Absolutely not.

All right, how about all right?

Ready.

All right.

We'll go ahead and uh call this committee meeting in the order.

This is the uh public services committee meeting.

Um I'm your chair, Josh Woods, and um on the committee is Councilman Joel Daves and Councilman Corey Penn.

Uh today uh today what uh the purpose of this meeting is to is to walk through, answer any questions um for a contract that we have on the agenda on that contract dealing with uh transit um and bus service the city mobile um utilizes and contracts for.

Uh currently, um if no one's watched the news lately um or read the agenda.

Uh currently we have a contract up uh for uh for review and also for approval on by city council to uh contract between the City Mobile and Port City Transit LLC, uh, which is an entity of of the of a company via um for uh public transportation to run our bus system.

Um the total amount of the contract uh is uh not to exceed 12 million one hundred thousand dollars per year.

And um, with that being said, I will um turn this over.

And um, I know there are some questions from council members that we've we've uh we've kind of talked through individually.

Um would like to ask that uh we'll in normal fashion uh we'll start with the committee members and then roll out to the other council members.

Um I'll turn this over to Mr.

Collins just to kind of briefly tell us uh where we are, how we got here, and um, and then we can ask any questions we move for.

Yes, sir.

Um good morning.

Thank you for doing this this morning.

Um obviously we are working through a transit system contract.

We're currently contracted with transdev and have been through a couple of iterations of transdove since 2018.

Um that contract as we know it expires on September 30.

It originally expired on June 30.

We did a nine-day extension to get us through a bid process um to where we are today.

And we've completed the bid process.

We went through a review of all of the bids submitted um via transportation.

Um was the highest rated um vendor who submitted proposals for the for the RFP.

So that's what's gotten us to the contract and discussions that we have today.

Um Rhea Shaw with VIA uh with their team is here with us today.

We have their team available remotely as well.

Uh Jacob Lawrence in the finance department um has done a substantial amount of the work on the contract itself and the discussions back and forth, as has our legal team um enterlina upstairs.

So that's kind of where we are, and just a nutshell, a recap of that.

We'll be glad to answer any questions or or work through details that we need to.

Um obviously we know that this is a big decision.

There's a lot to consider uh with transit.

We also know that the calendar is um is what it is.

We've been some specifics that we just had to to work towards some deadlines.

So that's kind of where we are.

The um specifics just as it relates to the 12.1 million, the total of that would be uh the system will be 12.1.

4.1 of that would be anticipated federal awards that via would be our partner to to obtain and manage.

So the city would be effectively paying eight of the 12.1 with the other 4.1 VNN um federal awards that we've gotten parts of over the last couple of years.

Um not up to the 4.1, but they're confident that they can work through and get to those numbers.

So that's kind of how we arrived at it where we are.

Um, and with that, we'll be glad to kind of engage questions and make sure that our team's available um to answer those um as they come up.

Thank you.

And then um Rhea, you said uh could she uh do you have maybe like a quick 60-second overcap and overview of uh who VA is, what you do, why you do it, and if you like doing it.

Yes, absolutely.

Um good morning.

It's really nice to meet you all.

My name is Rhea Shah.

I'm a regional vice president at VIA.

Um, VIA is a provider of public mobility solutions.

We are very passionate about providing the software and the operations to help communities get to where they need to go.

Uh, we have 700 uh municipal partners around the world that we work with, um including directly operating public transit systems um consisting of fixed route, make our transit and paratransit around the world.

Um, here in Mobile, we've been uh delivering the very successful MOGO service in partnership with the Mobile Chamber of Commerce for the last year and a half.

It's a very successful service helping people in particular get to the employers of Airbus and Australia here in the community.

We're very excited to be here and work with you all.

We think there is a phenomenal foundation of transit here in Mobile, but we think that there's also continues to be a lot of opportunity to make sure that the netwits people where they are and helps them get to where they need to go.

Less than half of Mobile's residents today live or work near a bus stop, which means that it's very difficult to currently use the bus to get to where you need to go.

We have a very exciting um idea that we'd love to work with you all over the next nine months.

Work with you all, work with the community, work with the employees of the wave today to better understand the network and get out into the community to really shape our vision so that we can have a transit network here in Mobile that meets the needs of people to get to where they need to go with a reasonable um transit time and get to places where they need to go very safely.

Um so again, we'd be you know honored to work with you all and get to know you all better as well over the coming years as we work together on transit and mobile.

Thank you, Michelle.

And then um, just for clarification, obviously there's words out there.

There's paratransit, uh, there's a fixed route, there's microtransit.

Um, what you're currently doing today with MOGO, that would be more of a microtransit.

Is that kind of correct?

Here in Mobile, we are providing a microtransit service, which is effectively an on-demand form of transportation.

Awesome.

Thank you.

Yeah, of course.

Um, with that being said, uh uh just question.

Yes, sir.

So uh I understand that you have 700 um uh buildings around the country.

What's the closest one size to change that's near mobile that you all work with?

Yes, um, we uh operate a um we provide the software over in Baldwin County for their system.

Um, I believe that's quite close to here.

Um up in Birmingham, we partner with the BJCTA, the Birmingham Jefferson County Transit Authority for their microtransit service there.

Um over West in Baton Rouge, we partner with Capital Area Transit System on their microtransit and paratransit service as well.

Um so just a few examples in the area.

So bad rules in Birmingham is the closest one to appear.

Uh and and Baldwin County.

Okay, so I'm just saying for size of what we would take over.

Yes.

What size of the city Birmingham and it's two two close examples, yes.

Yes, all right, thank you.

Yes, absolutely.

Okay.

All righty.

And um, I'll go ahead and I'll um I'll turn this over to Councilman uh Daves to for any questions that you he may have, and then we'll um we'll roll to Councilman Penn and then open it up.

So I'll defer to Councilman Penn.

Councilman Penn.

Thank you, Joe, and thank you, Chairman.

Um, I'm gonna make this very simple.

Um hear me.

I we want a time frame and I already presented what I would like to see, and then and it's not in here.

So it's simple.

I'm not voting on anything today.

If if if what I I ask because I can't direct what I asked to be in, and I believe it was okay.

So it's simple.

Thank you.

And then just for clarification, uh, Councilman Penns asked uh was over the course process was um changing the term of the the loan uh loan agreement, the uh the transit agreement from uh a three-year term followed by a two-year term uh with the option for a two-year, and then also to I think language uh regarding um council approval for uh uh for the um for uh I guess for for what the the approval automatic instead of an automatic renewal for the two-year term, it requires council approval.

Is that right?

That's great.

So let me make sure I understand it.

It's an going from an original five-year term to an original three-year term with an option for two.

But we always use from since we've been doing a transit this same numbers, years that we always use.

And that's what my request was.

Um, that's what I would like to see.

I can't control any of what my colleagues would do.

I think there's a simple request that I asked.

And with a two-year, with a two-year um renewal.

But the renewal has to come to the city council.

Yes, it has to come before the city council.

Right.

So just because as a follow-up to that, so we we we fully understand that.

The proposal that was done was obviously the five and the five-year renewal on the original RFP that went out.

Um, the request that came back was to a minute, thank you, to three, three, one and one was your request.

We did send that information to to via.

Via has sent something back.

Um, their concern was um doing a three and then a one-in-one for the um amount of investment that's gonna take to do that because they know that nine months of that three years is gonna be no, there will be no changes whatsoever, just or just the um opportunity to go back and renew the system or review it as it is.

So their their proposal back was a three-four-three.

Um, obviously, this is part of the negotiation process.

So their their request instead of doing a three, one, one and five was to do three, four, and three based on the investment that it would take.

Again, there I'm sure there's a wiggle room that was just their request.

No, thank you.

Um, Councilman Joel Days.

Um, I already gave the request.

Um, and let me ask my attorney.

Um, when we put a bid out, right?

I know the administration works on that, they get a bid, they work on these different things, but does it have to come for a council to get approved for all that?

We just approve it.

Does the bid have to be able to do that?

Oh, we approve the contract.

Yeah, the contract has to be.

So it can't go forward without the approval of the council.

No, okay.

So this is what I'm saying.

And we already gave requests.

I appreciate all the work that everybody has done, and I appreciate every aspect of it.

And I'm I'm grateful for VIA being here.

I'm grateful for the MOGO program, but we can't be rushed in the process when I represent my whole district.

I can't receive something and say, okay, well, since it's been we put this together, it's done.

We have to go forward and look, and I don't agree with it.

And so today, y'all can have all the discussions you want to have, but if I don't see it in, Corey Penn would not be voting on it.

Thank you.

The the four three three Mr.

Mr.

Collins, what will happen if we do not approve?

So the contract that we currently have with with transdev expires on September 30.

Right.

So we will need so in that point, October 1, we would not be under contract for for transit.

Um, that's kind of why we're doing the 90 days back over the summer.

So we would have to have a couple of things would have to take place.

Either we need to make whatever adjustments we can negotiate with via for for changes, such as councilman pins, which we certainly understand, or we need to vote to extend again transdev as it's currently contracted because their contract obviously expires on September 30.

Well, what happens if we don't have a contract with transdev or via by September 30?

I assume we wouldn't we wouldn't have a contract to transit system.

So we would this transit system, you're saying the transit system would shut down.

I'm not suggesting it was shut down.

That'd be a conversation to have with transdev.

Transdev may be willing to work forward without without a contract or an interim contract.

That would require a follow-up conversation with transdev.

But contractually, there would be no obligation.

Thank you.

Well, with that in mind, we extended the contract by 90 days anyway, so that we could start this process and hopefully meet a timeline.

So if there were issues with the length of the contract, and I don't quite understand the four three thing you mentioned.

Would it not be an option for us to go back to our current contractor and say we want to extend another 90 days as we work through this process and determine where we're going because we may not be able to pass this contract, and then we won't have any buses running.

So there needs to be some interim way to solve the problem that we've got, if in fact we can't do what Corey is asking for.

Certainly literally.

I certainly we understand, yes.

And that was clearly the privilege of the council.

Obviously, I think everyone's interest is to make sure transit's up and running, right?

Most importantly.

Um, so I think that would be the the focus to make sure we're there.

The path that we get there, obviously staff is ready to assist with which with whichever way.

Um, so whatever the whatever the preferred path is, we we would certainly pursue.

When we had our meeting with with VIA, I appreciate the the nine months of collecting information.

I think that's a good idea.

But it seems like in their mind, that's not really part of their ongoing contract because they're just collecting information, they're not really operating a system that's different than what we have today.

Maybe that's where they're coming from, but still, and doesn't matter.

It is our contract with them that would be put in place, whether it's 90 days, nine months worth of whatever it is of collecting information, or they're actually running buses on different schedules, different routes, different sizes.

I mean, it's still a contract with this company.

To the uh the nine months there, real quick, that's federally mandated for any transportation system that needs to that needs.

Am I correct in saying that if there if changes need to be substantial changes, substantive changes need to be made, there needs to be a nine month period, and basically that's what we're gonna be walking through for the first nine months of this contract, I guess.

So so there's no requirement for the nine months as we're is we're there.

So that that that window is not determined.

Um the nine months came about as part of conversations we've had where we know that um making changes to wave right now, it's just far too soon, uh, even under the best circumstances to go and change routes, services, and that sort of thing.

There's always there's also a series of meetings that has to take place.

So you can make the changes and fully revisit the totality of your transit system.

The conversations with VIA were that it was a belief that it would take about nine months to go through that process, make any changes, spin up what needed to be done if there was rebranding and that sort of thing.

So the nine months was a a working window of time to complete that task.

And then within that, the three years would have been you really then have about two years to operate the new system as we know it.

So there's no discussion about it not being part of the full uh contract, just the window of time anticipated to make sure we meet all of the thresholds and and do due diligence on the transit system itself.

Okay, and then um one more thing on the uh so it was brought to via um just back to uh council member penn his comments, it was brought to via um suggestion or asking for the three, one and one.

Um the I guess the response back was um due to the investment that we're gonna make, um we we'd like for you guys to consider a three, four, and a three.

Is that that's where we're at on that discussion, I guess.

Yes, sir.

And those are all part of negotiations.

I don't I don't I don't think there's any anything that can't be worked through again.

That's that's their counter to a request.

Because I I get this is just this is just council member woods' opinion.

I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Um we've uh we've done a 90-day extension to get to this point.

Um the proposals were were graded, submitted, and provided to the council.

Um contracts been on the agenda for for two reads as of today.

And um, I I don't want to throw the baby if if if if we need to if we need to wait a week to get things right, I I would prefer to to slow our role a little bit to get what we need out of this so that we don't end up um I I firmly believe based on the proposal that that I've studied, the meetings I've been in, the contract we have in front of me, this is the best option for transit moving forward for the city mobile, both from a monetary standpoint and also a potential service standpoint.

Um seeing what they've done in other places as far as increased ridership due to due to the the microtransit option and then also the fixed route.

Uh um and in addition, um this this company's agreed to step in and and and work with our existing uh uh uh staff per se or the or the the union that we have in place that runs our our transit system.

So with that being said, I there's a lot I feel like we're at a good point, but I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

So if there's anything we can we can kind of do um uh uh consensus-wise, and I and I I'll let um I'll I'll jump to Councilman Penn.

I know he wants to say something, and then we'll jump over to Mr.

Reynolds, and then um we'll just keep keep this rolling um so that we can hopefully get get to a solution by the by the conclusion of this meeting.

We we know where we're going for.

So sure.

And so may I interrupt for just information I just got.

So in communications, because via here's what goes on.

Um, they just communicated here that they will they will agree to the 311 contract.

So that up here, other than it being written in the language, we have a verbal agreement for them as of this meeting that they're observing to do that thing.

So that's one thing off the table.

Can we amend it?

Yeah, we'll we'll have to amend, I guess.

Uh well, um, I guess by by 10 30, we'll need that we'll need that.

We can amend the contract written, or we can express it verbally when it comes time for the read, and we can do that.

So as quickly as we can get it written.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

And um, I think we and I I commend via on um making that decision.

Um, so um, and I agree with you, we shouldn't throw everything off the bath water, but I'll just letting them know.

And I agree if we need to wait a week to make sure that we have all these things, but I want the everybody to understand that when we receive this information, we represent a district.

I have to, and I and I represent staff, workers, I represent the people who are riding this, and this is a major decision for Miss City Mobile.

Um, and to just move forward with just anything, we got to make sure it's right.

Um, so thank you for uh via for for making that decision.

Um, the second thing that I did want to discuss is to make sure that um I think in the wording, um, and maybe I um you can help me.

It was optional.

All the employees would be transferred, right?

All right, it did it say optional in there.

So so the the employees will be transferred that that was left in optional so that they could be brought in.

I will tell you that the via team is here um already um making job offers.

They're already meeting with staff, and in fact, they were here yesterday to go through the process to make sure that every every employee of Transdev um of the operational staff is offered employment, and I believe they're here doing that.

I think they already started background screens and drug screens to make sure they're going through that.

So they're they're moving forward.

Part of their challenge was or is um that those employees would be employees of a new company on October 1, and there's a window of time it takes just to transition them.

Um, but they are here already doing that work to make sure that all of them are able to be brought forward.

And I and I and I'm grateful for that.

Um, my concern is when anytime you have a contract in place, you want to make sure every detail is very important, which is I'm I'm not a lawyer, so y'all know better than I, but um, I think words are very I am a person who understand that words are very powerful.

Um, and so for me, I understand why the optional was in place.

I would prefer having what the optional declares.

So from the standpoint of if you don't pass the background check or if you don't have these things in place, then that's the optional part.

Outside that, then we will accept all our the employees.

So when you give if when you just say optional, you give the person, I don't know what that optional is.

I don't know if that means that I don't like you.

I'm not just using example, I'm not saying this because we deal with these issues and challenges.

I don't like you, so that's optional.

No, or I heard some things from prior um supervisors, so that's optional.

I would rather have the optional is this.

You don't pass the background check, you don't pass our policies and procedures.

That's the optional port.

Right.

Understanding we can work to change that language.

What all I'm all I'm expressing is they've taken the optional to go ahead and offer employment to every employee.

Yeah, I'm grateful for that.

So if we could put that just in the contract, just being going forward, I would like to see that in the contract.

And then um, um, so I also I know this have nothing to do with via, but with transf, would um have we heard anything from them regarding the time and work that the employees there, their vacation time, what what's gonna take place with that?

So we have had communications with them, and the um the standard practices their vacation and leave time would simply be paid out with their last with their last paycheck, it wouldn't transfer um to a new employer, so they wouldn't lose anything, whatever those balances are, they will be compensated on their last payroll.

So that has been agreed on from the company.

So we we've communicated with transdev.

In fact, I have an email where they asked that question specifically about whether we were going to pay pay that or carry those balances forward.

And the discussion was that um that those will be paid out, that they would not be carried forward.

So they're simply waiting on confirmation from us, the city, as to whether or not those um balances would be carried forward or paid based on the via contract, they're prepared to pay all of those out on their final pay period on their final paycheck.

In fact, I communicated with via myself, I meant with transdev um to determine the date, and I told them that we would try to let them know specifically by the end of day tomorrow.

Okay, well, I I need to know that information.

I would like to know that information as well as soon as possible.

Yes, we we can know now.

If if this passes, if if this contract goes, then all of their balances will be paid out on their final um uh uh transdev um pay distribution.

All right.

Can I put forward before Ben?

Yes, sir.

Just on the benefits package and everything.

I had spoken to an employee who told me that um via been over there doing meet and greets and talking to the employees about benefits and that sort of thing.

Um, but they are concerned, of course, about you know their vacation, they have accrued and that sort of thing.

Is there any wiggle room at all with via to instead of paying out vacation, just continue on and transfer the employees?

Because a lot of them have probably built up a lot of time in the company, and so they're getting more than maybe two weeks, you know, some things like that.

And on the the health benefits, those are some of the things that the employees are concerned about.

And some of these employees are not part of the union, so it's really outside of you know some of that discussion.

But but I think it's the the health benefits, vacation time, um those are uh two of the things that you know they are concerned about, of course.

You know, a new company and they've been through a lot of changes over the years.

The one of the women that I was speaking to had been there a long time and she's seen a lot of changes, and it's like here we go again.

Yeah, which you know it's just the way it is in private industry in particular.

But if we could talk to them about these benefits and vacation time, all those things for employees, I think that would that would help um resolve a lot of these concerns that the employees have.

And I know we have someone coming to speak to us during the council meeting who's gonna have some questions about salaries and jobs and probably health benefits as well.

Understand?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Mr.

Reynolds.

Uh federal funds that are allocated in the financials are assumed.

If they're not awarded, then what?

So if they're if they're not awarded, we the city would not be under contract with that.

We would simply pay via a flat rate per month.

It would be on it would be via his responsibility to collect those funds, and they've expressed every confidence that they will be able to do so.

But if they if they don't get it, then we should expect that if they don't um they're not able to adjust on their end that they'll come back to us and say we need another four million dollars.

Their contract does not provide for that.

Their contract provides that we pay them a flat rate, it's all encompassing, and it's 100% their responsibility for anything over that, including the 4.1 million.

Okay.

And then uh it would, I think it says with the with the owner's approval, they could we could make an additional allocation.

If you chose to do so, yes, sir.

Um, and here it references the owner's uh representative on several occasions, and that owner's representative is designated as the finance director.

I'm curious to know at what level would the finance director have the authority to make approvals without say coming back to the city council.

My impression is that you would not there's a representative, and that would be the finance director, but the representative is not a decision maker, the city council decision maker.

Okay.

And I guess if the if there was a uh I guess uh substantial change to a contract or change order or something like that, it would have to come to the city council.

Any change, yes, sir.

Any change, okay.

And then Mr.

Carbo, that I mean, in your opinion, that is correct.

Um so I'm when this conversation originally started, I'm I'm trying to wrap my head around understanding our current model, what we have going on currently, what our current assets are, both uh by way of buses, vans, all that sort of stuff, also routes, which I've seen a general map of routes, but I don't know what all assets we own out there currently, you know.

The building infrastructure and all buildings, stops, you know, any any of that stuff.

I'm not I'm not real sure what what our current position is.

Right.

So any anything that's tangible is owned by the city.

Yeah, I just don't know what those are, I guess.

Right.

We could we could try and obviously we have the vehicles, we have the buses, the vehicles to build in those things.

Um, specific to individual stops and locations such that we just have to go out and do a separate inventory.

I apologize, I don't have that information with with all right, and then uh this contract, uh any modification to real property requires the owner's approval.

Yes, sir.

All right.

Um if there are let's say uh via wants to improve the the stops, like the shelters or whatever.

Uh is it assumed that that is a capital expenditure and that expense would be assumed by the city?

I think if they were going to do that, they wouldn't have the right to come back and ask about those if there are improvements to that.

The contract does not state that that we would provide those or they would provide those.

We obviously we don't know what those are.

Um but if there were to be requests for capital improvements, I think they could would have the privilege to come back and ask that those be considered by the council.

But in this capital budget that's been outlaid to us, there is no assumption that there are going to be improvements to the stops.

That is correct.

Just simply because that is purely the money we see allocated 1.3 million dollars a year over the course of four years.

That is strictly flee.

Correct.

And that's primarily because we won't know what the route in the route system looks like.

That's what the nine-month window is for to determine what's beneficial, not beneficial.

So would there be some changes?

Certainly.

Do we know what those are?

No, sir, I don't.

All right.

Um there is uh there's a cost escalation over the course of five years.

Um, I mean, should we assume that there's gonna just be a constant cost escalation over the course of say 10 years?

We we just simply don't know.

Okay, I mean, I'm honestly there, any any number of things.

The difficulty with transit, there are internal factors that we can control, obviously, labor cost routing, that sort of thing.

There are external factors, you know, there could be changes in federal grant awards, there could be changes in fuel costs, things of that nature that we just wouldn't have the ability to forecast today.

Okay, the reason I asked that is because there's uh the the desired role result that's uh outlaid in the contract, it basically says everything except reduced cost transit cost.

So is there is there a is there a goal that that we mutually have.

Of course, we want to expand ridership, you know, then and make it more productive or efficient, that sort of thing.

But one of the the primary sort of goals I think we've all sort of had, and I know entering into this contract will uh based on what I've been told out of the gate, reduce our cost by a million dollars or so in year one, which is fantastic.

But I think over over the course of say a 10-year deal, I think one of our goals should be to reduce the cost of transit.

Certainly, we agree.

And that's and that's part of the genesis of this conversation, right?

If we go back to the the one of the one of the original parts since I've been here for the discussion was the current contract that we had is really an open-ended blank checkbook to transdev where it says effectively we pay 100% of all cost as they are invoiced and submitted.

There's no negotiation.

So part of what we don't have is go back and allow ourselves some protections.

We have a fixed amount that we're going to pay, a window of time to make adjustments to the system, and then see what capital or other operational things take place after that.

If we were having this same conversation discussing the trans dev contract, is it exists, we wouldn't have the conversation because there's just simply provide the invoice in the city's responsibility.

Yeah, I like this structure must much better.

Uh these billable hours, these billable hours that are outlined in here.

Can you explain to me how those work?

What is a what is a billable hour?

For for which they're gonna bill us uh up to a maximum amount monthly and a maximum amount annually of eight million dollars for funds, but monthly their bill that they submit is based on a billable hour.

I think the contract spells out two forms of billable hours um in Josh Wood's terms, active hours and then sitting hours per se.

Is that how it works?

That's what I that's that's what I my understanding of billable hours.

And so what's an active hour?

It's my understanding that active hours things moving, thing things working, things are actually active, the other would be static, things not moving, a bus sitting still, some other activity, a driver that's on weight or standby would simulate be those.

Again, I can read that that specific part of that contract and via could answer that.

But I think they attempted to cap that by the total that they could they could invoice.

I think that's more of a monitoring for how the system actually functions rather than a monetary um consideration.

I I think it's more of an opportunity to look and see.

So we should expect that we're gonna get a bill for $900,000 a month, 99 or whatever it is a month.

Yeah, I would expect, yes, sir.

So that that would be the expectation.

Okay, and then these monthly reports that y'all are gonna get, the finance director and city staff that they're gonna get.

I mean what's in there?

I mean, can there may be something that we could add in there to in the contract to to encourage or provoke some additional savings monthly, like to really drill down into actually saving the taxpayer some money as well.

Right.

Um, so I'm curious to see if there's some opportunity to do that, and maybe via you know, has some suggestions towards that.

Um, this nine month period.

There was this Sam thing that was done in Sioux Falls or one of their locations.

Is that the same thing going to be done in this nine month month period?

Where they they create this optimized system and I think it's gonna I think it's gonna be effort for all of that.

I I the nine months is intended to figure out one, how do you make the system as efficient as you can make it, and then what changes need to be made with routes, how do you get the best service for each route, or what changes on routes need to be made, and then go through all of the hearings that you need to to make sure the needs are met within that time frame.

And I think Sam was a result of um Sam was a result of the nine month period or whatever their time frame was.

Um, Sam was the rebranding of the newly launched efficient system.

So that's I'd be able to do that.

And that's what then this will transfer from WAVE branded to MoGAP branded at the end of that or 12 months, whatever it is.

It would it would go from from WAVE to an all-encompassing transit system, how how that how that works.

I think MOGO is preferred language right now.

Um, but again, you know, there it may be there we may get into some discussions of that where that's not the specific naming, but similar.

Okay, and it is there some low-hanging fruit like right out of the gate that we could should expect that you know, these big buses we have or or whatever that that we should expect even in that nine-month period that we can start offloading some of those assets and begin the transition maybe through way through leases.

I noticed they they they brought up that this municipality can avoid capital costs by way of their relationships through uh uh leasing companies for you know these smaller cars, vans, whatever.

Should we expect that to happen where we don't have to assume that full 1.3 million dollars or whatever, whatever it is?

We certainly should expect that that's explored.

Um, there may be some parameters, and I I'm not familiar with each grant for each vehicle that we've had, but there may be some requirements that we maintain vehicles for a certain period of time, the fleet that we have today.

Um, as far as transferring those, I know going forward the discussion would be how do you get the vehicle that fits the purpose, right?

Not necessarily a big bus to provide this thing.

That may be federal grant funding, that may be all that's there.

But I think the overall effort is to make sure that we transition to a fleet that meets the needs of a system rather than try and build a system that meets the needs of the fleet.

And I think that's where we are today.

And in any opportunity that we can as a city, avoid having to purchase those vehicles or the vendor via is going to enter into some lease agreements where it's beneficial to them.

I would say is in our best interest.

Would you agree with that?

I would agree with that.

Okay.

And I I wonder just from via what the effort is going to put put for put forth to that.

I mean, they're already working, they're already doing a lot of work.

Probably have some idea.

Is there an expectation in the first nine months or the first year that they're going to enter into some lease agreements that are gonna fulfill this short-term need for these smaller vehicles?

I think that would be the intent.

Again, we're we're I think the effort is going to be build a system that works and put vehicles that support that system rather than purchasing the low-hanging fruit vehicles, so to speak, and building a system that fits around the vehicles.

I think it's going to be a reverse 180 degree turn from what we have today.

Okay.

And uh the digital aspect of this looks like it's gonna be great, tremendous uh great change.

I wonder how it would work for people who don't have, you know, they're not very tech savvy, let's say.

How do they work?

I mean, they get a coin or ticket or something.

There would still be able to be a call-in service, they're still be able to do the standard um before you got into that technology, whatever they need to do, you can call and place place a regular call.

You'd have mapping and that sort of thing.

So it wouldn't be only only digital and only on the body.

So a fixed route bus comes through, and you know, Miss Betty is going to the bus stop and she doesn't use a phone or you know have any digital payment or whatever.

How does she pay?

Um the bus takes cash.

Shakes cash, couldn't you?

And uh that was what uh just touching on that.

That was a topic uh uh in prior meetings, um, kind of working through it is um uh uh cross assist the system's gonna work for the person because that was my exact question.

Uh, you know, uh my great-grandmother can't log into her phone.

If she does, she's sending pictures to other people.

So I mean, you know, so that's how is how does how does the technology um and hailing a ride and and a and you know, paying for a ride, how does that keep up with the fact that we do have tech savvy or less tech savvy uh individuals in the world, and um you know, numerous ways.

There's always there's a call center, um, but obviously, you know, the call center being staffed.

Um trying to uh trying to transition, you know, as many of those calls that normally would happen over to a technology booking system, whether that's the internet, whether that's an app, whether that's um, you know, maybe scanning a QR code that takes you to a thing.

So um, all this is also gonna be part of that educational aspect of as this rolls out of how you do it.

And um, you know, not gonna lie, uh, sometimes change is hard when it comes to to do anything, but there still are going to be those traditional ways to pay, whether that's cash, credit, debit, you know, that kind of thing.

Okay.

And the current revenue by transdev uh annually is what revenue from tickets.

Uh the tickets are low.

I can go back and get you that specific number.

I apologize.

Well, advertising, whatever what's total revenue generally.

Um, their total revenue, what they bring in, it's less than a million dollars.

Okay.

Um, everything else is um subsidized from the city or the feds.

Right.

All right.

So in uh when can expect to at learn earn at least that amount of revenue.

Uh I don't know.

I would if we're talking nothing changes, right?

Within the first year, then I would think it's gonna be a similar window of time for that year.

Okay.

Um I I still think I have a little bit of reading and stuff to do on this contract.

What are the implications of not approving it today?

I mean, this may need to come from via that I know they're actively working.

I'm not saying that I'm I'm looking at for a way to not approve the contract or kill it, but I'd I'd like a little additional time with the contract itself to to make sure.

So if if we held it off a week, what would the impact be, if any?

I think the biggest challenge, and obviously, if it gets held off for a week, then it gets held off for a week and the conversations are there.

I think really there just needs to be some sort of reassurance to the extent that we can that we're talking about moving forward with the contract.

We're looking at maybe some minor language or changes.

The difficult part of that is the employee transitions, right?

All of the work that goes because those those aren't just flip the switch and take place, those do take some time um to get in.

So this closer we get to September 30, the more difficult that that gets.

Um, so I think if there's a comfort level understanding that via is the partner to go forward and they can be given some reassurance to take to go move forward those actions, that's easy because we're kind of at the point to where we either need to move forward with those transitions or abandon it for back of letter lack of better terms.

I think there's some maybe some in-house sort of how the council and executive branch sort of operates with this.

And maybe there's some modification or something that needs to be looked at, or I need to understand a little more where it's more like a more in-house thing than it is necessarily something with VIA, right?

Um so I'd like at least a little bit more time to just I guess better understand the interactions going forward when when you know decisions need to be made, how we're gonna do them and just how we're interacting with y'all, of course.

Right.

Make sure the contract's button in that respect.

I think the goal too, just one goal uh if it needs to be held every week.

We'll talk about that in just a second.

But I think the ultimate goal to keep in mind is that between now and the end of the month, something's gotta happen.

Yeah.

And uh, because I don't October 1st um is going to be going to be very terrible whenever because of the lack of action of of this of this body to do it is uh October 1st.

We don't have the ability for people to get to the doctor, people don't so I I think that if we can walk away with a takeaway of um without making you know a formative decision and vote of if we can kind of at least express the process of of how long we need.

Um, and I know council member Penns uh expressed some of the issues he wants to address.

But um, with that, uh Mr.

Mr.

Amazon, uh President Small, anything you want to my concern is you know, for make sure that he gives exactly the way you want.

I mean, we go ahead within black and white, go ahead because uh once support this is you is also uh Mr.

Carroll, anything you want to no, I'm sorry I'm late.

I don't know what y'all discussed.

Uh my biggest concerns was the transition of employee health benefits, uh employee uh uh reserves, time off, all those things, make sure that they were transferring correct.

Uh didn't read all the details on that, but uh I think we need to make sure that we're watching out the employees.

And um, we can uh we can bring you up to speed, but uh just the general gist is working through either paying that out or or what moving forward with what that would look like.

So there is some assurance that that it will get paid out if not transferred over.

I have just one one final thing too.

And I know during the the nine months, having neighborhood meetings and that kind of thing to see what changes may need to be made.

Um some things that we already know are issues, like lack of shelter at the bus stops, some areas that they don't have stops, that sort of thing.

Would we be able to work with VIA to go ahead and make some changes during these nine months?

Would that be a possibility?

I think you can.

There's certainly nothing that prevents that.

Obviously, if there are immediate needs to be considered, whatever those are, then the city has the privilege to go in and make those changes or improvements to the extent that it will be understood that those improvements may need to be substantial, but also maybe temporary, depending on where it is.

We don't know.

Um, but yes, yes, a short answer question is yes.

Because those are some of the things that have been brought to my attention as well.

Like a lot of these stops, like most of the stops don't have any sort of shelter.

It's just a a sign.

And then some areas have no stops where a lot of people live and they have to walk a long way to get to one of these stops where again there's just a sign.

So there are just some issues that I think maybe while we're looking through this nine-month period that maybe we could address sooner rather than later, to you know, make sure that you know where we know changes need to be made and that we're in favor of we could go ahead and start working toward them.

Sure.

And I think part of that question goes back to uh one of Councilman Nurm's questions about um the type of vehicles and where those things are, right?

Some of those stops, it it feels like some of our routes are based on the equipment that we use, and we really should be looking at equipment that could best serve the routes that we need.

So I think there will be some transition of that over time.

Um on the the 311, we can that they've already agreed to that.

Councilman Penn, if I can get with you and just make sure that we're clear on the language you want for those employees, we can go and get that drafted.

Um, so that would be relatively simple to do, and then everything else, I think operationally.

Um nothing that's been discussed today as anything outside the scope that we couldn't address for sure.

Okay.

And then um, one uh one thing that I did say that I would mention, um, one of the areas that would would like to see focus, especially along that Cody Road corridor between overlook and old shell.

Um I think there's a population center there that could be better served.

So I just wanted to say my piece and uh said I would express it.

Uh I want to say my piece and say I do think that's a good idea.

That was part of my piece as well.

Just didn't get specific on it.

Um okay.

With that being said, any more uh Ms.

Penn, you got anything.

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

I want to thank V.

I want to thank the administration for working and working together.

That's what it's about.

That's that was my only concern.

Um, and hopefully we'll have that complete and written in this contract.

Um, and I want to thank um Councilman Gregory for speaking about the shelter, how it looks outside, because I think um I I don't even know if this something downtown alliance did, but they have the nice umbrellas like for those small spots for bus stops and where people can wait.

I think that's something that we would love to see just getting like what would be the cost for those type of things like that in this nine months to look at and see what ways that we can make it better.

But um, thank you so much for the work that you all done, and I look forward to seeing the information that I requested in the contract.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr.

Chairman, yes, sir.

Uh Mr.

Scott, I know that councilman Penn had came last week and discussed these issues.

Can you let us know when you could probably be talking to Councilman Penn, but we'll be repeating the same thing next Tuesday.

Certainly.

So for the two, obviously, we sent that request to via on the 311.

They've had that for a week.

I apologize it wasn't in there, but that's just negotiating back and forth.

But they're obviously they're paying attention, and they saw that today, so that one's addressed.

Um, the language I'll get with Councilman Penn today, we'll make sure we get it worded exactly as there.

That's probably one line, maybe two.

Um, so all of that language will be complete by the end of the day today.

Okay, and Mr.

Reynolds, do you think in on in over the course of next week um as far as the confidence of voting on that?

I'll have uh whatever conversations I need to have between now and then, and if there are any amendments that need to be offered, I'll discuss them and we'll offer them up.

So I do have a question about the three one one deal.

Tell me how that works.

There's a three-year initial contract with a one-year automatic renewal option.

And then another one year option.

Is that so the the contract currently says that there's a termination, there's a termination clause in there.

So it really in any point for any substantial reason you could terminate the contract.

I think this would just be a three-year, and then the opportunity for the city council to vote to renew for one year at the end of three years, and then vote for another year at the end of that one year.

I think at that point, five years from now, they may be discussions of a longer renewal, but I think right now it's three one and one specifically, yeah.

And I think the three one one, yeah.

Yeah, I think the three one one would also um working with that.

It also would offer maybe a year four where the ones coming up, uh, maybe an option to look at a longer term contract if that's if that if this body so chose.

Um, that being said, every everybody, any other comments, questions, concerns, positive comments, things, anything.

If I may let me, I just want to say thank you for this.

The the staff understands Jacob Lawrence has done a good bit of work on this.

Joe's done a good bit of work.

V has been a great partner.

Transdev has been exceptional to work with across this process, knowing that there's a transition likely.

Um, it's not lost on anyone, staff, any of you, the public.

That this is a big decision, right?

This is not something you're gonna vote on or we're gonna walk away from.

This is one of those decisions that you're gonna have to address time after time and hear about those.

So there's been a lot of care to put into that.

Um, we just appreciate your time.

We appreciate the input.

We want to make sure we get it right.

Um, with the public understanding that this is not decision that's taken lightly, and and we understand that operationally as well.

Absolutely, and thank you, Scott.

Thank you, Jacob.

Um, thank you, Joe.

And then uh thank you, Ms.

Shaw, for joining us today.

And um, with that being said, we'll close this out.

Thanks.

Thank you.