• Finances: Staff continues the monthly review of R -Transit’s budget. The City’s Deputy City Manager, Nickie Mastay, and Community Services Department Finance Manager, Hope Lattell, both copied on this email, are involved in the review of claim forms (narrative and budget) prior to submission. Including myself, Nickie and Hope, are not paid through Measure J funds but we are engaged to ensure there is extra review of R-Transit related documents. • Other Transit Options: Richmond is a multi -modal city with resident access to BART, AC Transit, Ferry and Amtrak. In addition, the City provides Richmond MOVES, an on-demand shuttle, which will soon cover all of Richmond, only costs $2/ride, and is free for students and seniors. This service is primarily grant - funded, and is therefore, cost efficient for ambulatory seniors and community members. This program has been operational since 2022 and we have seen steady increases in use by residents. This program, along with others such as bike and car share programs, offer other mobility options to R -Transit and other users.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this very important issue. The City of Richmond cares deeply Please contact me at 510-620-6828 or at [email protected] if you have any additional questions.
Respectfully,
LaShonda White
LaShonda White
Deputy City Manager
726
1 DRAFT City of Richmond Responses to the Paratransit Audit (Audit Received: May 7, 2024 and Draft Responses Provided: May 9, 2024)
Issue as Identified by Auditor Auditor Recommendation City Response #1: Errors, inconsistencies, and contradictions in Claims Forms.
A simple review of the FY23/24 Claim submitted by the City revealed a list of issues, some of which were highlighted by the PCC. Issues in that FY23/24 Claim include:
• The titled service area map inserted in two locations of the Project Description Narrative is not a map of the service area, but instead, a map of the city block of the Civic Center in Richmond. This is a simple error to spot and should have been corrected before submittal. • The narrative cites ‘1,770 active clients presently registered in the database’. Table C lists FY22/23 Projected at 3,720 registered clients. Administrative staff explained on the Working Group Call that 1,770 was the more recent and accurate number, but there was no further explanation for the discrepancy.
• Table C asks for an average passenger trip distance. The City instead lists a range of 3-6 miles. As noted in the Claim Form, the average should be calculated as Revenue Miles divided by passenger trips. Using the YTD FY22/23 Revenue Miles total from the attached Vehicle Productivity by Mileage report would put the average trip distance at 438 miles which is clearly incorrect, and nowhere near the 3-6 mile range cited. It is unclear how the City generated the range reported in the Claim. • Van vehicle mileage (odometer) reported on Table D doesn’t match end odometer numbers on attached Vehicle Productivity by Mileage reports.
• Table A Fare Revenues for FY21/22 Actual were $92,001, but Projected FY22/23 revenues were $20,000. Staff could not explain the unusually high fare revenue for the reported 2,787 passenger trips ($33 per ride), or why the figure was lowered so significantly for the next year’s projections. • The figure listed as Paratransit Fare Subsidy on Table A is, in fact, a Taxi/TNC subsidy. • The Table C-provided definition of Revenue Service Hours, and the industry standard, is ‘Total Hours that a vehicle is available to pick up passengers”. The City Claim cites a 7.5-hour service day (9am – 4:30pm) and offers service approximately 250 days per year. For single-van service, the annual hours would be 1,875. Table C reports 1,200 Projected FY22/23 Revenue Service Hours for both vans. • At the cited FY22/23 Projected Passenger Trips per Revenue Service Hour of 430 and Projected Revenue Service Hours of 1,200, the City would carry 516,000 passengers. The Claim cites 2,900 projected passenger trips. Conversely, if the projected passenger trips of 2,900 were divided by the Projected Passenger Trips per Revenue Service Hours of 430, the City would have offered just 6.7 hours of service for the year. The 430 figure is an obvious error and the disparity in total passengers that figure reflects should have been easily spotted and corrected before the Claim was submitted. • Table C includes ‘Fare Subsidy: Number of Tickets Sold’ for the three reported years. City staff could not provide an explanation for the figures or what they represented during the Working Group Call.
City Finance staff cited that the figures were a mistake and should not be there. • The Vehicle Productivity by Mileage Reports attached with the Claim showed three occasions when impossible mileage was reported to a van. These were 18,936 miles, 595,039 miles, and 650,053 miles travelled, each by a single van in a single day. The total was 1,272,448 miles for the two vans YTD, which is clearly not possible. Based on daily odometer reads in the reports, the correct total is 8,551 miles. An obvious error such as this should have been spotted and corrected before the Claim was submitted.
The fact that many of the contradictions and errors in the FY23/24 Claims Form were easy to spot, and that even after being called out, weren’t corrected in subsequent submissions, indicates a lack of oversight, understanding of system metrics, and QA review. City staff either don’t have the experience or understanding of their program to accurately report on it or they are not applying their experience to this process. As the source of revenue for their program, the City must prioritize Claim submittals. It may be necessary to engage new staff, or a third- party contractor, experienced in service delivery and program metrics, to manage the Claims process.
City Response:
• The service area map is posted on the City’s website under Transportation services and has been posted for 20+ years.
The Service Area map has also been submitted and
received in all previous claim forms and not never changed. • We number of registered clients provided was accurate based on our count and the system database RouteMatch.
Projections to register 3,720 additional clients was based on doubling the amount of active clients given our contract with LYFT Inc to offer 24/7 service.
• Table C information provided was what the software
“RouteMatch” provided. We rely on the software and have used it for over 20 years and have use the same software to complete and submit previous claim forms that were
accepted and approved. We have corrected this by getting a new software to calculate these fields and other fields of information.
• The Routematch software calculates this information
• The low fare revenue projected in FY 22/23 ($20k) was on the delay of receiving Measure J revenue to effectively operate.
• “The figure listed as Paratransit Fare Subsidy on Table A is, in fact, a Taxi/TNC subsidy” That is correct this is the column we have always used to report this information on all previous and current claim forms we have submitted.
• “The Table C-provided definition of Revenue Service Hours, and the industry standard, is ‘Total Hours that a vehicle is available to pick up passengers” . The City Claim cites a 7.5- hour service day (9am – 4:30pm) and offers service
approximately 250 days per year. For single-van service, the annual hours would be 1,875. Table C reports 1,200
Projected FY22/23 Revenue Service Hours for both vans.”
This information is correct given that we only have 1.5 drivers. We were not able to mee single-van service use.
Shared rides are not reported through LYFT to meet this projection. Also, the City’s projections were based on receiving Measure J funds to support the service financially. 727
2 • Additionally, the same reports showed one van operating 51 days YTD and the other 154 days with just 12 days overlapping. The staff chart in the narrative showed 2 full-time drivers, but two drivers would only have been needed on 12 days.
• The Project Description Narrative cites that “All Measure J Program 15 funds were expended in the past 3 years (2019-2022)”, but Table A shows a FY21/22 Actual ending reserve balance of $103,759.
Identified Issue #2:
Failure to File Claims or Make Corrections. While citing a lack of resources as a reason for their limited promotion or limited services, the City has missed years of filing a Claim, has not submitted Claims in a timely manner, or has submitted Claims with data that the PCC has noted as inconsistent or incomplete, requiring resubmittal.
Recommendation:
The City must prioritize filing a Claim every year and
addressing all issues noted in the Claims expeditiously.
City Response:
The City understands the importance of filling claims annually and completely. Additional City staff are now participating in and learning more about the claim form and services. In addition, the City is switching to a new scheduling platform that should drastically assist with accurate information gathering and support completing the forms. As of May 9, 2024, the City has submitted the outstanding claim forms or requested information for FY 21/22 and FY 22/23.
Identified Issue #3:
Non-Compliance with Coop Agreement. While neither the Coop Agreement nor cited Measure J Expenditure and Strategic Plans address level of service, service quality, or performance expectations for MJ15 funded programs, the PCC, per their bylaws, has the duty to ‘Review annual claims for Measure C and Measure J funds, applications … and make recommendations regarding these claims and applications as appropriate. ’ The PCC has made a recommendation for this audit based on the contents of Claims Forms and in response to questions about service quality and performance. Their request for an audit is their authority to question the City’s compliance with the Coop Agreement.
Recommendation:
CCTA’s Coop Agreement with MJ15 fund recipients should
include language that addresses minimum standards of
service and performance expectations or should expressly cite the PCC’s duty to determine if the transit entity is meeting performance expectations, and thereby the agreement. The consequences for failing to meet performance expectations should also be addressed.
City Response:
City staff agree with this recommendation and would
appreciate guidance and clear language regarding minimum standards of service and performance expectations.
Identified Issue #4:
Unmet Needs – The only record of Table E Unmet Needs reported in the FY23/24 Claim was for ”Patrons outside your service area requesting rides” . City staff identified this as callers who ask about service who do not reside in the service area. They also cite not keeping a log of calls received. It is unclear how this Unmet Need is being recorded, if not through a call log. Other Table E categories not completed by the City include “Patrons inside your service area requesting rides outside of your service area” and “Number of same-day ride denials due to capacity. ” No numbers were added for these categories, though it seems likely that there are instances of these occurrences and the City notes in their narrative that ‘ …same-day service is limited due to high demand if a same day appointment is scheduled. ’
Recommendation:
The City should keep a log of all customer calls. That log can include checkboxes for each of the categories of Unmet
Needs identified in the Claims Form. That information could prove valuable in assessing program needs and future
changes or expansion.
City Response:
City staff agree that keeping a log of customer calls, outside of those already captured in the scheduling system, would
provide information helpful in completing the Claim Form and addressing community needs. City staff plan to discuss this recommendation and as appropriate, will incorporate this into the proposed Richmond Paratransit Standard Operating
Procedure (SOP).
Identified Issue #5:
Lack of Budget Detail for Review. A Claim was filed by the City and accepted by CCTA for FY19/20. For FY20/21 and FY21/22, the Claim submittal process was suspended, or only a brief narrative was requested due to Covid. The City failed to submit a Claim for FY22/23, though they provided a Claim Form for that year to the Audit Team. The provided form is not complete and shows no program costs. A Claim was filed by the City for FY23/24 which includes program costs.
The only complete Budget Detail to Claim comparison for reported Actuals is for FY21/22.
The City provided the full five years of program budgets, but invoices, expense reports, and receipts would all be required to do a full fiscal audit of program expenses. There is not sufficient back-up documentation to confirm what was spent and that direct costs cited were spent on the program. Additionally, because only two complete Claims were submitted for the five fiscal years of review, and they represent the first and last years, there is no way to track the flow of the expenditures to budget or to follow reserve balance.
Recommendation:
Future years’ Claims must be complete so that true program costs can be understood, to allow for a rolling assessment of expenditures and reserves, and so CCTA can follow Claims against budget if needed.
City Response:
City staff agree with this recommendation and will adhere to future Measure J Claim Form deadlines. City staff are hopeful that the new scheduling software, additional training and understanding of the Claim Forms, and the addition of the Community Services Department Finance Manager to the
team, will assist City staff in completing the forms. As of May 9, 2024, the City has submitted the outstanding claim forms or requested information for FY 21/22 and FY 22/23.
The City provided the full five years of program budgets, per the request of the Auditor. Since this audit was not a full fiscal audit, City staff did not recall a request from the Auditor for “invoices, expense reports, and receipts. ” The City has various financial checks and balances in place and information is 728
3 collected and retained in our financial management system, MUNIS. The majority of costs are for salaries and benefits, cost poll allocations, and a contract with LYFT. If requested, City staff have access to all required back-up information to substantiate ALL paratransit-related costs.
Identified Issue #6:
Limited Detail Available Shows Inconsistencies. The two Claims years with program cost detail noted above do not match the budget detail provided by the City for the same year. While not all totals represent actuals, they are inconsistent enough to point them out. • The FY19/20 Claim provided by the City to the Audit Team was not complete, but the CCTA approved version dated May 8, 2019 put the Estimated program year expenditures at $1,110,000 while the same budget year detail showed an Actual program cost of $687,134.26. The difference could reflect the first four months of the Covid pandemic that closed out the fiscal year. • The FY23/24 Claim put FY21/22 Actual expenditures at $959,525.00 but the same budget year detail showed Actual program expenditures of $813,881.05.
• For FY22/23 the Projected program cost cited in the FY23/24 Claim was $960,405.00 while the budget Actual put it at $854,769.37.
And, as cited earlier, the FY23/24 Project Description Narrative cites that “All Measure J Program 15 funds were expended in the past 3
Recommendation:
Future years’ Claims must be complete so that true program costs can be understood, to allow for a rolling assessment of expenditures and reserves, and so CCTA can follow Claims against budget if needed.
City Response:
City staff agrees with the recommendation and will complete future years’ Claim Forms as required.
Identified Issue #7:
Cost Pool Indirect Costs Burden the Program. The City is charging an administrative and liability expense to the program as part of a Cost Pool distribution. The Cost Pool memos provided by the City as Attachment 5 indicate that the City has earmarked a much higher total Cost Pool expense to the program than they are charging against it. For FY22/23 the City consultant calculated an Indirect Administrative Charges Cost Pool expense to the “1003 Transportation Operation” , which includes only the Paratransit/Lyft services, of $744,016, but charged $220,202 to the service. They consider the $523,814 difference a subsidy to the program. An additional $41,058 was charged to the program for General Liability Cost Pool in the same fiscal year. If charged at the fully calculated administrative rate, the City would be burdening the program with a total of $785,074 in indirect costs – 82% of the total Projected program expenditures for that year. It is unfathomable that the City’s calculations would result in that percentage of a program’s funding to an expense that does not directly deliver service or impact customers. The fact that the City lowered that value to 27% of projected program expenditures is a reasonable course of action, but the percentage burden against a program that provides services to a vulnerable population is still too high.
Recommendation:
The City’s Paratransit program should request an exemption from City Cost Pool expenses or CCTA should set a limit on the percentage of indirect costs that can be charged against a MJ15 funded project.
City Response:
All City of Richmond departments have Cost Pool expenses allocated to their budgets. It is how the City of Richmond operates and represents the true cost of operating a
department. The City’s Cost Allocation Plan is developed by an external consultant.
An exemption from City Cost Pool expenses would require Richmond City Council approval and would essentially be a subsidy from the General Fund.
The City will wait for direction from CCTA if a limit is set on indirect costs that can be charged against a MJ15 funded project.
Identified Issue #8:
Imbalance in administration costs to operations costs. It is not clear from the Claim Form or the City-provided budget detail how they assign program costs to the Operations and General Administration categories in Table A of the Claims Form. The ratio they show is high, however, compared to the other West County services. For FY21/22 Actuals the General Administration Expenditure was $465,066 and Paratransit Operations Expenditures plus the TNC Fare Subsidy cost was $494,459, putting admin at 48% and operations at 52% of the total program cost.
Comparatively, the City of El Cerrito Paratransit was 21% to General Administration and the City of San Pablo shows 9% to General Administration.
Recommendation:
As already noted, the Cost Pool indirect cost is putting a burden on the program and should be eliminated or limited to free up funds for the direct delivery of service. Assuming the Cost Pool expense is included in the General Administration Expenditure, pulling it from the program total and
administrative expenditures would result in Administration Expenditures of 30% of the total program cost.
City Response:
Without direction from CCTA regarding the City’s Cost Pool or limits to indirect costs, the City automatically allocates cost pool charges to the paratransit program, as it does to other departments. The City will wait for direction from CCTA if a limit is set on indirect costs that can be charged against a MJ15 funded project.
Identified Issue #9:
No cost allocation by program. City budget does not breakdown costs by the R-Transit and Lyft programs. The Lyft program subsidy has been confirmed by City staff as the Professional Services Recommendation:
To understand the true costs of the two programs and assess if contracted services are providing an overall lower cost ride, City Response:
729
4 line item in their budget, and easy to pull out. Other items such as Paratransit Scrip Books (Fare Revenue), payroll and benefits for drivers, and operator uniform costs can also be pulled into the Paratransit side, but other budget line items cannot easily be allocated to the two programs. the two programs should be assigned percentages of shared costs to determine an estimated program allocation for future year Claims.
City paratransit staff will need to discuss this identified issue with the City Finance Department to understand if this
recommendation is feasible.
It is City paratransit staff’s understanding that cost pool charges are based on general liability, workers compensation, administrative charges/indirect charges, and rent. This cost would not be applicable to the LYFT program.
Identified Issue #10:
Balance of payroll to benefits. Per City response to cite their average ratio of benefits to payroll, they cited a City standard calculation of 85% of salary costs for benefits. For the five fiscal years of audit review, the Paratransit program benefits were higher than the City average, ranging from 92% for FY23/24 YTD, to a high of 118% for FY20/21.
Recommendation:
It is unclear why the benefits to salary ratio is higher for this program unless the longevity of staff – some noted being with the program for 25 years – is impacting costs with legacy or length-of-service benefits. The City should assess the issue to understand and validate the higher benefits cost ratio.
City Response:
City’s average benefits rate is approximately 85%, however, individual staff benefits rate depends on several factors and can be above or below the City’s average. Healthcare cost depends on an employee’s individual enrollments, retirement rates depend on the employee CalPERS plan status i.e. Classic Plan vs. PEPPRA Plan. CalPERS Unfunded Actuarial Liability cost depends on the latest valuation report issued by CalPERS and is a fixed amount that the City is obligated to pay. The UAL is charged to the City departments as fixed charge per the number of employees. Removing the healthcare cost and UAL cost from the benefits, Transportation division benefits rate ranges from 33% to 42% for the years from 2021 through 2024.
Identified Issue #11:
Cost per Passenger. The cost per passenger is high and is out of line with other, similar programs.
The FY21/22 actual program cost was $813,881.05 per the provided City budget detail. The FY23/24 Claim Form showed Actual FY21/22 passenger trips of 2,787 for a cost per passenger of $292.03. By comparison, the City of El Cerrito Paratransit had a $100 cost per passenger from expected revenue and the City of San Pablo’s cost per passenger was $83 for the same fiscal year.
County Connection’s National Transit Database records for 2022 show a $79 cost per Paratransit rider.
Recommendation:
Again, the Cost Pool expense, as well as the higher-than- average benefits costs, are impacting overall program cost and the cost per passenger. However, removal of Cost Pool costs would only lower the FY21/22 cost per passenger to $202.75, still well above the other services. The City must work from both sides to reduce the cost per passenger by lowering costs and increasing riders.
City Response:
Please see responses to Identified Issues #7-10 regarding potential removal of cost pool expenses.
City staff will continue to examine the program and look at ways to be more efficient and effective.
Identified Issue #12:
Lack of understanding of program metrics. City staff has relied on reporting from Route Match, but that information is inconsistent from report to report and staff is not always clear on what the information represents. Lack of understanding of metrics means staff have no way to recognize errors in them, so they are reporting out with errors and inconsistencies. This was clear on the Working Group Call. Staff could not agree on the definition or reporting of a trip, how fare revenue was defined across documentation, the existence of a mandatory $2.50 annual client ID or how those funds were being accounted for, or how the % on-time performance was calculated, among other things.
The City provided six unique Route Match reports in response to the audit data request. Those reports were scattered over the five fiscal years requested, with no complete set of reports for any one year. The City was emailed a table of missing reports and asked to send the documentation, then reminded on the Working Group Call to supply at least one full fiscal year of reports by the extended April 16 deadline. No additional reports were received. The most complete reporting year is FY21/22. See table below for an example of inconsistencies in the reporting provided by the City for that fiscal year. Only ‘Guests’ , ‘No Shows’ , and ‘Cancels’ match from across the five Route Match reports provided. Figures for all other metrics were different for each report provided for the same fiscal year.
Recommendation:
Manual keying of handwritten manifest times and numbers is likely contributing to the errors seen on the Claims Forms, as well as inconsistencies in Route Match reports. Without a QA review by staff who understand the metrics being reported, errors will persist. City staff need to work with Via to ensure that the system is set up in a way that lets them take the best advantage of any automated data logging. City staff also need training specific to the provision of paratransit services to understand performance metrics and standards of service, or a new staff person needs to be pulled into the program to provide the needed experience. Alternatively, service delivery could be contracted to an experienced vendor.
City Response:
City staff agree that manual entry of information is not effective and look forward to the full implementation of the new Via system. In addition, staff agrees that additional training and the creation of SOPs will help staff better understand program procedures and metrics.
Identified Issue #13: Recommendation: City Response:
730
5 Lack of oversight and review of program reports. As the table above demonstrates, City staff are pulling Route Match reports with clear inconsistencies in metrics for the same time period.
The FY23/24 Claims Form review demonstrates similar inconsistencies in reporting within the Claim and to supporting Route Match documentation. If someone is reviewing these documents, they are missing the obvious or they see the issues but are not correcting them before CCTA review. Administrative staff are not being held by management to a standard of report reviews, reconciliation, or quality, and thus a standard of service review and quality.
City staff either need training specific to the provision of paratransit services to understand performance metrics and standards of service, or a new staff person or third-party contractor needs to be pulled into the program to provide the needed experience. An ongoing internal audit of various reports should be done, and a QA review of all supporting reports and documentation used for Claims Forms reporting must be completed before Claims submittal to CCTA.
City staff understand the concerns and agree that analysis of metrics and reports is necessary. Additional training of existing staff, brining on experienced staff, and/or the creation of SOPs will assist with QA, program delivery, and accurate submission of Claim Forms.
Identified Issue #14:
Metrix requested in Claim submittal. The definitions of some metrics in the Claims Form confused City staff. For example:
• In the Claims Form, ‘Total Passenger Trips’ was defined as the ‘...movement of a person on a vehicle...’, but per City staff, Route Match reports a single vehicle movement as one trip, regardless of the number of passengers on board. In the Claims Form, this is intended to be total passenger boardings, but staff were confused by the contradiction with internal reports using the word ‘trip.’ • Average Trip Distance is requested but the total Revenue Miles is not part of the reporting, so there is no easy way for reviewers to validate the response given. • There is no call-out for the unique service passenger totals, service hours, or miles. Reporting from the Lyft program does not include actual trip miles or duration, but claimants could be using the combined service total passenger number from the Claim Form to calculate metrics when the other side of the data set is not a factor ( i.e. calculating total of passengers from multiple different services against Revenue Miles for just one service program).
Additionally, data that could prove helpful in assessing successful programs and those in need of assistance, is not being requested.
Recommendation:
The Audit Team provided recommended revisions to the
Claims Form tables and Project Description Narrative to CCTA.
The revisions should clear up data requests by claimants and help the PCC and CCTA more easily see highlights and
deficiencies in funded programs.
City Response:
City staff welcome any updates/revisions to the Claim Form that can assist with the process.
Identified Issue #15:
Low Ridership. Program ridership reported in Claims and cited in Route Match reports is low for the cost of the program and potential client pool. While data on total boardings is inconsistent across reports, a total ridership for both the Paratransit and Lyft program in the range of 2,800- 3,000/year is a fair assessment. In FY23/24 projections for El Sobrante Paratransit ridership were 2,080 and for San Pablo, 4,200. Both serve smaller geographic areas, have shorter service hours, and receive substantially less MJ15 funding.
Recommendation:
The current state of the program, with the number and condition of operating vehicles and 1.5 drivers, limits the City’s ability to carry more Paratransit riders with City resources. The provided manifests show multiple driver breaks and gaps between picks- ups for the primary van and driver where additional trips could be operated, but demand may not be there to fill those spots. The City is also contracting TransMETRO which would also increase their capacity, but again, demand may not be there. To increase demand, the City needs to commit to promoting its service and implementing a service plan to add drivers and vehicles, or contract more trips to TransMETRO. Additionally, the City needs to more precisely define and confirm Unmet Needs.
The limited Lyft program data received shows an average trip subsidy cost to the City of $8.73. Staff time dedicated to assisting Lyft riders appears to be minimal. This program has the greatest potential with unlimited capacity, to increase ridership at the lowest cost. Robust promotion of this service could have an immediate impact on increasing overall
program ridership.
City Response:
The current number of paratransit staff, including drivers, the cost of the LYFT contract, cost pool allocation, and other operating cost, are aligned with proposed revenue. When paratransit had additional drivers, the General Fund subsidized the program annually which led to a deficit over $1 million. The city has detailed information that is available from Lyft for all years audited. Unfortunately, it appears that this information was not fully provided to the auditor. As part of the outstanding FY 22–23 claim form that was recently submitted, city staff provided detailed Lyft information regarding number of rides, zip code for pick up, and average miles. Staff agrees that additional promotion of the paratransit and Lyft programs is needed. Staff has recently received support from an intern to develop new outreach materials. Staff is also bringing those materials to various City of Richmond events for distribution and have created a draft outreach plan to help continue to spread the word about these programs.
Identified Issue #16:
Vehicles. The two current 2011 vans are in poor condition. One stopped operating properly during a client pick-up on the day of the Site Visit and was towed. The demonstrated need to force the Recommendation:
To avoid cancellations or limiting trip scheduling, the City must prioritize issues that are preventing the new vans from being City Response:
The city has two new vans that will be put into rotation and utilized for providing paratransit services in the near future. The 731
6 door closed on the day of the ride-along is a safety concern. If the door is not stable, it could open mid-trip. The City has recognized the age and condition of the vehicles and purchased two new all-electric vans as replacements. However, per City staff at the Site Visit, and evidenced by the fact that the service is still being operated with the two older vans, the new vans are not being used. Staff cited that they couldn’t be charged. It is unknown what the exact issue is regarding charging of the vehicles. Staff also cited that the new electric vans weren’t appropriately outfitted to board passengers at the side door because the step is too high and there are no handrails for support.
put into service. An examination of the maintenance program is also warranted to understand who is responsible for
maintenance, the inspection and service maintenance
regimen, and maintenance standards. If not done recently, the fleet should be inspected with respect to current condition and useful life.
current vehicles, as well as the new vehicles, are serviced by our public works fleet division. Based on conversations with experienced city mechanics, a determination will be made if city vans will receive maintenance internally or externally.
Identified Issue #17:
Drivers. While the City’s Paratransit drivers are both full-time employees, one drives only part-time due to a cited disability accommodation. They spend the remainder of their full-time hours assisting with dispatch functions and office duties. Vehicle logs for FY23/24 showed only 12 days YTD that both vans operated, so the part-time driver is not driving often. City staff also stated that they manually adjust daily ride scheduling to avoid including a wheelchair passenger on their manifest on the days they do drive.
Whether the limitation of 1.5 drivers is impacting ridership, or the daily ridership needs don’t necessitate two full-time drivers is unclear.
Recommendation:
If they have not done so, the City should assess the fitness of its existing drivers to perform the duties of the job. Per the Audit Team Paratransit Consultant, paratransit drivers are typically expected to be able to lift 40 lbs. to be considered fit for duty. If it is not already, this qualification should be included in the job description and verified in the hiring process for any future drivers. The City should also assess if the dispatch and administrative needs require the extra time that the 2nd full-time driver is dedicating to them. At a minimum, the City should report on Claims Form the staffing that represents the day-to-day contribution of employees to the operation, rather than their official classification.
City Response:
City staff will review the identified issues and
recommendations with our human resources department.
Identified Issue #18:
Rider ID Card. The Client Guide and City staff indicate that an Identification Card is required for all qualifying clients. City administrative staff on the Working Group Call were not in agreement over the need to renew the card annually and Finance staff were not aware that a card was required or that $2.50 is charged per card. Nobody was aware of how the revenue for the cards was being reported. They did agree, however, that the card is not, in fact, required at the time of a trip or to purchase ride coupons, in contradiction to print materials. Instead, it appeared to be a way to requalify passengers as eligible for service based on their address.
Recommendation:
As the card appears to have no use to clients, and the revenue is not accounted for, the City should reconsider the need for the card. As an extra step to receive services with a $2.50 fee, it is a barrier to onboarding new clients. If the card is being used only for requalifying clients based on address, the City should develop a simple, annual address verification process for clients.
City Response:
City staff agrees with his recommendation and will discuss the usefulness of this card and other verification processes.
Identified Issue #19:
Clients in Unincorporated Areas. The MJ15 Claims Form requests detail on registered clients in unincorporated areas. City staff cited that that data must be manually culled from Route Match and that the effort is labor intensive. The two March manifests provided by the City included pick-ups and drops-offs at home addresses in unincorporated areas, so it is clear that a level of service is being provided. While there is no documentation to support the FY21/22 entry of 416 clients in unincorporated areas, the provided manifests support that they have clients registered outside of city limits.
While City staff indicated that Via will allow for this reporting, the Via contract provided by the City as Attachment 6 defines the data sets it provides, and there is no indication that it will provide that client detail.
Recommendation:
If Via does not, in fact, include that information, the City should inquire if a field can be added in the client database to indicate if the client’s home address is in an unincorporated area. A simple Google map search of the address would show the administrative support staff if they should note an unincorporated address in that new field. Once the manual work is done to assess its existing client database, doing that search for each new client would take just a few minutes.
City Response:
City staff understands the request for information regarding the number of register clients and pick up and drop offs within the unincorporated areas. City staff is able to more easily determine this information for lift trips and has done so for FY 21/22 and FY 22/23. Staff continue to work to analyze the data for other years. In addition, City staff has already worked with via to provide city and county maps showing the incorporated areas so that the new scheduling software can easily collect and report this information.
Identified Issue #20:
Fare Revenue. Fares of $4/$5 are in line with other Paratransit services in the area and higher than the average fare paid by a Lyft service rider. Per City staff, Fare Revenue is reported in Claim Forms as the value of ticket books sold, not the value of tickets collected from riders for the reported fiscal year.
Other reporting for ‘Fare Revenue’ or ‘Revenue’ appears to be for the tickets collected, but staff could not confirm that on the Working Group Call. They were unaware that Fare Revenue was appearing in Recommendation:
The City needs to have a clear understanding of how Fare Revenue is defined for both the budget and in system
reporting. If two unique values are used, they should be named differently and reported as ‘Ticket Sale Revenue’ and ‘Fare Revenue’ . A record of liability should be maintained for City Response:
The City records the value of ticket books sold and not the value of tickets utilized in each FY . City staff have not tracked and/or reported this level of information on the claim forms, as this is not a current request. City staff will adhere to this request if direction changes.
732
7 other report locations and weren’t certain what it represented. That would explain why the Claims Form doesn’t match the reports. However, the Route Match reports also don’t match each other, as the earlier table shows. It also explains why a simple calculation of the total Fare Revenue does not equal an average $4.50 rider fare multiplied by the number of passenger boardings.
Additionally, anomalies in the value of Fare Revenue in the Claims Form make no sense: a high of $92,001 Actual fare revenue for FY21/22 to a low of $0 Actual fare revenue reported collected for FY20/21 and FY22/23 in the budget detail provided. When asked about the high $92,001 fare revenue year, City staff stated that they must have anticipated a service increase or other issue that would result in more riders. However, the $92,001 was a fiscal year Actual value, not a Projected value.
Because Fare Revenue is for tickets sold, the City should have a liability record for tickets sold but not used. According to the Finance staff, they do not track that liability.
Additionally, all staff were unaware of where the $2.50 per client annual Rider ID Card cost was being included as revenue – in the City general fund or to the Paratransit Fare Revenue. Finance staff was not even aware that an ID fee was being charged. the outstanding value of tickets sold but not collected and if the required ID card is maintained, and used only for the Paratransit service, it should be considered as program revenue. If, in fact, the 1,770 noted active clients are each required to obtain a new ID annually at a cost of $2.50 it represents more than $4,300 in revenue.
The City collects detailed information on each fare book sold which is included in our MUNIS system (financial system). Any anomalies regarding fare revenue shown as actuals may have been a result of revenue from non-paratransit revenue
mistakenly hitting the wrong account. The City receives revenue from other transportation-related activities and the revenue may have been recorded in the wrong account. MUNIS reports will show the revenue although staff is able to drill down and recognize that the revenue was recorded wrong.
Within the last FY to address this issue and provide additional support to paratransit, a Finance Manager is now working with paratransit staff and ensuring that revenue and expenditures are hitting the correct accounts.
The only revenue the City receives to support paratransit services from the Measure J funds and fare book sales.
The City’s Business Office located in the Finance Dept receives all fares collected. All fares received do not come directly to the Transportation Division but is mailed or brought to the City’s Business Office who then records. We have used the same claim form to report in prior years and this was never a question. So maybe it’s the contents of the claim form and the spreadsheet that is unclear.
City staff will investigate the Rider ID card to determine if this is a requirement for paratransit riders that we still need to utilize.
If this is a feasible or required option, we will move forward accordingly.
Identified Issue #21:
Staff & Driver Training. Per staff on the Working Group Call, driver training isn’t needed. The reason seemed to be that because a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) is not required for vehicles with their passenger-carrying capacity, no special training was deemed necessary. The Audit Team confirmed that a CDL is not required. City staff instead noted that pre-Covid, an administrative employee with the program would ride along every six months or so to check that the drivers were operating the vehicle appropriately. In cases where a driver is not available, staff cited that an administrative employee would drive the van and that they could use training because ‘..she’s not a driver’, but she’s pretty good.’
Per the Site Visit, drivers say that they need to turn in a photo of their valid driver’s license annually and maintain CPR First Aid certification through the City. They stated that they receive no other training. Drivers cited that vans have insurance cards and accident kits on board, and they were confident that they knew the procedures to handle an accident.
When asked about drug testing, administrative staff didn’t know if testing was done. The drivers are part of a union, but it is an administrative, not a drivers’ union. All staff said they have no regular interaction or communication with the union; they just pay their dues. It appears that the union contract does not hold the drivers accountable to drug testing.
Recommendation:
At a minimum, and per basic program needs, any driver
transporting members of the public, regardless of vehicle size, should have Defensive Driving Training with a refresher every three years. The Audit Team’s Paratransit Consultant noted that the ADA has a list of requirements for employees who work with customers with disabilities to be ‘trained to proficiency’ to include use and care of accessibility
equipment; securement of mobility devices; sensitivity
training; and understanding disability in general. While not an ADA paratransit service, given the specialized population they serve, drivers should, at a minimum, have mobility device training and training for working with riders with physical and cognitive disabilities. A training program should be
implemented and maintained. Pre-employment and
accident/incident drug testing should be required if it is not, and random drug testing implemented.
City Response:
Commercial licenses are only required for passenger vehicles based on the number of seats.
The statement “she’s not a driver but pretty good” was meant to say that everyone is doing the best they can do given the lack of resources and funding. Because vans are utilized for the service, the part-time scheduler may drive if necessary if they have a CA D/L.
In addition to requiring a CA/DL, City staff is working with the City’s Human Resources Department to discuss offering non- required driving courses that can support driver training (i.e.
Defensive Driver Safety and Maneuvering Driver Course). 733
8 Identified Issue #22:
Personal Care Attendants (PCA). The City is carrying a high number of free PCAs compared to client passengers considering that they carry seniors in addition to passengers with disabilities.
While inconsistent across the unique Route Match reports, for FY21/22, as the earlier chart shows, reported attendant numbers were around 1,250 compared to total Paratransit passengers of around 1,850 (approximately 1,400 ambulatory and 450 wheelchair). Based on these figures, two-thirds of riders are boarding with an attendant. City staff stated on the Working Group Call that they want clients to have a free attendant for all rides, and two if they need it. They don’t certify or verify attendants, saying instead, that whoever can help them load is the attendant.
Recommendation:
Encouraging the use of Paratransit service PCAs can be beneficial in reducing customer incidents. However, the PCA is not a substitute for the driver, and the operator should not be delegating safety-related or rider loading responsibilities to PCAs under any circumstances. A transit entity cannot require that a rider be accompanied by a PCA and the ADA states that transit entity personnel must assist individuals with disabilities with the use of ramps, lifts, and securement systems. The possibility that attendants are being encouraged to ride with a client because of a driver limitation or other reason is concerning.
The Audit Team’s Paratransit Consultant identified that in their experience, for ADA paratransit services, the percentage of clients bringing a free attendant is generally 14%-16%. As the City is around 67%, they should assess both the abilities of the current drivers to assist riders, make it clear to passengers that PCA’s are welcome but not required, and that only one PCA is allowed per customer.
City Response:
The City agrees that the use of Paratransit service PCAs can be beneficial in reducing customer incidents and may help a client feel comfortable and supported during transit. City staff agrees with the recommendation and will assess both the abilities of the current drivers to assist riders, make it clear to passengers that PCA’s are welcome but not required
If it is the city’s discretion and not a requirement, City staff will discuss the number of PCAs authorized per customer and will include that information in our updated policies.
Identified Issue #23:
Software systems and data handling. Staff noted that they were no longer paying a fee to Route Match for the software. They cited purchasing the software ‘5-7 years ago’ and no longer had any interaction, training, or support from Route Match. They recognized the software’s limitations and incompatibility with other IT services within the city, and had, at the time of the audit, secured a new software system with Via. It was expected to roll out on April 11, 2024.
On the day of the Site Visit the Via software was not working properly. One of the drivers could not log into their tablet, and IT was unable to help. The driver proceeded on route without using the tablet. The second driver had their tablet operating but turned the sound down because it was giving audio driving directions that were not their preferred driving route. The driver didn’t engage with the tablet for the ride-along trip. As the Route Match costs would not have been included in recent year’s budgets, the new Via contract cost will be an add-on to the existing program costs, which will have an impact on overall cost and cost per passenger.
Recommendation:
Per staff, the Via training crew visited twice, but they moved too quickly and didn’t give time for City staff to understand the system. Staff need additional training and support for the new Via software. They need a clear understanding of the system automation options, and how to make best use of the
program, not only with their current limited capacity, but if the program can be grown. While City management staff seemed confident that new software would be a valuable tool in addressing program issues, they must also recognize that software is not a substitute for good program management, and both are needed to realize the full advantages of a software system.
City Response:
This is a new service our drivers our navigating through it and with the lack of resources its challenging to be effective.
Identified Issue #24:
Website. The Richmond Paratransit website should be the primary source of public information for the R-Transit and Lyft services. It is presented on the City’s website under a ‘Transportation’ parent page which also highlights biking, commuter resources, and other public transit services.
The Audit Team reviewed the website and found it to include basic information in English about the two programs, including service area, fares, and steps to apply. The information, however, is not current. The landing page for the Paratransit service includes a notice from 2018 stating that the office is relocating and a Holiday Service Schedule from 2019. Other pages within the program site also reference meetings to be held in 2019. Visitors to the page may question if the program is actively operating.
The Lyft brochure provided to the Audit Team does not list the website as a resource. Contrary to information submitted in Claims, no other link to the website was found on the websites of other Recommendation:
The program website should be updated regularly. A website is the most basic information a program can offer and the City is not taking advantage of what can be their most valuable information and promotional tool. As the program pages already exist, keeping them active and updated should cost the City very little.
The website should offer information in Spanish, or at a minimum, it should include a statement, in Spanish, citing a phone number to call for assistance. If the City has not already done so, the website should be made screen-reader compatible.
A QR code and short URL leading to the program website
should be generated and added to print materials. City staff City Response:
City staff agrees. Resources would allow us to keep this current. 734
9 municipalities or WCCTAC. Additionally, an incorrect link to the website is printed on the front of the Client Orientation Guide.
should reach out to jurisdictions, senior resources, and centers for independent living to request that a link to the pages be added to their websites.
Identified Issue #25:
Equity for Limited English Proficiency (LEP). A native Spanish speaker from the Audit Team contacted the primary information number, 510-307-8026, which appears on the website and Lyft brochure, and requested assistance in Spanish on two different occasions. In both instances, she was told “No Habla Espanol” by the person answering the phone who then terminated the call. The Audit Team member was not given the option to speak to someone in Spanish.
On the Working Group Call staff cited that they don’t have regular Spanish language assistance, but that the part-time driver is a native speaker. The budget detail cites an annual staff supplement for bilingual services. Per the Finance response to questions, the payroll supplement is paid to the part-time driver of the Paratransit service, so limited translation would be available only to riders of that driver’s vehicle or over the phone in instances where they are providing administrative support.
Recommendation:
This and lack of printed materials in Spanish is contrary to requirements of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act specifically, as failing to accommodate LEP persons is akin to discrimination on the basis of national origin. The City should connect with a translation services line such as AT&T, to provide consistent assistance in other languages over the phone. Print materials and website information should be available in Spanish or at a minimum, include a Spanish language statement with detail on how to receive language assistance. All materials should be made available, upon request, in large print, Braille, audio, or a digitally accessible format per the ADA.
City Response:
It’s a challenge to offer bilingual service if we do not have the resources for hiring additional staff to assist. We only have one part-time and one full-time office staffers due to the lack of resources. City staff can work with Human Resources to identify bilingual speakers that paratransit staff can send calls or clients to.
Identified Issue #26:
Program Brochure. The City references a Lyft brochure in their annual Claims to CCTA. The brochure was provided to the Audit Team. The brochure is in English, and no Spanish language version appears to exist. No accompanying brochure specific to the Paratransit service appears to exist.
The Audit Team reviewed the Lyft brochure and found it to include basic information about the Lyft program, including trip cost, and steps to apply. It does not include a website address. The information, again, is not current, as the back panel of the brochure encourages potential users to attend 2019 workshops. As with the website, potential clients looking at the brochure may question if the program is actively operating. Additionally, the information blends promotion of the Lyft service with ‘Hours of Operation’ of the Paratransit service, confusing readers about when the Lyft service is available. The Claims Forms indicate that the Lyft brochures are available at ‘ …senior centers, government offices, senior housing complexes, doctor/dental offices and anywhere seniors travel. ’ The Audit Team visited five senior and medical centers in Richmond on March 26, 2024, but did not find Lyft brochures to be available at any of the locations. A listing of the sites visited, and the Audit Team experience at these locations is available in Attachment 2.
Recommendation:
Ideally, the City should develop a new brochure with
promotional information about both the Paratransit and Lyft services. The brochure should be available in English and Spanish, or at a minimum, it should include a statement, in Spanish, citing a phone number to call for assistance. The existing Lyft brochure should be updated, and the most valued attributes of the service highlighted. The brochure should include a QR code leading to the service website. The
brochures should be delivered in inexpensive plexiglass holders to all the locations cited in the Claims Form and a business card or note added to the back of the racks citing who to contact to refill the rack. Printing costs should be minimal, and as a passive form of promotion, once new
brochures have been delivered, staff time to restock should be minimal.
City Response:
Clients who have called our office are aware of the LYFT service and the van service. The active workshops held in 2019 were because of the newly operated LYFT service. As stated previously we would love to update and provide
continual workshops and new brochures but operating with limited resources is a challenge in making this a viable service.
Identified Issue #27:
Client Orientation Guide. The City provided the Audit Team with a Client Orientation Guide during the Site Visit and another was offered by senior center staff on an Audit Team visit to locations in Richmond. One Guide was dated 2020-2021 and the second was dated 2021 and included a 2021 Holiday Schedule. Both include a web address on the front: www.rtransit.com that opens to a site offering to sell the URL. The actual City site is https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2880/R-Transit- Paratransit.
The Guide includes information that does not align with information given by the City on the Working Group Call or at the Site Visit. For example:
• Clients are told in the Guide that No Shows or Late Cancellations will result in a charge equal to the fare. On the Working Group Call, staff said this is not their practice. • One of the two Guides states that reservations can be made up to 10 days in advance while the other Guide, the website, City staff, and Claims submittals cite that reservations can be made 30 days in advance.
• The Guide outlines the need for an Identification Card, renewed annually, that must be shown to receive services or purchase ride coupons. Staff on the Working Group Call said that the ID is required Recommendation:
Errors in the Client Orientation Guide should be corrected, and the booklet updated annually so that new clients receive accurate information. Updated Guides should be distributed to centers for independent living, senior centers, and other sites that are able to promote and share information about the City’s services.
City Response:
These are not discrepancies, but service provided by our servicers TransMetro and LYFT. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding on the auditor’s behalf. All information is correct and accurate. 735
10 but is never requested from a client. During the Site Visit ride along, the Audit Team staff witnessed riders boarding and purchasing ticket books and an ID was never requested. • The Guide states that ‘one certified’ PCA will be allowed. Staff have stated that they do not ask for any certification and allow two attendants in some cases.
Identified Issue #28:
Client and Ridership Opportunities. Data from the City’s FY23/24 Claim Form cites 1,770 active registered clients in Richmond’s R-Transit program. According to the United States Census Bureau, Richmond had a population of approximately 114,000 in 2022, with 14% aged 65 or older, representing approximately 16,000 residents. Richmond’s R-Transit program is open to all residents ages 55+, which means more than 16,000 seniors are eligible for the R-Transit and Lyft services. As much of Richmond is an Equity Priority Community with a higher-than-average rate of poverty, access to low cost, on-demand transportation should attract a much larger user base than currently exists. The lack of users can be attributed, in part, to poor outreach and promotion.
Additionally, for the 2020 period that the City provided Lyft data, the average total one-way trip cost was $11.85. After the subsidy, riders paid an average of $3.12 per one-way trip. Less costly than the Paratransit service, and available all hours and seven days a week, there should be a significant untapped market for the program.
Recommendation:
Given the previously noted low cost of subsidized Lyft rides, the limited staff time needed to support the Lyft program, and the extended hours and days of operation it affords clients, the City should focus on robust promotion of the Lyft program to increase its client base and ridership. However, the City should also assess if the existing Lyft service must also be supplemented to provide parity in programs to accommodate customers in need of mobility assistance.
City Response:
City staff agrees that there is an untapped market to attract potential users to the service, however lack of revenue prevents the City from accomplishing this goal. The City did however contract out to LYFT since 2018 to ensure mobility options for all users. We now need resources to increase clientele, without resources the service will continue to operate ineffectively.
Identified Issue #29:
Customer Feedback. The City offers a Paratransit Survey on its website soliciting ratings on a variety of elements of its service including the reservation process, drivers, vehicles, and trip delivery. The City provided the Audit Team with all survey submissions. Since 2015, they have received a total of 10 individual survey responses. The most recent was from 2018.
All surveys fall outside of the five-year window of audit review, and at just 10 total responses, are an insufficient data set to be used to assess the City’s service. What is relevant, however, is that the survey is not being used. Additionally, when asked if they kept a log of client feedback received via the phone, they said they do not.
Recommendation:
The City should contact all clients once per year, via mail or email, for the express purpose of soliciting feedback on their service. The survey should be featured prominently on the website in English and Spanish, and an option to call the City to complete the survey over the phone should be provided.
Responses should be analyzed each year for ways to improve the customer experience. Third-party contractors are often used to manage and implement surveys for transit agencies, which not only saves staff time but also adds a measure of objectivity.
A log of all client comments, complaints, and commendations should be maintained and the information used to evaluate and improve the program.
City Response:
Due to decreased financial resources and staffing contracting a service to do surveys was unavailable. In the past we relied on a citywide survey conducted to report findings.
There is nothing in the Measure J Claims form that state we must complete surveys. In 2015 to present no surveys have been conducted due to the lack of resources and staffing.
736
DRAFT
CITY OF RICHMOND PARATRANSIT SERVICES
PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT PLAN
UPDATE
RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 24, 2024
737
OVERVIEW OF RICHMOND PARATRANSIT
SERVICES
Program Service Provider Projected
Annual
Rides
Funding Source
R-Transit with
City Staff
Door-to-door City staff 2,100 Measure J
R-Transit with
TransMetro
Door-to-door TransMetro 600 Environmental &
Community
Investment
Agreement
R-Transit with
Lyft
Curb-to-curb Lyft 19,000 Measure J
738
RICHMOND PARATRANSIT SERVICE AREA
739
FY 2024 -25 PARATRANSIT PERFORMANCE
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
# Desired Outcome Audit Recommendation
1 Accurate performance and financial data 1,4,5,12,13,19,20,23 2 Continuous monitoring, evaluation, & incremental improvements 3,4 3 Functional paratransit vehicles 16
4 Paratransit staffing 17,21,22
5 Address administrative cost 7,8,9
6 Approve Measure J funding for FY 2024-25 1,2,5,6,9
7 Resolve Measure J funding for previous fiscal years 5,6 8 Transfer paratransit program to Public Works 5
9 Increase patronage 15, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
10 Increase customer satisfaction 29
11 Reduce cost/trip – ambulatory and non-ambulatory 10,11 12 Assessment of service delivery options for FY 2025-26 13 Approved Measure J funding for FY 2025-26 2
740
1. ACCURATE PERFORMANCE AND
FINANCIAL DATA
INFORMATION FROM VIA
OPERATIONS CENTER
INFORMATION FROM
LYFT
OTHER CITY SOURCES
(ON-LINE)
741
2. CONTINUOUS MONITORING,
EVALUATION, & I NCREMENTAL
IMPROVEMENTS
Bi-weekly meetings with Via; and as needed with
TransMetro and Lyft
Monthly reports to monitor performance and financials Institute data driven continuous improvement process with Paratransit Team
742
Draft Sample of a Monthly Report - July 2024 Report
Activity Description Program/Provider
City TransMetro Lyft
Registered Richmond residents Residents in the City of Richmond XXXX XXXX Registered unincorporated residents Residents in unincorporated service areas XXXX XXXX Total registered residents Total of incorporated and unincorporated residents XXXX XXXX Registered Richmond clients that use service Clients in the City of Richmond 25 13 Registered unincorporated clients that use service Clients in unincorporated service areas 1 2 Total registered clients that use service Sum of Richmond and unincorporated clients who used service 26 15 Registered client boardings Each time a client boards a vehicle 166 42 Attendee and guest boardings Each time a client's attendee or guest boards a vehicle 0 2 Passenger boardings Sum of client and attendee and guest boardings 166 44 Revenue service hours Total hours that Paratransit vehicles are in revenue service 107.2 XXXX Passenger boardings/revenue service hours Total passenger boardings divided by revenue service hours 1.55 XXXX Revenue service miles Total miles that all vehicles operated while in revenue service 578 XXXX Average passenger trip distance Total revenue service miles divided by the total pass. boardings 3.5 XXXX Wheelchair passenger boardings Total number of passenger boardings using a wheelchair 34 21 No-shows Total number of times a passenger did not show up 2 0 Cancellations Total number of times a passenger cancels a reservation 59 4 Trips denied Reservations that are denied for both in-house and outsource providers 0 0 Reservation denied outside service area Reservations not made because outside service area 0 0 Multi-agency trips Trips that require transfer to another service provided 0 0 Vehicle accidents Total number of crashes involving a paratransit vehicle 0 0 On-time performance % of passenger pick-ups made within defined service window 99% XXXX All registered clients Total of all registered clients XXXX All registered clients that used service Each client who used service to complete a one-way trip XXXX # passenger boardings Each time a Lyft vehicle picks up an eligible client XXXX Average passenger trip distance Total revenue service miles divided by the total boardings XXXX Extended days or hours passenger boardings Each time a Lyft vehicle trip is provided outside service hours 0 Extended areas passenger boardings Each time a Lyft vehicle trip is provided outside service area 0 Cost of service Lyft's total gross revenues from service XXXX City subsidy of service City's total subsidy for Lyft service XXXX # tickets sold Total number of trip tickets sold (R-Trans and City Hall) XXXX XXXX $ amount of tickets sold Total income from sales of trip tickets sold $760+ XXXX Passenger boardings Each time a passenger boards a vehicle 166 44 XXXX On-time performance % of passenger pick-ups made within defined service window 99% XXXX XXXX Complaints/passenger boarding Total complaints divided by total number of boardings 0 1 XXXX Cost/passenger boarding Total cost of program divided by total number of boardings XXXX XXXX XXXX 743
LYFT DATA FROM FY 21 -22, 22 -23 & 23 -24
Note: This information does not cover the drop-off locations Note for 94806: Covers Richmond, San Pablo, including Tara Hills, Montalvin Manor, Bayview, and Rollingwood
Pick Up Zip Codes
FY 21-22
Total Rides Per Zip Code
FY 22-23
Total Rides Per Zip Code
FY 23-24
Total Rides Per Zip
(El Cerrito) 94530 935 1,561 2,547 (Martinez) 94553 26 25 17 (El Sobrante) 94564 594 919 1,239 (Albany) 94706 11 10 11 (Richmond) 94707 15 4 25 (North Richmond) 94801 1,046 1,991 2,112 (El Sobrante) 94803 1,277 1,716 2,336 (Richmond) 94804 1,906 3,127 4,383 (Richmond) 94805 427 684 1,117 (San Pablo) 94806 1,859 2,867 3,652 (Other) 1 1 3 TOTAL 8,097 12,905 17,442 TOTAL UNIQUE RIDERS 142 266 991
744
3. FUNCTIONAL PARATRANSIT VEHICLES
Existing paratransit vehicles – Commitment to maintain as long as needed
New paratransit vehicles – Ensure functionality and
provide for the charging of the electric vehicles
745
4. PARATRANSIT STAFFING
Paratransit Coordinator – new position
Paratransit drivers
Transportation Division Management
746
5. ADDRESS ADMINISTRATIVE COST
The following options will be considered by the Richmond City Council on September 24, 2024:
1. Limit Richmond’s overhead rate to 20% (Staff’s Current Recommendation) • Reduction is comparable to other Measure J Claimants
• This would reduce the cost of general administration from $490,000 to $139,000 • The difference of $351,000 would increase the net cost to the City’s General Fund
2. Full exemption from Cost Pool allocation
• The City’s General Fund would fully cover the full cost of the cost pool at $490,000
3. No change
• The Measure J funded paratransit program would not deviate from the City’s existing allocation of Cost Pool and allocate the full amount to Measure J 747
NEXT STEPS
• Continue to work with consultant and city staff to implement the Performance Improvement Plan (i.e., development of rider's guide, standard operating procedures, outreach, increase in ridership, customer satisfaction methods, etc.)
• Work with Human Resources on staffing needs
• Revise the FY 24-25 Measure J Claim Form to include City Council decision on administrative cost; and use performance data that is based on the actual results through the 1st quarter of the year • Resolve Measure J funding for previous fiscal years
• Transfer Paratransit Program (and all of Transportation Division) from Community Services to Public Works
• Provide an update, in collaboration with CCTA staff, to the CCTA Board in November 2024
748
PARATRANSIT OUTREACH MATERIALS
https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3129/R-Transit-
Paratransit
749
THANK YOU
LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager, City of
Richmond [email protected] or
510.620.6828
750
September 24, 2024
City Council
DATE: September 24, 2024
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Councilmember Bana
Subject:
Discussion Regarding Proposed Amendments to
Ordinance on Political Affiliates and Democratic
Representation for Boards, Commissions, Committees,
and Task Forces
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed ordinance is not expected to have any significant financial impact on the city’s budget.
Administrative costs, if any, would be limited to
processing additional disclosure forms and verifying
information during the appointment process.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
9/10/2024 – Council Approved Item O.1.a. nepotism in
City Boards, Commissions, Committees and Task Forces
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
The City of Richmond has a long-standing commitment to
transparency, fairness, and broad representation in its government bodies. The original ordinance limited
individuals from serving on more than one city body at a time and addressed concerns related to conflicts of
interest through the establishment of a nepotism policy.
However, concerns have emerged regarding the
influence of political advocacy groups on the composition of city boards, commissions, committees, and task
forces.
AGENDA
REPORT
751
September 24, 2024
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
DISCUSS proposed amendments to Richmond Municipal
Code Chapter 3.14 limiting the percentage of members of boards and commissioners that belong to any one
political advocacy group or organization and DIRECT the City Attorney’s Office to prepare the amendments -
Councilmember Soheila Bana (510-620-6743)
BACKGROUND:
The City of Richmond has a long-standing commitment to transparency, fairness, and broad representation in its government bodies. The original ordinance limited individuals from serving on more than one city body at a time and addressed concerns related to conflicts of interest through the establishment of a nepotism policy. However, concerns have emerged regarding the influence of political advocacy groups on the composition of city boards, commissions, committees, and task forces.
In order to prevent the potential overrepresentation of Political Affiliates from any one political advocacy group and ensure a more diverse and inclusive decision-making process, this amendment seeks to address these concerns by limiting the percentage of appointees connected to any one political group.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed amendment introduces the following key provisions:
1. Limitation on Political Affiliates: No more than 35% of the members of any board, commission, committee, or task force may be active members of the same political advocacy group or organization. This measure ensures that no single group can dominate decision-making processes within these bodies.
2. Definition of Political Affiliates: Political Affiliates include individuals who hold membership, have leadership roles, participate in setting policies, or actively engage in activities such as canvassing, fundraising, organizing events, or participating in election campaigns for political advocacy groups whose primary focus is at the city or county level.
3. Disclosure Requirement: All applicants for boards, commissions, committees, and task forces are required to disclose any membership in city or county-level political advocacy groups and any recent participation in leadership, policymaking, canvassing, fundraising, or election campaigns related to local government. This transparency ensures that potential conflicts of interest are identified during the appointment process.
4. Exemption for Broader Political Parties: Membership in broader political parties such as the Democratic or Republican parties does not require disclosure 752
September 24, 2024
unless the individual is actively organizing, managing, or campaigning specifically for city or county-level government candidates or policies.
5. This amendment supports the City’s commitment to Democratic Representation, ensuring that diverse voices and interests are considered in civic processes. It helps guard against political overreach while promoting fairness and transparency.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Proposed Ordinance Amendment on Political Affiliates and Democratic Representation (Proposed language from Council Member Bana)
Attachment 2 – Current Ordinance on Limiting Service to One City Body and Establishing a Nepotism Policy – Amended on September 10, 2024 753
Proposed Amendment Language Provided By Council Member Bana:
Amendment to AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND LIMITING
SERVICE TO SERVING ON ONLY ONE CITY BODY AT A TIME AND ESTABLISHING A NEPOTISM
POLICY FOR BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, AND TASK FORCES
E: Political Affiliates and Democratic Representation on Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Task Forces
1. Limitation on Political Affiliates: a. No more than 35% of appointed members of any board, commission, committee, or task force may be active members of any one political advocacy group or organization whose primary purpose is to promote specific candidates or policies at the city or county level of government. b. This provision applies to organizations or advocacy groups focused specifically on city or county-level elections or policies. It does not apply to members of broader political parties (e.g., Democratic or Republican parties) unless the individual is actively participating in organizing, managing, or campaigning for city or county-level candidates or policies. c.
Political Affiliates are defined as individuals who hold membership, have leadership roles, participate in setting policies, or are actively participating in canvassing, fundraising, organizing events, or election campaigns for political advocacy groups specifically focused on city or county-level government elections or policies.
2. Disclosure Requirement: a. All applicants for appointment to any board, commission, committee, or task force must disclose their membership in any city or county political advocacy group or organization whose primary purpose is to promote specific candidates or policies within the previous 12 months, as well as any participation in leadership roles, setting policies, canvassing, fundraising, or election campaign activities. b. Membership in general political parties, such as the Democratic or Republican Party, does not require disclosure unless the individual is actively organizing, managing, or campaigning specifically for city or county-level government candidates or policies.
Section [4]: One-Body Service Limitation and Nepotism Policy
3. This amendment is part of the ordinance limiting service to only one city body at a time and establishing a nepotism policy for boards, commissions, committees, and task forces. It aims to further the objectives of impartial and diverse representation in Richmond's civic bodies by ensuring democratic representation and preventing overrepresentation from any one political advocacy group.
754
755
756
757