Agenda — Richmond City Council, October 1, 2024 (part 5 of 6)

https://cctauthority.sharepoint.com/sites/Common/09Correspondences/Misc. Correspondence/2024/Admin/Richmond Audit City Letter_20240620_Final.docx

Please be advised that the CCTA Board is adamant the City take immediate and effective steps to improve the Program following the results of the audit. CCTA acknowledges and appreciates the cooperation of City staff throughout the course of the audit process and is confident that we can continue to work collaboratively to ensure that Measure J funds are being used to best serve those West County residents that rely on lifeline transit services.

Sincerely,

Newell Arnerich
Chair, CCTA Board

CC: Timothy Haile, Executive Director, CCTA
Rashida Kamara, Accessibility & Equity Programs Manager, CCTA LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager of Community Services, City Lori-Reese Brown, Project Manager II, City
John Nemeth, Executive Director, WCCTAC

906
907
908

Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit - DRAFT
May 2024

909
2 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

Table of Contents

Background & Overview ...................................................................................................................... 3 Data Assessed ........................................................................................................................................ 8 Key Audit Takeaways .......................................................................................................................... 9 Current State of the R-Transit Program ........................................................................................ 11 Areas of Audit Review........................................................................................................................ 14 Summary & Key Recommendation ................................................................................................ 33 Attachments ........................................................................................................................................ 35

910
3 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

Background & Overview
Measure J General Overview
In November 2004, Contra Costa County voters approved Measure J to provide for the continuation of the county’s half-cent transportation sales tax. Tax revenues are used for a variety of programs and projects, including Measure J Program 15 (MJ15), which funds Countywide Transportation for Seniors and People with Disabilities. The City of Richmond (City) is a recipient of Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) MJ15 funds as a provider of transit services for seniors and people with disabilities.

Program 15 funds include a Measure C guarantee and built in growth from Measure J. The growth portion of the funds is programmed to operators by West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC). Sub-regional program 20B funds are also programmed by WCCTAC, and under the Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) are to provide for an expansion of MJ15 funded services.

The City receives MJ15 funding for the county’s unincorporated communities of North Richmond, Kensington, and El Sobrante based on a long-standing agreement between the County, City, and WestCAT. The funding allocation is based on a weighted percentage of seniors, people with disabilities, and low income in each community. WestCAT serves the other unincorporated communities in the area not served by the City.

Measure J revenues are limited to what the TEP directs. They are not intended to fully fund a city or other entity’s transportation services.

Measure J Claims Requirements & Process
Requests for Measure J funds are made annually through a Claims (Claim) process. A Claim is both a request for funding and a reporting of prior years’ projects. The Claim fund request is for the upcoming fiscal year. Reporting is for the latest closed fiscal year, period-to-date for the current fiscal year, and projections for the funding request year. The claimant’s process should be to collect project data, translate it into the requested metrics, and use it to make a case for continued funding.

The City has been presumed eligible for the last five fiscal years, but their requests for funds have been inconsistent and the FY23/24 Claim submitted by the City was rejected by CCTA’s Paratransit Coordinating Council (PCC), which reviews annual Claims and recommends award.

Following an initial review, the City was asked to submit a corrected Claim. The corrected form was denied, and the PCC requested an audit of the City’s program. The table below shows the status of the City’s Claims for the five-year audit review period as of mid-April 2024.

911
4 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

FISCAL

YEAR CLAIM STATUS
FY19/20 FY18/19 and FY19/20 approved by CCTA following request for revisions and resubmittal. Funds allocated for multiple years by CCTA to City: Total for multiple years $1,720,241
FY20/21 CCTA suspends Claim submittal due to Covid. Funds allocated by CCTA to City:
$697,973
FY21/22 Short-answer Claim response required by CCTA due to Covid. Claim submitted by City. Funds allocated by CCTA to City: $326,468
FY22/23 No Claim filed by City. No funds allocated by CCTA to City.

FY23/24 Claim submitted by City. Issues with Claim triggered audit. No funds allocated by CCTA to City.

Richmond Paratransit Services
The City offers two transit services for residents of Richmond, North Richmond, El Sobrante, and Kensington. Eligible clients include seniors 55+ and people ages 18 to 54 with a qualifying disability. Clients must apply in advance showing proof of eligibility. Once determined eligible, clients can access both services.

R-Transit Paratransit
Per the City’s website, R-Transit Paratransit demand-response service has been offered since 1976. It currently makes pick-ups weekdays between 8:45am and 4:15pm with trips scheduled by advance reservation. Customers can request a ride 1 to 30 days in advance for a $4 one-way fare. Requests for same-day trips are accommodated on a case-by-case basis for a $5 one-way fare. Fares are payable by ticket coupon which must be purchased in advance. Ticket books sell for $20 each.

Door-to-door service is provided in a service area that includes Richmond, North Richmond, El Cerrito, Kensington, El Sobrante, San Pablo, and Pinole. R-Transit can accommodate clients using mobility devices and requiring the assistance of drivers to board. Clients can schedule unlimited trips.

Required Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) paratransit service in West County is provided by AC Transit as part of the East Bay Paratransit Consortium. As the City’s R-Transit program is not an ADA paratransit program, ADA paratransit requirements do not apply. However, for the senior and disability populations they serve, and because the program is funded with public tax dollars, the City should be mindful of its obligations under ADA Title II which requires state/local governments to give people with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from all of their programs, services, and activities.

912
5 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

Lyft Service
Lyft service was added in July 2018. Service is provided by Lyft drivers as part of their normal operations and the City pays a subsidy for the cost of the trip. Clients pay through the Lyft app for the first $3 of the trip cost and any trip costs over $20. Tips are paid at the discretion and expense of the client. Trips can be requested on demand, at any time or day, with no advance reservation required.

Per the City website, service is curb-to-curb and can accommodate mobility device users who are ambulatory, in that they are able to fold and store their device without assistance and can enter and exit the vehicle without assistance. The service area mirrors that of the R-Transit program with the addition of trips to the Veterans Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Martinez. Clients are limited to 40 subsidized trips per month.

Other agencies have grappled with the issue of providing a level of service to ambulatory clients that is not matched for clients requiring mobility assistance. For parity, the City’s service, either operated with their resources, or by a third-party contractor, would need to provide wheelchair and other mobility-aid passengers with the same level of service as the Lyft program. ADA Title II prohibits discrimination based on disability. Again, the City’s R-Transit program is not an ADA paratransit service, but that will not stop potential clients from requesting parity or filing a complaint for non-parity in services.

Other Services in West County
Other senior and disability transit services are available in West Contra Costa County:

• East Bay Paratransit serves ADA eligible riders, seven days a week with longer service hours and for a similar trip cost ($4 minimum-distance based). It does not cover the entire Richmond Paratransit service area.
• WestCAT Paratransit is also limited to ADA eligible riders and overlaps a portion of the Richmond Paratransit service area at a lower fare ($1.25 local/$3 regional) six days a week.
• El Cerrito Easy Ride and San Pablo Senior & Disabled Transportation have the same client eligibility and service structure as Richmond Paratransit, and both also receive Measure J funding. They operate more limited days and hours, but at the same or lower fare ($2 or $4). Each is limited to operating within their city limits. • Richmond Moves is an on-demand, app-based service open to the general public including seniors, within the Richmond city limits. Rides are free for seniors and students.
• Mobility Matters is a private non-profit that provides free rides from volunteer drivers to seniors and veterans without other transportation options.

Richmond R-Transit Paratransit service fills a need in the Richmond area, both geographically and with their eligible client base. They provide rides for seniors and those who may not meet eligibility requirements for East Bay or WestCAT Paratransit. They also cover areas of West 913
6 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

County not covered by other services. The City Lyft rides add another layer of service that would not otherwise be available by providing coverage on all days and hours, with no advance reservation. It is limited, however, to clients who do not need mobility assistance.

As the services closest in structure to the City of Richmond Paratransit, the City of El Cerrito and the City of San Pablo Measure J funded Paratransit services are used for comparison in this report.

Audit Overview
General Overview
• Purpose
o The purpose of the City of Richmond Paratransit audit is to review the City’s service and to understand anomalies and inconsistencies in past fiscal year Claims, triggered by concerns with the FY23/24 Claim. The audit was recommended by the PCC.
• Time frame
o The audit was scheduled for a 90-day period from initial Kick-off to Final Report, dependent on the City providing the needed documentation for an appropriate assessment.
• Audit Scope
o Review of annual Claims for a period of five fiscal years o Presentation of findings associated with non-compliance with the funding agreement.
o Recommendations to address non-compliance findings as well as operational management recommendations.
• Areas of Review
o Claims Submittal & Compliance
o Budget
o Key Performance Indicators
o Program Design & Delivery
o Marketing, Outreach & Feedback

Partners
CCTA Staff & Role
CCTA is responsible for the allocation and oversight of Measure J funds, the annual Claim process, and the audit process. Rashida Kamara, Accessibility and Equity Program Manager, led the audit effort for CCTA.

Audit Team Role – Advanced Mobility Group Staff
The Audit Team was led by Laurie Talbert. Laurie has 30 years’ experience in public transit, including in the provision of Paratransit services. Kirsten Riker focused on the outreach and promotion overview of Richmond’s service. Rose Quiroga-Clement offered administrative 914
7 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

support and as a native Spanish speaker, made inquiries to the City to assess their support of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) clients. Mike Meuller assessed the budget documents provided. Christian Kent, a well-known and respected Paratransit Consultant who trains agencies in providing services, joined the team to lend his professional expertise.

City of Richmond Role
The City was asked to cooperate with the audit by supplying requested documentation, attending meetings, including a Working Group Call to respond to questions, and accommodating the Audit Team for a Site Visit. The primary staff involved in the delivery of service and contributing to the audit included Lori Reese-Brown (Program Manager), Mary Cummings (full-time program administration), Hope Lattell (Finance), and LaShonda White (Community Services).

Audit Timeline & Steps
Kick-off Meeting and Data Request. March 4, 2024. Introductions were made and a data request list was reviewed. Data was requested to be uploaded to a provided Dropbox no later than March 15, 2024. Meeting notes are available as Attachment 1. Meeting attendees included:
• CCTA: Rashida Kamara
• Audit Team: Laurie Talbert
• City of Richmond: LaShonda White, Deborah Dabbs, Hope Lattell, Mary Cummings, Lori Reese-Brown, Nickie Mastay.
• WCCTAC: John Nemeth, Coire Reilly

Initial Document Review and Follow-Up Questions. March 16 to early April. The Audit Team reviewed the documentation provided and sent a list of questions regarding the budget documentation. City Finance and Community Services staff were responsive in providing answers. The Audit Team also made a follow-up request for program documentation that had not yet been provided for all fiscal years.

Marketing Audit - Richmond Locations. March 26, 2024. Kirsten Riker from the Audit Team visited five locations in Richmond, including two senior centers, the library, a community care and resource center, and a medical facility to look for outreach or promotional materials about the City’s transit services and to ask facility staff what they knew about the programs. Notes are available as Attachment 2.

Working Group Call. April 9, 2024: The Audit Team provided the City a list of questions in advance of the meeting. The questions followed the flow of the City entries on the FY23/24 Claims Form. The City was again asked to provide the missing documentation that had not been uploaded to Dropbox by the original deadline. A new deadline of April 16 was established, and the Audit Team stated that they would start their analysis after that date. The City completed the upload of all prior year’s Claims Forms but did not upload any other missing documentation. Meeting notes are available as Attachment 3. Meeting attendees:
915
8 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

• Audit Team: Laurie Talbert, Christian Kent
• City of Richmond: Lori Reese-Brown, LaShonda White, Hope Lattell, and Mary Cummings

Site Visit to City of Richmond. April 16, 2024. Laurie Talbert from the Audit Team visited the City of Richmond to observe the administrative and dispatch functions of the service, ride along with passengers, and ask additional follow-up questions about the service. LaShonda White and Debbie Dabbs were available for questions at the beginning of the visit and a ride- along was arranged with the part-time driver. Following the ride, Debbie answered additional questions. Mary Cummings, the full-time administrative staffer, called out sick that day and the Program Manager, Lori Reese-Brown, was not present. Following the visit, three additional budget questions were forwarded to LaShonda and Hope and they provided the requested information. Site Visit notes are available as Attachment 4.

Data Assessed
The Audit Team requested that the City provide the following for FY19/20 through FY23/24:
• Claims Forms
o Submitted Claims – initial and revised
o Explanation for years when a Claim was not made, for Covid or other cause • Budget detail
o Cost allocation by program
• Ridership detail – O&D pairs, days, and hours
o Route Match ridership reporting
o Explanation of what manual work is needed to provide detailed information • Paratransit Survey results
• Write-up of City Cost Pool as it relates to program
• Public-facing materials for riders

The Audit Team received the following information and reports from the City as of the final April 16, 2024 deadline:

916
9 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

While the Audit Team did not receive all the documentation requested, CCTA agreed that what was collected and reviewed was sufficient to assess the City’s program.

Key Audit Takeaways
The Audit Team identified the key takeaways from the Audit. A more thorough assessment of individual review elements is included in this report.

• City documentation is filled with errors and contradictory information. There is data contained within Claims Forms that is contradictory to other notes within the same Claim. Claims include calculations that are illogical and were obvious within a few minutes to even those members of the Audit Team without direct transportation services experience. These issues should have been spotted and corrected before Claims were submitted. The review of Claims alongside other supporting documents and reports shows inconsistencies across multiple reports and data sets and across the five years of review.

• The same issues of inconsistencies and contradictory information can also be an indicator of a lack of understanding of the basic metrics of the program the City is operating. The audit indicates that a lack of understanding of the system is a contributing factor to the inconsistent and incorrect data and a failure to spot these issues by City staff. These issues made it difficult to assess the budget or program metrics, because the Audit Team had little confidence that reported data was accurate.

• City management is not actively engaged in leading the staff or program.

Administrative service delivery and program management staff disagreed on answers to some questions posed on the Working Group Call about daily operations and service metrics. Service-delivery staff could not answer questions about important program elements such as the status of new vehicles. Newer Finance and Community Services Documents Provided
by City
FY20: July 1, 2019 -
June 30, 2020
FY21: July 1, 2020 -
June 30, 2021
FY22: July 1, 2021 -
June 30, 2022
FY23: July 1, 2022 -
June 30, 2023
FY24: July 1, 2023 -
YTD (varied by report)
Detailed C ustomer Trips X X -Thru 4/23 only
Mobility Kind Trip C ount X X X
Vehicle Productivity Report X X X
Vehicle Productivity by Mileage X X -Thru 4/23 only
Operating Statistics X X X X X
Trips By Service Report X
Lyft Service Ridership X - 6 months only
X - 4 months only
in password
protected files
C laims Forms or
Explanation of no C laim X X X X X
Budget Detail X X X X X
Public Materials: Brochure and
C lient Orientatin G uide Received
917
10 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

staff seem to recognize the Claims trouble spots and understand the budget and flow of funds best. The full-time administrative employee knows the day-to-day system best but doesn’t appear to have the authority to make cultural shifts or functional corrections to the program or service. No one person has the full picture or understanding of the program, or how it operates.

• Positive Client Interactions. The service delivery staff know their riders well and serve them with care. Similarly, the riders engage with the drivers in a positive and familiar way and express the importance and value of the service the City provides for them.

• CCTA Forms and Oversight Needs Improvement. The Claims Forms do not request all the detail that would be used to calculate other inputs within the form. The descriptions of requested data were unclear to the City in some cases. The questions listed in the Project Description Narrative are not sufficient to identify deficiencies in a transit operation. The Coop Agreement and Measure J Strategic Plan do not lay out service expectations or standards that a program must meet for continued funding.

Oversight from CCTA has not been consistent over the last five fiscal years, but the addition of the Accessibility & Equity Program Manager role at CCTA should lend the process the needed leadership and expertise in paratransit operations going forward.

• Administrative costs are out of alignment with program costs and other, like programs. This is due in part to the assignment of indirect Cost Pool Administrative and Liability expenses that are equal to, or greater than, the cost of staff actively engaged in the program. Additionally, the cost of benefits as a ratio of the cost of payroll for those actively engaged in the program is high.

• Lack of Customer Feedback. The City is not actively soliciting feedback from customers, or seeking to understand the needs of those who are not riding. As a result, they are not mining opportunities to improve the customer experience or to solicit new riders.

• Value of Service. The service can fill a hole in West County by providing trips that are both needed and valued by its customers. It serves a vulnerable population with personalized service. The staff know their clients well and provide a measure of social interaction and sense of community that is also of value.

• Lack of Promotion. Given the gap that could be filled in the service market, and the rides available with their low-cost Lyft service, the City should be serving more passengers. The City is not actively promoting their service. While citing lack of resources as a limit to active promotion of their service, the City is also not maintaining low cost, passive forms of promotion such as their website and print materials.

918
11 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

• Costs Limiting Growth. Program expenditures shown in the FY23/24 Claim for the 3- year reporting period indicate no service or program growth, despite the noted increase in available funding each year. The City is currently operating with just 1.5 drivers and around eight one-way trips per day. While there is room in the full-time driver’s manifest to make a few more daily trips to increase ridership, the projected spend of the program in the Claim does not support another full-time driver or any expansion of services.

Current State of the R-Transit Program
Using primarily the Site Visit, but also review of documents and the Working Group Call, the Audit Team’s assessment of the current state of the City’s R-Transit program is as follows:

Vehicles
The service operates with two 7-seat vans. The configuration of the vans has the tie-down for mobility devices in the center, in front of a two-seat jump seat and limiting access to one of the remaining three seats in the rear of the van. When a mobility aid passenger is aboard with their device, only one other person can comfortably ride. Most trips are single-client trips with room for an attendant. The front passenger seat can also be used, but the client or attendant would need to be physically able to step up into that seat or maneuver to it from the back of the van.

The mobility device ramp on the passenger side of the vans is manually engaged by the driver by pulling up and out on the ramp handle. It requires some strength to engage.

One of the vans is prioritized as the daily trip van with the full-time driver. The second van is used only when needed by the part-time driver.

Mechanical Issues: The part-time van would not shift into Drive for the ride-along trip during the Audit Team’s Site Visit. It was known to the driver that the passenger-side sliding door had to be closed with a certain pressure for the vehicle to register that the door was closed. The van would not shift from Park to Drive if the door was not closed with enough force. It took about 15 minutes, but the driver and Audit Team member managed to correct the issue to travel to the first pick up, arriving at 10:25am for the 10:00am scheduled pick-up. The problem recurred at the client’s home. Efforts to reset the door failed this time and the trip could not be completed. A tow truck was sent for the van and the client’s trip cancelled. The other van picked up the stranded driver and Audit Team staff for a ride-along then returned to the base.

New Vehicles: Two new, larger electric R-Transit vans with rear wheelchair loading were parked at the City lot. The purchase of the vans was approved by the City in September 2023 with
$268,861.76 in anticipated FY23/24 Measure J funds. Additional documentation notes that three Level 2 and one DC fast charger would be installed at the City’s Corporation Yard to support the fleet.

919
12 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

According to the administrative staff and drivers present for the Site Visit, the new electric vans have not been put in service and cannot be used because the charging system is not compatible, and the vans can’t be charged. It is not known if the noted charging equipment has been installed as indicated. Staff also stated that the van step is too high for seniors to board and there are no handrails to assist in boarding. Nobody that was asked during the Site Visit knew the status of the vans or who was responsible for getting the issues corrected so that the vans could be put into service.

Contracted Services
City staff stated that they are contracting with TransMETRO to provide trips when they don’t have an accessible vehicle and/or driver to operate a trip and for same-day trip requests. In September 2023 the City approved a one-year $250,000 contract with TransMETRO to expand
R-Transit service and conduct outreach with an anticipated 40% increase in ridership as a result. The contract outlines that costs are billed at $92/hour for 8.5 hours per day, or $782 per day for as-needed transportation plus outreach and marketing services of up to $49,808. The Audit Team did not see any indication of active outreach for the R-Transit program performed by TransMETRO or the City. There’s also no indication of an increase in Paratransit ridership.

As no invoices were provided that would confirm how the City is being billed, it is not known if TransMETRO has billed the City for any outreach efforts, or how they are billing for rides.

Staff
The City’s FY23/24 Claim form lists the following staff:
• 2 full-time drivers
• 1 part-time dispatcher
• 1 full-time administrative office staff
• 1 part-time administrative staff: Program Manager

Currently, one of the drivers is working under disability accommodation and drives only part- time. The vehicle records attachment for the same FY23/24 Claim Form indicates there were only 12 days YTD that both vans logged miles, so the part-time driver is rarely on the road. Per staff, the part-time driver has three roles and does administrative work in the AM if they don’t have clients to drive, then takes over for the part-time dispatcher in the afternoon. Therefore, the current day-to-day staffing, confirmed by City staff at the Site Visit, is:
• 1 full-time driver
• 1 part-time driver: limited days AM trips
• 2 part-time dispatchers: including driver
• 1 full-time administrative staff
• 2 part-time administrative staff: Program Manager and driver

On the Working Group Call, staff indicated that the part-time administrative Dispatcher may also drive a van if a driver is not available.

920
13 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

Per the Site Visit, the office staff and drivers appear to be a close-knit group who communicate well with each other, using work-provided cell phones to manage changes in rides and to handle issues.

Clients and Trips
On the day of the Site Visit, Audit Team staff noted a total of nine one-way trips between the two driver manifests. City staff also shared manifest copies with the Audit Team. A copy of a driver manifest for the primary van from March 26, 2024, showed six one-way passenger trips.

For March 27, 2024, seven one-way passenger rides. It is unknown if AM trips were made with the second van on those days. An evaluation of R-Transit ridership for FY21/22 (the only year that a full 12-months of data was shared) shows the Paratransit service ran 2,042 one-way passenger trips for 59 unique clients. In a 250 service-day year, the average would be eight one-way passenger trips per day between both vans, which aligns with the trips scheduled on the day of the Site Visit.

The drivers indicated during the Site Visit that passengers want to use the Lyft service because they can ride any day or time and it is less expensive at just $3. The Lyft service cannot accommodate users who need mobility assistance, so the Paratransit service is largely operating for wheelchair and other mobility aid users who require assistance. The clients who spoke with Audit Team staff on the day of the Site Visit said they rely heavily on the Paratransit service for their transportation. They love the service, and they love their drivers.

The only Lyft service passenger count documents uploaded by the City that the Audit Team could access were for six months of FY19/20. That data was insufficient to accurately quantify how many clients are currently using the Lyft service, and because the Lyft ridership data includes just customer ID and not names, it cannot be discerned how many Lyft riders also use the Paratransit service. Like the Paratransit ridership that shows a small number of clients using the service actively, during the six months of Lyft ridership provided, the program delivered 657 trips to 77 unique clients.

Systems
Despite having a software system, all the actions witnessed on the Site Visit were performed manually. The service had just switched from Route Match to Via and the staff was still trying to learn the new software. The part-time driver who drove for the first attempted ride-along could not get her tablet operating. It did not accept her known log-in credentials. The driver stopped at the IT office for assistance. IT staff hit the ‘temporary password’ button which gave them a message to get their temporary password from their ‘Dispatch Manager.’ The driver did not know who that was so began service without the tablet using a paper manifest.

The second driver had access to the Via service on their tablet, but Audit Team staff did not witness the driver using it to record any information about the trip. The tablet appeared only to provide navigation between pick-up and drop-off points. The driver turned the volume down on the tablet because they didn’t like the navigation it provided, preferring to drive a familiar route instead. This driver also had a paper manifest.
921
14 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

The paper manifests require that the drivers write in their run start time, first pick-up time, last drop-off time, and run end time as well as all break start and stop times. They also write in each client pick-up time, drop-off time and start and end odometer reading. Per City staff, this detail is turned in at the end of the day and manually keyed into the software system.

Also, per staff, the new Via program optimizes trip plans based on scheduling of one full-time and one part-time AM van. Because of the disability accommodation of the part-time driver, they do not transport wheelchairs, so the office staff manually overrides the software to move wheelchair riders to the primary driver.

Cited Needs
The administrative staff and drivers interviewed during the Site Visit all answered the same way when asked what they would improve about their own services. They all cited the need for more drivers, access to the new vehicles, and better training on the new Via software system.

Areas of Audit Review
Claims Submittal & Compliance _________________________________________________ Review Items:

City-provided Claims Form, PCC meeting minutes, City-provided Route Match reports

Identified Issue #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. 922
15 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

• 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.
• As the City does not pay a subsidy for paratransit fares, the figure listed as Paratransit Fare Subsidy on Table A, should in fact, be the TNC subsidy for the Lyft service.

However, the total value listed of $132,914 Actual for FY21/22 does not make sense.

The highest rate the City would pay for a Lyft ride is $17 (The rider pays the first $3 and the City pays the remainder to $20). At that highest possible per-ride subsidy cost they would have carried 7,881 Lyft passengers. Total ridership between the two services was 2,787. It is unknown what other costs are being accounted for in this line item.
• 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. • 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.

923
16 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

Recommendation:

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.

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.

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 Measure J 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 Measure J 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.

Identified Issue #4:

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 City staff noted during the Site Visit that they get requests for trips to Oakland and the City notes in their Claim 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.

Budget ________________________________________________________________________ Review Items: City provided budget documentation, Claims Forms

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.

925
18 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

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 years (2019-2022),” but Table A shows a $103,759 ending reserve balance for FY21/22.

Recommendation:

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.

926
19 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

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 Measure J 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.

Identified Issue #9:

No cost allocation by program. The 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 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.

Recommendation:

To understand the true costs of the two programs and assess if contracted services are providing an overall lower cost ride, the two programs should be assigned percentages of shared costs to determine an estimated program allocation for future year Claims.

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. 927
20 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

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.

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.

Key Performance Indicators ___________________________________________________ Review Items:

City-submitted Claims Forms, Working Group Call, Site Visit, City-provided Route Match reports

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.

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. For Total Paratransit Passengers, for example, Route Match reporting varies from a low of 2,042 passengers to a high of 3,309 - a variance of 62% for the same fiscal year metric.

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 and the knowledge needed to make corrections, 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.

Identified Issue #13:

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.

Route Match Reports FY21/22
Total
Paratransit
Passengers
Paratransit:

Wheelchair
Paratransit:

Ambulatory Attendants Guests
Revenue
Miles
Revenue
Hours
Revenue/Fare
Revenue
No
Shows Cancels
Mobility Kind Trip Count 434 1,336
Vehicle Productivity by Mileage 16,349
Vehicle Productivity Report 3,309 467 1,420 1,272 150 3,878,655 815.62 7,910.00 $ 36 Operating Statistics 3,178 1,250 150 984,591 1,452.35 676.00 $ 36 252 Trips By Service Report - Did not
receive for FY21/22
Detailed Customer Trips 2,042
FY23/24 Claims Form data for
FY21/22 Actuals
2,787
(includes TNC) 763 990.42 $92,001.00 36 252
Service Metric
929
22 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

Recommendation:

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.

Identified Issue #14:

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.

Program Design & Delivery ____________________________________________________ Review Items:

Working Group Call, Site Visit

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 930
23 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

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 Measure J 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.

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 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, according to 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.

Recommendation:

To avoid cancellations or limiting trip scheduling, the City must prioritize issues that are preventing the new vans from being 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.
931
24 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

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.

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.

932
25 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

Identified Issue #19:

Clients in Unincorporated Areas. As noted earlier, the City receives Measure J funding to provide service in the county’s unincorporated communities of North Richmond, Kensington, and El Sobrante. The Measure J Claims Form requests detail on registered clients in unincorporated areas to validate the availability of service. 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.

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 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.
933
26 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

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 were not even aware that an ID fee was being charged.

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 the outstanding value of tickets sold but not collected and if the required ID card is maintained, and used only for the Paratransit and Lyft 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.

Identified Issue #21:

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 934
27 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

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.

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.

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 935
28 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

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.

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.

Marketing, Outreach & Feedback ______________________________________________ Review Items:

City-provided Lyft Brochure and Client Orientation Guide, program website, other entity websites, Marketing Audit

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.
936
29 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

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 municipalities or WCCTAC. Additionally, an incorrect link to the website is printed on the front of the Client Orientation Guide.

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.

937
30 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

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 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.

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.

938
31 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

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.

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.
939
32 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

• 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 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.

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.

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.

Identified Issue #29:

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.

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.

Summary & Key Recommendation
The condition of the City of Richmond’s Claims and their program have been an item for discussion at PCC meetings going back to 2019. In the last five years, no marked improvements are apparent in their Claims submittals. While Covid had an impact on all transit operations, other entities have demonstrated success in their recovery efforts and have stabilized their programs.

The City has made efforts to improve their transportation program, namely, its Lyft service, new vehicles, and updated software. For the service gap it fills, the City of Richmond’s Lyft program has added value and new client options to their program, but without data from the City for ridership, or cost allocation for just the Lyft program, it is difficult to assess the program’s quantitative success.

The two new electric vans would be very beneficial, but as noted in this report, they are not currently operational. Additionally, without two full-time drivers to operate the new vans, or outreach to attract new riders, the vehicles will continue to carry the same low number of daily passengers.
941
34 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

The impact of replacing Route Match with Via software has yet to be realized, as the system was new to staff at the time of the audit. As noted in this report, the manual entry of data, lack of understanding of metrics, and an unengaged management and unempowered staff are preventing the City from making the best use of the new software.

A senior and paratransit operation is needed to serve residents in this area of West County. The City of Richmond R-Transit program provides a valued service to a small, vulnerable population and the dedication of the drivers and administrative support staff to those clients is clear.

However, the potential demand is not being realized due to the various issues documented in this report. The City’s service is suffering from low ridership, high costs, and mismanagement.

As described in this report, identified issues touch every aspect of the City’s transportation operation, and for the five years of review. As such, a complete shift is warranted. In this complete shift, the City will be required to turn over the program management to a separate public agency or new entity. An organization with an understanding of service metrics and standards, and an understanding of the needs of West County residents, such as WCCTAC, would be ideal.

If the service were to remain under the auspices of the City, a new, full-time administrator should be put in charge of the program to prioritize corrections, focusing first on issues of safety and customer care. The position should report directly to senior/executive management in the City. That person should have experience in the delivery of transit services for seniors and persons with disabilities. The service will be monitored and evaluated regularly by CCTA and other agencies, such as WCCTAC.

To enhance CCTA’s responsibilities of the Measure J Sales Tax authority, it should develop a performance improvement plan for the City and schedule regular reviews of the program changes. The PCC should assume the role of monitoring the City’s performance improvements. The City should also assess the cost and potential benefits of transitioning Paratransit service delivery to a contracted vendor.

942
35 Measure J Audit
City of Richmond Paratransit

Attachments

1. Kick-off Meeting and Data Request Notes. March 4, 2024

2. Marketing Audit Notes. March 26, 2024

3. Working Group Call Notes. April 9, 2024

4. Site Visit Notes. April 16, 2024

5. Cost Pool Memos provided by City

6. Via Contract provided by City

943
Atachment 1
Richmond Paratransit Audit Kick-Oﬀ
Monday, March 4, 10:30am
AGENDA + NOTES
Invitees/Atended:

CCTA:

Rashida Kamara
AMG:

Laurie Talbert
City of Richmond:

Lori Reese-Brown
LaShonda Wilson
Hope Latell
Deborah Habbs
Mary Cummings
John Nemeth
Coire Reilly
Nickie Mastay
Cher-Lor Arce

Agenda:
• Introduc�ons of teams
a. Richmond staﬀ role in program
i. Lori – PM for program
ii. La Shonda – Deputy City Manager – Transporta�on/community services iii. Hope-Finance Manager
iv. Cher & Nickie – Financial
v. Mary & Deborah- Clients
vi. John & Coire - WCCTAC
b. Iden�fy project contacts
i. Lori/LaShonda – Program Administra�on
ii. Hope – Finance Contact
iii. John/Coire (WCCTAC) – Programming-Funding
• Project Intro and Background
a. CCTA overview
• Next Steps – through end of March/early April
a. Data – documenta�on collec�on
b. Working mee�ng with Richmond staﬀ
c. On-site observa�ons
• Expecta�ons for documenta�on – FY19/20 to FY23/24
944
Per PM - City can provide documenta�on by end of next week. Audit Team will set up Dropbox. a. Claims reports – or no claim explana�on
i. City - No claims in Covid year
b. Budget detail
i. City - Budget detail available end of next week
c. Ridership detail – O&D pairs, days and hours
i. City - Requires manual work + Route Match. Select a sampling? ii. CCTA – manual work not needed at this point
d. Paratransit Survey results
e. Write up of City Cost Pool as it relates to program
i. City – Total document available. Write up may take longer. • Ongoing
a. Bi-weekly check ins
b. Ongoing Q&A

945
Attachment 2
City Of Richmond MJ15 Marketing Audit
March 26, 2024
Audit Team staff Kirsten Riker visited ﬁve locations in Richmond on March 26, 2024 to verify that reported marketing efforts were valid. The assessment was performed in a ‘mystery shopper’ format posing as a member of the public gathering information for a family member.

Details of the site visits are listed below:
• Richmond Senior Annex, 5801 Huntington Avenue
Audit Team staff found no R-Transit, Lyft brochures, or other information on display at the Senior Annex. Annex staff was friendly, helpful, and complementary of senior transit services in Richmond, though unclear on service details of R-Transit and the Lyft program.

Senior Center staff used her computer to print a three-page application packet and told Audit Team staff that it could be turned in or mailed to the Civic Center Plaza for enrollment. While not sure of exact costs, she said some of the people who use the Annex also use the Lyft program and commented that she “doesn’t think a lot of people know about it.”

• Richmond Library – Main Branch, 325 Civic Center Plaza The Richmond library had no brochures about R-Transit and staff suggested I visit the nearby senior center for more information. The library displays AC Transit schedules.

• Richmond Senior Center, 2525 Macdonald Avenue
Senior Center staff was friendly and helpful. R-Transit Orientation Guides (9 pages, stapled, in English, dated 2021 with a 2021 Holiday Schedule) were displayed on a resources table, along with color brochures for Richmond Moves (which were available in English and Spanish). No information about the R-Transit-LYFT program was on display. Senior Center staff mentioned a LYFT component but could not find any brochures.

Senior Center staff looked up information on her computer and provided three printed/stapled pages of information about it. While looking at the website she noted the outdated “upcoming workshop” (listed as November 18, 2019) on the program website and suggested to “just ignore that!” Staff could not say when the next workshop would be but said, “there should be more workshops set up to teach people all the ins and outs of this service.” Staff indicated familiarity with at least one of the R-Transit drivers who apparently stops in every day for ice/water.

• North Richmond Center for Health / Community Resource Center, 1501 Fred Jackson Way
No information was available about senior transportation services. Staff was helpful and looked online for paratransit information and wrote down phone numbers for two paratransit operators (Richmond Paratransit and East Bay Paratransit). She also started to mention Richmond R-Transit, but then said, “Oh wait, no, that’s just a center. These are the ones to call [indicating the paratransit services she had already written down].”

946
• Richmond Care Center / Family Medicine (Sutter East Bay Medical Foundation), 2970 Hilltop Mall Road, #304
The Richmond Care Center is a large, multi-story medical office building with various medical/dental offices. Audit Team staff visited the Sutter medical office as it appeared to have the largest practice on the directory. No brochures, posters, or other information was displayed in the main Care Center lobby or in the Sutter office/waiting room.

947
Attachment 3
City Of Richmond MJ15 Working Group Call
April 9, 2024

Present:

Audit Team: Laurie Talbert (Audit Lead), Christian Kent (Paratransit Consultant) City of Richmond: LaShonda (Community Services-CS), Lori (PM), Hope (Finance), Mary (Admin Staff)
Introductions and Coordination of April 16 Visit
Introduced Paratransit Consultant. For visit on 16th, City staff cited that 8:45am is ﬁrst possible trip out, but Driver 2 has a trip starting later, so come after 9am. Send Admin staff cell number so they can update the time if needed. Riding with Driver 1. Second driver is part-time limited.

Status of Data Request
Acknowledge receipt of survey and Cost Pool detail. We still need the items in the table that were requested by the original deadline of March 15 and listed in a March 25 via email. Priority is for the Claims Forms. We need to complete our evaluation and start on the report. We need all remaining data by the day of the Site Visit, April 16.

Questions for City
Questions are based on FY23/24 Claims Form. One version comes from the CCTA PCC meeting minutes, the other uploaded by the City. They are not the same. These questions follow the PCC version. Note¿ Questions sent to City in advance. Not able to cover all questions. Notes include only those covered from the original list and follow-up questions asked on the call. • PARATRANSIT FARES:
o What is cost to rider per one-way trip?
 City: $4 one-way in advance $5 same-day.
o How many same-day trips do you take @ $5?
 City: Once a day or every other.
o Are all passengers boarding the vehicle charged? - attendants, guests, guardians 948
 PM: Attendants are free – there can be more than one.  Paratransit Consultant: ADA allows one free attendant.  PM: We want them to have an attendant for all rides. If they need two attendants, we allow it.
 Paratransit Consultant: Understandably, two attendants may serve different purposes
 PM: Guests pay. I don’t know what a ‘guardian’ is – maybe caregiver.  Audit Lead: It is referenced on one of your Route Match reports.  PM: I’m not sure.
o How is fare payable?
 Admin staff: Pay with a ticket. Driver sells them by check - no cash - and turn it into office. Also, can buy at the office and cashier window too. They collect $20 per book.
o Is the fare revenue based on tickets sold or tickets collected at the time of the ride?  PM: I believe Fare Revenue on Claim Form is tickets sold – not collected.  Paratransit Consultant: Is there any other way to pay?  City: No.
 Audit Lead: How is the difference reconciled? You could sell $1M in tickets and only $500k have been used. Is this recorded as liability? • Finance: No. The liability is not recorded anywhere.
o Is the same deﬁnition of ‘revenue’ used on all data where ‘revenue’ is reported? The numbers don’t match Route Match reports.
 PM: Not sure why those numbers wouldn’t match. Not sure where the information comes from. Admin staff draws up the report. It could be based on what the manifest says is owed from riders – and they input what riders pay, so fare collected not tickets sold.
• HOURS: Please conﬁrm hours for passenger contacts:
o Service hours for ﬁrst p/u time to last drop/off time  City: 8:45am/4:15pm last pick up – last drop-off could be 4:30pm. PM: We contract to a supplemental van service, TransMETRO. If we can’t meet schedule, then we engage TransMETRO.
o Reservation days/hours that a rider can call to request ride and #  City: 24/7 and leave message 510-307-8026. In person from 8:30am - 5 o General information/customer support days/hours and #  City: 8:30am-5pm 510-307-8026. They only have a ½ time person – then Admin staff takes over. Admin staff and Dispatcher do it. PM: We formerly had a staff of 14, had to scale back.
o What days/hours are Lyft users supported with ride scheduling assistance?  PM: Can call anytime to 510-307-8026. Admin staff has given their personal cell to assist people.
o What do ‘business hours’ and ‘office hours’ represent? Both mentioned in claim form.
 PM: 8:30am – 5pm They are the same thing. 510-307-8026 o Is language translation offered on all these lines for all days/hours? 949
 Admin staff: We call HR and they will put someone on to translate.  PM: No. Right now it is only the part-time driver. They speak Spanish. o What languages are supported?
 Admin staff: Not sure.
 PM: Right now it is limited Spanish only.
• STAFFING:
o Two full-time drivers are noted in Claims Form, but for FY24, claim vehicle logs show just 13 days when both vehicles recorded service miles. With just one vehicle operating most of the time, what does second driver do when not on the road?  PM: At the time we had two FT drivers. One driver’s schedule was reassessed. They have a disability and can’t lift things – restrictions.

Sometime Dispatcher goes out to drive, that’s why the two drivers are listed  PM: One part-time Dispatch, One full-time Admin, and PM is part time Admin as management.
• OPPORTUNITIES FOR FEEDBACK
o Besides the online survey, what personal opportunities are there for client feedback?
 PM: We work through the Commission on Aging and WCCTAC. o Do you keep a log of feedback you receive via phone?
 Admin staff: No. Phone log for feedback is not kept.
o When did staff last attend a Commission on Aging monthly meeting?  PM: In the last few weeks.
• ROUTE MATCH SOFTWARE
o Does the city use software system independently? ie. generate all reports and do all data entry?
 Admin staff: We generate everything and enter information o Does Route Match provide software support and/or training? Can you call with issues?
 PM: Route Match has glitches. We had a contract, then we bought their software, but it is not compatible with City systems. Route Match does nothing for us now. We stopped paying for Route Match 5-7 years ago. New software from Via, based in Route Match reporting. More ﬁelds for clarity.

Rolls out this week. They are doing training on 4/10. Needed new tablets – working with IT.
• CLIENTS
o FY23/24 claim lists both ‘Active Clients’ (1,770) and ‘Registered Clients’ (FY2023 Projected 3,720). What is the difference between the two?  City: Active is the more current as active clients.
 Admin staff: I look at obituaries and see when they stopped riding and remove them. We don’t have as many active clients.
o Is there a fee to register as a client?
 Admin staff: They purchase an ID annually. $2.50 each year.  Audit Lead: Do they show it to the driver when they ride? 950
 Admin staff: No. It has always been in place, but they don’t need it to ride. If they don’t get an ID they aren’t eligible to ride.
 Audit Lead: And they have to get a new one every year?  PM: No
 Admin staff: Yes, we have them do it every year for $2.50. o How does that cost factor into the budget or revenue?  PM: The money is City funds, but I don’t know how it is accounted for.  Finance: I didn’t know there was an ID or $ collected for it  Admin staff: I’m not sure why we still do this.
o Do clients ever have to reapply – proving continued eligibility?  Admin staff: Annually when they do the ID card.
o Claim narrative states that Route Match doesn’t provide a breakdown of people registered by incorporated and unincorporated. One version of claim form breaks it out – how were the numbers generated for the table?
 PM: Route Match doesn’t give us that. The new Via software will let us.  Audit Lead: What would it take from the City to be able to do this now with Route Match?
 PM: Admin staff did it manually for the Claim Form and it took her a week. • FARE REVENUE
o Fare Revenue FY22 was $92,001 actual but FY23 is $20k projected. Why such a signiﬁcant change?
 PM: I don’t know. With the supplemental service TransMETRO they were trying to serve more people, we must have ﬁgured we’d get a lot more riders.  Audit Lead: This was actual reported revenue, not a projection (Post meeting note – TransMETRO wasn’t contacted until October, 2023 and would not have been a factor for FY22 revenue)
 PM: Not sure. For the $20K we didn’t think we’d have the service. Not sure about the $92k in fares.
o How do you calculate projected fare revenue? What rider cost are you using?  PM: We look at how many people we might carry plus internal challenges.

We thought we could use ECIA money, but could only be used inside Richmond.
o Have there been any periods of time over the last ﬁve claim years when fares were not collected? If so, when?
 PM: We never stopped collecting fares during Covid
o If you had two full-time drivers, could you ﬁll the vans?  PM: We want the option for 2 full-time van drivers so the passengers have options. It could be Lyft, Paratransit or TransMETRO. Union drivers – just 1.5 now, and only drivers for the city. They are part of the General Admin union. • PASSENGER TRIPS
o When did Lyft service start?
 Admin staff: July, 10th 2018.
o For ‘Total Passenger Trips’ on the Claims Form are you recording total Passenger Boarding counts?
951
 PM: Yes
 Admin staff: No. It is the trip we count, not how many are on board-just the trip.
 PM: No, we include both. It is everyone who boards a vehicle that is included.
 Audit Lead: How does Route Match deﬁne a ‘trip’ then and what do you think the Claim Form is asking for with ‘trip’?
• PM: They are asking for trips
• Admin staff: A trip is a single trip from one place to the other with a registered client – not all who board. Route Match gives us this. o Do ‘Total Passenger Trips’ on Table C include both Paratransit and Lyft rides?  PM: Yes.
o Does number of Wheelchair Passengers on claims form represent total WC trips given or number of clients in database that use a WC?
 Admin staff: Not sure. It should be total clients in wheelchairs. o Do clients declare their PCA? Is the need veriﬁed by their Dr.? Both disability qualiﬁed and seniors? Is their name part of the manifest so driver knows who is eligible?
 Admin staff: Yes, or they just show up. They cite an attendant when they are eligible. Self-declared for an attendant.
 Audit Lead: So, no certiﬁcation or check with doctor? • PM: Whoever can help them load is the attendant
o Are they each counted in passenger trip total?
 Yes.
o Do they each pay a fare?
 City: Attendants No. Guest Yes. Don’t know what a guardian is. o Can you conﬁrm that reported trips are one-way trips?  PM: Yes.
o How are you calculating Revenue Service Hours?
 PM: Route Match tells us what it is.
 Audit Lead: Are Lyft hours included anywhere?
• PM: No.
o How are you calculating Passenger trips per Revenue Service Hours. Are LYFT passengers included, but hours aren’t?
 City: We use total passengers from both services to do the calculation. o How do you deﬁne a No-Show?
 Admin staff: We get there and there’s no answer.
o What if a passenger has repeated no shows? Do you have rider policies?  Admin staff: Policy was that you had to pay for the trip anyway, but we don’t do that anymore. Repeated no shows are rare.
o How do you deﬁne a cancellation?
 Admin staff: When they call in and cancel or do it at the door when we go to pick them up. No time frame for a cancel.
o Does the city ever cancel a ride for any reason?
952
 PM: Nope. If a driver calls in sick, they divide rides between the part-time driver and Dispatcher. Or contact TransMETRO. (Follow-up Note: On the day of the Site Visit, two one-way rides were cancelled by the City after a client had been loaded because the van would not operate.) o What training do drivers get?
 Admin staff: Pre-covid I rode with them every 6 months, to do a driver check and make sure they follow traffic rules. They don’t need training. Deborah is the only one who would need training because she’s not a driver, but she’s pretty good.
 PM: They just need a state DL. Class B isn’t required by the number of seats. o How do you calculate % on-time performance
 PM: That comes from Route Match
 Admin staff: Not sure what it means.
 Audit Lead: Could it be for adherence to your pick-up window?  PM: That’s it. From the scheduled pick-up time.
o What are your service standards and goals for no-shows, cancellations, and on-time performance?
 PM: We have goals that we report out. It is in the City-wide budget. We have a goal of no cancellations.
 Audit Lead: It would be nice to see a copy of that.
 PM: We can send it. (Note: information not received) • FARE SUBSIDY
o What does the $44 represent in the FY23/24 claim?
 CS: This doesn’t make sense. It must be a mistake. We are trying to correct that stuff to help us clean things up.
• VEHICLE PRODUCTIVITY
o There are days when no vehicle is operating in FY23/24 claim. What reasons would there be?
 PM: TransMETRO is new – just this year. If it shows no operation then a van was out of service or no available driver. The rides go to TransMETRO and that info is recorded in Route Match. Just no vehicle records from them.

They bill us every month.
 Admin staff: TransMETRO does not give that information to us.  PM: They give it to us in our invoices, but it doesn’t go to Admin staff. Route Match won’t capture mileage because we don’t put it in. TransMETRO sells the ticket books and it gets counted in Fare Revenue. TransMETRO invoices per trip – at a cost based on vehicles and the trip. Cost shows up in the budget, but not sure where. Not sure the basis for the charges either – per rider?
• UNMET NEEDS
o How are ‘outside the service area’ requests recorded – both from patrons outside? and for trips outside? What detail do you keep?
 Admin staff: They are callers who want to be riders but aren’t eligible because of where they live.
953
Attachment 4
City Of Richmond MJ15 Site Visit
April 16, 2024

Present:

Audit Team: Laurie (Audit Lead)
City of Richmond: LaShonda (Community Services – CS), Deborah (Dispatcher), Drivers 1 (full-time) and Driver 2 (part-time)
Vehicles in Lot
There were three R-Transit vehicles in the lot. Van 1927 and two Electric vehicles. Van 1922 was already out on the road. Per drivers, it is the primary vehicle. 1927 is the back up because it is in worse shape. Richmond Moves had 12 vehicles in the lot in a variety of sizes, both electric and hybrid. Per Driver 2, the vehicles aren’t shared and Richmond Moves uses Via contracted drivers.

Audit Lead spoke with a Via driver who said that charging is tough as the chargers in the City lot are also used by the public and sometimes when he returns, they are full and he has no spot to charge.

He has to take a chance on charging the next morning.

Per both drivers and Dispatcher: The new vehicles were secured by a former Transportation Department employee, and they cannot be used yet. They are intended to replace the two older vans. All three cited the same issues:

1. The charging system was incompatible with the charging units at the City, so they can’t b
e charged.

2. The vehicles have a lift for WC, but don’t accommodate seniors well. The ﬁrst step is to
o high and there are no rails to hold onto for support when climbing the steps.

3. The vans aren’t registered yet.

All three also stated they don’t know who is managing the issues, how or when the problems will be resolved.

Office Visit Pre-Ride
The office was hard to ﬁnd. Audit Lead didn’t ﬁnd the Cashier’s Desk while they were there.

CS, Dispatcher and Driver 2 were there. Because full-time Admin Staff was sick, Dispatcher was at the phones. Driver 2 had two AM trips (a round-trip for a single rider) then would relieve Dispatcher when they left at 12:30pm. Driver 2 acts in an admin capacity when not driving. Driver 2 is a full- time employee but does primarily admin work as they only run extra AM trips that are not WC. They have a disability accommodation and admin does not book trips for them for WC passengers.

Dispatcher gave Audit Lead a manifest sample. They are printed with the ride pick-up info, but the driver enters all times and odometer readings. Those are manually entered into the system the following day.

Asked CS if ‘Transportation Services’ is R-Transit only. Per CS, as long as it is coded for 1003, it includes only Paratransit. Audit Lead requested a TransMETRO invoice, additional information about the Cost Pool General Liability charge that was not addressed in the Cost Pool Memo, and 954
detail about how they were paying for the Via system – a one-time cost or a monthly SaaS. (Audit Lead followed-up with an email the next day detailing the request and received the additional Cost Pool and Via information)
Via rollover: It was the ﬁrst week. They couldn’t get the tablets operating – they would not accept the passwords. Via came only twice for training, and they moved too fast and didn’t give time for notes. The staff needs more help.

Ride along with Driver 2
Driver 2 and Audit Lead started by going to the IT office because the driver tablet would not let them log in with their password. IT could not help them. The ‘forgot password’ gave a response saying to get your temporary password from the ‘Dispatch Manager’ , but neither knew who that was. They opted to proceed without the tablet, as driver knew the client well and knew where she lived. Driver 2 and Audit Lead went to van 1927. Driver 2 had a single round-trip rider pick up for the day. The van was stuck in Park and would not shift into Drive. Driver 2 cited that if the door is not closed properly, the van won’t shift into Drive. They opened and closed the right-side slider, pushing on it to close it tight. It still would not come out of Park. As staff had already identiﬁed that the driver had a disability accommodation, Audit Lead was not comfortable with the force they needed to use to try to get the back side of the door latched. Audit Lead tried with the same result then circled the van and saw a seatbelt sticking out of the left sliding door. Audit Lead opened the door, cleared the seatbelt then closed it and the van released from Park. Driver 2 noted that they would not stop the van at the ﬁrst pick up, as they were afraid it would lock up again.

Arrived to pick up the passenger at 10:25am for her scheduled 10am pick up. She had a walker and boarded independently. Driver 2 secured her lap belt, then the walker. The passenger was out of ride coupons and gave a check for $20 to purchase a new book. Driver 2 took four, $2 tickets from the book to pay for both trip directions, as they would be waiting at the drop off location to return the client back home. The client acknowledged that the van was late but praised the service and drivers.

Ticket System
The drivers have a stack of books, numbered, and a sign-out sheet in the glove compartment. Checks are returned to the office at the end of the day, but the sign-out sheet which logs the rider, ticket book number, and total collected, remains in the van until all coupon books have been sold.

At the end of the shift the drivers turn in their pre and post ride checklist, their manifest, any checks they received and the ticket sign-out sheet if it is full.

Driver 2 had, in fact, shut off the van upon arrival, and the van would not shift out of Park again.

Both the driver and Audit Lead tried opening and closing the two doors, pushing hard to lock them in place, but could not get the van to release from Park. Driver 2 called Dispatcher who cancelled the rider trip and called to have the Maintenance Yard pick up the van with a tow truck. They also arranged for Driver 1 to pick them up before their next client trip.

After the passenger was deboarded Audit Lead asked Driver 2 about the service and what changes are needed while waiting for Driver 1. They said, ‘We need help’. They need training in the new Via 955
system, they need the new vehicles to be outﬁtted properly and working, and they need more drivers. They said they don’t get enough money to run the service – they ‘need more money’ . They said it is a good service, and the riders like the drivers. They are sending trips to TransMETRO because of the van issues, and Driver 2 limitations, but the riders don’t want to ride with TransMETRO and will often change their trip time to one where they are sure the City van can pick them up. Driver 2 said they were fearful that the audit will shut down the Paratransit service.

Per Driver 2, more passengers want to use Lyft because of the hours and because it is just $3, but only the ambulatory can ride. And they don’t understand that they have to apply for R-Transit ﬁrst to use it. ‘People just don’t understand. ’ Driver 2 also cited that if a rider makes less than 50k/year they get the trip free. (Audit Team could ﬁnd no information about a low-income program) The drivers have City-provided cell phones to speak to each other and the Dispatcher.

Per Driver 2 – Pre-Covid they may have multiple riders at a time, but now it is mostly just one at a time. The set up of the WC area appears to comfortably only allows for one WC passenger with one ambulatory at the same time – could be an attendant.

Driver 2 insisted that they drive the van regularly, but Dispatcher indicated (and vehicle records support) that they only drive occasionally.

Ride along with Driver 1
Driver 1 arrived at the inoperative van and was able to shut the door to allow the vehicle out of Park.

Says they ‘knows the magic trick’ to closing it. They advised Driver 2 to cancel the tow and drive directly to the Maintenance Yard. Driver 2 called Dispatcher who said Maintenance wanted it towed. Driver 2 moved the van out of the lot where it was blocking cars and onto the street. They were advised to leave the key under the mat and the door unlocked. Driver 2 was fearful after the van drove away that the ticket books and check they had received would be stolen from the van.

Driver 1 drove to their pickup for a wheelchair client. It was an 11am pick up. On the way, their tablet was giving driving directions. They turned the volume down saying they like their route better.

Because they had assisted Driver 2, they arrived at 11:15am. They said they have a 15-minute window (On the Working Group Meeting, City staff cited 20-minute.) Driver 1 loaded the client, she moved to the seat, and they secured her wheelchair. Driver 2 belted her in. They collected four $2 tickets for both directions of her trip, as the same driver would be taking her home later. Driver 1 did not use the tablet for any part of the trip, instead recording rider pick up time on a paper manifest.

Her drop off was at the city, so the group returned to the office and Driver 1 took their lunch. Driver 2 conﬁrmed that the tow was complete and drove their car to the Maintenance Yard to recover the tickets and check.

When asked about training, both drivers said they receive no special training. They have to keep a valid license and give a photo of it each year. They also maintain CPR/First aid, attending City classes to keep renewed. When asked, Driver 1 cited that onboard they have their insurance card and an accident kit and that they were comfortable with knowing how to handle an accident.

Audit Lead asked Driver 1 what they would improve in the service:
- They need more drivers, and should stop using TransMETRO for trips 956
- They need new vehicles, but not those new electric vans – gas vans. They think charging will be too hard and they already have a key to ﬁll up at any of the City fuel spots. T hey also said they didn’t know what was happening with the new vehicles and why they weren’t being ﬁxed.
- If Via was working it would be okay. One complaint is that it gives out loud driving directions, but drivers know better how to get there. Also, the mapping doesn’t include points of interest so they can’t use location name for pick-up and drop-off – it has to be a street address.

O
ffice Visit Post-Ride
Audit Lead spoke with Dispatcher, asking follow-up questions:

1. Do you have a rider guide or info you give them?
a. Yes. Gave a copy (dated 2020/2021)

2. How many days in advance can a rider reserve?
a. They prefer 3-4. One day isn’t enough time because it is harder to schedule in a
nd TransMETRO needs their trip info the day before if possible. They can take up to 30 days ahead.
b. Appointment returns are scheduled the same time as the pick-up, so the only same-day requests they receive are for entirely new trips. If they are AM they can sometimes work them into the Driver 2 schedule. It doesn’t work for Tr
ansMETRO because they send the manifest the day before. (Note: this does no
t align with statements by staff on Working Group Call that TransMETRO is used for same-day trips)

3. Will the Via system involve any other system changes? a. Not sure. The system has an ‘optimize’ feature that schedules the ride but they don’t use it because it gives wheelchairs to Driver 2, and they can’t take them, so they still manually schedule.
b. They need more training on Via to know it better. They came just twice and it was m
any months apart. They printed out their guide and are trying to train themselves.

4. Drug testing of drivers/union?
a. They know they are part of the union because they pay dues, but otherwise they don’t really know anything about it. No random drug testing – they have never been tested or the drivers either that they know of.
5 . What would you improve about the service?
a. Want more drivers
b. Need resolution to the vehicles. Why don’t they have them to use? c. Otherwise, things are running smoothly.
d. They didn’t understand why they couldn’t serve other people – they get calls s
ometimes and they have to turn them down. They get lots of ride requests to Oakland.
957
450 C
ivic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804
Telephone: (510) 620-6869 Fax: (510) 620-6542 www.ci.richmond.ca.us

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Transportation Division
A
pril 4, 2024
RE
: Cost Pool
T
he following is a brief explanation of our cost pool provided by the Deputy Director of Finance, Mubeen Qadar in the draft budget staff report pages 10 and 11 on June 7,2022. While the Cost Pool allocations are significant, the City’s General Fund subsidy to Transportation Operations for FY2022-23 was $523,814.

Attachment 5
958

450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804
Telephone: (510) 620-6869 Fax: (510) 620-6542 www.ci.richmond.ca.us

COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Transportation Division

April 22, 2024

RE: Cost Pool – General Liability

The following is a brief explanation of our General Liability portion of the cost pool provided by the Deputy Director of Finance, Mubeen Qadar in the draft budget staff report page 9 on June 7,2022.

Workers Compensation and General Liability: Rates are generally derived from the Actuarial report that factors in several drivers around the number of existing claims and expected claims depending on the existing risk and targeted confidence level of the Risk Reserve. The initial rates, in the proposed draft budget presented on May 3, 2022, were to achieve 65 percent confidence Risk Reserve level, resulting in significant increases in charges from the current year budget level. To avoid drastic budget increases to the City departments, the City staff proposes that the increase in the confidence level should be implemented gradually over several years. Until the City develops a formal plan for the Confidence Level increment, the proposed draft budget for FY 2022-2023 is set to increase the General Liability Charges by five percent city-wide from the FY 2021-2022 budget level.

Workers Compensation charges are only increasing by one percent in each category listed in Table 7 below.

959

CITY OF RICHMOND

CONTRACT AMENDMENT
Department: Project Manager:

Project Manager E-mail: Project Manager Phone No:

P.R. No: Vendor No: P.O./Contra ct No:

Description of Services:

Amendment No. ___ modifies the: (2nd or subsequent amendments attach Amendment History page)

Term, Payment Limit and Service Plan
Payment Limit and Service Plan

Term and Service Plan
Service Plan
The parties to this Contract Amendment do mutually agree and promise as follows:

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract Amendment are the City of Richmond, California, a municipal corporation (City), and the following named Contractor:

Company Name:

Street Address:

City, State,
Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No: / Expiration Date:

A California [ ] corporation, [ ] limited liability corporation [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:]
[ ] other [specify:]

2. Purpose
. This Contract Amendment is being entered into to amend the Contract between City and Contractor which was approved by the City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on , which original term commenced on and terminates with an original
contract payment limit of $ . Said contract shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Original Contract" and is incorporated herein by reference.

3. Original Contract Provisions. The parties hereto agree to continue to abide by those terms and conditions of the Original Contract, and any amendments thereto, which are unaffected by this Contract Amendment.

Transportation
Denée Evans
[email protected]
621-1718
15056
5755

TECHNOLOGY AND TECHNOLOGY ENABLED INTEGRATED SERVICES FOR ON DEMAND LOCAL ELECTRIC SHUTTLE ✔
2 NOMAD TRANSIT, LLC
10 CROSBY STREET, FLOOR 2
NEW YORK, NY 10013

GARRETT BRINKER
(574) 286-4710
[email protected]
✔
Delaware, LLC.

October 19, 2021
October 1, 2021
July 7, 2024
1,000,000.00
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 Attachment 6
960
Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 09-26-07

4. Amendment Provisions. This Contract Amendment is subject to the Amendment Provisions attached here
to, which are incorporated herein by reference, and which control over any conflicting provisions of the Original Contract, or any amendment thereto.

5. City of Richmond Business License Active Status Maintained. Pursuant to Municipal Code Section

7.04.030, the Contractor must maintain its City of Richmond business license for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

6. Insurance Coverage Updated and Maintained. Pursuant to the Original Contract, the Contractor shall provide the City with updated insurance certificates, and the Contractor
shall maintain insurance coverage, for this Contract Amendment to be deemed to be in effect.

7. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties’ agreement hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
a municipal corporation
By _______________________
Title:

I hereby certify that the Original Contract
and this Amendment have been approved
by the City Council or executed by the City
Manager.

By _______________________
City Clerk
Approved as to form:

By_______________________
City Attorney
List of Attachments:

1. Amend ment Provisions

2. Updated Insurance Certificates
CONTRACTOR:
______________________________
(*The Corporation Chairperson of the Board, President or Vice-President should sign on the line below.)
By____________________________
Title:________________________
(*The Corporation Chief Financial Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign on the line below.)
By:___________________________
Title:________________________
(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a
corporation or nonprofit organization, this
Contract (1) should be signed by the
Chairperson of the Board, President or
Vice-President and
the Chief Financial
Officer, Secretary or Assistant Secretary; (2)
should have both signatures conform to
designated representative groups pursuant
to Corporations Code Section 313.

NOMAD TRANSIT, LLC
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF Manager
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 Mayor
961
Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and
Amendme
nt No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (PAYMENT LIMIT AND SERVICE PLAN)

1. Paragraph 3 (Payment Limit) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to increase the
payment limit by $
. Paragraph 3 of the Original
Contract is amended to read as follows:
"3. Payment Limit. City's total payments to Contractor under this Contract Amend
ment shall not exceed $
including expenses."
“The City of Richmond shall not pay for services that exceed the Contract Payment Limit without the prior written approval of the City Manager if the total Contract amount does not exceed $10,000 or without the prior approval of the City Council if the total Contract amount is over $10,000.”

2. The Service Plan (Exhibit A) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to include the f
ollowing tasks and/or services:

Contract Amendment/EJ/TE 9-26-07

NOMAD TRANSIT, LLC
2 5755
312,500.00
1,650,731.00

See attachments for:

i. Additional TaaS vehicle hours to the current contract and ii. SaaS paratransit service order that outlines the project scope for our paratransit software DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 962
Amendment #2
to the
City of Richmond Standard Contract
Nomad Transit, LLC (“Via”) and the City of Richmond (“Customer” and, together with Via, the “Parties”) have entered into that certain agreement titled City of Richmond Standard Contract (the “Agreement”), dated October 1, 2021. Upon execution of this Amendment #2 (the “Amendment”), the Parties agree to modify the Agreement as follows:

1. Pa
ragraph 3 (Payment Limit) of the Original Contract is hereby amended to increase the payment limit by $139,128.00. Paragraph 3 of the Original Contract is amended to read as follows:
“3. P
ayment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract Amendment shall not exceed $1,477,359.00. including expenses.”

2. Section 3 of the Transit- as-a-Service (TaaS) Service order of the Agreement is hereby revised by adding the following language and attached pricing table” “For the duration of the contract term, 1762 vehicle hours will be added at the current rate of $78.96.”

3. Conf
licts, Use of Terms, Governing Law. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. Except as expressly provided herein, the terms and conditions of the Agreement remain unchanged. This Amendment #2 will be governed by the same law as the Agreement.

This Amendment #2 is effective as of March 1, 2023
Nomad Transit, LLC City of Richmond
By:

By:

Nam
e: Name:

Title
: Title:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF Manager
Alex Lavoie
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 Mayor
Eduardo Martinez
963
Richmond, CA DEPLOYMENT SERVICE ORDER
By this service order (the “Order”), Nomad Transit LLC, a Delaware company with its principal office located at 10 Crosby Street, Floor 2, New York, New York 10013 (“ Via”), and the customer identified below (“Customer”) agree to collaborate towards the operation by Customer of the deployment (the “Deployment”) in Richmond, CA Customer Name: City of Richmond
Customer Entity Type / State of Incorporation: City
Customer Notice Address: 440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Customer Email: [email protected]
Term: The duration of the Deployment shall last until the last day of the calendar month during which a period of 60 months following Launch expires, subject to extension by mutual agreement of the parties on terms to be agreed (including any increase in monthly fees for additional months).

Services: Customer will receive access to the standard Via Solution and automatic software updates, comprised of:
(a) Fully localized proprietary routing and matching algorithms that analyze all trip requests, assign riders dynamically to the best-suited vehicle, and group passengers headed in the same direction into efficient shared rides powered by Via’s patented technology;
(b) Integrated reservation system to accept and schedule trips booked in real time, in advance, or on a recurring basis; (c) Downloadable iOS and Android rider apps that allow customers to book rides, track vehicles in real time, pay for trips, and troubleshoot any issues. The rider apps shall be dedicated to this Deployment. For the avoidance of doubt, the rider apps used in connection with the Transit- as a-Service (TAAS) SERVICE ORDER will not be utilized in connection with this Deployment ;
(d) A web-based booking portal to book trips;
(e) Downloadable driver app that provides efficient turn-by-turn directions; the app allows drivers to start and end driving time, schedule breaks, and contact live support; and (f) Access to the Via Operations Console (“VOC”), which allows administrators to perform a variety of functions, including booking trips, checking trip details, adjusting account information, and providing customer support, and accessing reports, as provided for in Appendix 1.
(g) Access to the data reporting set out in Appendix 1, made available via the VOC.

Support Services – Installation. Via provides installation support for up to four weeks after the Deployment begins serving Riders, consisting of:
(a) Localization for the Deployment Zone (defined below), including optimizing the algorithm, configuring back -end, and defining acceptable pick-up and drop off points;
(b) Testing and quality assurance;
(c) Helping Customer to build a launch plan and rider acquisition strategy; and (d) Instruction for drivers, dispatchers, and managers on Via’s best practices as remote launch support Support Services – Ongoing. The following services are included in the fees up to the number of hours per month identified below:
(a) Operational support and system adjustments: Includes algorithm adjustments and changes to virtual bus stops / pickup points at request of Customer: up to 10 hours per month (b) Expert consulting: up to 5 hours per month
● Marketing and growth: help setting up complex promotions, review and assistance for third party tools that can integrate into Via’s tech
● Operations: Including supply optimization analysis, payment & fraud investigation, and business case/unit economics analysis
● Service expansion: Including feasibility analysis for service expansions or additional projects (c) Tech Support: Dedicated Via point of contact will use commercially reasonable efforts to respond within one business day for non-critical issues (upon receipt of a detailed description of the issue as requested by Via) and to ensure that assistance is provided within a reasonable time frame. Via will also provide Customer with an appropriate channel for alerting Via to system outages or other critical issues, with respect to which Via will provide emergency assistance.

Via will notify Customer if Customer is within 1 hour of exceeding the capped hourly limit on Operational Support and System Adjustments and/or Consulting Services. If requested, hours beyond those set out above will be charged on an hourly rate.
(d) Additional Services. Via can provide optional add-on services, including consulting, fixed route referral, live agent support, multi-modal or third-party trip planner integrations, media and advertising services, marketing support, or access to our Remix® transit planning software for an additional fee. More details available upon request.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 964
Customer Responsibilities.
(a) General. Customer will operate and manage the Deployment as set forth in the Terms, Customer shall cooperate with Via as necessary for the purpose of setting up the Deployment and its specifications, including by providing prompt feedback to Via’s inquiries and providing local insights, in order to meet mutually agreed upon deadlines. (b) Launch. Within one week of signing this Order, the Parties will mutually agree on the targeted launch date of the Deployment (“Launch”). Launch shall be no fewer than 12 weeks following execution of this Order. In the event that the Launch date is moved at Customer’s request or delayed due to Customer’s inaction, Customer will be charged a Technology Fee (as defined in Section “Fees” below) to accommodate hosting and other direct IT costs.
(c) Zone: Customer and Via will agree at least three months prior to launch on the exact geographical scope for the Deployment zone (“Deployment Zone”). Any changes or expansions to the Deployment Zone may result in additional fees.
(d) Support Requests. At the start of the project, Via will direct Customer towards the relevant CRM tools to log requests. In order to trigger a Product Maintenance request, requests for product maintenance must contain detailed information about the nature of the request. Requests for additional features may be subject to additional fees.
(e) Payment Processing. The fees set forth above do not include any owed to the third-party payment processor. Via will facilitate an introduction to its recommended payment processor and Custo mer is responsible for entering an agreement with such payment processor in order to be able to process credit card payments.

Fees.

Customer shall pay Via the following Fees for the Term, subject always to the Minimum Monthly Fee set out below:

Fee Category Amount Invoicing Terms
Installation Fee $30,000 Payable upon signing of this Order
Monthly Fees
Year 1 per-vehicle fees ● For 1-3 vehicles: $1,000 per vehicle per calendar month with a minimum of
$2,000 per month (i.e., 2-vehicle
minimum)
● For 4-10 vehicles: $400 per vehicle per
calendar month
● For 11-15 vehicles: $350 per vehicle per
calendar month

Subject to a minimum of $1,000 per month (i.e a
2-vehicle minimum) (the “Minimum Monthly
Fee”)
Advance Annual Payment in
accordance with paragraph 1
below

Year 2 per-vehicle fees ● For 1-3 vehicles: $1,050 per vehicle per calendar month with a minimum of
$2,200 per month (i.e., 2-vehicle
minimum)
● For 4-10 vehicles: $420 per vehicle per
calendar month
● For 11-15 vehicles: $370 per vehicle per
calendar month

Advance Annual Payment in
accordance with paragraph 1
below
Year 3 per-vehicle fees ● For 1-3 vehicles: $1,105 per vehicle per calendar month with a minimum of
$2,210 per month (i.e., 2-vehicle
minimum)
● For 4-10 vehicles: $440 per vehicle per
calendar month
● For 11-15 vehicles: $390 per vehicle per
calendar month

Advance Annual Payment in
accordance with paragraph 1
below
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 965
Year 4 per-vehicle fees ● For 1-3 vehicles: $1,160 per vehicle per calendar month with a minimum of
$2,320 per month (i.e., 2-vehicle
minimum)
● For 4-10 vehicles: $460 per vehicle per
calendar month
● For 11-15 vehicles: $410 per vehicle per
calendar month

Advance Annual Payment in
accordance with paragraph 1
below
Year 5 per-vehicle fees ● For 1-3 vehicles: $1,220 per vehicle per calendar month with a minimum of
$2,440 per month (i.e., 2-vehicle
minimum)
● For 4-10 vehicles: $485 per vehicle per
calendar month
● For 11-15 vehicles: $430 per vehicle per
calendar month

Advance Annual Payment in
accordance with paragraph 1
below
Total Minimum Amount
for 60 Months
$162,840 assuming 2 vehicles (excluding additional vehicles in excess of the minimum and any Fees for any Additional Services)

The Customer agrees to pay the Minimum Monthly Fee ( i.e., the monthly vehicle minimum fees set out in the table above) for a period of 12 months in advance and annually thereafter (the "Advance Annual Fee"). Via will submit an invoice for Advance Annual Fee upon signature of this Order payment due in accordance with the Terms. For the avoidance of doubt, the first Advance Annual Fee is due in advance of Launch. Via will invoice the Advance Annual Fee annually thereafter for the remainder of the Term .

In the event that the per -vehicle-fees incurred for a given month exceed the Minimum Monthly Fee, Customer shall be responsible for paying the difference for each such month (“Monthly True-Up”) within 15 days of the date of such invoice.

Via will calculate any fees due as Monthly True Up each month and provide Customer with an invoice calculating the per- vehicle fees actually incurred based on the actual number of active vehicles used during the previous month.

The Customer agrees that the sample invoice set out in Appendix 2 is satisfactory to Customer, both in substance and format.

Via shall calculate the Fees due. For the avoidance of doubt, (i ) the number of vehicles per month for purposes of the above fees shall be the maximum number of distinct vehicles input by Customer that use the Via Solution on any given day over the course of the applicable calendar month and (i i) in the event the duration of the Deployment does not exactly match calendar months, monthly fees will be prorated for the first and/or last calendar months of the Deployment, as applicable, so that Customer will only be charged for the portion of such months during which the Via Solution was available to be used for the Deployment.

Customer shall reimburse all travel expenses of Via personnel for purposes of the Deployment. Installation-related services described above will initially be performed remotely, and if Via deems it necessary, in person by Via personnel for a limited period around launch. Thereafter, services will continue to be performed remotely as applicable, provided that Via personnel can be sent to Customer’s location for additional trips upon reasonable request.

Twilio. Price includes our generic package for Twilio cost for 4 SMS notifications and 1.25 minutes of Twilio voice time per ride, at a maximum of $0.05 per ride on average for all rides completed within each calendar month. Any costs associated with Twilio in excess of $0.05 per ride will be billed to the Customer as at cost plus 10% on a monthly basis.

Launch Delay. If the Launch Date is delayed for more than a calendar month by Customer for any reason, Customer shall be responsible for paying Via for a $1,000 monthly technology fee for the cost of maintaining the technology infrastructure for Customer’s deployment during the period of delay (the “ Technology Fee”). The Technology Fee shall be payable monthly at the beginning of the month in which it is incurred. In the event that the duration of the delay does not exactly match calendar months, the Technology Fee will be prorated for the relevant month in which Launch occurred.

Branding. The Deployment will be branded as R-Transit powered by Via. The “powered by Via” banner must be used only in the exact format provided by Via and will be prominent on all assets promoting the Deployment, including (but not limited to) printed collateral, digital materials, websites, and any vehicle wraps. The “powered by Via” banner will have equal prominence on all marketing materials to any additional partner logos or trademarks. Via may provide pre -approved brand assets and guidelines that must be complied with in all marketing communications distributed by the Customer.

Additional Terms.

1. Use Rights.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 966
(a) Use Rights. Subject to the terms and conditions herein, Via will provide the Services, as defined herein . The Services will include all related services, functions or responsibilities not specifically described in this Agreement, but that are required or reasonably necessary for the proper performance of the Via Solution in connection with the Customer trans portation service. Via will grant Customer subscription, access, and use rights (“Use Rights”) for the specific applications and deployment types identified in this Order.

(b) License to the Applications. In connection with the provision of the Via Solution, Via provides a limited, non -exclusive license during the Term to Customer to the applications for use with the devices for the Customer transportation service and sublicense to riders, drivers and local operators, subject to the term s set out in Via’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. Customer shall be solely responsible for displaying a privacy policy to riders and ensuring it contains terms that are both compliant with applicable law, and sufficient to permit Via and its agents to la wfully perform hereunder.

2. Disclaimer. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary express or implied in in this Agreement, Via shall have no liability to Customer or any passenger (including no duty to defend, indemnify or hold Customer harmless) for any Transport Incident where “Transport Incident” means any accident, incident or other situation involving any Passenger (including negligent, willful and/or criminal acts and omissions), Device, vehicle or equipment employed by Customer in the use, provision or servicing of the Customer Transportation Service and/or any employee or agent of Customer operating such vehicle, Device or equipment or otherwise acting on behalf of Customer (including the acts and omissions of such employees or age nts while using the Application or viewing or using any device from which the Application is displayed). Transport Incidents include actual or alleged violations of Applicable Laws and the Transportation Law components thereof.

3. Compliance with Applicable Laws. Prior to launch of the Deployment, the parties will work together to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including The California Consumer Privacy Act.

This Order shall be governed by the terms and conditions set forth in the City of Richmond Standard Contract signed between the parties, as of October 1, 2021 (the “Terms”). Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meaning in the Terms. By signing below, the parties agree to the Terms.

NOMAD TRANSIT LLC CITY OF RICHMOND

By: By:

Name: Name:

Title: Title:

Date: Date:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF 3/1/2023
Manager
Alex Lavoie
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 Eduardo Martinez
4/11/2023
Mayor
967
Appendix 1 to Service Order

VOC use and Data Sharing

Authorized Users
The below exhibit sets forth the members of the Customer’s “Core Team” of personnel who are designated authorized users of the VOC including access to the data detailed below (the “ Core Team”). Access to the VOC is conditional upon Customer notifying Via with reasonable advance notice of the name, title, email address and any other details Via may reasonably require of the members o f the Customer Core Team. The Core Team may be updated during the Term subject to Via’s consent.

Exhibit 1.

Core Team
Title: Transportation Services Project Manager Name: Denee Evans Name: Mary Cummings
Name: Deborah Dabbs
Customer to provide details no later than one month prior to Launch
Customer to provide details no later than one month prior to Launch

Customer Core Team will be granted suitable permissions to allow them to manage and authorize access of additional Customer personnel as secondary users (“ Secondary Users”) to the VOC. All Core Team and Secondary Users will be subject to Customer’s confidentiality and non -disclosure obligations, as described in the Terms. For the avoidance of any doubt, Customer’s Core Team responsibility includes granting permissions to S econdary Users only to the extent such permission is needed for the Customer’s operation of the Deployment and in compliance with applicable privacy legislation and removing any Secondary User access once it is no longer needed. Via retains the right to deny or revoke any Core Team or Secondary User access if Via suspects that such access may be causing or have caused a breach of the Terms, or any user guidance Via issues from time to time.

Authorized Operators

Customer may not provide access to the Via Solution to any third party except with Via’s prior written consent. In the event that Customer wishes to engage a third -party operator (“Operator”) to operate the Deployment, Customer shall provide Via a copy of an Operator Acknowledgement Form in the form required by Via, duly executed by such Operator, as a prerequisite for Via’s allowing the Operator access to the Via Solution. For the avoidance of doubt, no Operator will be allowed access to the Via Solution witho ut having signed the Operator Acknowledgement Form. Customer Core Team will be responsible for grant of VOC permissions to the Operator’s team, which will be considered Secondary Users for all purposes. As between Customer and Via, Customer shall remain responsible for acts and omissions of any Operator as it relates to Operator's access to the Via Solution.

Data Sharing Plan

As part of the Deployment, and as detailed below, Via will make access to data available to members of the Customer’s Core Te am, and any above-authorized Customer’s Secondary User(s) and/or Operator(s), for the purpose of research and program evaluation for the duration of the Term. The data will be accessible in the VOC and may not be shared through any other method unless otherwise authorized in writing by Via. Any and all data made available under this Order are trade secrets of Via, and subject to the confidentiality and other protective provisions set forth in the Terms at all times. Customer may not share any such data with anyone not aut horized in accordance with this Appendix 1.

To protect Via’s Intellectual Property Rights and the privacy of ride rs, Via will provide the following data tables and dashboards in the form of aggregated reports and data tables to Customer through VOC:
● Service KPI Dashboards: Visualized dashboards and graphs of Key Performance Indicators. These dashboards provide a high- level view of the overall service performance across a number of metrics and periods of time. Dashboards are available for download as .jpeg files or in raw form as excel spreadsheets. ● Data Generator: Set of tables with granular raw data about the servic e that are available for download as excel or csv spreadsheets.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 968

The reports will be refreshed daily. The reports are aggregated and any information about individual riders is de-identified. [Additional off-the-shelf reporting may be made available to Customer upon request at Via’s discretion. Custom reports will need to be scoped and may come at additional cost.]

SERVICE KPI DASHBOARD
Dashboard Report Metrics
Service Operations
Metrics & Graphs

● Total ride requests
● Requests during service hours
● Met Demand
● Met Demand Rate
● Completed rides
● Completed Rides Rate
● Detailed Ride Requests Status
● Active Riders
● Driver Hours
● Utilization
Rider Experience
Metrics & Graphs

● Average Ride Duration
● Average Ride Rating
● Average Pickup Walking Distance (corner-to-corner services only) ● Aggregation Rate
● Average ETA
● Dropoff Time Requested vs. Scheduled*
● Dropoff Time Scheduled vs. Actual*
● Pickup Time Requested vs. Scheduled*
● Pickup Time Scheduled vs. Actual*
*Pre-booked rides only
Rider Growth
Metrics & Graphs

● Accounts Created
● Active Riders
● Total Riders Who Requested a Ride
● Total Riders Who Completed a Ride
● Completed Rides Per Rider
Ride Rating
Metrics and Graphs
● Avg. Ride Rating
● Total Bookings with Ratings
● Percent Bookings with Ratings
● Total Five Star Ratings
● Percent Five Star Ratings
● Label per Rating
● Rating Distribution
Advanced
Prebooking Metrics
& Graphs
(prebooking only)
● Request Source
● Recurring Type
● Hours Booked in Advance
● Hours Canceled in Advance

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 969

DATA GENERATOR
Table Data Columns
Ride Request Table

● Request Creation Date & Time
● Request ID
● Request Status
● Rider ID
● Wheelchair Accessible
● Booking Method
● Number of Passengers
● Booking type (PB+OD only)
● Origin Address
● Origin Lat + Long
● Destination Address
● Destination Lat + Long
● Actual Pickup Time
● Cancelation Time
● No Show Time
● Ride Price
● Ride Distance
● Ride Duration (min)
● Ride Rating
Rider Activities
Table
● Rider ID
● Account Creation Date
● Total Requests
● Total Completed Rides
● Total Cancellations
● Total No Shows
Drivers Table

● Drive ID
● Driver Name
● Driver Email
● Active Status
● Total Shift Hours
● Avg. Shift Hours Per Day
● Avg. Shift Hours from First Assignment Per Day
● Avg. Break Hours Per Day
● Total Accepted Rides
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 970
● Avg. Rating From Riders
Vehicles Table

● Vehicle ID
● Active Status
● Visual ID
● Short Visual Identifier
● Maker
● Color
● Vehicle Capacity
● Max Capacity
● Wheelchair Capacity
NTD S-10 Report
Available upon
request for required
reporting to the
FTA. (United States
only)
● Service Date
● Day of the Week
● Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service (VOMS)
● Actual Vehicle Hours
● Actual Vehicle Miles
● Vehicle Revenue Hours
● Vehicle Revenue Miles
● Unlinked Passenger Trips
● Passenger Miles Traveled

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 971

Appendix 2 to the Service Order
Sample Invoice

CONFIDENTIAL

[VIA ENTITY NAME]
Via Transportation, Inc.
10 Crosby Street, Floor 2
New York NY 10013 United States

Bill To
[Partner] [Address]

Invoice

Date
Invoice #

Terms Net 15
Due Date
PO #
Billing Period

Description Rate Quantity Amount

[Description of the Fee: Vehicle Fees, Ride Fees and/or Total Vehicle Hours]
Tax Code Summary

Please make checks payable to:
[__]
P.O. Box 7410493
Chicago, IL 60674-0493

Wire Instructions:

Bank of America, N.A.
222 Broadway,
New York, NY 10038
Wire Routing # - 026009593
ACH Routing # - 021000322
Account # - 483065995955
Swift Code - BOFAUS3N

Total
DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 972

CCPA and CPRA Service Provider Addendum

This CCPA and CPRA Addendum (this “Addendum”), effective as of [Date], is incorporated into and forms part of City of Richmond Standard Contract signed between the parties, as of October 1, 2021, as well as all subsequent service orders, renewals, and amendments (collectively, the “Agreement”), entered into by and between City of Richmond (“Customer”) and Nomad Transit LLC (“Service Provider”).

The parties acknowledge and agree that Service Provider is a service provider for the purposes of the California Consumer Privacy Act (the “CCPA”) and California Privacy Rights Act (the “CPRA”). Service Provider certifies that it (i) understands the rules, restrictions, requirements, and definitions of the CCPA and CPRA, and (ii) understands and will comply with the restrictions set forth in the CCPA, CPRA, and this Addendum.

With respect to personal information collected and processed by Service Provider pursuant to the Agreement (the “Personal Information”), Service Provider shall not:

(a) Sell the Personal Information;
(b) Share the Personal Information for cross-context behavioral advertising purposes; (c) Retain, use, or disclose the Personal Information, except as necessary for the specific business purposes listed in (i) to (vi) below or any other business purposes specified in the Parties’ Agreement or as otherwise permitted by the CCPA or CPRA:
i. Performing the services described in the Agreement, which include but are not limited to the maintenance and servicing of user accounts, provision of customer service and support, processing of transactions and payments, verification o f user information, provision of analytics services, data storage, training, and the fulfillment of similar services on behalf of the Customer; ii. Ensuring security and integrity of services, including but not limited to debugging and otherwise repairing the services to restore intended service functionality; iii. Undertaking internal research for technological development and demonstration; iv. Undertaking activities to improve, upgrade, or enhance the services; v. Short-term transient uses, provided that personal information is not disclosed to third parties (i.e., parties that are not themselves service providers or con tractors) and is not used to build a consumer’s profile or otherwise alter the consumer’s experience outside their current interactions with the business; and
vi. Advertising and marketing services, including the auditing of such services, as authorized or directed by the Customer, and as permitted under the CCPA or CPRA. (d) Engage in any activity prohibited by any other provision of the CCPA and CPRA currently in effect.

Service Provider claims no ownership or other proprietary r ights in any of the Personal Information. Customer grants Service Provider the right to access, modify, and use the Customer Data for the purpose of performing Service Provider’s obligations under the Agreement, including to provide the Services and incidental to providing the Services, to improve the DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 973
Services, and to create derivative works, including aggregate consumer information and deidentified data, to the extent such uses are permitted by the CCPA and CPRA.

Service Provider shall notify Customer if it determines that it can no longer meet its obligations under the CCPA or CPRA.

Customer has the right, upon notice of at least sixty (60) days, to take reasonable and appropriate steps to stop and remediate any unauthorized use of Personal Information.

For purposes of this Addendum, the terms “personal information,” “service provider,” “third party,” “contractor,” “business purpose,” “commercial purpose,” “cross-context behavioral advertising,” “deidentified,” “sell,” and “share” are as defined in the CCPA and CPRA. “CCPA” and “CPRA” refer to both the statutes and any implementing regulations that are in effect.

Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Addendum and the Agreement, the provisions of this Addendum shall control.

NOMAD TRANSIT LLC CITY OF RICHMOND
By:

By:

Name:

Title:

Date:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF 3/1/2023
Manager
Alex Lavoie
DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 4/11/2023
Eduardo Martinez
Mayor
974

Date: Date:

DocuSign Envelope ID: 8A70B365-91E2-4305-802C-079B8E38E9FF DocuSign Envelope ID: 1A278702-88E7-4D10-BBB4-A706CEDAE365 975
Contract Amendment between the City of Richmond and
Amendme
nt No. P.O./Contract No.

AMENDMENT PROVISIONS (AMENDMENT HISTORY)
The first Contract Amendment was approved by City Council of the City of Richmond or executed by the City Manager on for one or more of the following provisions (check those that apply):