san miguel authority for regional transportation board of ... · metropolitan areas and states 5311...

San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation

Board of Directors Meeting Agenda

Town Council Chambers, Mountain Village Town Hall

455 Mountain Village Boulevard, 2nd Floor, Mountain Village CO

December 20th, 2018

3 p.m.

Item No.

Presenter Item Type Topic Packet Page

Est. Time

1. - - Public Comment - 5

2. Board Meeting

Resolution

Resolution 2018-33, Part 1a, regarding the Review and Approval of Agenda and Consent Items Resolution 2018-33, Part 1b, regarding the Review and Approval of 11/8/2018 Meeting Minutes

2 5

3. Averill Resolution 2018-34 2019 Appropriations Resolution 7 5

4. Averill Resolution 2018-35 Selection of Consulting firm for Strategic Operating Plan

9 15

5. Averill Resolution 2018-36 2019 Board Meeting dates 62 5

6. Averill Resolution 2018-37 Consent Agenda Policy adoption 63 5

7. Curtis Presentation All Points Transit activities and medical shuttle update

- 15

8. Averill Report Executive Directors Report 66 10

9. Board Report Round Table Updates and Reports - 5

5304 FTA program funding for multimodal transportation planning (jointly administered with FHWA) in

metropolitan areas and States

5311 FTA program funding for rural and small Urban Areas (Non‐Urbanized Areas)

5339 FTA program funding for buses and bus facilities

AAC SMART Administrative Advisory Committee

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

AIS Agenda Item Summary

CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (federal)

CAC SMART Community Advisory Committee

CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (a FHWA funding program)

DBE Disadvantaged Business Enterprise

DOT (United States) Department of Transportation

DTR CDOT Division of Transit & Rail

FAST ACT Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (federal legislation, December 2015

FASTER Funding Advancements for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery (Colorado’s S.B. 09‐108)

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FY Fiscal Year (October – September for federal funds; July to June for state

funds; January to December for local funds)

FFY Federal Fiscal Year

HOV High Occupancy Vehicle

HUTF Highway Users Tax Fund (the State’s primary funding source for highways)

IGA Inter‐Governmental Agreement

ITS Intelligent Transportation Systems

LRP or LRTP Long Range Plan or Long Range Transportation Plan

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAA Non‐Attainment Area (for certain air pollutants)

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

PPP (also P3) Public Private Partnership

R3 or R5 Region 3 or Region 5 of the Colorado Department of Transportation

RPP Regional Priority Program (a funding program of the Colorado Transportation Commission)

RSH Revenue Service Hour

RSM Revenue Service Mile

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

SOV Single Occupant Vehicle

STAC State Transportation Advisory Committee

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

TA (previously TAP) Transportation Alternatives program (a FHWA funding program)

TC Transportation Commission of Colorado

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

Title VI U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination in connection with programs and activities receiving

federal financial assistance

TPR Transportation Planning Region (state‐designated)

TRAC Transit & Rail Advisory Committee (for CDOT)

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

GLOSSARY

Revised 10/26/18

1

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION EVIDENCING ACTIONS TAKEN AT ITS DECEMBER 20TH, 2018 REGULAR MEETING

RESOLUTION NO. 2018-33

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation (“SMART”) was approved by the

registered electors of the Town of Telluride, Town of Mountain Village, and that portion of the SMART

combination that are within that part of the SMART boundaries located within unincorporated San Miguel

County, pursuant to the Colorado Regional Transportation Authority Law, C.R.S. Title 43, Article 4, Part 6, at the

general election held on November 8, 2016; and

WHEREAS, SMART is governed by the Colorado Regional Transportation Authority Law and SMART

Intergovernmental Agreement (“SMART IGA”) conditionally approved by each of the governing bodies of the

Town of Telluride, Town of Mountain Village and San Miguel County pending approval by the registered electors

at the November 8, 2016 general election; and

WHEREAS, the Board held a regular meeting on November 8th, 2018; and

WHEREAS, Section 3.09 of the SMART IGA requires all actions of the Board to be taken by written

resolution; and

WHEREAS, the Board desires to take action on certain items set forth below in accordance with the

SMART IGA

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AS FOLLOWS:

1. At its December 20th, 2018 regular meeting the Board took action on the following:

a. Approval of December 20th, 2018 meeting agenda (Exhibit A)

b. Approval of the Board minutes for the November 8th, 2018 regular meeting (Exhibit B)

ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AT A REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018.

______________________________________

Laila Benitez, Board Chair

ATTEST:

________________________________

David Averill, Executive Director

2


Board of Directors Meeting Agenda

Town Council Chambers, Mountain Village Town Hall

455 Mountain Village Boulevard, 2nd Floor, Mountain Village CO

December 20th, 2018

3 p.m.

Item No.

Presenter Item Type Topic

1. - - Public Comment

2. Board Meeting

Resolution

Resolution 2018-33, Part 1a, regarding the Review and Approval of Agenda and Consent Items

Resolution 2018-33, Part 1b, regarding the Review and Approval of 11/8/2018 Meeting Minutes

3. Averill Resolution 2018-34 2019 Appropriations Resolution

4. Averill Resolution 2018-35 Selection of Consulting firm for SOP

5. Averill Resolution 2018-36 2019 Board Meeting dates

6. Averill Resolution 2018-37 Consent Agenda Policy adoption

7. Curtis Presentation All Points Transit activities and medical shuttle update

8. Averill Report Executive Directors Report

9. Board Report Round Table Updates and Reports

3


Board of Directors Meeting

November 8th, 2018 Meeting Minutes

Mountain Village Town Council Chambers

455 Mountain Village Blvd – 2nd Floor

Member Directors Present: Mountain Village – Chair, Laila Benitez, Dan Caton. Town of Telluride – Todd

Brown, Mayor Sean Murphy (by phone). San Miguel County Commissioners – Kris Holstrom, Joan May,

Staff Present:. David Averill

The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m.

Item 1: Public Comment. None

Item 2: Approval of Meeting Resolution 2018-28, Part 1a regarding the review and approval of the

Meeting Agenda and Consent Items. Approval of 2018-28, Part 1b, regarding the Review and Approval

of October 17th, 2018 Meeting Minutes. Chair Benitez moved to adjust the meeting agenda by moving

the Budget Resolution item (Resolution 2018-31) up in the agenda so that the Board could maintain

quorum for that item.

Kris Holstrom moved to adopt resolution 2018-28, Part 1a and Part 1b, with the modification to Agenda

order.

Dan Caton seconded the motion.

A unanimous vote approved the motion.

Item 3: Resolution 2018-29, Certification of Mill Levy for 2019. David provided background on the

requirement to certify the mill levy for 2019. No discussion.

Dan Caton moved to approve the resolution..

Todd Brown seconded the motion.


Item 4: Resolution 2018-31, Adoption of the FY19 Budget and Capital Plan. David provided background

info on this item. A short discussion followed regarding the salary level for the potential new FTE. The

Board directed David to do some research on comparable positions at staff agencies to ensure that the

salary level was appropriate before making any hire. The budget line item for the Mountain Village

shuttles was also amended to $150,000 vs. the $120,000 that was originally submitted.

Todd Brown moved to approve the resolution.

Dan Caton seconded the motion.


4

Item 5: Resolution 2018-30 IGA extension with Town of Telluride for continued provision of transit

service. David provided background on this item, including a discussion of the Revenue Service Hour rate

increase that the Town will now charge SMART for the provision of Lawson Hill service. Jason White from

the Town also provided background on the rationale for the increased costs.

Todd Brown moved to approve the resolution.

Joan May seconded the motion.


Item 6: Resolution 2018-32 Authorization of ICMA-RC as the SMART retirement plan provider. David

provide background on ICMA-RC, the services it will provide to SMART as its retirement plan provider, and

the anticipated costs to SMART. A short discussion ensued regarding when the plan would be

implemented, and the level of effort it took staff to complete the application for ICMA and associated

tasks.

Dan Caton moved to approve the resolution.

Kris Holstrom seconded the motion.


Item 7: 3rd Quarter Financial Report. David provided an overview of the highlights of 3rd quarter

expenses and revenues. Year to date expenses and revenues were also discussed. No major concerns or

issues were identified in the discussion.

Item 8: Executive Directors Report

Communications and marketing update: Communications team is working on bus wraps design per the

direction given by the Board on October 29th. Still scheduled to see designs on November 14th, with a

goal of having a solid decision on the design on November 15th.

Grants:

1. 5304 planning grant – still waiting on contract from CDOT.

2. Contract received for 5311 Operating. To be returned to CDOT shortly after review.

3. CDOT Capital Call for projects released. Will be applying to replace the Gillig bus used for Down

Valley services.

Change in operator update: Telluride Express assumed operations of the Norwood and Down Valley

routes on November 1st. Just a couple little hitches but all in all the transition has been a success.

Strategic Operating Plan - RFP #2018-4: Half a dozen clarifying questions were received from two

interested firms. Still on track to closing this process by November 23rd and bringing a recommendation

to the Board at the December 20th meeting.

CAC Meeting: Staff met with the CAC on October 25th. Agenda is attached.

AAC Meeting: Staff also met with the AAC on October 25th. Agenda is attached.

Item 9: Round Table Updates and Reports. No updates noted.

5

Dan Caton made a motion to adjourn

Joan May seconded the motion.

A unanimous vote approved the motion and the meeting was adjourned.

6

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY (AIS)


Meeting Date Agenda Item Submitted By

December 20th, 2018 3 D.Averill

Objective/Requested Action

The objective of this action item is to approve Resolution 2018-34 regarding FY19

appropriations.

Report Work Session Discussion X Action

Key Points

SMART adopted the annual budget for fiscal year 2019 in accordance with Colorado local government budget law on November 8th, 2018. The FY19 budget has consequently been submitted to and accepted by

the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. The FY19 budget that the SMART Board approved shows revenues

in an amount equal to or greater than the total proposed expenditures for the fiscal year. Adopting an

appropriations resolution is required by law and is also necessary to appropriate the revenues and

reserve/fund balances provided in the budget to and for the purposes described in the budget, thereby

establishing a limitation on expenditures for the operations of SMART.

Committee Discussion

N/A

Supporting Information

N/A

Fiscal Impact

No fiscal impact is anticipated with this action.

Advantages

Passing the appropriations resolution (SMART Resolution 2018-34) meets the regulatory requirement and maintains transparency of SMARTs budget and anticipated expenditures.

Disadvantages

None noted.

Analysis/Recommendation(s)

Staff recommends that the Board approve Resolution 2018-34.

Attachments

N/A

7

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATING FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT AND FOR THE

PURPOSE AS SET FORTH BELOW FOR THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY OF REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE BUDGET YEAR 2019.

RESOLUTION NO. 2018-34

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation ("SMART") has adopted the annual budget in accordance with Colorado

local government budget law, on November 8th, 2018, and;

WHEREAS, the SMART Board has made provision therein for revenues in an amount equal to or greater than the total proposed expenditures and set forth in said

budget, and;

WHEREAS, it is not only required by law, but also necessary to appropriate the

revenues and reserve/fund balances provided in the budget to and for the purposes

described below, thereby establishing a limitation on expenditures for the operations of

SMART.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the San Miguel

Authority for Regional Transportation:

THAT, the following sums are hereby appropriated from the 2019 revenues for the purposes

stated:

General Fund

General Operations $363,350

Transit and Transportation Services $1,039,600

Total General Fund · $1,402,950

Capital Fund Capital Purchase $156,700

Capital Reserve $1,100,000 Total Capital Fund $1,256,700

Adopted this 20th day of December, 2018

SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION

Attest:

By: _

Laila Benitez - Chair

Executive Director

8






Action is requested by the Board to approve entering into an agreement with LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. (“LSC”) for consulting assistance with the development of a Strategic Operating Plan.


Key Points

SMART released a request for proposals for consultant assistance in developing a strategic operating plan on October 15th 2018, with a due date for proposals on November 23rd, 2018. In response to the RFP three proposals were received. Direct notices of this bidding opportunity were sent to 10 firms that were identified as potential proposers for the bid. The RFP was also advertised locally in the Telluride Daily Planet. The RFP review committee scored and ranked the received proposals and is recommending that SMART enter into an agreement with LSC for this project.


The RFP Evaluation Committee met on December 11th to review the submitted proposals for completeness, responsiveness to stated criteria in the RFP, cost, and then ranking. The reviewers scores were relatively consistent with only minor variations. When the three reviewers scores were averaged, there was a clear rank order amongst the proposals, with LSC being the top candidate. In addition, the review committee was in agreement that the LSC proposal was complete, that it was responsive to the RFPs stated criteria, that the firm and identified project personnel were qualified to undertake the work, that the proposed timeline adhered to that identified in the RFP, and that the proposed cost was reasonable.


NA

Fiscal Impact

The total project budget for development of the strategic operating plan is $50,000. $40,000 of this amount is being funded through a Federal Transit Administration section 5304 grant, which was awarded and is administrated by the Colorado Department of Transportation. SMART is matching that grant amount with $10,000 in local funds – which represents SMARTS costs for the project.

Advantages

LSC is a nationally recognized planning firm. Entering into a contract with them for the development of our strategic operating plan ensures that SMART will be able to develop a well thought out “road map” to work with over the next several years.

Disadvantages

None noted.


Based on Staff review of the proposal, and the RFP review committee recommendation, it is recommended that the Board approve the selection of LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. for assistance in development of the SMART Strategic Operating Plan.

Attachments

Attachment A – SMART RFP 2018=4 Attachment B – LSC Transportation Consultants Inc., proposal

9

Request for Proposals #2018-4

For Consultant Services in Support of the Development

of a Strategic Operating Plan

Released October 15th, 2018

10

The San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation (dba SMART) is seeking a qualified consultant or

team of consultants to assist with the development of a strategic operating plan. The plan will include a

robust public involvement process resulting in a written technical report that addresses the four

identified task areas to be examined.

I. ABOUT SMART

SMART is a Regional Transportation Authority as defined under Colorado Statute. SMART is the newest

transit public transit provider in the state of Colorado and was formed in November of 2016 by a vote

of the residents of Telluride, Mountain Village, and the R1 School District in San Miguel County. SMART

is currently funded by a .25 cent sales tax and .75 mil levy collected in these jurisdictions.

As part of the intergovernmental agreement outlining SMARTS responsibilities, an initial service plan

(Attachment A) has been developed, which primarily consists of consolidating existing regional services

that had previously been funded separately by the Town of Telluride, Town of Mountain Village, and San

Miguel County under the SMART “umbrella”. This planning study will serve as Implementation Plan of this

initial SMART Operating Plan and potential service expansion options that have been identified to date.

Tasks associated with this planning study build on those undertaken with the development of the initial

operating plan which acknowledges and plans for enhancing current services and identifying locations

where services should be expanded to. This study also endeavors to analyze the current routes and fare

structures and make recommendations for improvements on where to expand services, identify future

vehicle (size and type) and facility needs and options for vehicle acquisition in the next five to ten years.

This planning study will devise strategies to implement the top tier expansion projects that have been

identified to date, with detailed costs, refined and coordinated schedules, public outreach, and potential

steps to consolidate certain services (van pools and van shuttles) into fixed route services. This study will

also analyze if and when it may make financial and organizational sense to bring transit operations “in

house” to SMART vs. the contracting model that is currently employed.

II. SCOPE OF WORK

Project Goals and Purpose

The goal and purpose of this project is to evaluate current transit needs, plan to optimize existing services and resources, and plan for future service demand and expansion.

Expected Outcomes

The project will result in the development of an actionable strategic operating plan driven

by community input that includes a robust financial and resource analysis,

recommendations for service sustainability and key service expansion opportunities, and a

final report.

11

Project Tasks

1. Financial Analysis Refined costs for expansion of services as identified in Phase I Deliverablesinclude an evaluation of current fare structure(s) and a refined financial plan, includingoperations and capital needs required to implement the desired services.

2. Regional Service schedule refinement Refine and coordinated regional service schedules forexisting and enhanced regional transit services, including fixed route and van pool/shuttles.Deliverables will include recommended expansion steps and necessary changes to bestcoordinate and/or consolidate services.

3. Phasing Plan Phasing plan for expansion of services and potential consolidation of services,based on refined costs from Task 1 and identified feasible changes to schedules, routes, etc.in Task 2.

4. SMART capacity assessment This task consists of a high level assessment of costs, feasibilityand required staffing to bring the operation of identified regional services “in-house” vscontracting with an outside party for provision of services.

5. Final Report and Recommendations A final report will be prepared which summarizesoutcomes from the tasks listed above and a related recommended action plan.

III. TIMELINE, SCHEDULE AND BUDGET

SMART RFP 2018-4 Selection Process Timeline

Milestone Date

RFP released ….………………………………………………………………………………………….. October 15th, 2018

Questions/Inquiries Due ……………………………………………………………………………. October 29th, 2018

Responses to Questions released ………………………………………………………………. November 2nd, 2018

Proposals Due ……………………………………………………………………………………………. November 23rd, 2018

Complete Proposal Evaluations ………………………………………………………………… December 5th, 2018

Recommendation of Contract Award to SMART Board of Directors …………… Tentatively December 13th, 2018*

Final Award Notification ……………………………………………………………………………. Tentatively December 14th, 2018*

*The SMART December Board meeting may be rescheduled for a different date

12

PROJECT SCHEDULE

SMART Strategic Operating Plan - Timeline*

Milestone Estimated Date

Consultant work begins with reception of CDOT Notice to Proceed January 2, 2019

Consultant Research and Background Work January 2019

Consultant Site Visit 1: Project Launch (Conditions assessment review;

Early February 2019

Creation of detailed work plan for public input process February 2019

Update Board of Directors on draft scenarios and public input March 2019

Final strategic operating plan completed and published Late April/Early May 2019

Final plan presentation to Board of Directors May meeting 2019

Chosen service plan implementation process begins May 2019

*timeline is subject to CDOT approvals and contract negotiations with successful bidder

BUDGET

This project will have a total budget of $50,000 with 80% State and 20% Local split. $40,000 will be

provided from CDOT administered FTA section 5304 grant funds and $10,000 will come from

SMART.

IV. PROPOSAL PREPARATION AND SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

REVIEW AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATIONS

Inquiries, questions and requests for clarification on this RFP are to be directed in writing (email

preferred) by 5pm on October 29th, 2018 to:

David Averill, Executive Director, SMART

Email: [email protected]

Mail: PO Box 3140, Telluride CO 81435

All questions and answers, as well as any addenda pursuant to these requests will be sent by email to

the bidder’s list by 5:00pm on November 2nd, 2018, as well as posted to SMARTs website at

www.smarttelluride.com by end of business the same date.

13

http://www.smarttelluride.com/

PROPOSAL FORMAT

Proposals that omit any information or do not use the format requested may result in

disqualification. At a minimum, all submittals should include the following:

a. Cover LetterA cover letter expressing the firm’s interest in working with SMART and general information onthe firm to include identification of the principal individual(s) that will provide the requestedservice.

b. IntroductionIntroduce company and staff, including awards, certifications, education.

c. QualificationsExplain the expertise of the consulting team, including roles or experience of key personnel tobe assigned to this project. Also include examples of comparable projects completed in the past5 years, with references for each project. References must include a contact name, currenttelephone number, and email address. Please outline any specific experience related to ruraland regional transit systems. Also include any knowledge or applicable experience with regionaltransportation authorities.

d. Statement of WorkProvide a description of the understanding and approach to the project and anticipated projectdeliverables. Describe the type and level of support required / expected from SMARTthroughout the project. Include an explanation of any variances to the proposed scope of workas outlined in the RFP, which could be accepted if they will result in a more effective, innovativeor accurate final product.

e. TimelineOutline the proposed phasing and completion schedule. Explain any significant deviations fromthe timeline outlined in Section III “Timeline and Schedule.”

f. Travel ProposalOutline any proposed travel, including suggested dates and costs.

g. CostsOutline the estimated total budget, based on the proposed scope of services. Include asummary of estimated labor hours and fee schedule by task. Identify project team membersand number of hours performed by each team member by task.

h. Completed Appendix A – Federal Transit Administration and Colorado Department ofTransportation Required Contract Clauses

Appendix A contains federal requirements that must be agreed to and included with allproposals submitted.

14

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Proposals are due by 5 p.m. on November 23rd, 2018. Proposals must be submitted by email or surface mail to:

David Averill, Executive Director, SMART

Email: [email protected]

Mail: PO Box 3140, Telluride CO 81435

If submitting proposals electronically and the submittal was received successfully, you will receive a confirmation from Mr. Averill. If you do not receive a confirmation email upon submittal or the file size of attachments is too large for submission by email, please contact Mr. Averill at the above email address to receive alternative submittal instructions.

V. EVALUATION CRITERIA

A selection committee will convene to review all proposals and select a firm. The following is a list of

weighted criteria that will be used to evaluate proposals:

1. Project understanding and ability to meet or exceedrequirements within the stated budget

25%

2. Creativity and clarity of suggested approach in theproposed scope of services

25%

3. Related experience and staff qualifications 20%

4. Cost* 20%

5. Completion Timeline 10%

*Proposal award will not be based solely on low price, but the overall best value to SMART in

conjunction with all evaluation criteria.

The evaluation committee may determine that interviews by phone are required to make a final

decision. If so, phone interviews will be completed by December 5th, 2018.

VI. RESPONDENT CERTIFICATION

By submitting a response to this RFP, the respondent affirms and certifies its awareness and

agreement to the content of this RFP and all provisions contained herein. Each respondent further

certifies that its proposal has been properly executed by an authorized company officer, and that the

respondent is bound by the content of its proposal.

15

SMART RFP #2018-4 APPENDIX A:

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUIRED CONTRACT CLAUSES

1. NO GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION TO THIRD PARTIES No Obligation bythe Federal Government.

(1) The Purchaser and Contractor acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding any concurrence by theFederal Government in or approval of the solicitation or award of the underlying contract, absent theexpress written consent by the Federal Government, the Federal Government is not a party to thiscontract and shall not be subject to any obligations or liabilities to the Purchaser, Contractor, or anyother party (whether or not a party to that contract) pertaining to any matter resulting from theunderlying contract.

2. PROGRAM FRAUD AND FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS AND RELATED ACTS(31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq. 49 CFR Part 31 18 U.S.C. 1001 49 U.S.C. 5307)

Program Fraud and False or Fraudulent Statements or Related Acts.

(1) The Contractor acknowledges that the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, asamended, 31 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq. and U.S. DOT regulations, "Program Fraud Civil Remedies," 49 C.F.R.Part 31, apply to its actions pertaining to this Project. Upon execution of the underlying contract, theContractor certifies or affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of any statement it has made, it makes, itmay make, or causes to be made, pertaining to the underlying contract or the FTA assisted project forwhich this contract work is being performed. In addition to other penalties that may be applicable, theContractor further acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulentclaim, statement, submission, or certification, the Federal Government reserves the right to impose thepenalties of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 on the Contractor to the extent the FederalGovernment deems appropriate.

(2) The Contractor also acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulentclaim, statement, submission, or certification to the Federal Government under a contract connected with aproject that is financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance originally awarded by FTA under theauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 5307, the Government reserves the right to impose the penalties of 18 U.S.C. §1001 and 49 U.S.C. § 5307(n)(1) on the Contractor, to the extent the Federal Government deemsappropriate.

(3) The Contractor agrees to include the above two clauses in each subcontract financed in whole or in partwith Federal assistance provided by FTA. It is further agreed that the clauses shall not be modified, exceptto identify the subcontractor who will be subject to the provisions.

3. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND REPORTS(49 U.S.C. 5325, 18 CFR 18.36 (i), 49 CFR 633.17)

1. Where the Purchaser is not a State but a local government and is the FTA Recipient or a subgranteeof the FTA Recipient in accordance with 49 C.F.R. 18.36(i), the Contractor agrees to provide thePurchaser, the FTA Administrator, the Comptroller General of the United States or any of their authorized representatives access to any books, documents, papers and records of the Contractor which are directly pertinent to this contract for the purposes of making audits, examinations, excerpts and transcriptions. Contractor also agrees, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 633.17 to provide the FTA Administrator or his authorized representatives including any PMO Contractor access to Contractor's records and construction sites pertaining to a major capital project, defined at 49 U.S.C. 5302(a)1, which is receiving federal financial assistance through the programs described at 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5309 or 5311.

16

2. Where the Purchaser is a State and is the FTA Recipient or a subgrantee of the FTA Recipient inaccordance with 49 C.F.R. 633.17, Contractor agrees to provide the Purchaser, the FTA Administrator orhis authorized representatives, including any PMO Contractor, access to the Contractor's records andconstruction sites pertaining to a major capital project, defined at 49U.S.C. 5302(a)1, which is receiving federal financial assistance through the programs described at 49U.S.C. 5307, 5309 or 5311. By definition, a major capital project excludes contracts of less than thesimplified acquisition threshold currently set at $100,000.

3. Where the Purchaser enters into a negotiated contract for other than a small purchase or under thesimplified acquisition threshold and is an institution of higher education, a hospital or other non- profitorganization and is the FTA Recipient or a subgrantee of the FTA Recipient in accordance with 49 C.F.R.19.48, Contractor agrees to provide the Purchaser, FTA Administrator, the Comptroller General of theUnited States or any of their duly authorized representatives with access to any books, documents,papers and record of the Contractor which are directly pertinent to this contract for the purposes ofmaking audits, examinations, excerpts and transcriptions.

4. Where any Purchaser which is the FTA Recipient or a subgrantee of the FTA Recipient in accordancewith 49 U.S.C. 5325(a) enters into a contract for a capital project or improvement (defined at 49 U.S.C.5302(a)1) through other than competitive bidding, the Contractor shall make available records relatedto the contract to the Purchaser, the Secretary of Transportation and the Comptroller General or anyauthorized officer or employee of any of them for the purposes of conducting an audit and inspection.

5. The Contractor agrees to permit any of the foregoing parties to reproduce by any means whatsoever or tocopy excerpts and transcriptions as reasonably needed.

6. The Contractor agrees to maintain all books, records, accounts and reports required under this contractfor a period of not less than three years after the date of termination or expiration of this contract,except in the event of litigation or settlement of claims arising from the performance of this contract, inwhich case Contractor agrees to maintain same until the Purchaser, the FTA Administrator, theComptroller General, or any of their duly authorized representatives, have disposed of all suchlitigation, appeals, claims or exceptions related thereto. Reference 49 CFR 18.39(i)(11).

7. FTA does not require the inclusion of these requirements in subcontracts.

4. FEDERAL CHANGES(49 CFR Part 18)Federal Changes - Contractor shall at all times comply with all applicable FTA regulations, policies,procedures and directives, including without limitation those listed directly or by reference in theMaster Agreement between Purchaser and FTA, as they may be amended or promulgated from time to timeduring the term of this contract. Contractor's failure to so comply shall constitute a material breach of thiscontract.

5. CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS(29 U.S.C. § 623, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 42 U.S.C. § 6102, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 42 U.S.C. § 12132, 49U.S.C. § 5332 29 CFR Part 1630, 41 CFR Parts 60 et seq.)Civil Rights - The following requirements apply to the underlying contract:

(1) Nondiscrimination - In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000d, section 303 of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 6102, section 202of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and Federal transit law at 49 U.S.C. §5332, the Contractor agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant foremployment because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or disability. In addition, theContractor agrees to comply with applicable Federal implementing regulations and other implementingrequirements FTA may issue.

(2) Equal Employment Opportunity - The following equal employment opportunity requirements apply tothe underlying contract:

(a) Race, Color, Creed, National Origin, Sex - In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, asamended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and Federal transit laws at 49 U.S.C. § 5332, the Contractor agrees tocomply with all applicable equal employment opportunity requirements of U.S. Department ofLabor (U.S. DOL) regulations, "Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal EmploymentOpportunity, Department of Labor," 41 C.F.R. Parts 60 et seq., (which implement Executive OrderNo. 11246, "Equal Employment Opportunity," as amended by Executive Order No. 11375,"Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity," 42 U.S.C. § 2000enote), and with any applicable Federal statutes, executive orders, regulations, and Federal policiesthat may in the future affect construction activities undertaken in the course of the Project. The

17

Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. In addition, the Contractor agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue.

(b) Age - In accordance with section 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, asamended, 29 U.S.C. § § 623 and Federal transit law at 49 U.S.C. § 5332, the Contractor agrees torefrain from discrimination against present and prospective employees for reason of age. Inaddition, the Contractor agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue.

(c) Disabilities - In accordance with section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, asamended, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, the Contractor agrees that it will comply with the requirementsof U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Regulations to Implement the EqualEmployment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act," 29 C.F.R. Part 1630,pertaining to employment of persons with disabilities. In addition, the Contractor agrees tocomply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue.

(3) The Contractor also agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract financed in whole or inpart with Federal assistance provided by FTA, modified only if necessary to identify the affected parties.

6. INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TERMS(FTA Circular 4220.1E)Incorporation of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Terms - The preceding provisions include, in part,certain Standard Terms and Conditions required by DOT, whether or not expressly set forth in the precedingcontract provisions. All contractual provisions required by DOT, as set forth in FTA Circular 4220.1E, arehereby incorporated by reference. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, all FTA mandated termsshall be deemed to control in the event of a conflict with other provisions contained in this Agreement. TheContractor shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply with any (name of grantee)requests which would cause (name of grantee) to be in violation of the FTA terms and conditions.

7. ENERGY CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS(42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq. 49 CFR Part 18)Energy Conservation - The contractor agrees to comply with mandatory standards and policies relatingto energy efficiency which are contained in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliancewith the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

8. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE)(49 CFR Part 26)Disadvantaged Business Enterprisesa. This contract is subject to the requirements of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, Participation

by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs.The national goal for participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) is 10%.

b. The contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in theperformance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26in the award and administration of this DOT-assisted contract. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation deems appropriate. Each subcontract the contractor signs with a subcontractor must include the assurance in this paragraph (see 49 CFR 26.13(b)).

c. The successful bidder/offeror will be required to report its DBE participation obtained throughrace-neutral means throughout the period of performance.

d. The contractor is required to pay its subcontractors performing work related to this contract forsatisfactory performance of that work no later than 30 days after the contractor’s receipt ofpayment for that work from San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation. In addition, thecontractor may not hold retainage from its subcontractors and is required to return any retainagepayments to those subcontractors within 30 days after the subcontractor's work related to this contractis satisfactorily completed.

e. The contractor must promptly notify San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation whenever a DBEsubcontractor performing work related to this contract is terminated or fails to complete its work, andmust make good faith efforts to engage another DBE subcontractor to perform at least the same amount of work.

18

9. TERMINATION(49 U.S.C. Part 18 FTA Circular 4220.1E)a. Termination for Convenience (General Provision) The (Recipient) may terminate this contract, in whole

or in part, at any time by written notice to the Contractor when it is in the Government's best interest.The Contractor shall be paid its costs, including contract close-out costs, and profit on work performedup to the time of termination. The Contractor shall promptly submit its termination claim to (Recipient)to be paid the Contractor. If the Contractor has any property in its possession belonging to the(Recipient), the Contractor will account for the same, and dispose of it in the manner the (Recipient)directs.

b. Termination for Default [Breach or Cause] (General Provision) If the Contractor does not deliversupplies in accordance with the contract delivery schedule, or, if the contract is for services, theContractor fails to perform in the manner called for in the contract, or if the Contractor fails to complywith any other provisions of the contract, the (Recipient) may terminate this contract for default.Termination shall be effected by serving a notice of termination on the contractor setting forth themanner in which the Contractor is in default. The contractor will only be paid the contract price forsupplies delivered and accepted, or services performed in accordance with the manner of performanceset forth in the contract.If it is later determined by the (Recipient) that the Contractor had an excusable reason for notperforming, such as a strike, fire, or flood, events which are not the fault of or are beyond the control ofthe Contractor, the (Recipient), after setting up a new delivery of performance schedule, may allow theContractor to continue work, or treat the termination as a termination for convenience.

c. Opportunity to Cure (General Provision) The (Recipient) in its sole discretion may, in the case of atermination for breach or default, allow the Contractor [an appropriately short period of time] in which tocure the defect. In such case, the notice of termination will state the time period in which cure ispermitted and other appropriate conditionsIf Contractor fails to remedy to (Recipient)'s satisfaction the breach or default of any of the terms,covenants, or conditions of this Contract within [ten (10) days] after receipt by Contractor of writtennotice from (Recipient) setting forth the nature of said breach or default, (Recipient) shall have the rightto terminate the Contract without any further obligation to Contractor. Any such termination fordefault shall not in any way operate to preclude (Recipient) from also pursuing all available remediesagainst Contractor and its sureties for said breach or default.

d. Waiver of Remedies for any Breach In the event that (Recipient) elects to waive its remedies for anybreach by Contractor of any covenant, term or condition of this Contract, such waiver by (Recipient) shallnot limit (Recipient)'s remedies for any succeeding breach of that or of any other term, covenant, orcondition of this Contract.

e. Termination for Convenience (Professional or Transit Service Contracts) The (Recipient), by writtennotice, may terminate this contract, in whole or in part, when it is in the Government's interest. If thiscontract is terminated, the Recipient shall be liable only for payment under the payment provisions of this contract for services rendered before the effective date of termination.

f. Termination for Default (Supplies and Service) If the Contractor fails to deliver supplies or to performthe services within the time specified in this contract or any extension or if the Contractor fails to complywith any other provisions of this contract, the (Recipient) may terminate this contract for default. The (Recipient) shall terminate by delivering to the Contractor a Notice of Termination specifying the nature of the default. The Contractor will only be paid the contract price for supplies delivered and accepted, or services performed in accordance with the manner or performance set forth in this contract. If, after termination for failure to fulfill contract obligations, it is determined that the Contractor was not in default, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the termination had been issued for the convenience of the Recipient.

g. Termination for Default (Transportation Services) If the Contractor fails to pick up the commodities orto perform the services, including delivery services, within the time specified in this contract or anyextension or if the Contractor fails to comply with any other provisions of this contract, the (Recipient)may terminate this contract for default. The (Recipient) shall terminate by delivering to the Contractor aNotice of Termination specifying the nature of default. The Contractor will only be paid the contract pricefor services performed in accordance with the manner of performance set forth in this contract.If this contract is terminated while the Contractor has possession of Recipient goods, the Contractor

19

shall, upon direction of the (Recipient), protect and preserve the goods until surrendered to the Recipient or its agent. The Contractor and (Recipient) shall agree on payment for the preservation and protection of goods. Failure to agree on an amount will be resolved under the Dispute clause. If, after termination for failure to fulfill contract obligations, it is determined that the Contractor was not in default, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the termination had been issued for the convenience of the (Recipient).

h. Termination for Default (Construction) If the Contractor refuses or fails to prosecute the work or anyseparable part, with the diligence that will insure its completion within the time specified in thiscontract or any extension or fails to complete the work within this time, or if the Contractor fails to comply with any other provisions of this contract, the (Recipient) may terminate this contract for default. The (Recipient) shall terminate by delivering to the Contractor a Notice of Termination specifying the nature of the default. In this event, the Recipient may take over the work and compete it by contract or otherwise, and may take possession of and use any materials, appliances, and plant on the work site necessary for completing the work. The Contractor and its sureties shall be liable for any damage to the Recipient resulting from the Contractor's refusal or failure to complete the work within specified time, whether or not the Contractor's right to proceed with the work is terminated. This liability includes any increased costs incurred by the Recipient in completing the work. The Contractor's right to proceed shall not be terminated nor the Contractor charged with damages under this clause if-

1. the delay in completing the work arises from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and withoutthe fault or negligence of the Contractor. Examples of such causes include: acts of God, acts of theRecipient, acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Recipient,epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes; and

2. the contractor, within [10] days from the beginning of any delay, notifies the (Recipient) in writing ofthe causes of delay. If in the judgment of the (Recipient), the delay is excusable, the time forcompleting the work shall be extended. The judgment of the (Recipient) shall be final andconclusive on the parties, but subject to appeal under the Disputes clauses.

If, after termination of the Contractor's right to proceed, it is determined that the Contractor was not in default, or that the delay was excusable, the rights and obligations of the parties will be the same as if the termination had been issued for the convenience of the Recipient.

i. Termination for Convenience or Default (Architect and Engineering) The (Recipient) may terminate thiscontract in whole or in part, for the Recipient's convenience or because of the failure of the Contractorto fulfill the contract obligations. The (Recipient) shall terminate by delivering to the Contractor a Notice of Termination specifying the nature, extent, and effective date of the termination. Upon receipt of the notice, the Contractor shall (1) immediately discontinue all services affected (unless the notice directs otherwise), and (2) deliver to the Contracting Officer all data, drawings, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries, and other information and materials accumulated in performing this contract, whether completed or in process. If the termination is for the convenience of the Recipient, the Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price but shall allow no anticipated profit on unperformed services. If the termination is for failure of the Contractor to fulfill the contract obligations, the Recipient may complete the work by contact or otherwise and the Contractor shall be liable for any additional cost incurred by the Recipient. If, after termination for failure to fulfill contract obligations, it is determined that the Contractor was not in default, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the termination had been issued for the convenience of the Recipient.

j. Termination for Convenience of Default (Cost-Type Contracts) The (Recipient) may terminate thiscontract, or any portion of it, by serving a notice or termination on the Contractor. The notice shall statewhether the termination is for convenience of the (Recipient) or for the default of the Contractor. If the termination is for default, the notice shall state the manner in which the contractor has failed to perform the requirements of the contract. The Contractor shall account for any property in its possession paid for from funds received from the (Recipient), or property supplied to the Contractor by the (Recipient). If the termination is for default, the (Recipient) may fix the fee, if the contract provides for a fee, to be paid the contractor in proportion to the value, if any, of work performed up to the time of termination. The Contractor shall promptly submit its termination claim to the (Recipient) and the parties shall negotiate the termination settlement to be paid the Contractor. If the termination is for the convenience of the (Recipient), the Contractor shall be paid its contract close-out costs, and a fee, if the contract provided for payment of a fee, in proportion to the work performed up to the time of

20

termination. If, after serving a notice of termination for default, the (Recipient) determines that the Contractor has an excusable reason for not performing, such as strike, fire, flood, events which are not the fault of and are beyond the control of the contractor, the (Recipient), after setting up a new work schedule, may allow the Contractor to continue work, or treat the termination as a termination for convenience.

10. GOVERNMENT-WIDE DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION (NONPROCUREMENT) Suspension andDebarmentThis contract is a covered transaction for purposes of 49 CFR Part 29. As such, the contractor is required toverify that none of the contractor, its principals, as defined at 49 CFR 29.995, or affiliates, as defined at 49 CFR29.905, are excluded or disqualified as defined at 49 CFR 29.940 and 29.945.

The contractor is required to comply with 49 CFR 29, Subpart C and must include the requirement to comply with 49 CFR 29, Subpart C in any lower tier covered transaction it enters into.

By signing and submitting its bid or proposal, the bidder or proposer certifies as follows: The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact relied upon by San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation. If it is later determined that the bidder or proposer knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to remedies available to San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation, the Federal Government may pursue available remedies, including but not limited to suspension and/or debarment. The bidder or proposer agrees to comply with the requirements of 49 CFR 29, Subpart C while this offer is valid and throughout the period of any contract that may arise from this offer. The bidder or proposer further agrees to include a provision requiring such compliance in its lower tier covered transactions.

Acknowledgment

Signature Date

21

SMART RFP #2018-4 ATTACHMENT A: INITIAL SERVICE PLAN

(FROM GOVERNING IGA)

1. The Authority shall strive to deliver safe and reliable public transit services, and to

consistently advocate and promote the use of multi-modal transit systems.

2. The Authority shall engage in comprehensive long range transportation planning under the

direction of the San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation Board with participation from

the Advisory Committees and other regional stakeholders. Within the long range transportation

planning process, an initial service plan shall be developed, which shall include but not be limited

to the following elements :

a. Improved transit coordination, services and schedules;

b. A phased plan for transit related facilities and infrastructure;

c. A review and plan for specialized transit services, as outlined below (3-d).

d. Long term sustainable funding

The Initial Service Plan shall be subject to SMART Board Adoption.

3. The Authority shall consider enhancing or providing new transit services including but not limited

to the following:

a. Transit serving Placerville/Down Valley, Norwood, Ridgway, Montrose, Ophir, Rico, and

Cortez, including points between these jurisdictions .

b. Transit service for Lawson Hill and neighboring communities.

c. Transit service during shoulder season, special event, and Gondola backup between

the towns of Telluride and Mountain Village.

d. Specialized services including paratransit, medical appointment, and senior transit.

e. Regional trail planning, construction and maintenance with an emphasis on the provision

of multi-modal linkages and accessibility to and between transit services, neighboring

communities and population centers.

f. Assuming intra-town services in a manner consistent with existing or improved levels

of service subject to the agreement of the effected Member jurisdiction.

g. Funding for maintenance, repairs and improvement of the gondola aerial tramway

system, between Mountain Village and Telluride consistent with the provisions of Section

6.02(f)(1) and 6.02(f)(2).

22

SMARTStrategic Operating Plan

Proposal Prepared for:

23

November 20, 2018

Mr. David Averill Executive Director, SMART PO Box 3140 Telluride, CO 81435

Dear Mr. Averill:

On behalf of LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., I am pleased to submit our qualifications and proposal in response to your Request for Proposals 2018-4 for Consultant Services in Support of the Development of a Strategic Operating Plan.

LSC has a team that includes a balance of eminently qualified experts who understand the unique challenges of developing a regional transportation authority in a rural area that includes a mountain resort. Our team understands the particular transportation issues facing SMART, as it seeks to enhance current services and evaluate expansion opportunities. The team we have assembled for this project includes these key staff members:

• Project Manager Jason Millero Jason has over 15 years of experience planning, developing, and operating regional, multimodal mountain

resort transit systems.• Senior Advisor Gordon Shaw

o Gordon is one of the preeminent national experts in mountain resort transportation and brings insightregarding national best practices.

• Senior Advisor A.T. Stoddardo A.T. brings unmatched depth of experience in transportation systems analysis, transit demand analysis, and

multimodal transportation planning.• Planner Megan McPhilimy

o Megan brings analytical and planning expertise, having completed numerous transit plans for similar ruralcommunities and mountain resort areas.

As a firm, LSC is a multidisciplinary transportation planning and engineering consultancy, providing services in the specific fields of transit planning and operations, traffic engineering, bicycle/pedestrian planning, transit performance, and regional transportation coordination. We have particular experience carrying out similar efforts in communities such as:

• Aspen• Avon/Beaver Creek• Crested Butte

• Park City• Northstar at Tahoe• Mammoth Lakes

• Mt. Hood• Sun Valley• Jackson Hole

We are eager to begin work on this important plan and look forward to your response to our proposal. LSC is proposing as a single firm without any subcontractors and will be solely responsible for all contracts and agreements that may arise out of this proposal. We submit this offer in accordance with all the terms and conditions contained in the Request for Proposal.

We stand ready to provide any additional information or answer any questions that you may have, either by phone or in-person. I can be contacted at 719-633-2868, or [email protected]. Thank you for this opportunity to present our proposal.

Respectfully submitted,

LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.

By___________________________________ Jason Miller, Project Manager

LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 545 East Pikes Peak Avenue, Suite 210

Colorado Springs, CO 80903 (719) 633-2868

FAX (719) 633-5430 Website: http://www.lsctrans.com

24

mailto:[email protected]

LSC SMART Strategic Operating Plan Proposal P a g e | 1

The San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) is seeking a qualified firm to assist in developing a Strategic Operating Plan (SOP) to evaluate current transit needs, plan to optimize existing services and resources, and plan for future service demand and expansion. The project will result in the development of an actionable strategic operating plan driven by community input that includes a robust financial and resource analysis, recommendations for

service sustainability and key service expansion opportunities, and a final report.

Our Firm

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. provides consulting services in all phases of multimodal transportation planning, transit planning and operations, traffic engineering, parking analysis, traffic impact studies, access planning and design, and bicycle/pedestrian circulation. LSC specializes in transportation planning for smaller rural and mountain resort communities and has over forty years of firm experience.

The firm is an employee-owned C Corporation incorporated in Colorado. Originally established in 1977 as Leigh, Scott, and Cleary, Inc., the firm has offices in Denver and Colorado Springs, Colorado, as well as Tahoe City, California. Each office is managed by a principal of the corporation. This project will be conducted from LSC’s Colorado Springs office with additional involvement from the Tahoe office.

Context and Understanding

We understand that SMART is at a critical phase in its evolutionary development as a regional transportation authority. As the newest public transportation provider and authority in Colorado, SMART has accomplished much since its formation in late 2016, and this SOP will ensure that the organizational success, impact, and influence continues to increase.

SMART has a defined boundary in eastern San Miguel County with membership of Telluride, Mountain Village, and San Miguel County. SMART’s goal is to start small and work towards having other jurisdictions possibly join SMART in the future – LSC believes this SOP should help support this goal.

Introduction 25


SMART’s initial service plan included in its founding intergovernmental agreement calls for consolidating existing regional services that had previously been funded separately by the Town of Telluride, Town of Mountain Village, and San Miguel County under the SMART “umbrella.” This SOP study will use this initial service plan vision as a foundation to:

• Define and plan new service expansion opportunities• Analyze route options and service delivery models• Develop associated costs and considerations• Evaluate capital and infrastructure needs for the next five to ten years• Indicate how and when SMART should consider taking service operations in-house• Create a step-by-step implementation playbook• Incorporate community and stakeholder input at every step of the way

LSC understands the local context for this study and how important it is to get it right. We understand the challenges that the Telluride, Mountain Village, and eastern San Miguel County communities have to expand and provide adequate and reliable transportation services. Issues such as the lack of affordable housing, traffic and congestion, and a desire to balance transportation access with quality of life and visitor experience must all be addressed. We understand how to foster collaboration and coordination of transportation services between a central resort town and the surrounding rural communities – the political cooperation and compromises that must take place are something we are experienced in facilitating.

LSC is excited about this opportunity to work cooperatively with SMART to define a regional public transportation future of growth and deepening community impact.

26


LSC has developed an optimal team for this project which incorporates a depth of technical expertise, operational knowledge, mountain resort transit insight, and regional and national contextual understanding. The team consists of:

Project Manager, Jason Miller - Jason joined LSC as a Senior Transportation Planner earlier this year. Formerly the Executive Director of Mountain Rides Transportation Authority in Ketchum/Sun Valley, ID, Jason has over 15 years of experience with transportation service development and operations in rural, mountain resort areas. He has:

• Firsthand knowledge in planning, creating, and expanding a new regional transit systemo Jason led the formation of a regional joint powers’ transportation authority incorporating four

cities and one county with a total budget of $4.6 million, staff of 45, multiple maintenance andadministration facilities, and a fleet of 40 vehicles.

• Written and executed several strategic business and operating development plans that incorporatedtransit demand estimation, regional partnership cultivation, and new local and federal fundingdevelopment.

• Planned, developed, and built new route structures, transit centers, and bus stop improvements.

Jason holds an engineering degree from the University of Colorado and is nationally recognized in transit management, transit safety, and multimodal planning. Jason has served on several state and national panels for advanced transit technology. For this project, Jason will serve as Project Manager and be responsible for managing and delivering all aspects of the study.

Principal, Gordon Shaw, P.E., AICP - Gordon has over 30 years of experience conducting transit and transportation studies. Gordon has conducted many transit studies throughout the Western states, including Connecting Tahoe Rim Trail Users to Transit Study, Eastern Sierra Transit Short-Range Transit Plan, Inyo County Regional Transportation Plan and Active Transportation Plan, Lake Tahoe East Shore Transit Pilot Program, and Park City/Summit County Short-Range Transit Development Plan. As a Principal, Gordon brings to this project particular expertise in planning and designing transit routes, transit centers, and overall knowledge of transit operational best practices.

Senior Advisor, A.T. Stoddard, Ph.D., P.E. - A.T. is a transit industry expert with over 40 years of experience in transportation planning with an emphasis on transit system design, transit demand analysis, financial planning, and multimodal transportation planning. A.T. has served as the Project Manager on numerous transit planning efforts in mountain resort communities throughout Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and Oregon. He has also written and participated in several Transit Cooperative Research Program projects on transit planning and development of methods to estimate rural transit need and demand. A.T. will serve as a Senior Advisor on this project to support each task and provide overall guidance.

Planner, Megan McPhilimy, AICP - Megan is an adept transportation planner with over three years’ experience analyzing, evaluating, and planning transit systems across the U.S. Megan joined LSC in 2015 and has assisted in developing a wide variety of transit plans, including feasibility studies, transit development plans (TDPs), transit expansion and implementation plans, coordination plans, and operations plans for rural, small, and medium-sized communities, as well as Native American Tribes. Megan has experience collecting and analyzing data, coordinating onboard passenger surveys and passenger boarding/alighting counts, forecasting transit demand and quantifying transit needs, developing and evaluating transit service alternatives, and preparing financial, operation, and capital plans. She has worked on transit studies in mountain resort communities in Colorado and Oregon.

We have included the full resumes of our team members on the following pages.

Qualifications – Team

27

Experience• Over 15 years’ experience planning,

developing, and implementing effective publictransportation solutions in rural and mountainresort communities

• Executive Director of Mountain RidesTransportation Authority, a rural resorttransportation provider, Ketchum, ID (2007-2017)

• Executive Director of Wood River Rideshare, a multi-modal transportation non-profit, Ketchum, ID (2006-2007)

• Sales Engineer at AceCo PrecisionManufacturing, Boise, ID (2002-2005)

• Owner of Timberline Express, a privatepassenger shuttle and charter company, BuenaVista, CO and Denver, CO (1997-2001)

• Technical Engineer at Western Region, amanufacturers rep, Westminster, CO (1994-1997)

Education • Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering,

University of Colorado at Boulder (1994)

Professional Affiliations• Member – American Planning Association• League Certified Instructor (LCI# 1564) and

Member – League of American Bicyclists• Board Member and Past President –

Community Transportation Association of Idaho

Accolades• Community Engagement Award for Blaine

Co. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; IdahoSmart Growth (2017)

• Leader of the Year; I-WAY, an Idaho multi-modal transportation group (2014)

• “Top 40 Under 40” TransportationProfessional; Mass Transit Magazine (2010)

Resort Transit Planning ProjectsFive Year Transit Development Plan for Carbon County and Red Lodge (MT). Project manager for the development of a comprehensive five year vision for new public transportation service development in Carbon County, including a potential new transit connection from Red Lodge to Red Lodge Mountain ski resort. Project is underway and will be completed by February of 2019. The plan will analyze and determine appropriate service options, funding needs, operational requirements, and governance models.

5-year Strategic Plan and Service Plan for Mountain RidesTransportation Authority (ID). Author and project manager fordevelopment of a new plan to define direction of all of Mountain Ridestransit services and transportation programs for 2016-2020 timeframe. Project involved significant public outreach, stakeholder meetings, andinterface with board of directors. Existing and potential new serviceswere analyzed for potential ridership and costs and overall effectiveness.

Transit development tools for Selkirk Pend Oreille Transit (SPOT) (ID). Served as consultant and project manager for the development of a complete package of transit development tools for this rural transit agency serving the greater Sandpoint area of Idaho. Tools for SPOT included a capital improvement plan that analyzed current and future fleet needs; a marketing plan that suggested an improved website and customer information tools; a service development plan that analyzed opportunity to connect transit service to Schweitzer Mountain Resort and improve overall route connectivity; and, a performance dashboard that organized monthly ridership, safety, and financial data into an easy to read report for the board and public.

Development of a downtown transit center for City of Ketchum (ID). Led funding, planning, public outreach, and necessary entitlements for a facility in the downtown core of Ketchum. Facility will coordinate 5 bus routes with passenger amenities such as a waiting area, bus shelters, bicycle racks and lockers, pedestrian connectivity, bus pull-outs, and safety features. Work involved site alternatives analysis, federal environmental approvals, and city planning and zoning approvals.

Planning, funding, and construction of new maintenance and administration facility in Bellevue (ID). Secured federal funding and local match, managed procurement and architectural design process with contractors, and served as transit agency project manager for $2 million construction project that included bus storage, maintenance bays, office space, bus stop improvement, and park and ride spaces. Facility opened in 2015 and was built on-budget and ahead of schedule and received state level award for a transportation facility.

Jason M. MillerProject Manager


28

Ketchum Downtown Master Plan (ID). Served as Transportation Team Leader for developing a more transit oriented downtown. Collaborated with local community development organization and organized public meetings to facilitate dialogue on ways to reduce traffic and increase transit use.

Advanced Mobility Projects

CATA Alternative Service Models (PA). As part of the plan to complete a comprehensive evaluation of alternative public transportation service models for areas with low population density in the vicinity of State College, PA, conducted a literature review on alternative transportation service models including microtransit, Transportation Network Companies (TNC), vanpool, voucher/contracted service, and Mobility-on-Demand (MOD). Researched and analyzed case studies of existing and former TNC and voucher/contracted service pilot programs. Analyzed how applicable and replicable each of the defined service alternatives are for each of the CATA routes included in the study, based on the following evaluation criteria: total ridership, productivity, segment cost, per passenger cost, ease of use for passengers, ease of implementation for CATA, and impact on ADA requirements.

Automatic vehicle location, real-time bus locator app, fare collection technology, and fixed route software implementation for Mountain Rides (ID). Managed the implementation of a host of transit technology projects over a four-year period with the goal of improving customer information and building ridership, especially among millennials. Tasks included developing funding resources, managing vendors, coordinating installation of depot monitors, and overseeing “go-live” launch.

San Diego Association of Government (SANDAG) advanced transit technology for I-805 corridor (CA). Served as a transit consultant to Swoop Technology for bus driver vehicle assist technologies including blind-spot detection, collision avoidance with active braking, vehicle platooning, and lane-keeping assistance. These technologies were to be integrated into San Diego MTS buses to operate on a narrow shoulder on the I-805 corridor. Bus operator training regimen and operational consideration were developed in response to request for proposal process.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects

Pathways for People pedestrian and bicycle improvement plan and 2016 funding levy for City of Hailey (ID). Served as multi-modal transportation lead for committee tasked with initial planning and building public support through community outreach for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements. Projects included a protected bikeway, buffered bike lanes, advisory bike lanes, and sidewalks.

Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan for Blaine County (ID). Managed the process of developing a regional plan to help make biking and walking safer and more accessible through a long-range plan with prioritized projects and initiatives, based on community surveying. Resulting plan was endorsed and adopted by all municipalities and the county and has led to funding and implementation of over $2 million in new bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure investments since it was developed in 2014.

Bikeshare program launch for Cities of Ketchum and Hailey (ID). Wrote bikeshare marketing and implementation plan and managed associated project launch with 40 bikes. Strategy was to find a vendor with a smaller footprint that didn’t require expensive kiosks and allowed more flexible station locations utilizing existing bike racks.

Jason M. Miller Page 2

Project Manager


29

Experience• ServesasPrincipalinthefirm’s

Tahoeoffice(1993-present)• Senior Transportation Engineer in

thefirm’sTahoeoffice(1989-1993)• Transportation Engineer in the

firm’sTahoeoffice(1983-1989)• Engineer,PRCVoorhees,Inc.(1982-

1983)• PlanningEngineer,U.S.ArmyCorps

ofEngineers(1981)• Field Engineer, Burlington Northern

Railroad(1979)

Education • Engineer’sDegreeinCivil

Engineering,StanfordUniversity(1982)

• Master of Science in InfrastructurePlanning,StanfordUniversity(1981)

• Bachelor of Science in CivilEngineering,PurdueUniversity(1980)

Professional Registration/ Memberships

• Registered Professional Engineer inCalifornia, Colorado, Nevada, andUtah

• AmericanInstituteofCertifiedPlanners

• AmericanPlanningAssociation(APA)

• Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)

Mountain Resort PlanningAspen Transit Planning Studies (CO). Buildingonthefirm’s long-term experience in public transit issues in the Roaring ForkValleystretchingbacktothe1980’s,LSChassince2001providedongoingtransitplanning consulting services to theCityofAspen regarding theCity’selementoftheoverallRoaringForkpublictransitprogram.Throughaseriesofsevenstudies,LSChasevaluatedawiderangeoftransitservice,institutional and capital issues,

Eastern Sierra Transit Short-Range Transit Plan (CA). LSCwasselectedtoprepareaShort-RangeTransitPlan fortheEasternSierraTransitAuthority. ESTA serves a large region of eastern California,including local routes and ski shuttles in theMammothLakes resortcommunity; an intercity route connecting Reno, NV with Lancaster,CA;inter-communityroutesalongtheUS395corridor,lifelineservicesconnecting remote communities, and rural dial-a-ride programs.TheresultingplanwasadoptedbytheESTABoardinMay2015.

Ketchum Transit Hub Conceptual Design and Site Selection, (ID). The lackofasingle transithub in thedowntownKetchumareaimpactstheconvenienceandoperationsofpublictransitintheSunValley/Ketchum/WoodRiverValleyregionofIdaho.LSCwasjointlyretainedbytheCityofKetchumandMountainRidestoprovideplanningservicesassociatedwith the conceptualdesignof aTransitHub to servebothlocal and regional routes.

Park City Mountain Resort Base Area Transit/Parking/Traffic Design (UT). The Park CityMountain Resort base area is amajorrecreationalactivitycenterinbothwinterandsummer.Largelyunchangedforseveraldecades,itconsistsofextensivesurfaceparkingareasandapoorlyfunctioningtransitpulloutarea.LSCTransportationConsultants,Inc.wasretainedbytheParkCityMunicipalCorporationtoleadajointprojectwiththeskiareaoperatortodevelopsiteplansforthebasearea.

Park City/Summit County Short-Range Transit Plan (UT). Building upon our previous three successful transit plans for the area, LSCTransportationConsultants, Inc.was retained to develop aShortRangeTransitPlan(SRTP)forSummitCountyandtheParkCityMunicipalCorporation.Thestudyfocusedonenhancingservicesinthegrowing residential and commercial areas in unincorporated SummitCounty, improvingservicequality intheParkCityarea, implementingnewconnectionstoSaltLakeCityandothercommunities,aswellascapital facility, technology and vehicle improvements.A focus of thestudywascoordinationofregionalandlocalroutes,andimplementationofnewserviceconnectingSaltLakeCitywithParkCity.

Gordon Shaw, P.E., AICPPrincipal


30

Tahoe Area Regional Transit (TART) Short Range Transit Plan (CA).TheTahoeAreaRegionalTransit (TART) program, operated by PlacerCounty inCalifornia, serves theNorthShoreportionoftheTahoeBasinaswellasthenearbycommunitiesofTruckee,SquawValley,andAlpineMeadows.The service area includesmajorwinter and summer resorts and is currently developing at a rapid pace. LSCTransportationConsultants,Inc.wasretainedbytheTahoeRegionalPlanningAgencytoprepareafive-yearplanfortheTARTprogramtoguidetheexpansionofservices.

Vail Lionshead Transit Improvement Program (CO).Anefficientpublictransitsystemisessentialtotheday-to-dayoperationofVailasbothacommunityandasaresort.WhilegrowthintheLionsheadareaofVailisrapidlymakingitthecenterofvisitoractivity,theareawasoriginallyplannedinthe1960’swithonlyminimalbusstopsandlittleroomforexpansion.Toaccommodatefuturegrowthandsolveexistingpassengerandbuscongestionissues,LSCTransportationConsultants, Inc.conductedtransitplanningandfacilitydesignstudiesforthreespecificactivitycenterswithinLionshead.

Mammoth Lakes Transit Plans (CA). TheMammothLakesarea isoneofCalifornia’spremier ski resorts.Due to significant growth, a redevelopment program was instituted with an aggressive expansion of publictransportationservices.Since1998,LSChasbeenretainedtoprepareatotalofthreetransitplans.Undertheseplans, improvements have been implemented such as fixed-route anddemand-response transit services in thespring,summer,andfallseasons;expansioninwintertransitservicesandyear-roundcommutertransitservices;implementationofasummerrubber-tiredtrolleyprogram;andconstructionofatransitcenterservingthefixed-routetransitprogramandaskigondola.

Telluride Regional Transportation Study (CO).ThisstudyencompassedallfacetsoftransportationplanningfortheTellurideRegionincludingthehistoricTownofTelluride,theTellurideSkiArea,andtheothercommunitieswithinSanMiguelCounty.Encompassingaplanningperiodoffiveyears,thestudyeffortconsideredtransit,parking,highway,pedestrianandbicyclefactors.

Transit Operations PlanningAlpine County Short Range Transit Plan. AlpineCountyisthemostremoteofCalifornia’scounties.MobilitychallengesinAlpineCountyincludealargeservicearea,theabsenceofmedicalandcommercialserviceswithinthecounty,limitedcountystaff,andminimalfunding.AlpineCountyhasbeenoperatingasmallgeneralpublicDial-A-RideserviceintheeasternportionoftheCountyforseveralyears.TheAlpineCountyLocalTransportationCommission(ACLTC)contractedwithLSCtoupdateafive-yeartransitplaninAlpineCounty.

Gordon Shaw, P.E., AICP Page 2

Principal


31

Experience• Over 30 years experience in civil and

transportation engineering• ServesasPrincipalinthefirm’sColoradoSpringsoffice

• Assistant Professor of TransportationEngineering at the University of Alaska atAnchorage (1984-1987)

• Five years of active duty as a civilengineer with the US Air Force (1975-1980)

Education • DoctorofPhilosophyinCivilandEnvironmentalEngineering(Transportation),CornellUniversity(1984)

• MasterofScienceinCivilEngineering,University of Alaska Anchorage (1980)

• BachelorofScienceinCivilEngineering,USAirForceAcademy(1975)

Presentations and Seminars• CTAAExpo:TransitPerformance

Monitoring• CTAAExpo:WorkshoponCost

Allocation• CTAAExpo:TransitServicePlanningFinancialManagement,CostAllocation,andPerformanceEvaluationforTransitManagers(multipleseminarsheldin10states)

• OregonTransitAssociationConference:TransitPerformanceMeasures

• Alaska Transit Association Annual Conference:TransitPerformanceMeasures and Transit Service Design

• CTAAInstituteforTransportationCoordination:ServiceDesignandFinancial Planning

Resort and Tourism Transit PlanningGunnison Valley Strategic Transit & Senior Mobility Plan (CO).Prepared a strategic transit plan for the Gunnison Valley Regional TransportationAuthority.TheplanidentifiedenhancedservicesforthecorridorbetweenGunnisonandMountCrestedButte.TheplancalledformorefrequentserviceduringboththewinterandsummeraswellasclosecoordinationwiththelocalserviceinCrestedButteandMountCrestedButte.

Mt. Hood Transit Implementation Plan (OR). LSCworkedwithClackamas County to develop aTransit Implementation Plan for theMt.HoodRegion.Thefocuswastodeterminewhatservicesshouldbeprovidedandtodevelopalong-term,sustainablefundingprogramfortheMt. Hood Express.

Eagle County Transit Hub and Park-and-Ride Study (CO).Completedastudyto identifyappropriate locations for transferhubs,passenger facilities, and park-and-ride lots to connect the local feeder systemstothecentralspine.

Big Sky Transit Development Plan (MT). Oversaw developmentofthetransitplanforBigSky,Montana.Thiswasthefirstplanfortheresort area and recommended year-round general public service.TherecommendationswereimplementedandfundingwasobtainedfromtheMontanaDepartmentofTransportationforthenewservice.

Intermountain Region 2035 Transportation Plan (CO). Prepared the 2035 Transportation Plan which established the vision for all transportationmodes in the IntermountainRegion.The plan includedthevisionandgoalsfortransportation,prioritizationofimprovements,andafinanciallyconstrainedmultimodaltransportationplan.

Intermountain Region Transit Element (CO). Prepared the long-rangetransitplanfortheIntermountainRegionofColorado.Theplanidentified improvements which should be included in the preferredtransit vision for the region and the services which are included in the financiallyconstrainedregionalplan.

Grand County Transit Development Plan (CO). Preparedafive-yeartransitplanforGrandCountyincludingtheSilverCreekSkiResortandWinterPark.TheprojectincludedanonboardsurveyonpassengersonTheLiftatWinterParkandasurveyofresidentsandvisitors.

Mammoth Lakes Transportation Modeling (CA). Provided technicaloversightoftransportationsystemmodelingfortheMammothLakes, California area.The model incorporates a very detailed modechoice component to represent alternate modes including walking,transit, and gondolas to the ski area.

Albert T. Stoddard III, Ph.D., P.E.,

Senior Advisor


32

Summit County TDP Update (CO).Preparedanupdateforthefive-yeartransitplanforSummitStage.Recommendationsincludedexpressservicetoskiareas,half-hourservicethroughouttheyear,andcheckpointserviceforspecificresidentialneighborhoods.Adetailedoperatingandfinancialplanwasprovided.

Breckenridge Transit Plan (CO). Completed anoperations analysis andprovided recommendationswith a focusondetermining the needs forfutureserviceexpansionandidentifyingefficienciesinprovidingthoseservices.Theoverallapproachwastocollectandevaluatedata,reviewserviceinformation,provideananalysisofdemand,andreviewoperationalcharacteristics.

Montrose County Regional Transit Feasibility Study (CO).Principal-in-Chargeforthisprojectwhichprovidedasummaryoftheexistingservicesinthearea,ananalysisofthedemandforfutureservices,serviceandinstitutionaloptions,andrecommendationsforimmediateactions.

Durango Strategic Transit Plan (CO).Preparedacomprehensivelong-rangestrategictransitplanforDurangoandLaPlataCounty.Theprojectincludedin-depthresearch in thecommunityandanalysisof alternate servicecon-cepts.Recommendations focusedoncreating a regional transit agency.

Steamboat Springs TDP Update (CO). Updatedthefive-yeartransitplan forSteamboatSpringsandRouttCounty.Recommendationsweremade forbusroutesservingthecommunityandtheskiarea.Theplanincludedroutealignment,operatingschedules,fleetrequirements,andafinancialplan.

Glacier National Park Transit Operations Plan (MT).Prepared the transit operations plan to implement transit servicewithinGlacierNational Park. Prepared theserviceschedules,drivers’workschedules,andoperatingcostsforthenewservicewhichbeganin2007.

Fraser Valley Public Transit System (CO)DevelopedtransitserviceimplementationplanfortheTownofWinterPark.LocaltransitservicewasprovidedinWinterParkduringtheskiseasonandtheTowndesiredtoprovideayear-roundpublictransitservice.Theplanprovideddirectionforfundingandimplementingtheenhancedservice.

North Country Coordinated Transit Implementation Plan (NH)DevelopedaserviceplantoimplementcoordinatedtransitserviceinConwayandNorthConway.Aserviceplanwaspreparedwithrecommendationstoalleviatetrafficcongestioninthismajortouristcorridor.

Broadmoor Master Plan (CO)Prepared the transportationmasterplan forredevelopmentof theBroadmoorHotelandResort.Theanalysisincluded access to the resort on Lake Avenue, parking access, and circulation on the resort grounds. The redevelopmentplansincludedexpansionofhotelspaceandadditionalresortfacilities.

Albert T. Stoddard III, Ph.D., P.E., Page 2

Senior Advisor


33

Experience• Transportation Planner, LSC

Transportation Consultants, Inc. (2015-present)

Education • Master of Urban Planning (MUP),

University of Michigan (2014)• Bachelor of Arts: Urban Studies

and Art History, NorthwesternUniversity (2012)

Recognitions• Received the 2014 Emerging

Leaders’ Sustainable Plan Awardfrom the American PlanningAssociation

Professional Registration/ Memberships

• AmericanInstituteofCertifiedPlanners

• American Planning Association• WTS International

Transit PlanningGunnison Valley Strategic Transit and Senior Mobility Plan (CO)Analyzedtheexistingtransitservices,includingridershippatterns,financialreview, and system performances, as well as conducted an onboard survey, on-timefieldchecks,andboardingandalightingcountsonGVRTA’stransitservice during the summer and winter seasons. Analyzed the results of the onboard survey, an online community survey, and a senior transportation survey. Determined existing and potential transit demand for the study area, including fixed-route transit demand by season (winter, summer,and shoulder) and rural elderly and disabled transit demand. Identifiedalternativesanddevelopedtherecommendedserviceplanforfixed-routeand senior transit services.

Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council Plan for Transit to Federal Public Lands (OR). Reviewed existing planning studies and documents relating to public transportation service and public land access in Central Oregon and surrounding areas. Evaluated existing transportationservices,includingridershippatterns,financialreview,andsystem performance for Cascades East Transit. Analyzed local conditions throughout the study area including traffic volumes, vehicle counts,andvisitorcounts.Evaluatedthefivecorridorsagainstadefinedsetofevaluation criteria to determine the top twohighest ranked corridorsfor detailed service planning. Developed transit service plans for the top twohighestrankedcorridors,includingserviceandoperations,projectedperformance measures, bus schedules, vehicle requirements, bus stop improvements, and a 5-year financial plan.Assistedwith providing dataand information for COIC to use in their FLAP grant application.

Mt. Hood Transit Implementation Plan (OR). Conducted and analyzedanonboardsurvey,on-timefieldchecks,andboardingandalightingdata for the current route structure for Mt. Hood Transit—a transit systemprovidingpublictransportation inClackamasCounty,Oregontoaccess ski, lodging, andother servicesnearMt.Hood.Onboard surveysand systemwide boarding and alighting counts were conducted during the peaksummerandwintermonthstounderstandtheimpactonthetransitsystem during those months. Developed the recommended service plan forthefixed-routeservices,includingtheprojectedperformancemeasuresand future service considerations.

Grand Valley Transit Operations, Route and Schedule Analysis (CO). Evaluatedexistingfixed-routetransitservices,includingridershippatterns, financial review, and system performances for GrandValleyTransit inGrand Junction, CO.Conducted and analyzed a systemwideonboardsurvey,on-timefieldchecks,andboardingandalightingcounts.Identified fixed-route and paratransit transit demand and developedservice alternatives. Developed the preferred service plan, including route descriptionsandprojectedperformancemeasures.

Megan McPhilimy, AICPTransportation Planner


34

Megan McPhilimy, AICP Page 2

Transportation Planner

Craig Transit Development Plan (CO). As part of the study to identify unmet transportation needs in the City of Craig and the surrounding areas and to determineifthereisenoughdemandtowarranttheprovisionofabasiclevelofpublictransit,evaluatedfiveexistingtransit services in the study area and analyzed the results of a community survey. Determined existing and potential transitdemandforthestudyarea.Identifiedtransitservicealternativesanddevelopedtherecommendedserviceplan,includingserviceandoperations,projectedperformancemeasures,fundingalternatives,anda5-yearfinancialplan.ConductedmeetingsandpresentationswiththeProjectSteeringCommitteethroughouttheplanningprocess.

Bent County Transit Expansion Study (CO). Evaluated eight existing transit services in the study area and analyzed the results of a community survey. Determined existingandpotentialtransitdemandforthestudyarea. Identifiedtransitservicealternativesanddevelopedthethreephaserecommendedserviceplan,includingserviceandoperations,projectedperformancemeasures,vehicleandfacilityrequirements,busstopimprovements,marketingandbrandingefforts,organizationalstructure,fundingalternatives,5-yearfinancialplan,andimplementationplan.

Cache Valley Short Range Transit Plan (UT)Conducted and analyzed an onboard survey, on-time performance field checks, and boarding and alighting dataforCacheValleyTransitDistrict’sfixed-routebusservice.Analyzedtheresults fromtheonboardsurvey,on-timeperformancefieldchecks,andboardingandalightingdata,aswellas,theresultsfromanonlinecommunitysurvey.Identifiedtransitserviceoptionsanddevelopedtherecommendedserviceplan,includingprojectedridershipandperformance measures, and discussion of future service considerations.

Lawton Transit Bus Route Study (OK)Evaluated fixed-route and paratransit services, including ridership patterns, financial review, and performancemeasuresfortheLawtonAreaTransitSystem.Analyzedasystemwideonboardsurvey,on-timefieldchecks,andboardingandalightingcounts.Determinedfixed-routeandparatransitdemandanddevelopedserviceoptions.

Rochester-Genesee Regional Operation Service Efficiency Plan (NY)Evaluated the existing public transit services in the seven-county study area, as well as existing connections to regional transportation services. Determined the potential demand for regional connections using the U.S. Census LEHD datatoidentifycommutepatternsbetweeneachofthesevencounties.Identifiedthefrequencyoftransportationproviders, the locations of existing transfer points, and opportunities for new transfer points allowing regional connections to be made throughout the area.

CATA Alternative Service Models (PA)This plan presented a comprehensive evaluation of alternative public transportation service models (i.e., microtransit, TNCs, vanpool, and Mobility on Demand) for areas with low population density in the vicinity of State College. Coordinated and analyzed the results of an onboard survey and boarding and alighting data for CATA commuter transit routes. Evaluated existing commuter transit services and determined transit demand for the study area. Conductedaliteraturereviewandanalyzedcasedstudiesonalternativetransportationservicemodels.Identifiedtransit service alternatives and developed the recommended service plan.

Casper Route and Schedule Analysis (WY)Evaluated existing fixed-route and paratransit services, including ridership patterns, financial review, and systemperformances for the Casper Area Transit Coalition. Analyzed the results of an online survey for Casper College students,faculty,andstaff.Identifiedfixed-routetransitservicealternativesandthetransitdemandforeachoption.Developedthepreliminaryrecommendedserviceplan,includingprojectedperformancemeasures,busschedules,anddiscussion of future service considerations.


35


Table 1 shows many of the transit planning projects we have completed in mountain resort communities with work elements similar to those for SMART, including those that included a regional transportation authority and regional transportation issues. In addition to this list of projects we have provided more detailed project descriptions of recent, relevant studies and plans we have completed.

Table 1LSC Project Experience

Project

Areas of Experience

ResortArea

TransitPlanning

RegionalTransportation

Mt. Hood Transit Improvement Plan (OR) X X

Tahoe Rim Trail Transit Study (CA) X X X

Glacier National Park Transit Operations Plan (MT) X X X

Breckenridge Transit Operations Plan (CO) X X X

Big Sky Transit Development Plan (MT) X X

Carroll County Transit Feasibility Study (NH) X X

Aspen Transit Planning Studies (CO) X X X

Eagle County Transit Hub and Park-and-Ride Study(CO)

X X X

Intermountain Region 2035 Transportation Plan (CO) X X X

Fort Berthold Public Transit and Ferry Service Plan(ND)

X

Gunnison County Strategic Transit Plan (CO) X X X

Aspen Paid Parking Program (CO) X

Five Valleys Regional Transit Feasibility Study (MT) X

Mammoth Lakes Transit Plan (CA) X X

Mammoth Lakes Transportation Demand Model (CA) X X

Eastern Sierra Short Range Transit Plan (CA) X X

Intermountain Region Transit Element (CO) X X X

Jackson Teton Transit Plan (WY) X X X

Montrose County Regional Transit Plan (CO) X X X

Park City Mountain Resort Transportation Plan (UT) X X X

Park City Short Range Transit Plan (UT) X X

Summit County Transit Service Plan (CO) X X

Southwest Colorado Regional Transit Plan (CO) X X X

Park City Winter Olympics Transportation Plan (UT) X X X

Fraser Valley Public Transit System (CO) X X X

Qualifications - P

roject Experience

36

Eagle County Transit Hub and Park-and-Ride Study

LSC developed a Transit Hub and Park-and-Ride Study for the next phase in planning for the long-range development of transit services in Eagle County. LSC teamed with Design Workshop of Aspen for this project. The primary goal of this project was to take the findings from the Feeder Circulator Feasibility Study and Needs Assessment and complete an assessment identifying appropriate locations for transfer hubs, park-and-ride lots, or drop-off points to connect the feeder systems to the regional spine.

Study highlights included:

▪ A Feeder Circulator Feasibility Study and Needs Assessment was developed with plan to move to a centralspine system with local feeder circulator routes

▪ An inventory of existing facilities and bus stop deficiencies was conducted with recommendations forfuture improvements for each bus stop

▪ Appropriate locations for transfer hubs, passenger facilities, and park-and-ride lots to connect the localfeeder systems to the central spine

This project resulted in preferred locations, conceptual designs, and the need for regional transit facilities that allowed passengers to access the regional transit system and work centers in the study area.

Reference

Kelley [email protected]

LocationEagle County, CO

AgencyEagle County Transit Authority (ECO Transit)

Date2014

i


37

Gunnison Valley Strategic Transit & Senior Mobility Plan

Gunnison Valley Transportation Authority (GVRTA) selected LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. to develop a Strategic Transit and Senior Mobility Plan. Highlights of this study included:

• Reviewing the Gunnison Valley RTA bus service• Reviewing the Gunnison County Senior Transportation services in Gunnison and Crested Butte• Identifying transportation needs within the community• Recommending service expansion to meet ridership demands.

GVRTA is a public transit provider connecting the City of Gunnison, the Town of Crested Butte, and the Town of Mt. Crested Butte. GVRTA contracts with Alpine Express to provide daily trips connecting to the Mountain Express bus system in two locations at the north end of the valley.

LSC provided GVRTA a blueprint to identify the needs and opinions of the community, recommendations to expand the GVRTA transit system and the Senior Transportation services, and a financial plan to address vehicle needs and operational expenses. LSC also made recommendations to coordinate service delivery among other transportation agencies and specialized transportation programs offered by human service agencies.

Reference

Scott Truex [email protected]

LocationGunnison, CO

AgencyGunnison Valley Transportation Authority (GVRTA)

Date2016

i


38

Mt. Hood Transit Implementation Plan

Clackamas County selected LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. to prepare a Transit Service Implementation Plan for the Mt. Hood Region and specifically for Mt. Hood Express.

The purpose of this study was to:

• analyze the existing transit service of Mt. Hood Express• determine the appropriate level of service for the region• determine the governance and financial structure to sustain that service

LSC completed a detailed analysis of the existing service. Both an onboard passenger and community survey were completed. Community meetings were held throughout the region to obtain public input. Service options were evaluated to meet regional transportation needs. Options for the governance structure were evaluated to determine the best approach to integrate multiple jurisdictions and establish sustainable funding.

LSC prepared a Service Expansion Report and a Sustainable Operations Report which were used by the County to select a preferred service plan. Long term sustainability focuses on formation of a Transportation District for governance and funding. LSC prepared an Implementation Plan for the selected approach.

Reference

Teresa [email protected]

LocationMt. Hood, Oregon

AgencyClackamas County

Date2015-2016

i


39

Eastern Sierra Transit Short-Range Transit Plan

LSC was selected to prepare a Short Range Transit Plan for the Eastern Sierra Transit Authority. ESTA is an extensive system encompassing a large region of eastern California, including local routes and skier shuttles in the resort community of Mammoth Lakes; an intercity route connecting Reno, Nevada with Lancaster, California; inter-community routes along the US 395 corridor, lifeline services connecting remote communities, and rural dial-a-ride programs. LSC’s work consisted of the following:

• Onboard surveys of all routes and services, including passenger perception surveys.• Performance review, and evaluation of appropriate goals, standards and performance measures.• Detailed cost and ridership analysis of a wide range of service alternatives• Public outreach surveys and workshops• Development of service, capital and management improvements, including specific schedules and

implementation plans.• Preparation of financial plans and information to support grant applications.

The resulting plans include an expansion of the intercity program, new evening services, additional inter-community runs, and management strategies to improve Dial-A-Ride productivity. The resulting plan was adopted by the ESTA Board in May 2015.

Reference

John [email protected]

LocationInyo and Mono Counties, CA

AgencyEastern Sierra Transit Authority

Date2015-2016

i


40

Transit for Federal Public Lands in Central Oregon

The Central Oregon Intergovernmental Council (COIC) selected LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. to complete a study on Planning for Transit to Federal Public Lands in Central Oregon. The COIC received a Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant to study five transportation corridors for improved transit service to Federal lands and visitor destinations including the Mt. Hood and Willamette National Forests. The FLAP grants were designed to assist local governments to improve access to nearby Federal lands. The five corridors to be studied include:

• Bend to Tumalo Falls (Skyliners Rd.)• Century Drive (Bend) and Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway (FR46)• Sisters to Hoodoo Ski Area (US20)• Sisters to Three Creeks Sno-Park (via Three Creeks Lake Rd.)• Warm Springs to Mt. Hood (US26)

These corridors would extend the service currently operated by Cascades East Transit (CET). CET currently operates local and regional transit services providing local mobility within communities and connections between communities. The corridors to be studied offer an opportunity to extend the connections to surrounding Federal lands and recreation areas.

The goal of the project is to compare each corridor against a defined set of evaluation criteria to determine the top two highest ranked corridors for detailed service planning. The final report will detail a list of investment projects for both services and facilities, providing planning level cost estimates for future implementation to develop these two corridors for transit service.

ReferencesDylan Corbin (now with US Fish & Wildlife)[email protected]

Derek [email protected]

LocationBend, Oregon

AgencyCentral Oregon Intergovernmental Council

Date2018

i


41

Aspen Transit Planning Studies

Since 2001, LSC has provided ongoing transit planning consulting services to the City of Aspen related to the City’s element of the overall Roaring Fork public transit program. Through a series of seven studies, LSC has evaluated a wide range of transit service, institutional and capital issues, focusing on the following:

• Modififying the City Service routes to make most effective use of limited transit funding to servepassengers and the community

• Expanding services to address the transportation impact of major commercial, resort, andresidential developments

• “Right-sizing” the transit vehicle fleet• Improving dispatch, monitoring, and reporting procedures• Evaluating strategies to best use public transit in the City’s efforts to reduce climate change

impacts, including an assessment of the greenhouse gas impacts of various routes and serviceperiods

• Improving transit passenger facilities, including the downtown Rubey Park Transit Center• Coordinating local transit services with the regional Bus Rapid Transit program• Making the most effective use of limited public transit funding• Expanding transit services to affordable housing projects.• Assessing the role of Transportation Network Companies in overall mobility.

Reference

Lynn Rumbaugh,[email protected]

LocationAspen, CO

AgencyRoaring Fork Transit

Date2001-present

i


42


LSC approaches this study with an eye towards creating an integrated SOP that leverages existing SMART resources, identifies short and long-term opportunities, and fits with community values.

Throughout the project, we will ask:

• What deficiencies contribute to transit being a less competitive travel mode?• How are transportation needs in San Miguel County distributed, where are the travel patterns, and

what drives these travel needs?• Where do mobility gaps exist and how do we fill them?• How does consolidation happen and when?• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current service options?• What can SMART learn from similar peer communities who have gone through this evolution?• How and where should service be expanded?• How do we fund and phase operational and capital implementation? What are the priorities?

As a Colorado firm with creative professionals passionate about building legacy systems in rural and resort areas, LSC provides key advantages for SMART:

⇒ We spend time up front getting to know the community. We listen to you, your stakeholders, andthe community to understand what’s important, where the barriers are, and where opportunitiesmay arise. We ride buses and interact with locals from diverse demographics and all parts of theSMART service area.

⇒ We help you understand the implications, trade-offs, and considerations for future servicedevelopment. Is commuter service the highest unmet need? How do we balance local vs. regionalservice? What delivery mode is preferred? LSC understands each community must answer thesequestions as part of the process, and we are experts in facilitating this conversation.

⇒ We guide the process but don’t dictate the outcome. We apply our knowledge and expertise, butthis is ultimately a locally derived and determined plan that must be achievable in three key ways:financially, politically, and operationally.

Statem

ent of Work

43


From this foundation, we have created a work plan that efficiently and effectively delivers on the study goals within the time and budget allotted.

Task 1: Project Administration and Coordination Project administration and coordination will be ongoing throughout the study development process as our team works closely with SMART. We approach the study acutely aware of the need to incorporate the appropriate agencies, individuals, and representatives—we view our role as an extension of SMART. We will begin by scheduling the kick-off meeting and preparing a data needs list. Following the kick-off meeting we will prepare a final work plan and schedule, which will guide completion of the SOP. We develop lines of communication and provide routine updates to ensure that local staff are well aware of our efforts and progress.

LSC agrees that the existing SMART Community Advisory Committee (CAC) is a natural fit for study oversight and guidance. The dedicated involvement of an advisory committee will be integral to the success of the study. LSC and our Project Manager will coordinate all project activity with SMART Executive Director David Averill and the CAC, as appropriate throughout the project. The CAC serves as the focus group for development of the SOP.

We continually monitor our progress throughout the planning process. This includes weekly or more frequent internal team meetings on specific subtasks, as well as conversations of how best to develop the plan. As we look at options for service implementation based on client needs, we hold internal planning workshops to discuss the options with advantages or disadvantages of each. As we develop service options, we complete an analysis of the options using selected performance measures.

We will provide monthly invoices detailing staff hours and expenses incurred with a project summary describing the work completed during the previous month, situations that could impact the schedule, and anticipated work for the following month. We will be in contact at key points to discuss any issues and to coordinate upcoming activities. This approach ensures that staff are informed of study progress and any challenges encountered.

Task 1 Deliverables: ⇒ Kickoff meeting to finalize work plan, schedule, and community familiarization⇒ Four CAC meetings (in-person) coordinated with particular deliverables and project activities

(see Project Schedule)⇒ Bi-weekly and monthly project status updates; meeting agendas and notes

Task 2: Public Engagement To inform the SOP and ensure stakeholder support for the final plan, we propose a public involvement effort that engages the CAC, key partners, stakeholders, and constituents throughout the planning process. Elements of our public engagement plan include:

Stakeholder interviews – as part of our initial trip and community familiarization, we propose interviewing 6-10 key stakeholders, outside of the CAC membership. These interviews could be with elected officials, business owners,

44


non-profit leaders, resort representatives, rider advocates, transportation staff, board members, or any other identified partner.

Service options workshop (SOW) and open house – Incorporated and detailed in Task 4, this is an opportunity for the community to discuss initial service options and prioritize.

Prioritized service option and phasing open house – Included as part of Task 5, this is the second phase of service option development when options are refined, prioritized, and scheduled. This provides a follow-up to the first service option workshop and is another opportunity for stakeholder and community input.

LSC will rely on the results from previously completed regional surveys to understand the broader community opinion on public transportation needs – we don’t believe a new broad-based community survey is needed.

To help maximize public engagement and cost efficiency, LSC requests the following support from SMART for Task 1:

• Meeting promotion, logistics, coordination, and scheduling (and associated costs) for all CACmeetings, stakeholder interviews, the SOW, and the prioritized options/phasing open house.

• Any surveys or community outreach associated with soliciting input on draft options above andbeyond the open houses we have proposed.

Task 2 Deliverables: ⇒ Stakeholder interview notes⇒ Workshop materials and facilitation

Task 3: Financial and Resource Analysis To create the foundation for Tasks 4-6, LSC will perform an analysis of the available and potential resources that SMART can utilize. LSC will develop a high-level financial and resource development plan for three potential transportation scenarios: no growth, moderate growth, and high growth. We will define the operational and capital needs, and determine transit infrastructure requirements.

LSC brings a team uniquely qualified to analyze regional transit financial and resource needs. LSC is recognized nationally as a leader in rural and small community transit planning. LSC was part of the team which prepared and authored TCRP Report 161 on methodologies for estimating rural transit needs. Our Senior Advisor, A.T. Stoddard, is often called on to present transit agency budgeting and financial analysis courses for CTAA conferences. LSC will leverage this experience to develop a deep understanding of the current and future resources needed within San Miguel County by:

• Creating a cost structure methodology forexisting services, under the current operatingmodel, based on financial reports and establishedbudgets;• Quantifying existing resources, assets, andinfrastructure across all transportation providers operating in SMART’s service area;

Recommended fare structure in Craig, CO

Table II-4 CATABUS Cost Allocation Model

FY2016/2017 Vehicle- Vehicle- Fixed PROPOSED ACCOUNT Hours Miles Cost

Maintenance $2,881,584 $2,881,584 Operations $9,861,855 $9,861,855 Administration $2,215,186 $2,215,186 Unallocated Expenditures $1,571,906 $1,571,906

TOTAL OPERATING COSTS $16,530,531 $9,861,855 $2,881,584 $3,787,092 Service Variable Quantities veh-hrs veh-mls Fixed-Cost Used for Planning Purposes 139,499 1,893,422 Factor

$70.70 $1.52 1.30 Source: CATA, 2018. LSC, 2018.

Cost allocation model, State College, PA

45


• Reviewing the current fare structure(s) and making recommendations on changes based on establishedgoals;

• Identifying possibilities for new funding sources;• Compiling existing and available transit system data, including passenger ridership by route and

individual trip from farebox counts, monthly and annual operating reports; and,• Carrying out field observations of existing transit operations.

LSC will invest the time needed to understand the unique challenges and issues that SMART faces. We believe the best approach to understanding local conditions and opportunities is to get out in the community, ride your buses, observe operations, and talk to people about how transit works today. This on-the-ground picture will be set against the available and needed resources.

Task 3 Deliverable: ⇒ Interim Report #1: Financial and Resource Analysis (for incorporation into Draft and Final SOP).

Task 4: Develop and Analyze Service Options We will start by evaluating the current system performance for each of the individual routes. Route profiles will be prepared showing the route alignment, passenger characteristics, and performance measures. For each route, on-time performance, passengers per hour, cost per passenger, route connectivity, populations served, and primary origin-destination information will be reported.

From the baseline performance of existing routes and services, and in partnership with the CAC and appropriate stakeholders, we will refine and define transit service alternatives and scenarios for consideration. These alternatives may incorporate various service options, modes, infrastructure, and partnerships, including:

• Service philosophy: geographic coverage system, high-frequencyintensive system, lifeline system for the transit dependent, orcommuter-focused;

• Long-term consolidation and operating plan for existing servicessuch as the Town of Telluride Galloping Goose and the Town of Mountain Village bus and gondolaservices

• Potential route options and associated efficiency trade-offs in terms of ridership, costs, and traveltimes;

• Possibility for integration of multimodal programs andadvanced mobility solutions, such as microtransit, bikeshare, andride-hailing;• Determining who operates a given option: agency, contracted,or private partnership;• Estimated relative performance of corridors in areas ofridership demand, costs, and safety; and,• Farebox recovery models and estimates.

We anticipate that a wide range of alternatives will be considered in this process, including specific changes to existing services, operational models, as well as partnership potentials. Ahead of

Microtransit in Aspen, CO

Route profile in Grand Junction, CO

46


the SOW, LSC will develop a draft of possible service options for discussion and review.

In an open-house format, we will lead stakeholders and the CAC through the SOW and the recommended options. LSC will develop large-format maps and info sheets for each of the various solutions and service variations. These will be used to explain the concepts and the tradeoffs associated with the various options, along with the potential routing, timing, and span of service. We will work with the group to prioritize options so that they may be phased over time.

Task 4 Deliverable: ⇒ Interim Report #2: Draft Recommended Service Options⇒ Service Options Workshop

Task 5: Prioritized Service Options and Phased Implementation Plan Once we have direction on the service options from Task 4, LSC will create a preferred service option Phased Implementation Plan that is prioritized and scheduled over the next 1-5 years. This plan will describe the specific service characteristics and associated operating and capital funding required to implement the future options.

For each of the preferred service options, the route and service will be defined in terms of where and how the route operates; service frequency; number of buses required; and expected ridership and productivity performance. The anticipated implementation path for each route and service will be defined and presented.

Task 5 Deliverable: ⇒ Interim Report # 3: Prioritized Options/Implementation.⇒ Open house to review prioritized options and phasing.

Task 6: Organizational Capacity Analysis This task is focused on determining if, when, and how SMART should consider taking service “in-house” versus the current contracted model for regional services. We will break down the current cost model for contracted service and create an equivalent cost structure model for service operated directly by SMART.

The cost model is one piece of this analysis. We will also incorporate:

• Feasibility analysis• A decision tree to determine the ideal point to make a potential switch to operate service directly• Human resource and administration requirements for in-house service• Facilities and capital equipment considerations• Policy and partnership implications

Our goal will be to give SMART an easy-to-use tool to decide if, when, and how provision of service could be moved in-house.

Phase 1 Recommended Transit Service Bent County, CO

47


Task 6 Deliverables: ⇒ Interim Report # 4: Organizational Capacity Analysis.⇒ Review via web conference.

Task 7: Prepare and Present Draft and Final SOP Tasks 1-6 build into completion of the Draft and Final SOP. The SOP will incorporate finalized and detailed versions of all task deliverables, including:

Detailed Service Plan – Route development, service expansions, or operational changes with span of service by weekday and weekend (hours of service) with service frequency defined for different geographic areas, as well as route maps with stop locations;

Financial Analysis and Plan – LSC will take the service plan, resulting from a discussion with the CAC about service alternatives from Task 5, to prepare a multiyear financial plan. We will develop the financial plan using constant dollars and then take into account anticipated inflation and possible changes in funding. The financial projection will identify potential funding shortfalls and required revenue to meet the projected expenses. We will also identify potential funding sources including federal funding, local funding, visitor fees, and other grant opportunities.

Capital and Infrastructure Needs’ Analysis and Plan – An important element of the SOP will be to analyze and identify vehicle, facility, and other infrastructure needs associated with service implementation. Our team will determine the necessary fleet (number, size, type, propulsion, and mix), passenger facility needs, maintenance and administration facilities, park-and-ride opportunities and improvements, and bus stop improvements. Capital costs for the next 5-10 years will be estimated for all infrastructure improvements and vehicle purchase or lease.

Consolidation Plan – The plan will also determine how the various transit operations within San Miguel County will be consolidated and how recommended service options will be implemented. Considerations will include: cost structures; personnel and staffing; applicable policy and procedural issues; and collaboration with private transportation providers.

Performance Measures – appropriate performance metrics to track and monitor system development over time with tools for flagging problems.

Implementation Playbook – step-by-step plan for how to execute the SOP, including tasks, timelines, roles and responsibilities, and milestones.

LSC will submit the SOP as a draft to the CAC so that comments and edits can be made with adequate time ahead of the presentation of the final plan to the Board. Following review and receipt of comments on the Draft Report, we will prepare the Final Report. A graphically-rich Executive Summary and PowerPoint presentation will be incorporated into the Final Report so that those not familiar with transit or the SOP can easily digest and understand the plan quickly.

Task 7 Deliverable: ⇒ Draft SOP and web conference presentation to CAC.⇒ Delivery of Final SOP⇒ Presentation to SMART Board of Directors

48


49


LSC proposes to deliver the project within SMART’s desired timeline, with one exception. LSC has scheduled the delivery of the draft SOP in mid-April to give enough time to complete the service option development, prioritization, phasing, and finalization. We propose to submit a draft for CAC and SMART review so that LSC can make any edits or revisions ahead of submitting the final SOP and presenting it to the SMART board.

Tim

eline 50


LSC proposes four different trips to San Miguel County/Telluride to carry out this study. The dates shown below are suggestions and can be adjusted, based on final project start date and SMART, CAC availability.

Jason Miller will travel for all four trips, while Megan McPhilimy will travel to San Miguel County for the SOW only.

Total travel costs, as shown in the budget section of this proposal, are $4,650.00, billed as actual costs.

January 3rd, 4th, 5th

•Kickoff•Community Review•CAC meeting•Stakeholder Interiews

February 19th, 20th

•CAC meeting•Review IR1-Financial and Resource Analysis•Service Options Workshop/Open House

March 25th, 26th

•CAC Meeting•Review IR2 Prioritized Options and Phasing Plan Review•Open House to present Prioritized Options

May, date TBD

•CAC final meeting•Presentation to SMART Board

Travel Proposal

51


LSC is proposing a total project budget of $49,750 comprised of $44,700 in labor costs and $5,050 in direct costs. LSC will deliver the complete project within this budget, as a not-to-exceed price, for the Scope of Work contained in this proposal. The detailed cost proposal is:

Project

Manager Principal Senior Advisor

Transit

Planner

Graphics

Support

Administrative

Support

Cost

Task 1 Project Administration and Coordination 28 28 $3,920

Task 2 Public Engagement 48 24 72 $8,760

Task 3 Financial and Resource Analysis 16 2 8 20 2 4 52 $6,150

Task 4 Service Option Development 24 4 4 32 12 2 78 $8,470

Task 5 Prioritized Options, Phased Implementation 8 4 8 16 8 4 48 $5,460

Task 6 Organizational Capacity Analysis 20 1 4 8 4 2 39 $4,780

Task 7 Final Report and Recommendations 24 2 8 8 12 8 62 $7,160

Total 168 13 32 108 38 20 379 $44,700

$44,700

Labor Subtotal:

Direct Costs:Item Cost

LSC Travel (transportation, lodging, per diem) $4,650

Copying-printing-maps $300

Telephone-conference calls $100

Direct Costs Subtotal: $5,050

Total Project Cost: $49,750

LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

545 E. Pikes Peak Avenue

Colorado Springs, CO 80903

(719) 633-2868

Task

Final Cost Proposal

Total Hours

Costs

52


A signed copy of Appendix A is attached.

Appendix A

: Clauses

53

SMART RFP #2018-4 APPENDIX A:

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION AND COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REQUIRED CONTRACT CLAUSES

1. NO GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION TO THIRD PARTIES No Obligation bythe Federal Government.

(1) The Purchaser and Contractor acknowledge and agree that, notwithstanding any concurrence by theFederal Government in or approval of the solicitation or award of the underlying contract, absent theexpress written consent by the Federal Government, the Federal Government is not a party to thiscontract and shall not be subject to any obligations or liabilities to the Purchaser, Contractor, or anyother party (whether or not a party to that contract) pertaining to any matter resulting from theunderlying contract.

2. PROGRAM FRAUD AND FALSE OR FRAUDULENT STATEMENTS AND RELATED ACTS(31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq. 49 CFR Part 31 18 U.S.C. 1001 49 U.S.C. 5307)

Program Fraud and False or Fraudulent Statements or Related Acts.

(1) The Contractor acknowledges that the provisions of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, asamended, 31 U.S.C. § 3801 et seq. and U.S. DOT regulations, "Program Fraud Civil Remedies," 49 C.F.R.Part 31, apply to its actions pertaining to this Project. Upon execution of the underlying contract, theContractor certifies or affirms the truthfulness and accuracy of any statement it has made, it makes, itmay make, or causes to be made, pertaining to the underlying contract or the FTA assisted project forwhich this contract work is being performed. In addition to other penalties that may be applicable, theContractor further acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulentclaim, statement, submission, or certification, the Federal Government reserves the right to impose thepenalties of the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 on the Contractor to the extent the FederalGovernment deems appropriate.

(2) The Contractor also acknowledges that if it makes, or causes to be made, a false, fictitious, or fraudulentclaim, statement, submission, or certification to the Federal Government under a contract connected with aproject that is financed in whole or in part with Federal assistance originally awarded by FTA under theauthority of 49 U.S.C. § 5307, the Government reserves the right to impose the penalties of 18 U.S.C. §1001 and 49 U.S.C. § 5307(n)(1) on the Contractor, to the extent the Federal Government deemsappropriate.

(3) The Contractor agrees to include the above two clauses in each subcontract financed in whole or in partwith Federal assistance provided by FTA. It is further agreed that the clauses shall not be modified, exceptto identify the subcontractor who will be subject to the provisions.

3. ACCESS TO RECORDS AND REPORTS(49 U.S.C. 5325, 18 CFR 18.36 (i), 49 CFR 633.17)

1. Where the Purchaser is not a State but a local government and is the FTA Recipient or a subgranteeof the FTA Recipient in accordance with 49 C.F.R. 18.36(i), the Contractor agrees to provide thePurchaser, the FTA Administrator, the Comptroller General of the United States or any of their authorized representatives access to any books, documents, papers and records of the Contractor which are directly pertinent to this contract for the purposes of making audits, examinations, excerpts and transcriptions. Contractor also agrees, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. 633.17 to provide the FTA Administrator or his authorized representatives including any PMO Contractor access to Contractor's records and construction sites pertaining to a major capital project, defined at 49 U.S.C. 5302(a)1, which is receiving federal financial assistance through the programs described at 49 U.S.C. 5307, 5309 or 5311.

54

2. Where the Purchaser is a State and is the FTA Recipient or a subgrantee of the FTA Recipient inaccordance with 49 C.F.R. 633.17, Contractor agrees to provide the Purchaser, the FTA Administrator orhis authorized representatives, including any PMO Contractor, access to the Contractor's records andconstruction sites pertaining to a major capital project, defined at 49U.S.C. 5302(a)1, which is receiving federal financial assistance through the programs described at 49U.S.C. 5307, 5309 or 5311. By definition, a major capital project excludes contracts of less than thesimplified acquisition threshold currently set at $100,000.

3. Where the Purchaser enters into a negotiated contract for other than a small purchase or under thesimplified acquisition threshold and is an institution of higher education, a hospital or other non- profitorganization and is the FTA Recipient or a subgrantee of the FTA Recipient in accordance with 49 C.F.R.19.48, Contractor agrees to provide the Purchaser, FTA Administrator, the Comptroller General of theUnited States or any of their duly authorized representatives with access to any books, documents,papers and record of the Contractor which are directly pertinent to this contract for the purposes ofmaking audits, examinations, excerpts and transcriptions.

4. Where any Purchaser which is the FTA Recipient or a subgrantee of the FTA Recipient in accordancewith 49 U.S.C. 5325(a) enters into a contract for a capital project or improvement (defined at 49 U.S.C.5302(a)1) through other than competitive bidding, the Contractor shall make available records relatedto the contract to the Purchaser, the Secretary of Transportation and the Comptroller General or anyauthorized officer or employee of any of them for the purposes of conducting an audit and inspection.

5. The Contractor agrees to permit any of the foregoing parties to reproduce by any means whatsoever or tocopy excerpts and transcriptions as reasonably needed.

6. The Contractor agrees to maintain all books, records, accounts and reports required under this contractfor a period of not less than three years after the date of termination or expiration of this contract,except in the event of litigation or settlement of claims arising from the performance of this contract, inwhich case Contractor agrees to maintain same until the Purchaser, the FTA Administrator, theComptroller General, or any of their duly authorized representatives, have disposed of all suchlitigation, appeals, claims or exceptions related thereto. Reference 49 CFR 18.39(i)(11).

7. FTA does not require the inclusion of these requirements in subcontracts.

4. FEDERAL CHANGES(49 CFR Part 18)Federal Changes - Contractor shall at all times comply with all applicable FTA regulations, policies,procedures and directives, including without limitation those listed directly or by reference in theMaster Agreement between Purchaser and FTA, as they may be amended or promulgated from time to timeduring the term of this contract. Contractor's failure to so comply shall constitute a material breach of thiscontract.

5. CIVIL RIGHTS REQUIREMENTS(29 U.S.C. § 623, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 42 U.S.C. § 6102, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 42 U.S.C. § 12132, 49U.S.C. § 5332 29 CFR Part 1630, 41 CFR Parts 60 et seq.)Civil Rights - The following requirements apply to the underlying contract:

(1) Nondiscrimination - In accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000d, section 303 of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 6102, section 202of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and Federal transit law at 49 U.S.C. §5332, the Contractor agrees that it will not discriminate against any employee or applicant foremployment because of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, or disability. In addition, theContractor agrees to comply with applicable Federal implementing regulations and other implementingrequirements FTA may issue.

(2) Equal Employment Opportunity - The following equal employment opportunity requirements apply tothe underlying contract:

(a) Race, Color, Creed, National Origin, Sex - In accordance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, asamended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, and Federal transit laws at 49 U.S.C. § 5332, the Contractor agrees tocomply with all applicable equal employment opportunity requirements of U.S. Department ofLabor (U.S. DOL) regulations, "Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, Equal EmploymentOpportunity, Department of Labor," 41 C.F.R. Parts 60 et seq., (which implement Executive OrderNo. 11246, "Equal Employment Opportunity," as amended by Executive Order No. 11375,"Amending Executive Order 11246 Relating to Equal Employment Opportunity," 42 U.S.C. § 2000enote), and with any applicable Federal statutes, executive orders, regulations, and Federal policiesthat may in the future affect construction activities undertaken in the course of the Project. The

55

Contractor agrees to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, national origin, sex, or age. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. In addition, the Contractor agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue.

(b) Age - In accordance with section 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, asamended, 29 U.S.C. § § 623 and Federal transit law at 49 U.S.C. § 5332, the Contractor agrees torefrain from discrimination against present and prospective employees for reason of age. Inaddition, the Contractor agrees to comply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue.

(c) Disabilities - In accordance with section 102 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, asamended, 42 U.S.C. § 12112, the Contractor agrees that it will comply with the requirementsof U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "Regulations to Implement the EqualEmployment Provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act," 29 C.F.R. Part 1630,pertaining to employment of persons with disabilities. In addition, the Contractor agrees tocomply with any implementing requirements FTA may issue.

(3) The Contractor also agrees to include these requirements in each subcontract financed in whole or inpart with Federal assistance provided by FTA, modified only if necessary to identify the affected parties.

6. INCORPORATION OF FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION (FTA) TERMS(FTA Circular 4220.1E)Incorporation of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Terms - The preceding provisions include, in part,certain Standard Terms and Conditions required by DOT, whether or not expressly set forth in the precedingcontract provisions. All contractual provisions required by DOT, as set forth in FTA Circular 4220.1E, arehereby incorporated by reference. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, all FTA mandated termsshall be deemed to control in the event of a conflict with other provisions contained in this Agreement. TheContractor shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply with any (name of grantee)requests which would cause (name of grantee) to be in violation of the FTA terms and conditions.

7. ENERGY CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS(42 U.S.C. 6321 et seq. 49 CFR Part 18)Energy Conservation - The contractor agrees to comply with mandatory standards and policies relatingto energy efficiency which are contained in the state energy conservation plan issued in compliancewith the Energy Policy and Conservation Act

8. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE)(49 CFR Part 26)Disadvantaged Business Enterprisesa. This contract is subject to the requirements of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 26, Participation

by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs.The national goal for participation of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE) is 10%.

b. The contractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in theperformance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26in the award and administration of this DOT-assisted contract. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation deems appropriate. Each subcontract the contractor signs with a subcontractor must include the assurance in this paragraph (see 49 CFR 26.13(b)).

c. The successful bidder/offeror will be required to report its DBE participation obtained throughrace-neutral means throughout the period of performance.

d. The contractor is required to pay its subcontractors performing work related to this contract forsatisfactory performance of that work no later than 30 days after the contractor’s receipt ofpayment for that work from San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation. In addition, thecontractor may not hold retainage from its subcontractors and is required to return any retainagepayments to those subcontractors within 30 days after the subcontractor's work related to this contractis satisfactorily completed.

e. The contractor must promptly notify San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation whenever a DBEsubcontractor performing work related to this contract is terminated or fails to complete its work, andmust make good faith efforts to engage another DBE subcontractor to perform at least the same amount of work.

56

9. TERMINATION(49 U.S.C. Part 18 FTA Circular 4220.1E)a. Termination for Convenience (General Provision) The (Recipient) may terminate this contract, in whole

or in part, at any time by written notice to the Contractor when it is in the Government's best interest.The Contractor shall be paid its costs, including contract close-out costs, and profit on work performedup to the time of termination. The Contractor shall promptly submit its termination claim to (Recipient)to be paid the Contractor. If the Contractor has any property in its possession belonging to the(Recipient), the Contractor will account for the same, and dispose of it in the manner the (Recipient)directs.

b. Termination for Default [Breach or Cause] (General Provision) If the Contractor does not deliversupplies in accordance with the contract delivery schedule, or, if the contract is for services, theContractor fails to perform in the manner called for in the contract, or if the Contractor fails to complywith any other provisions of the contract, the (Recipient) may terminate this contract for default.Termination shall be effected by serving a notice of termination on the contractor setting forth themanner in which the Contractor is in default. The contractor will only be paid the contract price forsupplies delivered and accepted, or services performed in accordance with the manner of performanceset forth in the contract.If it is later determined by the (Recipient) that the Contractor had an excusable reason for notperforming, such as a strike, fire, or flood, events which are not the fault of or are beyond the control ofthe Contractor, the (Recipient), after setting up a new delivery of performance schedule, may allow theContractor to continue work, or treat the termination as a termination for convenience.

c. Opportunity to Cure (General Provision) The (Recipient) in its sole discretion may, in the case of atermination for breach or default, allow the Contractor [an appropriately short period of time] in which tocure the defect. In such case, the notice of termination will state the time period in which cure ispermitted and other appropriate conditionsIf Contractor fails to remedy to (Recipient)'s satisfaction the breach or default of any of the terms,covenants, or conditions of this Contract within [ten (10) days] after receipt by Contractor of writtennotice from (Recipient) setting forth the nature of said breach or default, (Recipient) shall have the rightto terminate the Contract without any further obligation to Contractor. Any such termination fordefault shall not in any way operate to preclude (Recipient) from also pursuing all available remediesagainst Contractor and its sureties for said breach or default.

d. Waiver of Remedies for any Breach In the event that (Recipient) elects to waive its remedies for anybreach by Contractor of any covenant, term or condition of this Contract, such waiver by (Recipient) shallnot limit (Recipient)'s remedies for any succeeding breach of that or of any other term, covenant, orcondition of this Contract.

e. Termination for Convenience (Professional or Transit Service Contracts) The (Recipient), by writtennotice, may terminate this contract, in whole or in part, when it is in the Government's interest. If thiscontract is terminated, the Recipient shall be liable only for payment under the payment provisions of this contract for services rendered before the effective date of termination.

f. Termination for Default (Supplies and Service) If the Contractor fails to deliver supplies or to performthe services within the time specified in this contract or any extension or if the Contractor fails to complywith any other provisions of this contract, the (Recipient) may terminate this contract for default. The (Recipient) shall terminate by delivering to the Contractor a Notice of Termination specifying the nature of the default. The Contractor will only be paid the contract price for supplies delivered and accepted, or services performed in accordance with the manner or performance set forth in this contract. If, after termination for failure to fulfill contract obligations, it is determined that the Contractor was not in default, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the termination had been issued for the convenience of the Recipient.

g. Termination for Default (Transportation Services) If the Contractor fails to pick up the commodities orto perform the services, including delivery services, within the time specified in this contract or anyextension or if the Contractor fails to comply with any other provisions of this contract, the (Recipient)may terminate this contract for default. The (Recipient) shall terminate by delivering to the Contractor aNotice of Termination specifying the nature of default. The Contractor will only be paid the contract pricefor services performed in accordance with the manner of performance set forth in this contract.If this contract is terminated while the Contractor has possession of Recipient goods, the Contractor

57

shall, upon direction of the (Recipient), protect and preserve the goods until surrendered to the Recipient or its agent. The Contractor and (Recipient) shall agree on payment for the preservation and protection of goods. Failure to agree on an amount will be resolved under the Dispute clause. If, after termination for failure to fulfill contract obligations, it is determined that the Contractor was not in default, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the termination had been issued for the convenience of the (Recipient).

h. Termination for Default (Construction) If the Contractor refuses or fails to prosecute the work or anyseparable part, with the diligence that will insure its completion within the time specified in thiscontract or any extension or fails to complete the work within this time, or if the Contractor fails to comply with any other provisions of this contract, the (Recipient) may terminate this contract for default. The (Recipient) shall terminate by delivering to the Contractor a Notice of Termination specifying the nature of the default. In this event, the Recipient may take over the work and compete it by contract or otherwise, and may take possession of and use any materials, appliances, and plant on the work site necessary for completing the work. The Contractor and its sureties shall be liable for any damage to the Recipient resulting from the Contractor's refusal or failure to complete the work within specified time, whether or not the Contractor's right to proceed with the work is terminated. This liability includes any increased costs incurred by the Recipient in completing the work. The Contractor's right to proceed shall not be terminated nor the Contractor charged with damages under this clause if-

1. the delay in completing the work arises from unforeseeable causes beyond the control and withoutthe fault or negligence of the Contractor. Examples of such causes include: acts of God, acts of theRecipient, acts of another Contractor in the performance of a contract with the Recipient,epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes; and

2. the contractor, within [10] days from the beginning of any delay, notifies the (Recipient) in writing ofthe causes of delay. If in the judgment of the (Recipient), the delay is excusable, the time forcompleting the work shall be extended. The judgment of the (Recipient) shall be final andconclusive on the parties, but subject to appeal under the Disputes clauses.

If, after termination of the Contractor's right to proceed, it is determined that the Contractor was not in default, or that the delay was excusable, the rights and obligations of the parties will be the same as if the termination had been issued for the convenience of the Recipient.

i. Termination for Convenience or Default (Architect and Engineering) The (Recipient) may terminate thiscontract in whole or in part, for the Recipient's convenience or because of the failure of the Contractorto fulfill the contract obligations. The (Recipient) shall terminate by delivering to the Contractor a Notice of Termination specifying the nature, extent, and effective date of the termination. Upon receipt of the notice, the Contractor shall (1) immediately discontinue all services affected (unless the notice directs otherwise), and (2) deliver to the Contracting Officer all data, drawings, specifications, reports, estimates, summaries, and other information and materials accumulated in performing this contract, whether completed or in process. If the termination is for the convenience of the Recipient, the Contracting Officer shall make an equitable adjustment in the contract price but shall allow no anticipated profit on unperformed services. If the termination is for failure of the Contractor to fulfill the contract obligations, the Recipient may complete the work by contact or otherwise and the Contractor shall be liable for any additional cost incurred by the Recipient. If, after termination for failure to fulfill contract obligations, it is determined that the Contractor was not in default, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the termination had been issued for the convenience of the Recipient.

j. Termination for Convenience of Default (Cost-Type Contracts) The (Recipient) may terminate thiscontract, or any portion of it, by serving a notice or termination on the Contractor. The notice shall statewhether the termination is for convenience of the (Recipient) or for the default of the Contractor. If the termination is for default, the notice shall state the manner in which the contractor has failed to perform the requirements of the contract. The Contractor shall account for any property in its possession paid for from funds received from the (Recipient), or property supplied to the Contractor by the (Recipient). If the termination is for default, the (Recipient) may fix the fee, if the contract provides for a fee, to be paid the contractor in proportion to the value, if any, of work performed up to the time of termination. The Contractor shall promptly submit its termination claim to the (Recipient) and the parties shall negotiate the termination settlement to be paid the Contractor. If the termination is for the convenience of the (Recipient), the Contractor shall be paid its contract close-out costs, and a fee, if the contract provided for payment of a fee, in proportion to the work performed up to the time of

58

termination. If, after serving a notice of termination for default, the (Recipient) determines that the Contractor has an excusable reason for not performing, such as strike, fire, flood, events which are not the fault of and are beyond the control of the contractor, the (Recipient), after setting up a new work schedule, may allow the Contractor to continue work, or treat the termination as a termination for convenience.

10. GOVERNMENT-WIDE DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION (NONPROCUREMENT) Suspension andDebarmentThis contract is a covered transaction for purposes of 49 CFR Part 29. As such, the contractor is required toverify that none of the contractor, its principals, as defined at 49 CFR 29.995, or affiliates, as defined at 49 CFR29.905, are excluded or disqualified as defined at 49 CFR 29.940 and 29.945.

The contractor is required to comply with 49 CFR 29, Subpart C and must include the requirement to comply with 49 CFR 29, Subpart C in any lower tier covered transaction it enters into.

By signing and submitting its bid or proposal, the bidder or proposer certifies as follows: The certification in this clause is a material representation of fact relied upon by San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation. If it is later determined that the bidder or proposer knowingly rendered an erroneous certification, in addition to remedies available to San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation, the Federal Government may pursue available remedies, including but not limited to suspension and/or debarment. The bidder or proposer agrees to comply with the requirements of 49 CFR 29, Subpart C while this offer is valid and throughout the period of any contract that may arise from this offer. The bidder or proposer further agrees to include a provision requiring such compliance in its lower tier covered transactions.

Acknowledgment

Signature Date November 8, 2018

59

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION

APPROVING THE SELECTION OF LSC TRANSPORTATOIN CONSULTANTS INC. FOR CONSULTING ASSISTANCE IN THE

DEVELOPMENT OF A STRATEGIC OPERATIONING PLAN

NO. 2018-35

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) has a need for consultant

assistance in development of a strategic operating plan; and

WHEREAS, SMART distributed a request for proposals on October 15th, 2018 with the goal of identifying a

qualified team of consultants that can best meet the needs of SMART in the development of the strategic operating

plan;

WHEREAS, three qualified vendors, including LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. (LSC), submitted responsive

proposals;

WHEREAS, staff and the Strategic Operating Plan RFP evaluation committee reviewed the proposals for

completeness and cost effectiveness and recommends that the Board of Directors enter into an agreement with

LSC for the delivery of contracted transit operations services;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION:

1. THAT, for the purpose of providing consulting services for the development of a strategic operating plan

they hereby select LSC to undertake the work. The proposal submitted by LSC is attached as Exhibit A.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL

TRANSPORTATION AT A REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018.

______________________________________

Laila Benitez, Board Chair

ATTEST:

________________________________

David Averill, Executive Director

ATTORNEY CERTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Section XVII.3 of the Bylaws and Intergovernmental Agreement (the “Agreement”) of the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (“CIRSA”), I hereby certify that SMART is authorized to be a member of CIRSA and enter the Agreement pursuant to Resolution No. 2018-2. I further certify that such Resolution was duly adopted by SMART.

_______________________________________

60

Jeffrey J. Conklin, Attorney for SMART (date)

61

A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION ESTABLISHING A MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2019

NO. 2018-36

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation ("SMART") was approved by the registered electors of the Town of Telluride , Town of Mountain Village, and that portion of the SMART combination that are within that part of the SMART boundaries located within unincorporated San Miguel County, pursuant to the Colorado Regional Transportation Authority Law, C.R.S Title 43, Article 4, Part 6, at the general election held on November 8, 2016;

WHEREAS , SMART is governed by the Colorado Regional Transportation Authority Law and the SMART Intergovernmental Agreement (" SMART IGA") conditionally approved by each of the governing bodies of the Town of Telluride, Town of Mountain Village and San Miguel County pending approval by the registered electors at the November 8, 2016 general election;

WHEREAS , Section 3.09 of the SMART IGA requires all actions of the Board to be taken by written resolution;

WHEREAS , the Board desires to take action on certain items set forth below in accordance with the SMART IGA.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Directors of the San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation as follows:

1. That, the attached 2019 meeting schedule is approved.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the Board of Directors at a regular public meeting held on the 20th day of December 2018.

SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION

By:_______________Laila Benitez, Chair

Attest:

By:_______________David Averill, Executive Director

62






Action is requested by the Board to adopt a formal consent agenda policy for SMART meetings.


Key Points

A consent agenda is a tool used to streamline Board meeting procedures by gathering routine or noncontroversial decision items (that do not require discussion) into a group whereby such group of decision items can be passed by a single motion and vote of the Board. SMART does not currently have such a policy so at times meeting agenda’s can become cluttered with routine items that would be eligible items for placement on a consent agenda.


NA


NA

Fiscal Impact

None

Advantages

Being able to place items on a consent agenda is an important component of running efficient public meetings that allows the Board to take quick action when it is considering routine items or those that have previously been discussed.

Disadvantages

None noted.


In general, staff supports the development of policies that provide direction and enable SMART to “mature” as an organization. Development of and adoption of a Consent Agenda Policy for SMART meetings is seen as necessary and appropriate. Therefore, staff recommends that the attached Consent Agenda Policy be adopted by the SMART Board of Directors.

Attachments

Attachment A – SMART Consent Agenda Policy

63

1

SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATAION CONSENT AGENDA POLICY

The following shall be the policy of the San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) regarding the usage and creation of a Consent Agenda at all Board of Director meetings and other Public Meetings of SMART:

Purpose

The purpose of this Policy is to provide a process for use of a consent agenda during SMART Board meetings.

The consent agenda forms part of the SMART Board meeting agenda (“Meeting Agenda”) and shall be identified by a separate heading.

Policy

Content of Consent Agenda

Typical consent agenda items are those which are routine and are not expected to require Board discussion. Examples of items which may be placed on a consent agenda include:

• approval of prior Board & committee meeting minutes;

• approval of routine policies and procedures or amendments thereto; or

• final approval of proposals or reports that the Board has previously discussed.

Consent Agenda Process

1. Prior to each Board meeting, SMART’s Board Chair, in conjunction with the SMART ExecutiveDirector, will determine which items to place on the consent agenda portion of the MeetingAgenda.

2. At the start of each Board meeting, SMART’s Board Chair asks if any Board member wishes toremove an item from the consent agenda in order to allow for discussion of such item. No motionor vote is required with respect to such removal.

3. If an item is removed from the consent agenda, SMART’s Board Chair will place it on the regularportion of the Meeting Agenda in order to provide time for discussion of such item.

4. SMART’s Board Chair asks for a motion to approve the consent agenda.

64

RESOLUTION OF THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION, ADOPTING A CONSENT AGENDA POLICY

RESOLUTION NO. 2018 - 37

RECITALS:

WHEREAS, the San Miguel Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) hereby recognizes the need for utilization of a consent agenda for routine meeting items; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of SMART also recognizes that a consent agenda can be a useful tool to running efficient public meetings; and

WHEREAS, SMART has adopted several policies to establish rules for the conducting of its business, including a Public Comment Policy; and

WHEREAS, the SMART Board of Directors wishes to adopt a Consent Agenda Policy in order to provide the necessary details and operative policy regarding the use of the consent agenda for the approval of routine, noncontroversial items (items on the monthly agenda that do not need discussion or debate either because they are routine procedures or are already agreed to by unanimous consent) as a group whereby all are approved with a single motion and vote; and

WHEREAS, consistent with these wishes, the SMART Staff has drafted a proposed Consent Agenda Policy, a copy of which is attached to this resolution; and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY

FOR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION:

1. THAT, the SMART Board of Directors hereby approves and adopts the Consent AgendaPolicy in the form presented at this meeting and attached hereto; and

2. THAT, the Board Members and staff of the SMART are hereby authorized to take anyadditional actions necessary to implement this resolution.

ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAN MIGUEL AUTHORITY FOR

REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AT A REGULAR PUBLIC MEETING THIS 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018.

___________________________________ Laila Benitez, Mayor

ATTEST:

__________________________________ David Averill, SMART Executive Director

65

SMART Board Executive Director report – December 20th, 2018

Communications and marketing update: Down Valley bus is currently getting wrapped. Staff

has been working with Studio 6 on the communications plan for 2019. Brochures, schedules

and route maps will be a work item for January into February.

Grants:

1. 5304 planning grant – still waiting on contract from CDOT.

2. Contract received for 5311 Operating. Returned to CDOT and will likely be executed

before the end of the year.

3. CDOT Capital Call for projects application submitted – applied for a replacement bus for

the Down Valley route.

Strategic Operating Plan: Reviewing contract of the selected firm and will return pending

approval of the Board at the 12/20/18 meeting. Project is slated to kick off in January 2019.

Pending Agenda Items – January 2019

- IGA with Town of Rico for 2019 transit services agreement

- IGA with San Miguel County

- IGA with Town of Mountain Village

- Transit Policies and Procedures

- ADA Policy

- Title VI Policy

66

san miguel authority for regional transportation board of ... · metropolitan areas and states 5311...

Documents