The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009/12/15 Additional Information lliiiijiiiiillailifilllilliii!Jiiiillliiiiiliiliiilliiliiiliiiiil___liiiiiliiiiiliiiilliiiiiliiiiilliiliiil City of Chula Vista Chula Vista, California Presentation to the City Council December 15, 2009 Kenneth H. Pun, CPA Partner I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I z o ~ 0 < z ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ u ~ u ~ ~ u ~ < ~ ~ < u IiliBl6ElliiiiiliiiiliMliiiiiiiliilfiliiiiiliiililiiiiillliliil_liiiiil..iiiiiliiiiiiiiliilliiiill C&LBACKGROUND . Professional Services started in 1989 . Professional Services emphasis: - Governmental . Cities . Counties . Transportation Agencies . Special Districts (Water, Sanitation, Recreation and Parks, Colleges, etc.) iiiiiliiilifiliiiliiiiiiijliii_IiiiiI_Iiiil&llliiiiilliiilJliillliiiiiliiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiilliiiil C&LBACKGROUND . Professional Offices in California - San Diego - Irvine - Oakland - Sacramento ~~~~~~~------~~~~~~ C&LBACKGROUND . Professional Staff currently: - 4 Partners - 40 Professional Staff - 6 Administrative Staff I I I I I I I I ; I I I I ~ II I I ~ I rJJ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ <0 ~z ~< < ~ u Z < Z ~ ~ rJJ ~ ~ C-' ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o rJJ ~ Z ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ _liimliiilillimliiliiiiiDEiiililiiiiiiiiliiiiliiiilliliiil_liiiiiiiiliiililiiiiilliiliiiiiil CITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES . Responsible for the Financial Statements . Present City's financial statements in conformity with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) . Adopt sound accounting policies . Provide reasonable accounting estimates . Establish and maintain internal controls . Prevent and detect fraud ~~~~~~~--~-----~~~~ C&L's RESPONSIBILITIES . Obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material misstatement . Examine, on a test basis, evidence supporting amounts and disclosures . Assess accounting principles used, estimates made, and evaluate the overall financial statement presentation . Review the City's internal control policies and proced ures . Express an opinion on the City's financial statements I I I . I I I I I I I I I ; I I I ! I rJJ J;J.J ~ ~ o J;J.J,-. u~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t--4rJ) o Z ~o < crJ ~ ~ ~ u ~~~~~~~~~-~-~~~-~-~ AUDIT PROCEDURES . Assessed the City's accounting principles . Reviewed, tested and evaluated the City's internal controls . Reviewed and tested City's Compliance with Federal Grants . Validated the City's significant account balances to supporting documents iiiiil f,"'c~i iiii!i Hi} _ iiiiI iliiiIi IIiiJ iiB iiii _ liIiii!II iiiii IiIii liiiI Ifii iiii1 _ IiZil AUDIT PROCEDURES (continued) . Received direct correspondence from attorneys, banks and others . Reviewed and evaluated year-to-year comparisons of the City's financial results . Prepared financial statements and audit reports I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II I ~ ~ ~ 00 > o ~ o ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~liiiiIliiiilfjiiiiiiJfiiiifJliiiiiillifii.iliiliiliilili!iiiililliiii_"iiiiiliiiliiiiiiiiiil_1iiiIiI . Unmodified Opinion - System of Quality Control for the Accounting and Auditing Practice has been designed to meet the requirements of the Quality Control Standards for an Accounting and Auditing Practice established by AICPA I I I . I I I I I I I I I I Ii I I I I 'JJ ~ ~ ~ 'JJ O't ~ o ~ o M ~ ~ o ~ < Ii'.i1iI ~'i..!!lI iililliii i'iiiil Iiiiil Iiiiil iiiiiil IiIii iiiliiI iiii IiiiiiI Iiiiii _ iiiii iiiii iIiii iIiiiiI IiU Iiiii Component of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report . Introductory Section (Unaudited) - Letter of Transmittal - Principal Officials - Organization Chart - Certificates of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting - GFOA illiiiiIfmilliiiijliiiiliilliiilfiDilliiiilliiiiliiiiiiJaiiiifiiiliiiliiilifiiiiiiiiiBliiiiiiiliiiiiiil Component of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report . Financial Section - Independent Auditors' Report - Basic Financial Statements . Management's Discussion and Analysis (Unaudited) . Government-Wide Financial Statements - Statement of Net Assets - Statement of Activities . Fund Financial Statements . Notes to Basic Financial Statements iD3H3la31lifijliiiiiilliiDiiiiMiIiiililiiiii.ii1lii1il_fiiililiiiililliiiiiliialiiiiilliiiii1lfiilil Component of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report . Financial Section, Continued - Required Supplementary Information (Unaudited) . Budgetary Information . Budget Comparison Schedules . Status of Funding Progress for PERS and OPEB - Supplementary Information . Combining Fund Financial Statements . Budget Comparison Schedules other than General Fund and Major Special Revenue Funds &il5liiIiiieiliWiIiiiiiilliiiiailii!lllliiiilii!li6iii1i'Biililiiiliiiiiiliiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiiiiiiilllliiiiill Component of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report . Statistical Section (Unaudited) - Financial Trends - Revenue Capacity - Debt Capacity - Demographic and Economic Information - Operating Information IiiiiII 6ii!iS Iiiiil '1ii!D IiiiiJ iml i'iiiiiiI IIiiiII iiiiiil iiiiiI iiiiii Biii Iiilii liiiiiI iiii iiiii iiIiiI IiiiiiJ fiiiiI AUDIT RESULTS . Unqualified Opinion issued . Financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects . Significant accounting policies have been consistently applied . Estimates are reasonable . Disclosures are properly reflected in the financial statements BllgmliBiil~liIiiiiiiIiIlii8iiii!i__iiiiiiliiiliiliiiiiliiiilliiiiilliiliiiilliiiilliiiiii~iiiiI AUDIT RESULTS . No disagreements with City management . N 0 significant deficiencies or material weaknesses were noted in internal controls . No indications of fraudulent or inappropriate activities IiiiQfiJSliiiiiliiiiilililiiiililiiilliliiiiiiiilii!iiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilliiiiiiiiilliiiillliiiilliiiiliiiliiiiiiil 2009 City's Net Assets Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt Restricted Unrestricted Total ACTIVITIES Governmental Business-Type $ 623,938,515 43,901,854 89,235,419 $ 148,237,562 64,860,578 $ 757,075,788 $ 213,098,140 IiiilfiOOiiiiiDiliiiiiiliUiliiiiiiiililfiiiilliiilliiiDlfiiilliiiiii&iiiiliiiilliiililiiliiii Cost of Services to Tax Revenues Governmental Activities Expenses Less Program Revenues Net Cost of Services for Governmental activities Tax Revenues Cost of Services to Tax Revenues $ 228,310,862 (108,520,673) 119,790,189 91,225,839 131% iiiiliWDlEiiiiiillliiil&iiiiliiliiiiiill&ilriiiiiliiiiilliiiiilliiiiiiJiliiiiliiililiiiliilliiiiliiiii General Fund Available Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures Assets Less Liabilities Less Reserved Fund Balance $ 47,164,664 (14,015,143) (20,732,416) $ 12,417,105 144,160,193 Available Fund Balance Annual Expenditures Available Fund Balance to Annual Expenditures 9% ~~~-~----~-----~~-~ General Fund Change in Total Fund Balance Beginning fund balance Results of operations Ending fund balance $ 34,076,142 (926,621) $ 33,149,521 ~~~~~~~~~-~--~-~-~- RISK AREAS Retirement Plans - Defined Benefits Plan . Member of CALPERS - Miscellaneous Employees - Safety Employees . 2009 contribution = $ 18,938,442 - Defined Contribution Plan . For Part-Time Employees . 2009 contribution = $96,206 iiHI~IiiiilIlif'dli5iIi'iii&iil_&iilimiiiiiiiliiiiilliBliiiiiffiiiiiiilfaiiifililiiiiJ RISK AREAS . CALPERS- Schedule of Funding Progress Valuation Date Actuarial value of assets Entry Age Normal Liabilities Unfunded Liabilities Funded Status Annual Accrual Payroll UAAL as a % of payroll Miscellaneous 6/30/2008 $ 245,868,607 $ 308A62,529 $ (62,593,922) 79.71 % $ 49 A59,253 ~ (126.56)% Safety 6/30/2008 $ 226,791,902 $ 255,548,074 $ (28,756)72) 88.75% $ 33,931,276 (84.75)% -~~~~~~-~~~~--~~--- RISK AREAS . Workers Compensation and General Liabilities - Accrued liabilities at June 30, 2009 = $ 17,869,948 . Pollution Remediation Obligations - Accrued liabilities at June 30, 2009: . Corporation Yard - $150,000 . Otay Valley - $500,000 IE9UiiIiiiiii&iiiiiiilriBEialili'iilliiliiiiEiii_Biii.fiiliiiiillliiUlliiiiiiiiiliH RISK AREAS . Other Postemployment Benefits - Schedule of Funding Progress Valuation Date Actuarial value of assets Entry Age Normal Liabilities Unfunded Liabilities Funded Status Annual Accrual Payroll UAAL as a % of payroll 6/30/2007 $ $ 9,608,000 $ (9,608,000) 0.00% $ 93,172,648 P' (10.31)% iUE'l limI &1i Iiiiii iiiii i!1iiI E!llI fiiiI iiii IiiIiI ifil &iii iiiiI liiil iiii iii'i _ iiiiii iIii RISK AREAS . Subsequent Events - California Budget Crisis . Subsequent to the basic financial statements date of June 30, 2009 and the year then ended, the State has borrowed, deferred certain revenues and proposed taking funds from local governments. These action includes - 8% Property taxes borrowed - $4,488,610 - Gas Tax payment deferred - Redevelopment Agency Fund - to be taken in 2010 and 2011 in the amount of $4,160,694 and $855,797 I I . I I I I I I I I I I I I . I I I en ~ z w :!E 3: co w w~~ ZC)::J o Z o 0:: a. -~~-~-------------- Implementation of New GASS Proncou ncements . Statement No. 49, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pollution Remediation Obligations . Statement No. 52, Land and Other Real Estate Held as Investments by Endowments . Statement No. 55, The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for State and Local Governments . Statement No. 56, Codification of Accounting and Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in AICPA Statements on Auditing Standards IiiiitliiiililIiliiiEiilIiiliiii&iIiiiiiil_____iiIiiIiiiii__..__riliIil Other GASS Pronouncements . GASB Statement No. 51, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Intangible Assets . GASB Statement No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments I I I I c: I 0 -- ....., I CO u I :] "C I W ....., I c: Q) I -- - (..) I ...J I ~ I (..) I I I I I I M!iliiiiil~_iIiiliii"&iiiiliilliiilil_liii_i1Iiiiiliii__--- . C&L Client Education Seminars - Held in Fremont, Clovis, Cerritos and San Diego, California - Current update on new pronouncements and standards from AICPA, GASB and GASB and other related matters - 2008 Survey of Selected California Counties and Cities I I I I I I I I . I I I . I I m ~ , IJ!I I;'.. ~, " ; (;11.; liiI o ~ r./'J ~ QJ ~ .~ U ~' \~:} on Q.l .s ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ l~? ~QJoU o ~ ~ ~O ~ ::i l-l 0 o ~ ~ ~ QJ .-:= ~:s u = > tU 0 ,..= ~ ~~ To the ehu!" Vista Mayor, CounciJMcllibcrs; City Mal1<1gcr and rncmbel's of the CVRC: I. (we) hereby oppose the addition or any additional residential property to tbe next proJlosed 5-yc.ar plan for the years 20] 0-2014 ,... C) w Namels"ignature OJ ,r \l N-ed Q rJ 0...7"''''- ~ A(d~~ '$- IJi_~l,u L,/~_J.f-/ / "'iJ '1:'''--___,.. _:5Pt.2an~ze.... ;t!<>;,P;1 "l;;,:z-- ___ ,. ;"""~ I!I" <;'"'f.:"'II~ 1 ~'!l. t"'" "ol>; , ~ ,.1'" ~. ~., Sf. lo::t itt ~ -""$ ~~';"" .. I ..,1;. .."'> . j! ,"" " .' . ~ " '.. ~ ~ilJ!~:~"lt;!_ ~:'I".;,H.t..J ~~m . ""i' <'fI<'!Il!'" ;Q"/~ ......:.u ""'" ~". !' 'l"t\ll '" 3f:";'t(l-... ..:1. ." tl, :of . '-f" '4'1.:",' ~ 1> ,"\.,.- '<;I, f'" " ~",.~ ~ J l 4-4 'r",..<l' .. l~ c'j ff' 1\."'_ _JI ----~-~ .-.-- -- ------------. "' 0' 00 (,-, (" ,en "" '" ,... '.D -~----- --~-- -------- u:' ,... -~-=~t---- --_l__ -__l~_ _.~--~ (.., Oi '" '" '" t:'.I u:j ,... '. (-l ,... To the Chula Vista Mayor, Council Members, City Manager and members of the eVRC: ~ ~ (we) hereby oppose the addition of any additional residential property to the next proposed 5-year plan for the years 20 10-20] 4 Address Zi code '7 ._~ To the Chula Vista Mayor, Council Members, City Manager and members of the CVRC: I(we) hereby op~ose next proposed Syear the addition of any additional residential property to the redevelopment plan for the years 2010 thru 2014. CONTACT INFO PHONE # EMAIL ADDRESS ZIP CODE ADDRESS --"--'-~--. ._---_.._-~_.._~- ----.----- NAMES /7 ADDRESS 1) 's T EV~jJ erA ~ K ' zL/&l/ / If! ~I II !-/o~/ To the Chula Vista Mayor, Council Members, City Manager and members of the eVRe: I(we) hereby oppose the addition of any additional residential property to the next proposed 5year redevelopment plan for the years 2010 thru 2014. CONTACT INFO PHONE # EMAIL il) 9J 0) eLl .2.L .3 ) _41 5) 6) 7.) JlJ .___._________________ .9.>-_______......._.______......_ .Ql.._.____ ....__..._ .. ____.___.__... _____.. . -~ ------..~---~----._. To the Chula Vista Mayor, Council Members, City Manager and members of the CVRC: I(we) hereby oppose the addition of any additional residential property to the next proposed Syear redevelopment plan for the years 2010 thru 2014. CONTACT INFO ADDRESS ZIP CODE PHONE # EMAIL ADDRESS 21,A,bJlf:L~ I ( 1 ) 4) .2L 10 ?) 8) 9) 0) JJ 7) .3-> 4) 5) 6) .7J 8J ,9J_______.. .QL.___. )li1!-!!\'~' '~:;jp&1;i' ".,~~,,;,~ ~f" ,~"a,,~ '.~r J\l,~. .IRl' ~~~t\ ,~j.;~f"~j.. . u~ ~ ~ 7, 'f ~ ' . . ~, " :" .. ~. ',,/ !Ji"~"~ '. <t ~t. I ", ~ '" t- -, "t . f"~ F . .li.' 'II p . it ' .l i' f .;- 'I ". J "'. . *' (1 " " ~ ~ .,~:I.-" f!'" I~ '.. ." "i:f~ '~""1~ '.:'Jrrr.~' ',," .,~ .'t.:'~"~lfl<"'lfr "'1',\1' :"#1"\"I~' ntf~"t',( t' $~il~j;_ ~~ - --- ---~~-~._~-------'- ---'-~-"' ------_.._-.__._._--~--.._-------- ""Yo b!::i !::/!V'.'cJ".( 25 Kl.,ck~t-.J AI No. -' 12/10/09 t' ""I q />- b 6/ MTS Budget Operating budget impacted by- . Lower than anticipated fare revenue (8% below FY 2010 budgeted) . Lower than anticipated TDA and TransNet revenue (11.1 % below FY 2010 budgeted) Projected FY 2010 Operating Shortfall = $12.9 million Projected FY 2011 Operating Shortfall = $14.4 million Plan for balancing FY 2010 budget includes use of $12.6 million in shifts from the Capital Program. . Staff directed to evaluate service to provide $7 million in subsidy savings 1 AI No. 25 J 12/10/09 Background November 5. 2009: Budget Development Committee adopts strategy that looks specifically at Sunday service but maintains most services six days/week. November 12. 2009: Board authorizes today's public hearing and concurs with BOC decision not to pursue another fare increase at this time. Many alternatives reviewed (fare increases, weekday cuts, full route cuts, etc.) March 2009 considered $5 million across the board network cuts that weren't implemented Weekday cuts would affect more commuters, require more miles cut per dollar saved than weekends Sunday service proposal developed through use of Weekend Service Analysis: new, scaled-down network preserves existing routes Mon-Sat some minor frequency, trip, span reductions Mon-Sat Weekend Service Analysis . Every trip on every route counted, both Saturday & Sunday - 2,566 hours of on-board counts . Detailed trip- and stop-level data now available . Passengers surveyed on how they use the system: Medical Sho in Recreation Religious Tri t e: Work i Q,TS' eooo I ~{3 _~_ - - - ~___ __ __ _____' I 2 AI No. 25, 12/10/09 Why Sunday? . Lowest number of passengers . Highest percentage of flexible trips (shopping, recreation, etc.) . Lowest fare box recovery ratio: fewer service cuts required for same subsidy savings . Concentration of ridership in midday . Avoids cutting any routes entirely . Easier to rebuild system when budget improves . Retains most regular riders (passholders) I ~~S' eeoo I '~;;I 5 ----- ----- -------------~-- Annual System-wide Ridership Why Sunday? System-wide Daily Ridership 350,000 300,000 28Z,950 250,000 --- 200,000 -f64 ,646 150,000 1-0""- 100,000 50,000 , , Weekday Saturday Sunday ! Q\7:~' eeoo . i .,,~~ 6 I 1.....----- __ ____ ___________~_ ___J 3 AI No.2 5 I 12/10/09 Sunday Network Development . $7.0 million subsidv target established for service cuts . Policy 42 requires analysis based on productivity and passengers - not trip type or anecdotal data . Data from Weekend Service analysis mapped in GIS . Segments with most ridership prioritized for service . Base system of routes laid out with 60 minute frequency and a reduced span of 7am-7pm. Nearby and overlapping segments consolidated Routes structured to mirror existing routes where poss. Minor route changes made to cover high ridership areas ! Q~TS' eooe I l 1r1111\~ 7 - -- - -- ---- --- -- -- -~- ----~-- -- Sunday Network Development (cont'd) . Frequency added (eg. 60 minute to 30 minute) in highest ridership areas to avoid overcrowding, poor reliability . Span added in areas with more demand for early or late service (eg. Trolley service) . Some final changes made using comments received from passengers . Other considerations... - Available travel alternatives - Title Vi analysis - System network connectivity i Q~TS' eooe I ,~ I I u.__ _ _____ ____ _ -- -. ---'-_. 4 LEGEND Proposed Transtl Service -BU$Rootes -TroIeyRoutes . TrolleySlallQnS Current Sunday Bus Boardlngs 1.15 r:!16-30 031-50 051-15 076-100 0101-150 r::;;j]t51-JOO _301-500 _500-1,000 _>1,000 " '-. A '(', AI No.2 5 I 12/10/09 S..NcwtIlj.15lnsMM;lp ~ ~ ~"ii"S- SUNDAY BUS RIDERSHIP ~. By Half-Mile Grid LEGEND BO"F/Dl~S (bV Internctlcn I uilnslt ctnlerl O Wilhin1l4.rme ofPropose<:lStop O NotWnhintl4-mjle ofPropose<:lStop , '- A ~s -.r SUNDAY BUS RIDERSHIP By Half-Mile Grid 5 AI No. 25, 12/10/09 Challenges . Some people do work on Sundays . Passengers accessing religious services . Truly transit dependent have limited travel options . No trips are 'discretionary' although some are flexible . Even for flexible trips, Sunday is the only day for some people to run errands l QTS' eeoe 'I 7/111\;1 11 - - - - -- - ------ -- -- --- -------- --- Communication and Outreach . 18 Events held at transit facilities Nov. 15 - Dec. 5 Press release generated media coverage Received nearly 344 written/on-line surveys . 30% identified Sunday as their most flexible day Reached several thousand passengers Handouts explaining proposals & budget issues . Information on MTS website . Comments also collected via hotline, mail, e-mail Notice of public hearing in newspaper . 110,000 printed notices for vehicles 'I Q"TS' eeoe I 4/11~ -1m -- " ___ - _~_____~__ I 6 AI No.2 5 J 12/10/09 18 Local Outreach Events Comments Received: 347 Total - 120 by Telephone Hotline - 113 by E-mail - 8 via MTS Customer Service - 93 from survey comment field - 3 petitions received - 1 0 by other means All comments summarized for Board and provided at hearing today. 7 AI No.2 5 I 12/10/09 ~(EI2ElP~I?l)'...20\O. S~R\lICE~Ct;i,4;NGE gROP.OS.ALSS:-,. $7.0 Million in Service Adjustments Routes Affected: WEEKDAYS: 12 bus routes, 1 Trolley line SATURDAYS: 16 bus routes, 1 Trolley line SUNDAYS: All bus routes and Trolley lines One bus route (880) has major changes I Q1TS' 6>000 : I ~//ij~ I '----- - --~-- --- ---- - - -- -~- W;.EEKDAY$:ftV;t"~~j ~;":~~1.\<f~:,,: .~.\~;;:' ~ ....:'~~,;::-t~ 1<. ~ \~.,~..~,;~ Frequency Reduction 2 (Dwtn-North Park): Middays only 20 (1-15 Corridor Exp): Middays only 916/917 (Oak Park): 30 > 60 Other Reductions 50 Reduce trips at ends of peaks 860 Discontinue last NB trip 992 (Airport): end service at 11 pm Blue Line: Reduce peaks, late nights Modified Route 2 Move downtown terminal 30 No service downtown after 7pm 210 Move downtown terminal 854 (La Mesa-San Carlos) 874/875 No Granite Hills after 6pm 880 Serve downtown, not UTC 929 Terminate dwtn at City College Discontinue All Service None : ~~S' 6>000! I _ ~~_ _~_u __ __ __ __~_ _ ___ _ _ 8 AI No. 25 J 12/10/09 , .....- ~-. "'...._~.....- J_~ """"'" ~" i' 'S'" ~~_... . ....~ "l"".... _q,.. .... .SATUBDA'(S:V :'. ~ ~;.! ?J..~~\f. ~~', h n '" :~.>?*'f... -:~. ~,,-_ Frequency Reduction 2 (Dwln-North Park): 15> 20 7 (Dwln-Univ Av-La Mesa): 12 > 15 8/9 (Old Town-Mission/P.B.): 20 > 30 10 (Old Town-Univ Av): 15> 20 11 (Skyline-Dwln-SDSU): 20 > 30 15 (Dwln-ECB-SDSU): 15 > 20 20 (1-15 Corridor Exp): 30 > 60 27 (P.B.-Kearny Mesa): 60 > 90 88 (Hotel Circle): 30 > 60 105 (Clairemont): 30 > 60 874/875 (EI Cajon): 30 > 60 967/968 (Nat'l City): 60 > 120 992 (Airport): 15 > 30 Modified Route 10 No service east of 15 Fwy 27 No service east of Convoy St 30 Old Town-VA only (no Dwln, UTC) 41 End route at UTC (no UCSD) 105 No svc north of Clairemont Sq 874/875 No service to Granite Hills Other Reductions 955 Fewer early A.M., evening trips 992 End service at 11 pm Discontinue All Service None , I I. ~TS' <:>000 1 l_~~__ ___ ~ ___ __ ___ _ "S''''NDA-VS''.',,-..h .-,. ..' ; -;". _:- ,. -. h", :. ."., ~ ~ ""-u "-""Lr,~~'->o -:. ,,:~...::,";.:.; ~ _'" "'~~ "'''\ ',;" ",,':.'_.,.'f,.~v~r :0 ,.-"~~ ".-:r..~: Frequency Reduction 19routes: 2 3 4 7 8/9 10 13 15 2028 44 815 874/875 901 932 961 992 Orange Green Span Reduction 33 routes: 1 2 3 4 5 7 8/9 10 11 13 15 20 28 30 35 41 44 105 120 815 864 874/875 901 929 932 933/934 936 955 961 992 Blue Orange Green Route Modification 7 routes: 2 13 15 20 35 44 709 Shortened Routes (large reduction) 17routes: 1 3 7 8/9 10 11 30 41 105 120 864 874/875 901 929 932 933/934 961 Discontinue Sunday Service 26 routes: 6 27 88 115 701 704 705 712 832 833 845 848 854 855 856 872 904 905 916/917 921 923 928 962 965 967 968 [ Q~S' <:>000: ~I/~ I -------------- -- - - 9 AI No.2 5, 12/10/09 Impacts of Proposed Changes Weekda~ Saturday ~~u.~: 287.950 i 164,646: 131,875 73, 139,300 r~8,56'1~921i ~ 7,780,625' 01 f' 7,14 l___~1,288:,_.~~1,8~5 1 ,813,560;-1,626~9761--7: 780,625 1 ,098 [_.__~:3~~I!_ 32,718 278,892~- 224,9001 .. 1,930,352 0.4% , 2.6% Ii 24.8% 3.4% : 10.6%:, 49.7% 2.8% 'I 11.4% i 50.5% Current Daily Ridership Annual Riders Daily Affected Annual Riders Daily Lost Annual % Ridership Lost % Miles Discontinued % Hours Discontinued I Q~TS' eeoe . I ~~ " ' ~ -----~-- ~-- - -~-------------~-- Sunday Religious Services During the Sunday morning & midday periods, there are 1,837 ons and 1,581 offs at stops within 'I.-mile of religious facilities that will no longer be served. This represents just over 2% of all Sunday ridership. 77.5% of religious facilities currently served within a half mile would still be served. i Q,TS' eeoe l___~/JII~ ______ _____ ____ ______~~ I 10 AI No. 25 J 12/10/09 Major Service Changes . Defined by Federal Transit Administration guidelines . Any changes that affect more than 25% of a route's hours or miles . Require a public hearing . Includes one of the routes recommended today for changes (Route 880) i Q~TS' <<:)"00 ; L -. ~__ _ ___. .____3'_.., U~""""'!b ~~@ 11.,,,,,1>0 ~,"'t~ r" .." ~,rlpl" ...., 45 Ranch - University City via Sorrento Valley - Fully subsidized by 4S Ranch - Average 6 passengers/trip - Proposed Changes: . Re-route to serve downtown instead of Sorrento Valley and University City '\ . Reduce from three round trips to two = ~,- - Mir.."".... '''''''''' : Q~TS' : ~,~ L.- __ _ ___ _ __ _ __ , . 'U.I1""-J ,,".,.-" '............ .. I "r."" ""'1>__,-. \- . ~1~:' '\... '\ '~~..... II UM-,,~ltll~ 11 AI No. 25, 12/10/09 Title VI Analysis . One route with major service change (Route 880): proposed changes could impact low-income and minority (L1M) populations more than non-L1M populations. . L1M impact is to Mira Mesa and UTC areas, also bridged by Route 921; actual riders are from non-L1M tracts. . This change would have less impact on L1M communities than the readily possible alternatives. . Complete Title VI analysis included within agenda packet. I Q"TS' <:>eoo I L 5~ ._.__. .--. - .- --- -- LEGEND 1'\.........roE"Il<nsRoule PercentageotPopulatlon en,*, I.ow-lncome or MInority D<25% NOn4.lM ~ D25%-518,*,Traca &. DS1.8"fo-15% llM " ~>15'" =~ I1S~11'IIQ '- -- -- .. TITLEVIANALYSIS-proposedRO~ --.- I ~~-::.:..- I :-. -~ _, 45 Ranch - Rancho Bernardo _ ': ~ ....~... : P<;.AUOI ":~,: -:~ "":""uo Sorrento Valley - UTe , . -,._'" --. -.--_. '''.'-. - 12 AI No.2 5 / 12/10/09 Proposed ExprenRoute .... -1 ill!l l.EGEND P.r~ntag' of Popul.lltlon EIther L.ow-lncoml or Minority D"'25% D25""-51,8%~ :.' 0518%-75% LIM A _>;S'4 :::~ u'c.....""(x.:q U H5 H ~- <1 ..J S E' ~J D\ --- f~r _.eo.ntyc... _~_ c..",.,-.-_ """...- /I ....- ~'" . TITLE VI ANALYSIS. Proposed Route I -- I ,,-_. ~ ~"S 4S Ranch. Downtown San Diego I __"m." ._ ., ~:.:~:.~ ~m ~,..~: Recommendations . Conduct a public hearing on recommended service adjustments to achieve at least $7.0 million in subsidy savings (as described in Attachment A) . Adopt Resolution 09-27, "Findings in Support of Exemption Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Related to Proposed Budget- Related Service Adjustments" (Attachment C) . Respond to suggestions made by the public and take action (if any) on the package of service adjustments at the next regularly scheduled Board meeting on January 7,2010 , I t. ~!S~m_________ eeo~ 13 AI No.2 5 I 12/10/09 14