The URL can be used to link to this page

TC 12-18-06 Meeting MinutesMEMORANDUM COUNTY of FREDERICK v Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner RE: Transportation Committee Report for Meeting of December 18, 2006 DATE: January 3, 2007 The Transportation Committee met on Monday, December 18, 2006 at 8:30 a.m. Members Present Chuck DeHaven (voting) Phil Lemieux (voting) James Racey (voting) Eric Lowman (voting) Darwin Braden (voting) George Kriz (liaison) Lewis Boyer (liaison) Members Absent Donald Breeden (liaison) ***Items Requiring Action*** 1. Frederick County Transit Lines Staff reviewed the attached summary memorandum with the Transportation Committee in addition to the full information packet (also attached). Staff notified the Committee that, based upon the issues detailed in the summary memorandum, we are unable to make a recommendation to the restructuring of the service to meet the budget parameters or to make a recommendation on the continuation of the service. MOTION: Mr. Braden, seconded by Mr. Lemieux To recommend that the Board terminate transit service into the County with any remaining funds being used to address outstanding bills associated with the service provided to date. Motion passed unanimously. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 ***Items Not Requiring Action*** I. Meeting Schedule for 2007 Staff presented a draft meeting schedule for 2007 which addressed dates that conflicted with holiday scheduling. MOTION: Mr. Braden, seconded by Mr. Racey. To adopt the schedule for 2007 as amended. Motion passed unanimously. 2. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Activity Update There are a number of initiatives underway at the MPO of which the Committee was brought up to date. Bicycle & Pedestrian Mobility Plan No additional meetings have taken place or been scheduled. 2. Local Assistance Projects The Subcommittee in charge of these projects, which includes Supervisors and Transportation Committee Chairman Chuck DeHaven and Transportation Planner John Bishop, continues to refine the scope of work for the Route 37 interchange study and the Route 11 access management study. MOTION: Mr. Racey, seconded by Mr. Braden To recommend approval for staff to make application for revenue sharing funds for the Tevis Street extension. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Article distribution Staff regularly disseminates transportation related items from state and nationwide outlets to the committee for informational purposes. 5. Other Business Mr. Jack Lillis of 981 McDonald Rd submitted a petition signed by 51 residents for the hard surfacing of a portion of McDonald Rd. 2 COUNTY of FREDERICK AV Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/665-6395 TO: Transportation Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, AICP, Transportation Planner y RE: Transit Line Areas of Concern DATE: December 18, 2006 At the request of the Transportation Committee Chair, staff has prepared the following summary of issues regarding the continuation of Winchester Transit service in Frederick County. Since this item was first brought to the Finance Committee in March of 2006 and subsequently referred to the Transportation Committee. Staff has been working diligently to resolve a number of issues, both raised by the Committee and that arose through the process. Unfortunately, the following continues to be a concern. 1. Costs The issues with costs are threefold. A. First, the costs for FY 05-06 continue to vary from the original Memorandum of Agreement. At that time, County costs were agreed to be $6,741.00. Later, a January 10, 2006 communication from Cary Lofton indicated that cost may increase to $7,500.00. Still later, a September 18, 2006 letter from Tom Hoy indicated that the County share for FY 05-06 was $27,383.39. Finally, a November 29, 2006 letter from Carla Taylor indicates that the FY 05-06 cost is now $15,383.39. To date, though, it has been requested no explanation for this discrepancy has been available. B. Second is the issue of costs moving forward. Currently, estimates received from the City indicate a cost range for 07-08 service from $95,350.00 for a very bare -bones service to $231,726 to continue as is. These figures do not include administration fees which early communications from Mr. Lofton estimated at $26,600.00. Once you include those fees, the range corrects to $121,950-$258,326. When you consider that the request to the County to continue service as is for the current fiscal year was $133,000, and these projections for that same service show $258,326 for next fiscal year, staff has some concerns about the reliability of the cost estimates provided. C. The issues raised above are entirely separate from the fact that acting upon recommendation of the Transportation Committee, the Board of Supervisors funded current fiscal year transit at $80,000. Since that time the Committee Chairman and staff have worked very hard to get needed information regarding grants and service 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Transportation Committee Re: Transit Line Areas of Concern December 18, 2006 Page 2 usage in order to provide recommendations for changes to the existing service to meet that budget amount. Unfortunately, the inability to get reliable information on grant funding and ridership has made the crafting of an informed recommendation impossible. Though requests for suggestions have been made of City Transit Officials, none have been forthcoming to date. 2. Grant Assistance A. In his March 8 communication, Mr. Lofton indicated federal assistance to Frederick County transit lines at $32, 926. Upon approval of the $80,000 funding level by the Board of Supervisors, staff asked for verification of grant funds available both federal and state. In summary, through our time working with Mr. Hoy and now working with Ms. Taylor, we have never received a concrete answer to this question though it has been asked many times. B. Demonstration grant funds for a route into the Clearbrook area were awarded to the transit system in the amount of approximately $150,000. Early in this process, staff asked Mr. Hoy whether these funds could be used to support the existing routes. The reason for this request was that traditionally, demonstration grants have supported service for two years and our existing service had only received one year of support. Mr. Hoy indicated that Jack Apostolides of VDRPT said that this would not be possible. Later, in a meeting between Frederick County, Winchester officials, and VDRPT staff, staff asked the question again and Mr. Charles Badger and Ms. Felicia Woodruff (Mr. Apostolides' supervisor and successor respectively) indicated that these funds could be moved to the existing service as long as adjustments were made to the service to attempt to improve its success. 3. Ridership Early in the process, staff requested detailed and summary data by transit stop in order to analyze the usage to make an informed recommendation for adjustments that would be required to meet the $80,000 funding level. To date, no usable form of the detail data has been provided. Summary data has been provided by route and month; however, this is of little help in analyzing the details of a route. Finally, staff is unable to make any sort of reliable recommendation either for how to continue for this fiscal year or moving forward for the reasons detailed above. Though this is not for lack of effort, this is the reality of the situation. Staff stands ready to address additional questions or concerns. JAB/bad ITEM #2 Frederick County Transit Lines Transportation Committee Chairman Chuck DeHaven and staff have been working diligently over the past months to work toward a resolution of Winchester Transit operation in Frederick County. Complicating matters somewhat, through no fault of the City staff's members we have been dealing with, is that the responsible parry for the transit system has changed twice since the beginning of this process. At issue are a number of items, some of which came up as we moved through the process. They are as follows: 1. County share of the cost of the service continuing forward. Reference pages 9, 55, 56. 2. What is the County share of the FY 05-06 service and why has it changed from the original agreement. Reference pages 1,2,6,40,60. 3. What grant monies are available and in what amounts. Reference page 22. 4. What is the usage by route, stop, and times of day. Reference page 10, 11, 30, 32, 43, 57, 58. To aid in the presentation, staff has provided copies of a number of materials gained through the process in chronological order. To aid in the presentation, the attached pages are hand numbered in the lower right hand corner 1-60. There is some repetition where an included letter had attachments; staff felt separating from the letter may increase confusion. At this time staff is seeking Committee guidance for further actions. CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA September 13, 2004 Mr. John Riley, Administrator County of Frederick 107 N. Kent Street Winchester, Virginia 22601 Dear John, rv. i- ;� a �[J - •� Sp 20€14 w ,,� Frederi�� County res BY ,, Adcninistcato�, �, 0a — s it Rouss City Hall 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-1815 TDD 540-722-0782 www_ ci.winchester.va_us Thank you for meeting with Renee Wells and me on Friday to review the proposed routes that will extend transit service into Frederick County. I understand that you and your staff will now review the routes and make note of any desired changes. We expect our grant monies to be released very shortly, so it behooves us to determine how the process of expenditures and revenues will be handled between our respective governments. The grant received is broken down as follows: • Route Extension $132,746 • Less Revenue ($3,333) • Total Expenses $129;413 • Local Share of project (5%) $6,471 • State Share $122,942 As I stated, we will spend the monies for the routes and then apply for reimbursement from VDRPT. Our Finance Dept. feels that we should only make one billing at the end of the demonstration period of one year. This would be for the local match of the grant. Please remember that the fare for this service is to be set by the County and that the total fares collected will affect the local share of participation. We look forward to this partnership in this worthy endeavor. Our hopes are that this service will gain acceptance in the community and make it a cost effective mode of transportation for all parties involved. If we can provide any further information, please feel free to contact Renee or myself. Sincerely, Gary A. L fton Public `JVor'ris Director Pc: Ed Daley, City Manager Providing quality services to our citizens in a cost-effective, efficient and courteous manner, while anticipating the future needs of our community (1m j-e- Ex(rrpd MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FOR CITY OF WINCHESTER TRANSIT EXTENSION IN TO FREDERICK COUNTY - APPROVED Administrator Riley advised that this proposed memorandum of agreement would create two fixed transit routes designed to travel into Frederick County. The total cost of the program is estimated at $132,746. Estimated revenues decrease the total cost to $129,413. Of this amount, $122,942 would be paid by a grant, with the County share estimated at $6,741. The City will act as the fiscal agent for this project. Winchester Transit Authority Director Gary Lofton appeared before the Board regarding this item He advised that the Authority was looking at leasing rather than purchasing buses for these routes. Planning Director Eric Lawrence reviewed the proposed routes and advised that they were trying to capture retail, industrial, and housing centers in them. Supervisor Forrester asked if Senseny Road was included in the proposed routes. Director Lawrence responded that he believed the buses would be picking up in that area. Supervisor Ewing asked how the parties could get out of this agreement, if the arrangement did not work out. Mr. Lofton responded that the grant could be stopped at anytime, but the buses would be leased for one year. Administrator Riley suggested inserting standard boilerplate language, which would permit the agreement to be terminated with 90 days notice prior to the end of the fiscal year in the event the project was not working out. He further advised that the Board also needs to set the rate 'lur bus fare. Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Vice Chairman Van Osten, the Board approved the memorandum of agreement, as amended, and also appropriated $6,471.00 from operational contingencies to cover the County share. THIS AGREEMENT is executed in duplicate as of this 271 day of October., 2004, by and between the County of Frederick (hereinafter referred to as "Frederick County") and the City of Winchester (hereinafter referred to as "Winchester"), the two jurisdictions being hereafter collectively referred to as "Participating Jurisdictions". WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (hereinafter referred to as "VDRPT") has approved a grant for monies to provide public transportation to residents of Frederick County, Virginia. Two fixed routes designed to travel into Frederick County and link into the fixed route system in Winchester, with hours of operation Monday thru Friday, 6:00 am. to 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m; and WBEREAS, the Participating Jurisdictions desire to facilitate this project and are committed to and have mutually agreed to work together to achieve this extended transit service into Frederick County, and WHEREAS, once all grant funding for said project has expired, the City will incorporate this project into its operating budget. NOW, THEREFORE, that for and in consideration of the mutual undertakings of the parties to this Agreement, the Participating Jurisdictions hereby covenant and agree with each other as follows: JOINT PARTICIPATION. The Participating Jurisdictions agree to participate in the extended transit service into Frederick County, said routes of service depicted on the attached exhibit ("Exhibit A"). 2. DURATION. The duration of said project shall be July 1, 2004 and expire on June 30, 2006. Once all grant funding has expired, the City will incorporate this project into its operating budget. 3. DIVISION OF PROJECT COSTS, The estimated project cost for the transit extension into Frederick County is $132,746, less estimated revenues of $3,333, at a total estimated expense of $129,413. For each fiscal year, costs for implementation of transit extension shall be divided and paid by the following: a. State share of the project costs: $122,942 or 95% of the estimated project costs to be paid by VDRPT. b. Local Share of Project Costs: $6,471 or 5% of the estimated project costs to be paid by Frederick County. Further, Frederick County agrees to be responsible for 100% of any additional costs and/or expenditures incurred over and above the estimated project costs. C. Reimbursement: The City shall provide the funding for the extension and apply for reimbursement from VDRPT and Frederick County for the aforementioned shares. 4. FISCAL YEAR. The fiscal year for purposes of this project shall be from July 1 through June 30. 5. SEVERABILITY. If any part or parts, section or subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this agreement is for any reason declared to be unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this agreement. 6. COMPLETENESS OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement constitutes the entire- agreement ntireagreement between the parties hereto, and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either oral or written. 7. AMENDMENT. This Agreement may be amended upon mutual agreement of the Participating Jurisdictions by a written amendment or modification hereto. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye Upon a motion by Supervisor Tyler, seconded by Vice Chairman Van Osten, the Board set the bus fare for County routes at 5.50. The above motion was approved by the following recorded vote: Richard C. Shickle Aye Barbara E. Van Osten Aye Gary W. Dove Aye Bill M. Ewing Aye Gene E. Fisher Aye Gina A. Forrester Aye Lynda J. Tyler Aye r-- WINCHESTER TjrAwSMRTA7YON DEPAR NEHT rL. F `� Al To: John Riley, Frederick County Administrator From: Gary A. Lofton, Director of Transportation J CC: Ed Daley, City Manager) : 200 ° Date: January 10, 2006 t y Re: Status of Winchester Transit Extended Routes in Frederick County Winchester Transit is currently operating two routes into the county under a demonstration project grant with VDRPT. The grant's components are as follows: Total approved grant project budget: $129,413 Federal/State funding $122,942 Local Match $ 6,471 As of Nov. 2005 the project has expended $81,155, leaving a working balance for the remainder of FY06 of $48,258. Estimating that monthly expenditures stay fairly stable, it appears that the grant funding will be exhausted in May 2006. At that time the County would be required to fund the operational cost for the remainder of the fiscal year or approximately $7,500. As with any fixed route service, Federal Transit Authority guidelines call for providing complimentary paratransit service. Since this is a demonstration grant and no funding was received for the paratransit service, none has been offered to this point. However, when the grant has been exhausted, this service will have to be offered. Based upon the City's costs for such service, I am estimating that the County s funding for the service will be approximately $7,000 per month for one van, two drivers and associated operating expenses. For FY 07, 1 do not have a clear picture of what costs may have to be incurred by the County. We applied for another demonstration grant in FY05 to expand the service to the County which included two additional routes and paratransit service. We were not successful in obtaining funding, but we have been encouraged, and will do so, to reapply for this grant in the FY07 budget process. If we are successful, then the County's share of the program would amount to approximately $28,000. If we do not succeed in obtaining the funding then the County would need to give us direction on how or if, they wish us to proceed with any extension of service. For continuation of the existing service into the County the expenses related to that operation Will be incorporated into our current operating budget, as per the Grant's provision. Our funding formula includes approximately 50% of operating expense reimbursement from FTA, approximately 80% of administrative costs reimbursed by VDRPT and the balance provided by General Fund appropriation by the City, which roughly translates to 20% of total operating costs. Utilizing this funding formula and the operational costs for the existing County routes plus the projected paratransit operating expenses, I estimate that the County's prorated portion of it's transit service will be approximately $58.000 Let me emphasize that this is a very tentative figure as our final formula assistance will be based on what VDRPT has been allocated in funds to distribute to the various transit properties and what they determine each property will receive. My contacts at VDRPT can not give me any assurances that even with increased activity in our system that we will still receive an equal amount of offsetting revenue from them. I hope that this adequately addresses the issues of transit services to Frederick County and if I can provide any further information, please fee free to contact me. • Page 2 T r. - , 1 LI f; is a �:li.'�a3? Lwww, nzd VEFARMBff T o a MCP V v v �\Sz f,ZSZ�V� TO: .John Riley, Trevleick wunty rrcimii isu acvr From: Gary A. Lofton, Director of Transportation CC: Ed Daley, City Manager Date: March 8, 2006 Re: Status of Winchester Transit Extended Routes in Frederick County In December, 2004, Winchester Transit began operating two routes into the county under a demonstration project grant with Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit. The grant's components were as follows: Total approved grant project budget: $129,413 Federal/State funding $122,942 Local Match (5%) $ 6,471 Working with County staff, we developed routes providing service to two major urbanized areas in the county. The area to the south follows Valley Pike from the south corporate limits of Winchester, through Stephens City to Lord Fairfax Community College. We had gotten many requests over the years to service LFCC, so this was felt to be an important destination. We have since altered the route to include a portion of the Town of Middletown. The south route also serves the Fredericktowne and Lakeside Estates subdivisions as well as the Department of Motor Vehicles. The other area selected for service was to the east of Winchester. This route takes in the Virginia Employment Commission and then proceeds into Senseny Road, Greenwood Road and Rte 7 (Regency Lakes and Dowell J. Howard). As anticipated, ridership started out slowly, but has continued to rise as more citizens become aware of the service. Attached are reports showing various ridership data for the county routes for calendar year 2005. As you can see, ridership on the southern route is much heavier than that of the eastern route. Part of that can be at4rihi rtcxl to the LFCC students utilizing the transit service to attend classes. If this service is continued, we will be looking for ways to reduce the overall times of the routes. At this time each loop takes approximately 1 '/ hours, which we believe is a little above the maximum desirable time for anyone needing transportation to and from a destination. As the FY06 fiscal year began, $94,300 was left of the original demonstration grant funding. As of January 31, 2006 the project has expended $57,351, leaving a working balance for the remainder of FY06 of $36,769. Estimating that monthly expenditures (January 06 was $8869.45) stay fairly stable, it appears that -the grant funding will be exhausted in late May or early June, 2006. At that time the County would be required to fund the operational cost for the remainder of the fiscal year or approximately $7,500. As with any fixed route service, Federal Transit Authority guidelines fAll for providing complimentary paratransii service. Since this was a demonstration grant and no funding was received for the paratransk service, none has been offered to this point. However, when the grant has been exhausted, this service will have to be offered. Based upon the Citys costs - , s- - 0 for such service, I am estimating that the County s funding for the service will be approximately $8,000� per month for one van, two drivers and associated operating expenses. _ We applied for another demonstration grant in FY05 to expand the service to the County which included two additional routes (one to the Clearbrook area, one to the west) and paratransit service. We were not successful in obtaining funding, but we have reapplied for this grant in the FY07 budget process. Conversations with VDRPT indicate that we will receive approximately half of our request This will likely create routes similar to the other county routes, i.e. long, single bus routes. For FY 07, t do not have a dear picture of what costs may have to be incurred by the County. Continuation of the existing service into the County and the expenses related to that operation has been incorporated into FYOTs proposed operating budget, as per the Grant's provision. Our funding fomnula includes approximately 30% of operating expense reimbursement from FTA, approximately 74% of administrafive/FTM costs reimbursed by VDRPT and the balance provided by General Fund appropriation of the respective local governing body, which roughly translates to 63% of total operating costs. Utilizing this funding formula and the operational costs for the existing County routes plus the projected paratransit operating expenses, I estimate that the Counts prorated portion of its transit service will be approximately 133 This is an inflated figure in this fiscal year for one basic reason. Even with the 40% increase in the total Winchester Transit budget, Federal assistance only increased 12%. Thus, Frederick County's share is not proportionate to the total transit system budget, because Winchester's basis had to be help harmless. In�thefwords, Winchester � � + e t� + �hSirii�P the addition of tba Qmjnty�t�s• Let me emphasize that this is a tentative figure as our final formula assistance will be based on what VDRPT has been allocated in funds to distribute to the various transit properties and what they determine each property will receive. My contacts at VDRPT can not give me any assurances that even with increased activity in our system that we will still receive an equal amount of offsetting revenue from them. Also, if the service is continued, there wil( be a capital component in the cost of service. Presently the demonstration grant service is being accomplished with a leased vehicle. The cost of that lease is $1,000 per month. Several capital purchases will be required with continuation of the service, a replacement bus of the same size (25) passenger and a paratransit van. Assuming that funding percentages from FTA and VDRPT remain constant, the County would be responsible for 10% of the estimated cost or approximately $1_ 1_,000 (bus - $65,000, van - $45,000). One other item that should be discussed is the fare for riding the bus. Currently, the fare stands at" per trip. This fare is expected to generate approximately $5,200 in FY07. This fare is applied toward the cost of operation in the funding formula. The County may want to consider an increase in the fare to help offset more of the costs of operation. The service delivery can be altered to reduce costs by reducing hours and areas served if the County desires to do so. The service can be molded to reflect the desires of the County and the customers it serves and Winchester Transit stands ready to discuss any and all options with you to define our service delivery in Frederick County. ff I can provide any further information, please fee free to contact me. • Page 2 Winchester Transportation Department TRANSIT RIDERSHIP COUNT BY ROUTE Printed Date: 3/7/2006 Page: Selection Criteria:{routes.ID} = S/R Grand Totals -------- -- —? 2,623 2,370 59 194 0 1e-7 1/1/2005 1/1/2005 1/1/2006 Transit Routes 12/31/2005 1/31/2005 1/31/2006 Transit Fare DW # Riders # Riders # Riders # Riders Group-SENSENY ROAD/5225 CASH -ADULTS 2,370 59 191 0 TICKETS -ADULT 0 0 3 0 Subtotal Group -SENSENY ROAD/522S 2,37059 194 0 Grand Totals -------- -- —? 2,623 2,370 59 194 0 1e-7 Winchester Transportation Department TRANSIT RIDERSHIP COUNT BY ROUTE Printed Date: 3/7/2006 Page: Selection Criteria, frouteS.ID) = SC Grand Totals ---> 3,803 3,291 79 1 433 0 171!2005 1/1/2005 1/1/2006 Transit Routes 12/31/2005 1/31/2005 1131/2006 Transit Fare T e # Rid€rs # Riders # aiders # ceders Group-STEPHENS CITY/LFCC CASH-ADULTS 3,2 79 403 0 TICKETS -ADULT 16 1 0 30 0 Subtotal Grou-STEPHENS CITY/LFCC 1 3,291 79 433 0 Grand Totals ---> 3,803 3,291 79 1 433 0 CITY OF WINCHESTER - FREDERICK COUNTY STATE AID FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 MAXIMUM ELIGIBILITY CALCULATION TOTAL ELIGIBLE FUELS, TIRES AND MAINTENANCE $ 28,000.00 TOTAL ELIGIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES $ 26,600.00 TOTAL ELIGIBLE RIDESHARING EXPENSES $ - TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPERIMENTAL EXPENSES $ - OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES $ 156,300.00 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 210,900.00 j TOTAL REVENUE $ 5,200.00 TOTAL FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE $ 32,926.00 TOTAL STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS REQUIRED $ 172,774.00 TOTAL INCOME $ 210,900.00 MAX CATEGORY STATE % STATE $ LOCAL $ TOTAL FTM 95% $ 26,600.00• $ 1,400.00 $ 28,000.00 ADMIN 50% $ 13,300.00 $ 13,300.00 $ 26,600.00 RIDE SHARING 80% EXPERIMENTAL 95% TECHNICAL 80% OTHER OPERATING $ 118,174.00 $ 118,174.00 TOTAL $ 39,900.00 $ 132,874.00 $ 172,774.00 $ 210, 900.00 /d 542-4615-444 FREDERICK CO. PARATRANSIT SERVICE FY07 1101 SALARY REGULAR 55000 1201 OVERTIME 4000 1701 PART-TIME 6000 2110 FICA 5500 2220 VRS-EMPLOYER 6100 2420 INS -EMPLOYER 900 2610 SUTA 2720 WORK COMP 3700 2850 FLEX BENEFITS 50 2851 FLEX - EMPLOYEE 8000 3110 MED-DENT-HOSP 3170 OTHER 3310 REPAR/MAINT 3315 VEH REP/MAINT 3320 OTHER CONTRACT 3325 COMP HARDISOFT 3501 PRINTING 3601 LOCAL MEDIA 3701 LAUNDRY 1600 3810 TUIT PD -OTHER 4203 EQUIP FUND CHARGES 12000 6001 OFFICE SUPPLIES 200 6002 FOOD & FOOD SERV 6005 LAUND & JANITORIAL 6007 REPAIR & MAINT 6008 VEH & EQUP FUELS 6009 VEH & EQUIP SUPPLIES 6011 UNIFORMS & APPAR 6014 OTHER OPERATING TOTAL OPERATING 103050 8105 MOTOR VEH/EQUIP 8139 FACILITIES CONST 8205 MOTOR VEH/EQUIP 8999 DEPRECIATION EXP -av- f3 542-4613 FREDERICK COUNTY SERVICE FY07 1101 SALARY REGULAR 55000 1201 OVERTIME 4000 1701 PART-TIME 6000 2110 FICA 5500 2220 VRS-EMPLOYER 6100 2420 INS -EMPLOYER 900 2610 SUTA 2720 WORK COMP 3700 2850 FLEX BENEFITS 50 2851 FLEX - EMPLOYEE 8000 3110 MED-DENT-HOSP 3170 OTHER 3215 EMPLOYMENT AGENCY 3310 REPARIMAINT 3315 VEH REP/MAINT 3320 OTHER CONTRACT 3325 COMP HARD/SOFT 3501 PRINTING 500 3601 LOCAL MEDIA 500 3701 LAUNDRY 1600 4203 EQUIP FUND CHARGES 16000 _ 6001 OFFICE SUPPLIES 900 TOTAL OPERATING 107850 8105 MOTOR VEH/EQUIP 85000 8139 FACILITIES CONST 8205 MOTOR VEH/EQUIP 8999 DEPRECIATION EXP TOTAL CAPITAL 85000 TOTAL FTM 16000 TOTAL ADMIN 26600 TOTAL OTHER 65250 -a\ Questions Concerning Memo Referencing Winchester Transit Extended Routes in Frederick County (responses provided by Gary Lofton 4/11/2006) Why are serving DMV & VEC important to individuals using public transit? Individuals use transit to get to these destinations because they a) do not have a license or a vehicle or b) have lost their license. Some are using DMV to obtain an ID card for other purposes. We have gotten numerous requests for these destinations over the years. 2. Is it the desire of the Board of Supervisors to provide LFCC students with transit service? Winchester Transit cannot answer this question. 3. Working balance @ 1/31/06 as referenced on first page, should be $36,949, not $36,769 ($94,300-$57,351) Our error. 4. Why aren't the average monthly expenditures for FY 06 calculated on all months instead of just the month of January 06? An average month was used for the calculation for the sake of simplicity. Each month will vary depending on the employees used during that month, i.e. salary of a senior driver as opposed to a newer driver, the price of fuel, repair cost of the bus and other factors. A detailed expenditure report will be provided for your review. 5. What is paratransit service that is referred to on the first page, last paragraph? Does the paratransit deviate from the standard route? If the bus is handicap accessible, why are we required to offer paratransit? The Department of Transportation regulations require that all public entities operating fixed route transit (except for commuter bus/rail or intercity rail) must provide complementary paratransit to persons with disabilities who are unable to use the regular fixed -route system. (49 CFR 37.121 -125) 6. The cost of paratransit service (none has been offered to date) is calculated at $8,000 per month. Please provide detail of calculated cost. A cost breakdown is attached. 7. Is it the desire and direction of the Board of Supervisors to offer paratransit service? This is not an option if regular fixed -route service is offered. Page 1 of 3 i� On page 2, first paragraph, states that conversations with IV1 RPT indicate that we will receive half of our FY 07 budget request. In numbers, what does this equate to in grant funding and required local funding? In trend, what is usually received in funding? This paragraph referred to the second demonstration grant for expansion of routes to the north and west areas of the county. Our original request for this expansion of service was $548,332. VDRPT has indicated that they would only be able to fund one half of this amount. Local funds required are 5% of the grant award. Another twist to this is that $240,000 of the original $548,332 request was for purchase of vehicles for the expansion service. VDRPT has moved that line item out of the Demonstration Grant and into normal Capital Assistance program. Given these actions, Frederick County funding requirements would be: Demonstration grant operation (less bus purchase) $548,332 - $240,000 = $308,332/2 = $154,166*5%=$7708.30 local share Capital Assistance (bus purchase, which includes paratransit van) $240,000 * 10% local match = $24,000. So if Frederick County would receive the grant for expansion of service and purchase of required buses, the total local match would be $31,708.30. If the County decided to lease the buses then we would have to modify the line items of the grant and adjust the service to match the operation portion of the grant funding. Of course that means the $24,000 local match for capital purchase of buses would not be required. 9. On page 2, second full paragraph discusses lots of percentages. Appears that the County's prorated portion of the transit service is $133,000. Please provide detail on how the prorated portion of the $133,000 was calculated. What is included in this prorated portion? A copy of the proposed funding eligibility calculation is attached. 10. In same paragraph .....references 40% increase in total Winchester Transit budget and federal assistance only increasing by 12%. (1) What is the proportionate share of the city transit cost in the proposed FY 07 budget? Winchester Transit base budget (without County routes) $745,650, County budget $210,900. Respectively 78% and 22% of total operating budget. Last years transit operating budget $645,960, which included $42,000+/- of the Frederick County routes (routes did not start until December 2004). Winchester Transit share of FTA funding for FY07 was set at $255,000, with the addition of Frederick County routes, FTA funding was set at $287,000 (12% increase). (2) Does the proportionate city share increase if the county does not participate in the transit routes or program? Given the formula funding above, FTA funding would decrease to $255,000 without the County routes, but that is an assumption on my part at this time. I will address that with VDRPT and get a more definitive answer if possible. Page 2 of 3 /6, But this highlights why Frederick County's local share is disproportionately larger than Winchester's. If FTA were to fund their share in total, then we could expect another $160,000+/- which would decrease costs to both localities. 11. How is the fare charge calculated? What is the estimated total number of riders for FY07 that was used to calculate expected fare? How does the County's $0.50 fare compare to the City's fare? Fare was set at $0.50 by County. Total number of riders estimated for FY07 was 8,000 for the fixed route and 2,400 paratransit riders. Fare for City is same as County. 12. On the Maximum Eligibility Calculation...... What are eligible administration expenses? What is the breakdown of operating expenses of $156,330? Why do budgets at top of maximum eligibility calculation page not reconcile with bottom of page? Administrative costs are supervisory salaries and costs associated with office operation. Currently part of Director's salary, Office Manager's salary and office supplies are included in costs. You will find that the eligibility calculation page does reconcile. What is not apparent is the deduction of revenues, which include fares and FTA funding from the portion that VDRPT funds, or in essence, the local match. We will provide a calculation sheet narrated with the steps in determining the various figures. 15. How does Frederick County's participation impact the City of Winchester's Transit System? Am not clear on what does not add correctly. The first two line items; Fuels, Tires & Maintenance plus Administrative costs and other operating expenses total up to the sum of the operating expenses for providing the transit service. Capital of $85,000 was estimated figure based on our last bus purchase. Further study has found that we can purchase a smaller bus for the county routes and hence the $65,000 figure on the last page of the memo for bus purchase. 14. How does Maximum Eligibility Calculation tie-in to the two budgets? The maximum eligibility is based on the summation of the two budgets. If service is decreased in the fixed route that could impact service on the paratransit and would lower cost in the total budget but also lower the states anticipated participation. 15. How does Frederick County's participation impact the City of Winchester's Transit System? Service to the County does not impact the City. The two are not intertwined or dependent on one another. 16. Why do we have to purchase a replacement bus, is continuing to lease an option? There is not a need to purchase. Lease is an option. The current lease rate is $1,000 per month, whereas the purchase of a bus would be 10% of the purchase cost (if all holds true with the State Legislature). Purchase may be less over the long haul, but if you decide to discontinue service, the County has a bus to dispose of or use in some other capacity. Page 3 of 3 WINCHESTER TRANSIT BUDGET MASTER SHEET COUNTY ROUTES FY07 OPERATING CAPITAL ADMIN FTM Frederick County Fixed Route $ 107,850 $ 85,000 26600 $ 16,000 Frederick County Paratransit $ 103,050 $ 12,000 $ 210,900 $ 85,000 $26,600 $ 68,000.0 Fed share $ 8,500.0 State share $ 8,500.0 Local share capital $ 295,900 Total operating and capital budget proposed $ 28,000 OTHER REVENUE $ 65,250 $ 4,000 $ 91,050 $ 1,200 $ 156,300 $ 5,200 $ 5,200 542-4613 FREDERICK COUNTY SERVICE FY07 1101 SALARY REGULAR 55000 1201 OVERTIME 4000 1701 PART-TIME 6000 2110 FICA 5500 2220 VRS-EMPLOYER 6100 2420 INS -EMPLOYER 900 2610 SUTA 2720 WORK COMP 3700 2850 FLEX BENEFITS 50 2851 FLEX - EMPLOYEE 8000 3110 MED-DENT-HOSP 3170 OTHER 3215 EMPLOYMENT AGENCY 3310 REPAR/MAINT 3315 VEH REP/MAINT 3320 OTHER CONTRACT 3325 COMP HARD/SOFT 3501 PRINTING 500 3601 LOCAL MEDIA 500 3701 LAUNDRY 1600 4203 EQUIP FUND CHARGES 16000 6001 OFFICE SUPPLIES 900 TOTAL OPERATING 107850 8105 MOTOR VEH/EQUIP 85000 8139 FACILITIES CONST 8205 MOTOR VEH/EQUIP 8999 DEPRECIATION EXP TOTAL CAPITAL 85000 TOTAL FTM 16000 TOTAL ADMIN 26600 TOTAL OTHER 65250 542-4615-444 FREDERICK CO 1101 SALARY REGULAR 1201 OVERTIME 1701 PART-TIME 2110 FICA 2220 VRS-EMPLOYER 2420 INS -EMPLOYER 2610 SUTA 2720 WORK COMP 2850 FLEX BENEFITS 2851 FLEX - EMPLOYEE 3110 MED-DENT-HOSP 3170 OTHER 3310 REPAR/MAINT 3315 VEH REP/MAINT 3320 OTHER CONTRACT 3325 COMP HARD/SOFT 3501 PRINTING 3601 LOCAL MEDIA 3701 LAUNDRY 3810 TUIT PD -OTHER PARATRANSIT SERVICE FY07 55000 4000 6000 5500 6100 900 3700 50 8000 1600 4203 EQUIP FUND CHARGES 12000 6001 OFFICE SUPPLIES 200 6002 FOOD & FOOD SERV 6005 LAUND & JANITORIAL 6007 REPAIR & MAINT 6008 VEH & EQUP FUELS 6009 VEH & EQUIP SUPPLIES 6011 UNIFORMS & APPAR 6014 OTHER OPERATING TOTAL OPERATING 103050 8105 MOTOR VEH/EQUIP 8139 FACILITIES CONST 8205 MOTOR VEH/EQUIP 8999 DEPRECIATION EXP a, WINCHESTER TRANSIT REVENUE SHEET FY07 Frederick County Fixed Route $ 4,000 Frederick County Paratransit $ 1,200 5,200 CITY OF WINCHESTER - FREDERICK COUNTY STATE AID FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 MAXIMUM ELIGIBILITY CALCULATION TOTAL ELIGIBLE FUELS, TIRES AND MAINTENANCE $ 28,000.00 TOTAL ELIGIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES $ 26,600.00 TOTAL ELIGIBLE RIDESHARING EXPENSES $ - TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPERIMENTAL EXPENSES $ OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES $ 156,300.00 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 210,900.00 TOTAL REVENUE $ 5,200.00 TOTAL FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE $ 32,926.00 TOTAL STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS REQUIRED $ 172,774.00 TOTAL INCOME $ 210,900.00 MAX CATEGORY STATE % STATE $ LOCAL $ TOTAL FTM 95% $ 26,600.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 28,000.00 ADMIN 50% $ 13,300.00 $ 13,300.00 $ 26,600.00 RIDESHARING 80% EXPERIMENTAL 95% TECHNICAL 80% OTHER OPERATING $ 118,174.00 $ 118,174.00 TOTAL $ 39,900.00 $ 132,874.00 $ 172,774.00 $ 210, 900.00 o2,� AMANTOMW MENr r iP A 7=N DEPAR 6-1897�r7 7 O C n' V To: John Riley, Frederick County Administrator From: Gary A. Lofton, Director of Transportation CC: Ed Daley, City Manager Date: March 8, 2006 Re: Status of Winchester Transit Extended Routes in Frederick County In December, 2004, Winchester Transit began operating two routes into the county under a demonstration project grant with Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transit. The grant's components were as follows: Total approved grant project budget: $129,413 Federal/State funding $122,942 Local Match (5%) $ 6,471 Working with County staff,-. we developed routes providing service to two major urbanized areas in the county. The area to the south follows Valley Pike from the south corporate limits of Winchester, through Stephens City to Lord Fairfax Community College. We had gotten many requests over the years to service LFCC, so this was felt to be an important destination. We have since altered the route to include a portion of the Town of Middletown. The south route also serves the Fredericktowne and Lakeside Estates subdivisions as well as the Department of Motor Vehicles. The other area selected for service was to the east of Winchester. This route takes in the Virginia Employment Commission and then proceeds into Senseny Road, Greenwood Road and Rte 7 (Regency Lakes and Dowell J. Howard). As anticipated, ridership started out slowly, but has continued to rise as more citizens become aware of the service. Attached are reports showing various ridership data for the county routes for calendar year 2005. As you can see, ridership on the southern route is much heavier than that of the eastern route. Part of that can be attributed to the LFCC students utilizing the transit service to attend classes. If this service is continued, we will be looking for ways to reduce the overall times of the routes. At this time each loop takes approximately 1 % hours, which we believe is a little above the maximum desirable time for anyone needing transportation to and from a destination. As the FY06 fiscal year began, $94,300 was left of the original demonstration grant funding. As of January 31, 2006 the project has expended $57,351, leaving a working balance for the remainder of FY06 of $36,769. Estimating that monthly expenditures (January 06 was $8869.45) stay fairly stable, it appears that -the grant funding will be exhausted in late May or early June, 2006. At that time the County would be required to fund the operational cost for the remainder of the fiscal year or approximately $7,500. As with any fixed route service, Federal Transit Authority guidelines call for providing complimentary paratransit service. Since this was a demonstration grant and no funding was received for the paratransit service, none has been offered to this point. However, when the grant has been exhausted, this service will have to be offered. Based upon the Citys costs —is-- for such service, I am estimating that the Gouniys funding for the service vill be- approximately eapproximately $8,000 per month for one van, two drivers and associated operating expenses. _ We applied for another demonstration grant in FY05 to expand the seg vim tU IWLJ LY which included two additional routes (one to the Clearbrook area, one to the west) and paratransit service. We were not successful in obtaining funding, but we have reapplied for this grant in the FY07 budget process. Conversations with VDRPT indicate that we will receive approximately half of our request This will likely create routes similar to the other county routes, i.e. long, single bus routes. For FY 07, 1 do not have a clear picture of what costs may have to be incurred by the County. Continuation of the existing service into the County and the expenses related to that operation has been incorporated into FYOTs proposed operating budget, as per the Grant's provision. Our funding formula includes approximately 30% of operating expense reimbursement from FTA, approximately 74% of administrative/FfM costs reimbursed by VDRPT and the balance provided by General Fund appropriation of the respective local governing body, which roughly translates to 63% of total operating costs. Utilizing this funding formula and the operational costs for the existing County routes plus the projected paratransit operating expenses, I estimate that the Countys prorated portion of ifs transit service will be approximately $133,000. This is an inflated figure in this fiscal year for one basic reason. Even with the 40% increase in the total Winchester Transit budget, Federal assistance only increased 12%. Thus, Frederick Countys share is not proportionate to the total transit system budget, because Winchester's basis had to be help harmless. In other words, Winchester should not pay more to subsidize the addition of the county routes. Let me emphasize that this is a tentative figure as our final formula assistance will be based on what VDRPT has been allocated in funds to distribute to the various transit properties and what they determine each property will receive. My contacts at VDRPT can not give me any assurances that even with increased activity in our system that we will still receive an equal amount of offsetting revenue from them. Also, if the service is continued, there wilt be a capital component in the cost of service. Presently the demonstration grant service is being accomplished with a leased vehicle. The cost of that lease is $1,000 per month. Several capital purchases will be required with continuation of the service, a replacement bus of the same size (25) passenger and a paratransit van. Assuming that funding percentages from FTA and VDRPT remain constant, the County would be responsible for 10% of the estimated cast or approximately $11,000 (bus - $65,000, van - $45,000). One other item that should be discussed is the fare for riding the bus. Currently, the fare stands at $0.50 per trip. This fare is expected to generate approximately $5,200 in FY07. This fare is applied toward the cost of operation in the funding formula. The County may want to consider an increase in the fare to help offset more of the costs of operation. The service delivery can be altered to reduce costs by reducing hours and areas served if the County desires to do so. The service can be molded to reflect the desires of the County and the customers it serves and Winchester Transit stands ready to discuss any and all options with you to define our service delivery in Frederick County. If I can provide any further information, please fee free to contact me. • Page 2 Winchester Transportation Department TRANSIT RIDERSHIP COUNT BY ROUTE Printed Date: 3/7/2006 Page: Selection Criteria:{routes.ID} = S/R Grand Totals > 2,623 2,370 59 194 T 0 �'7 T 1/1/2005 1/1/2005 1/1/2006 Transit Routes i i2r 1MOS 1 1/3li2005 1 1/3112006 Transit Fare e # Riders # Riders # Riders # Riders Group-SENSENY ROAD/522S CASH -ADULTS 2,370 59 191 0 TICKETS -ADULT 0 0 3 0 Subtotal Group -29 SENY ROAD/5225 2,370 59 194 1 0 Grand Totals > 2,623 2,370 59 194 T 0 �'7 T Winchester Transportation Department TRANSIT RIDERSHIP COUNT BY ROUTE Printed Date: 3/7/2006 Page: 1 Selection Criteria:{route3MI = SC 1/1/2005 1/1/2005 1/1/2006 Transit Routes 12/31/2005 1/31/2005 1/31/2006 Transit Fare Type # hiders # Riders # Riders # Riders Group-STEPHENS CTTY/LFCC 3,275 79 403 0 CASH -ADULTS 16 0 34 0 TICKETS -ADULT ^ . ,...,T �.... 3.291 79 433 0 79 1 433 T 0 �2_( CITY OF WINCHESTER - FREDERICK COUNTY STATE AID FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007 MAXIMUM ELIGIBILITY CALCULATION TOTAL ELIGIBLE FUELS, TIRES AND MAINTENANICE $ 28,000.00 TOTAL ELIGIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES $ 26,600.00 TOTAL ELIGIBLE RIDESHARING EXPENSES $ - TOTAL ELIGIBLE EXPERIMENTAL EXPENSES $ - OTHER OPERATING EXPENSES $ 156,300.00 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES $ 210,900.00 TOTAL REVENUE $ 5,200.00 TOTAL FEDERAL OPERATING ASSISTANCE $ 32,926.00 TOTAL STATE AND LOCAL FUNDS REQUIRED $ 172,774.00 TOTAL INCOME $ 210,900.00 MAX CATEGORY STATE % STATE $ LOCAL $ TOTAL FTM 95% $ 26,600.00' $ 1,400.00 $ 28,000.00 ADMIN 50% $ 13,300.00 $ 13,300.00 $ 26,600.00 RIDESHARING 80% EXPERIMENTAL 95% TECHNICAL 80% OTHER OPERATING $ 118,174.00 $ 118,174.00 TOTAL $ 39,900.00 $ 132,874.00 $ 172,774.00 8 210,900.00 542-4615-444 FREDERICK CO. PARATRANSIT SERVICE FY07 1101 SALARY REGULAR 55000 1201 OVERTIME 4000 1701 PART-TIME 6000 2110 FICA 5500 2220 VRS-EMPLOYER 6100 2420 INS -EMPLOYER 900 2610 SUTA 2720 WORK COMP 3700 2850 FLEX BENEFITS 50 2851 FLEX - EMPLOYEE 8000 3110 MED-DENT-HOSP 3170 OTHER 3310 REPAR/MAINT 3315 VEH REPIMAINT 3320 OTHER CONTRACT 3325 COMP HARDISOFT 3501 PRINTING 3601 LOCAL MEDIA 3701 LAUNDRY 1600 3810 TUIT PD -OTHER 4203 EQUIP FUND CHARGES 12000 6001 OFFICE SUPPLIES 200 6002 FOOD & FOOD SERV 6005 LAUND & JANITORIAL 6007 REPAIR & MAINT 6008 VEH & EQUP FUELS 6009 VEH & EQUIP SUPPLIES 6011 UNIFORMS & APPAR 6014 OTHER OPERATING TOTAL OPERATING 103050 8105 MOTOR VEHIEQUIP 8139 FACILITIES CONST 8205 MOTOR VEH/EQUIP 8999 DEPRECIATION EXP -av- 542-4613 FREDERICK COUNTY SERVICE 1101 SALARY REGULAR 1201 OVERTIME 1701 PART-TIME 2110 FICA 2220 VRS-EMPLOYER 2420 INS -EMPLOYER 2610 SUTA 2720 WORK COMP 2850 FLEX BENEFITS 2851 FLEX - EMPLOYEE 3110 MED-DENT-HOSP 3170 OTHER 3215 EMPLOYMENT AGENCY 3310 REPAR/MAINT 3315 VEH REPIMAINT 3320 OTHER CONTRACT 3325 COMP HARD/SOFT 3501 PRINTING 3601 LOCAL MEDIA 3701 LAUNDRY 4203 EQUIP FUND CHARGES 6001 OFFICE SUPPLIES TOTAL OPERATING 8105 MOTOR VEH/EQUIP 8139 FACILITIES CONST 8205 MOTOR VEH/EQUIP 8999 DEPRECIATION EXP TOTAL CAPITAL TOTAL FTM TOTAL ADMIN TOTAL OTHER FY07 55000 4000 6000 5500 6100 900 3700 50 8000 500 500 1600 16000 900 107850 85000 85000 16000 26600 65250 June 2, 2006 Mr. Tom Hoy Environmental Maintenance Director City of Winchester 301 East Cork Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Transit Lines in Frederick County Dear Mr. Hoy: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 I'd like to thank you for the meeting with Supervisor DeHaven and myself on May 26, 2006. 1 know we both agree that an open line of communication between our two localities is the most important component to the future success of transit lines into Frederick County. As we discussed at the meeting, I have assembled a preliminary list of information items we would like you to respond to in order to assist Frederick County in determining funding for transit. Clearly, I don't necessarily expect you will have on hand answers for all of these issues, but if you could just state where you are for each item and what you foresee on that topic, that would be very helpful. The items are as follows: Up to date, detailed (and summary) information on how many riders are getting on and off at each stop. 2. Any observations by drivers on where we may be missing an opportunity based on their own observance, or even what may have been commented on to them by the users. Has the transportation department had communications with current riders, public service agencies, or the Economic Development Commission to determine if there are opportunities to serve individuals that are currently being missed due to routing or schedules? 4. Has the transportation department investigated the possibility of a partnership with LFCC to offset some costs? Many universities have agreements with local transit companies in which students are charged a set amount as part of their fees which goes to the transit system. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 Page 2 Mr. Tom Hoy RE: Transit Lines in Frederick County June 2, 2006 5. Due to the fact that, historically, demonstration grants have funded new service for more than one year, haslcan the city investigate the possibility of transferring the newly awarded grant for the potential Clearbrook route to the existing service? 6. Speaking strictly to the cost of the two routes running into Frederick County from the City of Winchester, what percentage of the operating costs of those routes is being requested for funding by the City, County, Federal, and State? 7. For the coming fiscal year, what percentage of the operating cost of City routes is covered by Federal and State dollars? 8. Based on the Transportation Committee's recommendation of one bus and one Para transit vehicle and total Frederick County contribution of $80,000.00, how might the city recommend we restructure service? Due to the need to come to a timely decision on this issue with the fiscal year upon us, if you could please respond to this communication early enough that I may include the response in the June 15th agenda mailing for the Finance Committee it would be greatly appreciated. As you know, the more information that is available, the easier it is for our County officials to reach a decision on funding. Thank you again for the meeting last Friday and I look forward to working with the City Transit department in the future. Please call meat (540) 665-5651, if you have any questions or to discuss this request. Sincerely, John A. is op Jr. Transportation Planner JAB/dlw ,3/ June 14, 2006 CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA Mr. John A. Bishop, Jr. Transportation Planner County of 1 r�uvri�ii 107 N. Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601-5000 Dear Mr. Bishop: 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-1815 TDD 540-722-0782 FAX 540-722-3618 www.ci.winchester.va.us I enjoyed meeting and talking with you on Friday, May 26, 2006 along with Supervisor Chuck DeHaven, City Finance Director Mary Blowe and Sharon Ormond, Transit Supervisor. Below are our responses to your questions from your letter from June 2, 2006 (copy attached). Please let me know if you need anything else. 1. We do not have any detailed information about how many riders are getting on and off at each stop. We have begun recording data this week. However, Sharon did talk to one of the regular bus drivers last week about which stops are used the most frequently and which stops are not used at all. Below is a list of the information from Sharon. The other stops not listed below are used periodically. Most frequently used stops: Stephen's City/LFCC Ward's Plaza, Best Value Inn, Bo's Express/Budget Motel, DMV, Across from High Point Truck Stop, LFCC, 7-11 in Middletown, Anthony's Pizza, BB&T Bank, Food Lion, McDonald's, Accomack Circle, Chinquapin Dr, Timberlake Terrace, Commonwealth Court in front of Car Quest "Providing quality services to our citizens in a cost-effective, efficient and courteous manner, while anticipating the future needs of our community." 31-1� 522S/Senseny Rd. Ward's plaza, Best Value Inn, Preston Place, VEC, Northwestern Community Services, Gabriel Brothers, Food Lion, Country park plaza, all stops in Regency Lakes, Martin's, Tot Spot, Stops in the park Unused stops: Stephens's City/LFCC Chico's, Appleland Sports Center, Plantation Garden Apartments, Brother's Pizza, Moose Lodge, Arby's 522S/Senseny Rd. Twin Mart, Harrison Ln., Bently Ave, Grindstone Dr., Country Park Drive (all stops in Country Park except the shopping center) 2. Most of the driver's observations about new places to add have already been implemented. One area drivers have suggested we go is Fay Street, near the state barracks on Route 11 before Kernstown. The following are areas we have received customer requests to stop in or add to the route: Forest Lake Estates of off Hudson Hollow Rd (elderly and lower income residents) Horizon Industries across from Sheetz on Route 7 in Winchester (handicap employees), as far as 4th street in Middletown (elderly population in apartments), to pick up at Admiral Byrd and Sherando School and take kids directly to the Mall or movie theater, go out route 50 to the new Wal-Mart, go to the Stonewall business park and Kraft in Stephenson 3. We have spoken with passengers, people in the community that would like to ride the bus, but are not currently served by it, agencies like Access Independence and Horizon Enterprises, and have talked informally with Jim Deskins, who heads the City of Winchester's Economic Development. The general consensus is that the current routes are too infrequent and are not accommodating of people's work schedules. 4. We have spoken with both LFCC and Shenandoah University about the possibility of partnerships. At this time, both schools are supportive of transit and make every effort to P7_01llote it, bat no agreernert has been made to offer financial support. iieneraiiy you find financial support provided by the larger, more urban universities that have a need to control traffic and parking. 5. Jack Apostolides of VDRPT indicates that if the grant is not used to expand and add new service, then it will be used somewhere else. The old grant has utilized all of the funds allocated and the new grant could not be used to supplement the current operation. 6. We do not request a percentage of operating costs, per se. We submit our total operating budget for the current year and for the coming year to VDRPT. They, in turn, decide how much Federal and State dollars are given to each transit property. Ideally, FTA would fund 50% of the operating costs. However, in recent years, this has not been the case. VDRPT has their own �3 funding formula and we are not privy to those numbers. But, to reiterate, we submit 100% of the proposed budget, less anticipated revenue, for funding assistance. 7. For fiscal year 2007, Winchester Transit has submitted a budget of $745, 650. We anticipate $67,400 in fare and advertising revenue. FTA operating assistance is expected to be $255,000 and VDRPT revenue is anticipated to be approximately $159,950 (with no Transportation budget passed, this is highly questionable). Using the anticipated Federal and State assistance, less fare revenue, Winchester would pay approximately 35% of its total operating budget from General Fund sources. 8. The best answer to this would be to sit down and develop, analyze and explore options by all participants. Each scenario could then be assigned an operational cost based on the level of service each provides. We will be happy to sit down with any participants the County would like to have attend. John, I hope the above information helps. If you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 540-667-1815 ext. 1474 or e-mail at tho ci.winchester.va.us. Respectfully Yours, Tom Hoy Acting Director C. Ed Daley, City Manager Mary Blowe, City of Winchester Finance Director Sharon Ormond, Transit Supervisor Gary Lofton, Transit Manager �y MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick County Finance Committee FROM: John A. Bishop, Transportation Planner RE: Transportation Committee Transit Recommendation DATE: June 14, 2006 At the Finance Committee meeting of March 15, 2006 there was a request for $133,000.00 in funding from the Winchester Transit Department to continue operation of the public transit lines into Frederick County for FY 2007. After discussion, that request was sent to the Transportation Committee for recommendation and a number of questions were submitted to Winchester Transit for response. The Transportation Committee discussed the issue at meetings on March 28, April 25, and May 22, 2006. At the May 22, 2006 meeting, the following two motions were passed as recommendations to the Finance Committee: 1. To fund a package of one bus and one paratransit van, not to exceed $80,000.00, for up to two years with a yearly evaluation. 2. Increase fares from current level of $.50 to $1.00. At this time it would be appropriate for the Finance Committee to forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final action. Background Information Following newspaper coverage of the Transportation Committee's May 22, 2006 meeting, staff was contacted by the City to organize a meeting to discuss issues. City staff was eager to hear of any additional concerns or issues that had been brought forth by the committee. Those were discussed and County staff was asked to submit a list of questions to the city listing information needs and requests. That letter and the response submitted by the city is attached to this communication. To summarize some information that has been gathered throughout the process. 1. In January of 2006 the Lord Fairfax route had ridership of 433 and the Senseny Rd. Route had ridership of 194. Winchester transit was asked for more detailed ridership that would give a better idea of how many riders are getting onloff and where by stop, but it was not available (see attached correspondence). U:sjSHOP\TRANSITIMEMO TO FINANCE.DOC 5 2. There is a desire on the part of the committee and Winchester Transit to conduct surveys to determine where opportunities are being missed. This is a staff observance based upon discussion at the Transportation Committee and in the meeting with Winchester Transit staff 3. i �e attached correspondence indicates that the city portion of the system will cost $745,650.00 with approximately 35% or $260,977.50 being paid out of City General Funds. 4. Previous submissions indicate that the County routes, if continued as they currently exist, would cost $210,900.00 to operate for 2007. Based on the budget request submitted of $133.000.00 the County would be paying 63% of the cost to operate the existing service out of general funds. 5. Of the total cost to operate the existing system for FY 2007 (combined city and county routes) of $956,550.00, $562,572.50 or 58.8% is paid by Federal or State grants to the system with the remaining 41.2% budgeted to be covered by Frederick County and the City of Winchester. Grants awarded to the transit system are based on total system costs. However, though Winchester Transit costs increased approximately 40% from FY 2006 to FY 2007, transit assistance in the form of grants has only increased by 12% according to Winchester Transit. Attachments u-\BISHOP\TRANSr71MEMO TO FINANCE.DOC .,3 1 COUNTY of FREDERICK John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 540/665 -5666 - Fax 540/667-0370 E-mail: jri]ey@co.frederick.va.us August 23, 2006 Mr. Edwin C. Daley City Manager City of Winchester 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Ed, As recommended by the Transportation Committee, the Board of Supervisors recently approved to fund a package of one bus and one paratransit van, not to exceed an annual appropriation of $80,000, for up to two years with a yearly evaluation. An increase in fares from $.50 to. $1.00 was also approved. Since the County approved this funding prior to the loss in federal funding for public transit lines, what is the impact on the transit routes? What is the City's plan to offset the loss in federal funding? Thank you for you attention to this matter. Si erely, John R. Riley, Jr. County Administrator 107 North Kent Street e Winchester. Virginia 22601-5000 131 FREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION ROUTE JUNE - 2006 EXPENSES SALARIES BENEFITS EMP. PHYSICAL SIGN INSTALLATION BUS LEASE FUEL TOTAL EXPENSES * Salaries/Benefits for June were for 3 1/2 pay periods. $8,842.55 $2,784.58 $1,000.00 $1,176.41 $13,803.54 ,D CITE.' OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA To: John Bishop Transportation Planner From: TomLIQ Director Date: September 18, 2006 Re: Frederick County Extension Route 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-1815 TDD 540-722-0782 FlUX 540-7/22-36180 www. ci.winchestenva.us Enclosed you will find the FY07 revenue/expense reports for July and August and the FY06 detail budget information for revenue and expenditures for the Frederick County Extension Route. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 667-1815, ext. 1474 C: Ed Daley, City Manager Craig Smith, Assistant to the City Manager Mary Blowe, Finance Director Chuck DeHaven, Transportation Committee Chair, BOS "Providing quality services to our citizens in a cost-effective, efficient and courteous manner, while anticipating the future needs of our community." FREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION ROUTE FY06 DETAIL BUDGET REPORT EXPENSES SALARIES $55,903.59 SALARIES - OVERTIME $2,340.18 SALARIES - PART-TIME $8,633.26 BENEFITS $23,051.34 PRINTING & BINDING $288.68 BUS LEASE $12,000.00 FUEL $11,500.84 TOTAL EXPENSES $113,717.89 REVENUE METER FEES - STEPHENS CITYILFCC $2,199.00 METER FEES - SENSENY ROAD/5225 $1,330.50 GRANT MONIES RECEIVED IN FY06 $20,122 GRANT MONIES TO BE RECEIVED AND CREDITED TO FY06 $62,683 TOTAL REVENUE $86,334.50 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE TO CITY $27,383.39 Vo FREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION ROUTE JULY- 2006 EXPENSES SALARIES* $3,577.87 BENEFITS* $1,496.98 EMP. PHYSICAL SIGN INSTALLATION BUS LEASE $1,000.00 FUEL $1,252.87 TOTAL EXPENSES $7,327.72 REVENUE SENSENY ROAD1522S** $173.45 STEPHENS CITY/LFCC** $200.50 TOTAL REVENUE $373.95 * Salaries/Benefits for July were for 1 1/2 pay periods only. **Total reflects new fares which did not take effect until 7/7/06 4/1 FREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION ROUTE AUGUST 2006 EXPENSES SALARIES $5,073.65 BENEFITS $2,026.45 EMP. PHYSICAL SIGN INSTALLATION BUS LEASE $1,000.00 FUEL $1,493.85 TOTAL EXPENSES $9,593.95 REVENUE SENSENY ROAD/522S $193.00 STEPHENS CITY/LFCC $365.00 TOTAL REVENUE $558.00 -0-- October 30, 2006 Carla Taylor Director of Human Services 33 East Boscawen St. Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Frederick County Transit Lines Dear Mrs. Taylor: B I' , III :; Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 Thank you for your inquiry following the Transportation Committee meeting and your offer to meet. I have discussed the meeting with Chuck DeHaven and we look forward to hearing back from you to finalize the date and time. We do have a request for some information as we head into that meeting. 1. In previous communications from Tom Hoy (FY06 Detail Budget Report), we were informed that the end of fiscal year 06 bill for the County transit lines is $27,383.39. Previous expectations in the County were that the matching funds for that tune period would be $7,500. This is based upon communication received from Mr. Lofton dated January 10, 2006. Copies of both communications are attached. In addition, the FY 06 detail budget report form shows total grant funds of $82,805. We would like a breakdown of those grant funds by source (expansion grant, federal, other state) to give us abetter idea of what assistance comes from where. We also need a description of why the projected cost for the County varied so greatly between the January and June communications. 2. We have received operating reports for June, July, and August. Additionally we would like to receive them for September and October. For all months this fiscal year, July -October, we need an additional level of detail that breaks down the service costs and revenues between fixed route transit and paratransit. 3. In communication dated June 2, 2006 (copy enclosed), we requested that detailed and summary ridership counts by stop (how many getting on and off) be provided. Mr. Hoy's response dated June 14, 2006 (copy enclosed) assured us that this data was previously not gathered, but would begin to be gathered the week of his writing. We would like to see this infonnation. 4. Based upon existing service levels, approximately what date will the $80,000 budgeted by the County keep the bus service operating until? We are also still interested to know how much federal and state grant funds are being applied to the county service. Please call me at (540) 665-5651, if you have any questions or to discuss this request. Sincerely, John A. Bishop _ �--- -----J Transportation Plamier cc: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Stonewall District Supervisor JAB/bad 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 C13 W NCHESTER 7 aWMORM7ION DEPAR7MEN T To: John Riley, Frederick County Administrator From: Gary A. Lofton, Director of Transportation CC: Ed Daley, City Manager Date: January 10, 2006 Re: Status of Winchester Transit Extended Routes in Frederick County Winchester Transit is currently operating two routes into the county under a demonstration project grant with VDRPT. The grant's components are as follows: Total approved grant project budget: $129,413 Federal/State funding $122,942 Local Match $ 6,471 As of Nov. 2005 the project has expended $81,155, leaving a working balance for the remainder of FY06 of $48,258. Estimating that monthly expenditures stay fairly stable, it appears that the grant funding will be exhausted in May 2006. At that time the County would be required to fund the operational cost for the remainder of the fiscal year or approximately $7,500. As with any fixed route service, Federal Transit Authority guidelines call for providing complimentary paratransit service. Since this is a demonstration grant and no funding was received for the paratransit service, none has been offered to this point However, when the grant has been exhausted, this service will have to be offered. Based upon the City s costs for such service, I am estimating that the County's funding for the service will be approximately $7,000 per month for one van, two drivers and associated operating expenses. For FY 07, 1 do not have a clear picture of what costs may have to be incurred by the County. We applied for another demonstration grant in FY05 to expand the service to the County which included two additional routes and paratransit service. We were not successful in obtaining funding, but we have been encouraged, and will do so, to reapply for this grant in the FY07 budget process. If we are successful, then the County's share of the program would amount to approximately $28,000. If we do not succeed in obtaining the funding then the County would need to give us direction on how or if, they wish us to proceed with any extension of service. For continuation of the existing service into the County the expenses related to that operation will be incorporated into our current operating budget, as per the Grant's provision. Our funding formula includes approximately 50% of operating expense reimbursement from FTA, approximately 80% of administrative costs reimbursed by VDRPT and the balance provided by General Fund appropriation by the City, which roughly translates to 20% of total: operating costs. Utilizing this funding formula and the operational costs for the existing County routes plus the projected paratransit operating expenses, I estimate that the County's prorated portion of it's transit service will be approximately $58,00 Let me emphasize that this is a very tentative figure as our final formula assistance will be based on what VDRPT has been Zo A. C�i.IFi E if A,� 12!i%j� it h Lbv,7tv ; G370 e' F, / Winchester Transit is currently operating two routes into the county under a demonstration project grant with VDRPT. The grant's components are as follows: Total approved grant project budget: $129,413 Federal/State funding $122,942 Local Match $ 6,471 As of Nov. 2005 the project has expended $81,155, leaving a working balance for the remainder of FY06 of $48,258. Estimating that monthly expenditures stay fairly stable, it appears that the grant funding will be exhausted in May 2006. At that time the County would be required to fund the operational cost for the remainder of the fiscal year or approximately $7,500. As with any fixed route service, Federal Transit Authority guidelines call for providing complimentary paratransit service. Since this is a demonstration grant and no funding was received for the paratransit service, none has been offered to this point However, when the grant has been exhausted, this service will have to be offered. Based upon the City s costs for such service, I am estimating that the County's funding for the service will be approximately $7,000 per month for one van, two drivers and associated operating expenses. For FY 07, 1 do not have a clear picture of what costs may have to be incurred by the County. We applied for another demonstration grant in FY05 to expand the service to the County which included two additional routes and paratransit service. We were not successful in obtaining funding, but we have been encouraged, and will do so, to reapply for this grant in the FY07 budget process. If we are successful, then the County's share of the program would amount to approximately $28,000. If we do not succeed in obtaining the funding then the County would need to give us direction on how or if, they wish us to proceed with any extension of service. For continuation of the existing service into the County the expenses related to that operation will be incorporated into our current operating budget, as per the Grant's provision. Our funding formula includes approximately 50% of operating expense reimbursement from FTA, approximately 80% of administrative costs reimbursed by VDRPT and the balance provided by General Fund appropriation by the City, which roughly translates to 20% of total: operating costs. Utilizing this funding formula and the operational costs for the existing County routes plus the projected paratransit operating expenses, I estimate that the County's prorated portion of it's transit service will be approximately $58,00 Let me emphasize that this is a very tentative figure as our final formula assistance will be based on what VDRPT has been allocated in furids to distribute to the various transit properties and what they determine each property will receive. My contacts at VDRPT can not give me any assurances that even with increased activity in our system that we will still receive an equal amount of offsetting revenue from them. I hope that this adequately addresses the issues of transit services to Frederick County and if can provide any further information, please fee free to contact me. • Page 2 r._ els- CITY OF 'VVLNGRESTER, VIRGINLA- To: John Bishop Transportation Planner From: Tom Hf Director Date: September 18, 2006 Re: Frederick County Extension Route 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-1815 TDD 540-722-0782 rAx 54t 14. J www.ci.wincbester.va.us Enclosed you will find the FY07 revenue/expense reports for July and August and the FY06 detail budget information for revenue and expenditures for the Frederick County Extension Route. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 667-1815, ext. 1474. C: Ed Daley, City Manager Craig Smith, Assistant to the City Manager Mary Blowe, Finance Director Chuck DeHaven, Transportation Committee Chair, BOS "Providing quality services to our citizens in a cost-effective, efficient and courteous manner, while anticipating the future needs of our community." /6- FREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION ROUTE FY06 DETAIL BUDGET REPORT EXPENSES SALARIES SALARIES - OVERTIME SALARIES - PART-TIME BENEFITS PRINTING & BINDING BUS LEASE FUEL TOTAL EXPENSES REVENUE $55,903.59 $2,340.18 $8,633.26 $23,051.34 $288.68 $12,000.00 $11,500.84 $113,717.89 METER FEES - STEPHENS CITY/LFCC METER FEES - SENSENY ROAD/522S GRANT MONIES RECEIVED IN FY06 GRANT MONIES TO BE RECEIVED AND CREDITED TO FY06 TOTAL REVENUE TOTAL AMOUNT DUE TO CITY $27,383.39 $2,199.00 $1,330.50 $20,122 $62,683 $86,334.50 V? FREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION ROUTE JULY - 2006 EXPENSES SALARIES* $3,577.87 BENEFITS* $1,496.98 EMP. PHYSICAL SIGN INSTALLATION BUS LEASE $1,000.00 FUEL $1,252.87 TOTAL EXPENSES $7,327.72 REVENUE SENSENY ROAD/522S** $173.45 STEPHENS CITYILFCC** $200.50 TOTAL REVENUE $373.95 * Salaries/Benefits for July were for 1 1/2 pay periods only. **Total reflects new fares which did not take effect until 7/7106 (p FREDERICK COUNTY EXTENSION ROUTE AUGUST 2006 EXPENSES SALARIES $5,073.65 BENEFITS $2,026.45 EMP. PHYSICAL SIGN INSTALLATION BUS LEASE $1,000.00 FUEL $1,493.85 TOTAL EXPENSES $9,593.95 REVENUE SENSENY ROAD1522S $193.00 STEPHENS CITY/LFCC $365.00 TOTAL REVENUE $558.00 C�� June 2, 2006 Mr. Tom Hoy Environmental Maintenance Director City of Winchester 301 East Cork Street Winchester, VA 22601 RE: Transit Lines in Frederick County Dear Mr. Hoy: COUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 540/665-5651 FAX: 540/665-6395 I'd like to thank you for the meeting with Supervisor DeHaven and myself on May 26, 2006. I know we both agree that an open line of communication between our two localities is the most important component to the future success of transit lines into Frederick County. As we discussed at the meeting, I have assembled a preliminary list of information items we would like you to respond to in order to assist Frederick County in determining funding for transit. Clearly, I don't necessarily expect you will have on hand answers for all of these issues, but if you could just state where you are for each item and what you foresee on that topic, that would be very helpful. The items are as follows: 1. Up to date, detailed (and summary) information on how many riders are getting on and off at each stop. 2. Any observations by drivers on where we may be missing an opportunity based on their own observance, or even what may have been commented on to them by the users. 3. Has the transportation department had communications with current riders, public service agencies, or the Economic Development Commission to determine if there are opportunities to serve individuals that are currently being missed due to routing or schedules? 4. Has the transportation department investigated the possibility of a partnership with LFCC to offset some costs? Many universities have agreements with local transit companies in which students are charged a set amount as part of their fees which goes to the transit system. 107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000 a� �Page 2 ` Mr. Tom Hoy RE: Transit Lines in Frederick County June 2, 2006 5. Due to the fact that, historically, demonstration grants have funded new service for more than one year, has\can the city investigate the possibility of transferring the newly awarded grant for the potential Clearbrook route to the existing service? 6 Speaking strictly to the cost of the two routes running into Frederick County from the City of Winchester, what percentage of the operating costs of those routes is being requested for funding by the City, County, Federal, and State? 7. For the coming fiscal year, what percentage of the operating cost of City routes is covered by Federal and State dollars? g Based on the Transportation Committee's recommendation of one bus and one Para transit vehicle and total Frederick County contribution of $80,000.00, how might the city recommend we restructure service? Due to the need to come to a timely decision on this issue with the fiscal year upon us, if you could please respond to this communication early enough that I may include the response in the June 15th agenda mailing for the Finance Committee it would be greatly appreciated. As you know, the more information that is available, the easier it is for our County officials to reach a decision on funding. Thank you again for the meeting last Friday and I look forward to working with the City Transit department in the future. Please call me at (540) 665-5651, if you have any questions or to discuss this request. �l June 14, 2006 CITY OF WINCHESTER, VIRGINIA Mr. John A. Bishop, Jr. Transportation Planner + �.iiuii�y of, s 1 rc..u..iiv � 107 N. Kent Street Suite 202 Winchester, VA 22601-5000 Dear Mr. Bishop: 15 North Cameron Street Winchester, VA 22601 540-667-1815 TDD 540-722-0782 FAX 540-722-3618 www.ciminchestenva.us winchestenva.us I enjoyed meeting and talking with you on Friday, May 26, 2006 along with Supervisor Chuck DeHaven, City Finance Director Mary Blowe and Sharon Ormond, Transit Supervisor. Below are our responses to your questions from your letter from June 2, 2006 (copy attached). Please let me know if you need anything else. 1. We do not have any detailed information about how many riders are getting on and off at each stop. We have begun recording data this week. However, Sharon did talk to one of the regular bus drivers last week about which stops are used the most frequently and which stops are not used at all. Below is a list of the information from Sharon. The other stops not listed below are used periodically. Most frequently used stops: Stephen's City/LFCC Ward's Plaza, Best Value Inn., Bo's Express/Budget Motel, DMV, Across from High Point Truck Stop, LFCC, 7-11 in Middletown, Anthony's Pizza, BB&T Bank, Food Lion, McDonald's, Accomack Circle, Chinquapin Dr, Timberlake Terrace, Commonwealth Court in front of Car Quest "Providing quality services to our citizens in a cost-effective, efficient and courteous manner, while anticipating the future needs of our community. " S� a r' 5225/Senseny Rd. Ward's plaza, Best Value Inn, Preston Place, VEC, Northwestern Community Services, Gabriel Brothers, Food Lion, Country park plaza, all stops in Regency Lakes, Martin's, Tot Spot, Stops in the park Unused stops: Stephen's City/LFCC Chico's, Appleland Sports Center, Plantation Garden Apartments, Brother's Pizza, Moose Lodge, Arby's 5225/Senseny Rd. Twin Mart, Harrison Ln., Bently Ave, Grindstone Dr., Country Park Drive (all stops in Country Park except the shopping center) 2. Most of the driver's observations about new places to add have already been implemented. One area drivers have suggested we go is Fay Street, near the state barracks on Route 11 before Kemstown. The following are areas we have received customer requests to stop in or add to the route: Forest Lake Estates of off Hudson Hollow Rd (elderly and lower income residents) Horizon Industries across from Sheetz on Route 7 in Winchester (handicap employees), as far as 4L' street in Middletown (elderly population in apartments), to pick up at Admiral Byrd and Sherando School and take kids directly to the Mall or movie theater, go out route 50 to the new Wal-Mart, go to the Stonewall business park and Kraft in Stephenson 3. We have spoken with passengers, people in the community that would like to ride the bus, but are not currently served by it, agencies like Access Independence and Horizon Enterprises, and have talked informally with Jim Deskins, who heads the City of Winchester's Economic Development. The general consensus is that the current routes are too infrequent and are not accommodating of people's work schedules. 4. We have spoken with both LFCC and Shenandoah University about the possibility of partnerships. At this time, both schools are supportive of transit and make every effort to promote it, but no agr.:ernent has been made to offer financial support. :eneraliy you find financial support provided by the larger, more urban universities that have a need to control traffic and parking. 5. Jack Apostolides of VDRPT indicates that if the grant is not used to expand and add new service, then it will be used somewhere else. The old grant has utilized all of the funds allocated and the new grant could not be used to supplement the current operation. 6. We do not request a percentage of operating costs, per se. We submit our total operating budget for the current year and for the coming year to VDRPT. They, in turn, decide how much Federal and State dollars are given to each transit property. Ideally, FTA would fund 50% of the operating costs. However, in recent years, this has not been the case. VDRPT has their own S-3 1 funding formula and we are not privy to those numbers. But, to reiterate, we submit 100% of the proposed budget, less anticipated revenue, for funding assistance. 7. For fiscal year 2007, Winchester Transit has submitted a budget of $745, 650. We anticipate $67,400 in fare and advertising revenue. FTA operating assistance is expected to be $255,000 and VDRPT revenue is anticipated to be approximately $159,950 (with no Transportation budget passed, this is highly questionable). Using the anticipated Federal and State assistance, less fare revenue, Winchester would pay approximately 35% of its total operating budget from General Fund sources. 8. The best answer to this would be to sit down and develop, analyze and explore options by all participants. Each scenario could then be assigned an operational cost based on the level of service each provides. We will be happy to sit down with any participants the County would like to have attend. John, I hope the above information helps. If you have further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 540-667-1815 ext. 1474 or e-mail at thou@ci winchester.va.us. Respectfully Yours, Tom Hoy Acting Director C. Ed Daley, City Manager Mary Blowe, City of Winchester Finance Director Sharon Ormond, Transit Supervisor Gary Lofton, Transit Manager S- j FY08 Draft Budget for proposed LFCC Route 7:30 a.m. -10:30 a.m., 11:30-12:30, and 2:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.; no Saturdays Fixed Route -1 FT Driver Fixed Route- 2 PT Drivers Salaries -1 FT Driver $27,501 Overtime Benefits $13,650 $12,600 PT Salaries (Vacations) $1,500 Insurance Overtime $2,500 $500 Fuel .$12,600 Maintenance $9,000 Insurance $800 Printing $500 Possible New Bus $7,000 (not added in fixed -route total) Total Fixed -Route Expenses $68,051 Paratransit Expenditures Salaries - 1 FT Driver $27,501 Benefits $13,650 PT Salaries (Vacations) $1,500 Overtime $2,500 Fuel $14,500 Maintenance $9,000 Insurance $700 Total Paratansit Expenses $69,351 Estimated Revenue $3,000 Grand Total $134,402 j I-� 6 �"&) , ,,/ - __..--- ._-.-.._�__, Total Fixed -Route Expenses* Paratransit Expenditures PT Salaries Fixed Route- 2 PT Drivers PT Salaries $23,075 Overtime $2,500 Fuel $12,600 Maintenance $9,000 Insurance $800 Printing $500 Total Fixed -Route Expenses* Paratransit Expenditures PT Salaries $23,075 Overtime $2,500 Fuel $14,500 Maintenance $9,000 Insurance $800 $48,475 Total Paratransit Expenses $49,875 Estimated Revenue $3,000 Grand Total $95,350 FY07 Budget for Current Routes and Times (adding Para -transit Route) Fixed Route Expenditures (full year) Salaries - 2FT Drivers $56,000 Benefits $23,000 PT Salaries (Vacations) $2,600 Overtime $2,500 Fuel $13,000 Maintenance $10,000 Insurance $700 Printing $405 Total Fixed Route Expenses $108,205 Paratransit Expenditures (service starting Nov. 1, 2006) Salaries - 2FT Drivers Benefits PT Salaries (Vacations) Overtime Fuel Maintenance New bus Total Paratransit Expenses Estimated Revenue Grand Total NOTE: This does not include overhead expenses $44,802 $17,025 $2,600 $2,500 $10,000 $4,000 $4,087 $85,014 i(y$4,000 $189,219 -F-,11 y4c2ar��- )'�(��( From:WINO. SOCIAL SERVICES 15406623279 11/09/2006 17:06 ,#265 P.001/001 33 East Boscawen Street Winchester Department Winchester, VA 22601 Phone: (540)662-3807 of • Fax: (540)662-3279 Fax To: �O r) , S ►') 0 From: (—,ar 1 Fax: IS 3 Pages: Phone: ate: Re: , ail Sr, ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle ��tre 1 S t.-Dex Stele �A-k-�- Y 0 - o .-, I`S, &J— u -s klw-w- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This transmission (and/or documents) may contain confidential information belonging to the sender who is intended solely for the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use, disclosure, andlor distribution of the following contents are strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by telephone to arrange for the return of these documents. If there is any problem with this transmission, please call (540) 662-3807. Please forward to the appropriate person. Thank you. From:WINC. SOCIAL SERVICES 15406623279 11/09/2006 17:02 #263 P.002/002 Winchester Transportation Department TRANSIT RIDERSHIP COUNT BY ROUTE Printed Date: 1118/2006 Page: I Selection Criteria{routes.ID} = SC Winchester Transportation Department TRANSIT RIDERSHIP COUNT BY ROUTE Printed Date: 11/8/2006 Page: 1 Selection Criteria{routes.ID} = S/R 7 group -0m rNamlx s 193 216 259 0 CASH -ADULTS 0 0 0 0 CASH ELDERLY 0 0 0 0 CASH -STUDENTS 2 3 21 0 TICKETS -ADULT 0 0 1 0 TICKETS -STUDENT 0 0 0 0 TRANSFERS Subtotal Group-SENSENY ROAD/5225 I45 219 280 D S> NOV 2 9 2006 Mr. John Bishop Transportation Planner Fredrick County Planning Dept. 107 North Kent Street Winchester, VA 22601 Dear Mr. Bishop, I appreciated our meeting on the 9`t', and am completing my response to your questions. I have forwarded, via fax, the trip data you requested. These records show total ridership for the period August, Sept and October as 1,328 on the Stephens City/LFCC route; and 694 on the Senseny Rd. route. I have also explored the apparent discrepancy uct'ween the FY06 Demonstration Grant projected cost estimate submitted to you in January 2006, and the final invoice for services submitted in September. Unfortunately, there are no documents that explain the discrepancy, beyond the obvious point that the projection was only an estimate for purposes of a grant submission. The actual cost of operating the system is what it is. However, because the disparity between estimated and real costs is substantial, I have gotten approval to remove $12,000 in bus lease cost from the amount requested. This amount represents the prorated cost of the vehicles used. This would make the total outstanding balance due the city $15,383.39; still in excess of the estimate, but significantly reduced. I have attached a revised invoice showing this change. As the FY07 budget scenario I provided at our meeting shows, we should begin discussions immediately about the resources needed to continue service and initiate the paratransit requirements. As we discussed in our meeting, do we revise the Demonstration Grant to try a deviated route approach for existing routes? Do we reduce the current routes to a schedule and route that can be provided at the current commitment of $80,000? My calendar indicates that we have a meeting scheduled for November 30th. Please call me at 66203807 if you need to reschedule for any reason. I look forward to speaking with you. Regards, c—� Frederick County Extension Route FY06 Detail Budget Report Revised November 29, 2006 Salaries Salaries -Overtime Salaries- Part-time Benefits Printing & Binding Fuel Total Meter Fees -Stephens City/LFCC Meter Fees-Senseny Road/522S Grant Monies Received in '06 Grant Monies Receivable Total Expenses $55,903.59 $2,340.18 $8,633.26 $23,051.34 $288.68 $11,500.84 $101,717.89 Revenue $2,199.00 $1,330.50 $20,122.00 $62,683.00 $86,334.50 Total Amount Due the City: $15,383.39 NOV 2 9 2006 GC