and down spikes to the excise tax adjustment that result from volatile fuel prices.
SENATE FLOOR – INACTIVE FILE Senate Concur – Two Year Bill
SUPPORT
135
11
adjustments. In short, this bill would allow the Board of Equalization (BOE) to forecast the revenue neutrality calculation based on a five year horizon, rather than the current one year outlook. According to the bill the BOE could also phase in any adjust over three years, as well as authorize the BOE to update the rate on a quarterly rather than an annual basis if conditions warrant.
SB 824 (Beall D) Low Carbon Transit Operations Program
SB 824 would amend the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program (LCTOP) to essentially allow an operator to bank its share of these funds as well as clarifies the use of these funds. The bill was amended to delete the ability for operators to pool their funds. Specifically, SB 824 would allow a recipient to do the following:
• Use these funds for new or expanded service in the first year of operation and in any subsequent year if the operator can demonstrate GHG reductions.
• Accumulate and utilize its funding share at a later date, but the operator must specify how long it intends to save the money and how it intends to spend the accumulated funds.
• Loan or transfer its funding share to another operator.
• Reassign any savings allocated to an operator for one project to another eligible project.
SB 824 would also expand the audits conducted under the Transportation Development Act to include verification of recipient of LCTOP funds and the appropriate expenditure of the LCTOP funds. In addition, SB 824 would allow an operator to apply to Caltrans for a “letter of no prejudice” that would allow an operator to proceed with an eligible project using its own funds and then use LCTOP funds to reimburse the operator...
Governor’s Desk Support
136
12
SB 885 (Wolk) Construction Contracts: Liability
SB 885 was pulled from the Assembly Judiciary Committee agenda after the committee a blistering 30 page analysis. This bill would limit liability of design professionals to negligence arising out of willful misconduct and thereby relieving design professionals from liability for damages, death, injury, or property damage arising from negligence or any other reason on property or bodily injury losses associated with a construction project except for defense costs associated with the professional’s degree of fault. While SB 885 was approved by the policy committee with the condition that it not impact publically funded projects, the amendments do not address all of our concerns. It was even suggested by a committee consultant that public entities could purchase insurance coverage to cover the gap created by this bill. SB 885 would reverse the 2010 compromise that created Civil Code Section 2782.8, which already protects design professionals from unreasonable defense liability requirements. SB 885 eliminates the ability of a public agency to contract with engineers and architects, known as design professionals, for upfront legal defense costs against claims related to a project’s design work, and forces public entity to front the legal costs for the private sector, even for claims where the design professional is 100 percent at fault.
ASSEMBLY JUD – DEAD-Failed hearing Deadline
Oppose
SB 1066 (Beall D) Transportation funds: fund estimates.
As introduced, SB 1066 would require the fund estimates prepared by Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission to identify and include federal funds derived from apportionments made to the state under the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of 2015. This bill is a potential vehicle that may be used to make any statutory changes needed to implement the FAST Act.
ASSEMBLY APPR – DEAD Held on Suspense
Watch
137
13
SB 1128 (Glazer D) Commute benefit policies.
SB 1128 was unanimously approved by the Senate. This bill would delete the sunset date on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC’s) and the Bay Area Air Quality District’s authority to adopt a commute benefit ordinance. This authority is scheduled to sunset on January 1, 2017. Current law authorizes MTC and the Air District to jointly adopt a commute benefit ordinance that requires covered employers operating within the Bay Area with a specified number of covered employees to offer those employees certain commute benefits through a pilot program.
Governor’s Desk Support
SB 1141 (Moorlach R) State highways: transfer to local agencies: pilot
As amended, SB 1141 would establish a pilot program administered by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) to allow two counties to operate, maintain, and make improvements to the state highway system within their jurisdictions.
SENATE T. & H. DEAD – Failed Passage
Watch
SB 1259 (Runner R) Vehicles: toll payment: veterans.
SB 1259 would exempt vehicles veterans traveling in vehicles with certain veteran-specific license plates from paying tolls in California. This bill will likely not move any farther since it failed to meet the policy committee deadline.
ASSEMBLY Vet Affairs DEAD-Failed hearing Deadline
Watch
SB 1338 (Lara D) Sales and use taxes: exemption: zero-emission and near-zero-emission equipment.
SB 1338 would exempt from portions of the state sales tax the purchase of zero or near-zero emission vehicles used at a port and equipment at a marine terminal used for pollution control. This tax exemption would be in place from January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2030. The sales tax exemption would not apply to the Bradley-Burns sales tax or other locally imposed sales taxes, as well as
ASSEMBLY R & T DEAD-Failed hearing Deadline
Watch
138
14
specified state imposed special sales taxes.
SBX1 1 (Beall D) Transportation funding.
This bill remains in the Senate Committee on Appropriations. SBX1 1 has been amended to include the joint transportation funding proposal from Senator Beall and Assemblyman Frazier.
SENATE APPR SUPPORT
SBX1 7 (Allen D) Diesel sales and use tax.
Identical to ABX 8, SBX 7 would replace the existing 1.75% diesel fuel sales tax that was imposed as part of the gas tax swap with a 5.25% sales tax rate. Starting on July 1, 2016, SBX 7 would impose a sales tax on diesel fuel sales of 5.25%, and sunset the existing 1.75% sales tax rate imposed on diesel fuel sales. This revenue would be deposited into the Public Transportation Account and allocated to operators through the State Transit Assistance formula.
SENATE APPR
SUPPORT
SBX1 8 (Hill D) Public transit: funding.
SBX 8 is identical to ABX 7. SBX 8 would the amount allocated to the Low Carbon Transit Operations Program from 5% to 10%, and increase the amount allocated to the Transit & Intercity Rail Capital Program from 10% to 20%.
SENATE APPR
SUPPORT
139
September 21, 2016 NVTA Agenda Item 11.2
Continued From: New Action Requested: APPROVE
NAPA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Board Agenda Letter ______________________________________________________________________
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director REPORT BY: Kate Miller, Executive Director
(707) 259-8634/ Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Approval of Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Agreement No. 16-14 for Legal Services
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION That the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Board authorize the Executive Director to execute Agreement No. 16-14 (Attachment 1) with Renne Sloan Hotlzman Sakai LLP for legal services for a term of three (3) years with up to two (2) one-year options in an amount not to exceed $375,000. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In June, NVTA released a request for proposals for legal services. Five proposals were received. A selection committee made up of two Board Members and the executive director evaluated the proposals and after discussions among the panel and further negotiations with the proposing firms, it is recommended that the NVTA Board award a 3-year contract with two (2) one-year options Renee Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP in an amount not to exceed $375,000. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Staff Report 2. Public Comment 3. Motion, Second, Discussion and Vote
140
NVTA Agenda Letter Wednesday September 21, 2016 Agenda Item 11.2
Page 2 of 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT Is there a fiscal impact? Yes, up to $375,000 over 5 years. There is $60,500 currently budgeted for legal services. If approved by the NVTA board, an adjustment will be made in conjunction with the next quarterly budget update. Consequences if not approved: NVTA will continue using County Counsel for legal services. CEQA REQUIREMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION Following the resignation of counsel from her position at the County of Napa, it was determined that NVTA should release a request for proposal (RFP) for legal services. The RFP was released in June and five proposals from qualified firms were received. A panel consisting of two board members, Alan Galbraith, Mayor of St. Helena and Mary Luros, City of Napa Vice Mayor, and the executive director was convened to evaluate the proposals. After discussion and further negotiation with the three top proposers, the panel recommends that the NVTA board award a 3-year contract with two (2) one-year options to Renne Sloan Hotlman Sakai LLP in an amount not to exceed $375,000. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachment: (1) NVTA Agreement No. 16-14
141
ATTACHMENT 1NVTA Board Agenda Item 11.2
September 21, 2016
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
September 21, 2016 NVTA Agenda Item 11.3
Continued From: New Action Requested: APPROVE
NAPA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AND PLANNING AGENCY Board Agenda Letter ______________________________________________________________________
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Kate Miller, Executive Director
REPORT BY: Kate Miller, Executive Director (707) 259-8634 / Email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Napa Valley Vine Trail Oak Knoll Project ______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION That the Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Board (1) authorize the executive director to execute contract change orders (CCO #62&63) to Contract No. 14-15 with Ghilotti Bros. Inc. (GBI) in the amount not to exceed $178,705.79 bringing the total contract amount to $6,945,889.66 and (2) approve the staff recommendation to move $38,403.41 from the project design budget Agreement # 12-29P005 to construction and $27,887.26 from saving in the Pacific Supply materials Agreement # 15-1016 to construction, and (3) authorize the executive director to expend up to a total of $198,000 in new funding ($19,294.21 in addition to the $178,7016 signal work CCO) to complete the project. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION None. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Design changes associated with the location of the traffic signal poles at Wine Country Avenue, and Salvador Avenue resulted in construction cost increase of $225,714.03. Staff worked with GBI and their subcontractor to evaluate proposed CCOs costs for the signal work and negotiated a reduction of $47,008.24 below the original request. The total revised cost to complete the CCOs is currently $178,705.79. The project is currently 95% complete. All funds outside of the GBI contract set aside for construction have been expended, however roughly $66,000 is remaining from other phases of the project that can be moved to construction. Potential funding from PG&E for tree work totaling $22,893 and $120,000 in new revenues tentatively committed by the County of Napa will complete the funding package to close out the project. Staff
222
NVTA Agenda Letter Wednesday, September 21, 2016 Agenda Item 11.3
Page 2 of 3
also recommends setting aside $55,000 earmarked for the Soscol Gap project to help fund signal work contingencies and any additional unanticipated costs. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Staff Report 2. Public Comments 3. Motion, Second, Discussion and Vote FISCAL IMPACT Is there a fiscal impact? No. Funds will come from project savings, the County of Napa, and grant funds, including approximately $66,000 budgeted for design and materials, a refund of $22,893 from PG&E for tree removal, $120,000 from the County of Napa and $55,000 from Lifeline funding set aside for the Soscol Gap Vine Trail project. Is it currently budgeted? $66,000 is currently budgeted. PG&E, County and Lifeline funds are not budgeted. Where is it budgeted? CMA Professional Services and construction materials purchases. Consequences if not approved: The traffic signals would not be installed and the project will not be completed. The traffic signal work would stop until spring 2017 when work could resume according to permitting requirements and when funds are secured. This will likely result in a significant project cost increase. CEQA REQUIREMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed action is not a project as defined by 14 California Code of Regulations 15378 (California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines) and therefore CEQA is not applicable. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Oak Knoll Vine Trail Project has been completed within the Town of Yountville and County of Napa rights of way. The City of Napa portion is expected to be completed around the New Year. The remaining work involves completing the installation of the traffic signals at Trower Avenue, Wine Country Avenue, and Salvador Avenue, related paving, and curb ramps at adjacent locations. As a result of design changes necessary to avoid existing utilities at the affected intersections, GBI submitted CCOs totaling $225,714.03. Successful negotiations with GBI and its subcontractor resulted in a cost reduction of $47,008.24. The proposed change order is now $178,705.79. Board action would authorize the executive director
223
NVTA Agenda Letter Wednesday, September 21, 2016 Agenda Item 11.3
Page 3 of 3
to proceed with the CCOs, move $66,000 from design and materials savings to construction and authorize additional construction costs of up to $198,000 funded by cost savings on other project phases, an additional $120,000 commitment from the County of Napa, $22,893 from PG&E, and $55,000 from an FTA-funded grant for the Soscol Gap project should additional unanticipated costs be incurred to close out the project. Staff also worked with the three participating jurisdictions and the Napa Valley Vine Trail Coalition (NVVTC) to identify options for funding the remaining work. The County of Napa staff proposal to fund up to $120,000 is pending the Board of Supervisors’ approval at its September 20th meeting. The Town of Yountville staff, while open to considering a contribution, noted that a request would need to go to the Town Council, the timing of which did not coordinate well with NVTA September board deadlines but it remains another option if identified funds do not materialize. In addition, the City of Napa staff offered to complete all or a portion of the project should no new financial resources be identified providing GBI was willing to release NVTA from the contract (roughly $350,000 in existing work has yet to be completed). Finally, NVVTC declined our request for additional funding stating that they had exceeded their 25% ceiling commitment to their funders for this project. The $55,000 of FTA funds, if needed, will come from another grant that was set aside to fund the Soscol Gap between Third and Vallejo Streets. Staff recommends this only as a last resort as the Soscol Gap project has a significant shortfall and is a critical linkage in the Vine Trail network. Prior Board Actions At the June 30, 2015 meeting, the Board authorized the Executive Director to award the construction of the Napa Valley Vine Trail Oak Knoll Section project to Ghilotti Bros. Inc./RM Harris JV in the amount of $6,123,186.70 less the decorative railing of $107,565 and contract change orders and construction expenses up to a total amount not to exceed $1,069,353 covering only the federally-approved project which excluded the section between Trower Avenue and Wine Country Avenue (completed by the City of Napa). The final project cost approved at the June 30, 2015 meeting is $7,084,975. At the April 20, 2016 NVTA board meeting, the board authorized the executive director to amend Riechers Spence & Associates Professional Services Agreement (PSA) No. 12- 29P010 increasing the contract amount by $170,000 to cover additional inspection and construction engineering (CE) expenses associated with utility and design conflicts. The Board further authorized moving $170,000 from Construction to CE to cover the RSA PSA amendment and approved an additional budget of $150,000 in general fund monies to backfill construction costs. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS Attachment: None
224