Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTransportation Board - Minutes - 06/16/19930 Draft Minutes to be approved by the Board at the July 21, 1993 meeting. TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING MINUTES JUNE 16, 1993 6:10 - 7:55 P.M. BOARD LIAISONS: Council Liaison -- Gina Janett Staff Liaison -- Rick Ensdorff BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Egeland, Colin Gerety, Dave Lemesany, James Reidhead, and Paul Valentine. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Hudetz, Sharone Mekelburg, Michael Poppenwimer. STAFF PRESENT: Rick Ensdorff, Susan McWay. GUESTS PRESENT: John Daggett and Tom Frazier - Transfort; Barbara Schoenberger - Parks and Recreation; Marge Waltz and Jack Peverly - Care -A -Van, Tom Hoffman - Shamrock Taxi; Gina Janett - Council Liaison. AGENDA: 1) Call to Order 2) Approval of Minutes 3) Transfort Issues/Options - John Daggett 4) Regional Transportation Plan Update 5) Other Business DISCUSSION TOPIC: 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gerety called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the May 19, 1993 Transportation Board meeting were unanimously approved and seconded. TRANSFORT ISSUES John Daggett turned the meeting over to Tom Frazier, Director of General Services for the City of Fort Collins. He gave a history and update on some of the issues currently before Transfort. He provided information so that the Committee could make a recommendation to the Council as to how the City should meet its responsibilities. The question before the Committee is, "How should the City meet their paratransit responsibilities?" a) What Has Changed Under the old accessibility regulations (504), the City was required to provide service to the disabled, but only required the City to spend 3 percent of its operating budget on paratransit service. The ADA has almost all of these requirements incorporated, but it says that there is no 3 percent limit. It says that the City is to provide priority service to the disabled before serving any others. Tom stated that in setting up the paratransit plan that the City adopted in August of 1992, they identified the different funding agencies, their funding amounts, current service levels, and the unmet demand. There was uncertainty as to how to continue. The objective was to come up with ideas from the different agencies as to how they want to continue to support paratransit service in Fort Collins and the County. The result of this is that Care -A -Van lost revenue, had higher operating costs, and demand increased. The issues before the Committee tonight are to meet the responsibilities with the objectives of "Who To Serve" taking into account legal requirements and the community values. For the last 20 years, the City of Fort Collins has supported Care -A -Van in providing paratransit service for the disabled and the elderly. On the question of how to provide paratransit service, there are two questions. First, what is going to happen July 1, because that is when Care-A-Van's funding resources change. Secondly, what is going to happen long term? Tom described Care -A -Van as being made up of Foothills Gateway, Poudre R-1, and United Day Care Center. In 1992, this amounted to 136,000 trips. The part that the Committee is concerned with is the demand response piece, which concerns the people who call in and want service the next day or next week. They are not a client of Foothills, Poudre R-1 or United Daycare Center - just John Q citizen who needs a ride. Care -A -Van is, therefore, a commuter service for the elderly and disabled - a demand response. Our contract impacts the urban growth area. Care-A-Van's projected budget as of May, 1993 was distributed to the members of the Committee. Total Transfort income anticipated is $766,821. Some of the funding agencies handle only rural, and some handle only urban; some handle only seniors, and some handle only disabled and low- income seniors. As of May, 1993, there was going to be $400,756 of income for urban, and $205,207 for rural. There is a $250,000 shortfall. The question was asked how much of the rural is within the UGA. Tom responded that the only thing in the UGA is the urban part. He indicated that they lined out the numbers that do not apply to the demand response; for example, the $7,000 urban is for SAINT. SAINT is not part of this demand response picture. Tom stated that under "Foothills Gateway Contract," $102,400 - that is not available for demand response. The total Urban income of $400,756 is not really available because it flows through the $250,000 as of May, 1993. Tom then discussed the Paratransit Plan of 1987 that the Council adopted and the 1992 Paratransit Plan. The question remains, "Who To Serve?" In 1987 under "Eligibility," the Plan states that under "504," all persons who by reason of handicap are physically unable to use Transfort's route service for the general public shall be eligible to use Transfort's specialized service, Care -A -Van. It adds that the City does not intend to exclude any other disabled or elderly persons from being able to utilize the paratransit service that the City provides. In August of 1992, ADA paratransit eligibility included individuals who are disabled and non -disabled individuals who are aged 60 and above. However, if service is limited, trips will be provided to individuals on a priority basis. First are ADA eligible disabled requesting next -day service; second, ADA eligible disabled individuals requesting next -day service; third, non -disabled individuals aged 60 and over. The question before the Committee is, "Does this fit, and is this something you want to support or make a change?" Mark Egeland asked if there is a choice to support or not support the third recommendation. Tom responded that the choices are not closed in. It was stated that the City has no choice but to do the ADA disabled - it is a fixed requirement it has to meet. Colin Gerety stated that it does not include the entire urban growth area - it is only the area which is supplied by fixed route systems. Therefore, any community has the option of dismantling their fixed route system to save money. John Daggett discussed the demand response service, the low/high estimates and described the impact on funds and customers. OPTION 1 To Continue As We Are Presently Doing 35,513 to 48,945 rides per year Cost of $453,000 to $575,000 per year -3- Resources Available - $250,000 - Insufficient What this scenario represents is that we are serving the ADA eligible disabled, the non -disabled senior, and the low-income group. John discussed pros and cons for this particular option and some of the constraints Care -A -Van is under. For example, the Office on Aging supports transportation for seniors. If a non-ADA disabled senior is scheduled on a trip for the next day and an ADA eligible person calls in, the latter must be guaranteed next -day service, and they would take that person's place. John discussed various temporary ADA eligibility requirements. OPTION 2 Same Method Of Service Delivery But Only For ADA Eligible 20,018 to 35,450 rides per year Cost of $315,000 to $453,000 per year Resources Available - $209,000 - Insufficient With this scenario, there is a loss of money from the Office on Aging and other sources of revenue because the number of clients has been reduced. However, it does meet the ADA requirements and reduces the shortfall. John discussed other pros and cons of this model. OPTION 3 The City of Fort Collins Provides the Service - They Would Provide Only the Trips That Require A Lift -Equipped Vehicle. All Ambulatory Trips Would Be Contracted Out. This Option Excludes Care -A -Van. 20,018 to 35,450 rides per year Cost of $384,000 to $438,000 per year Resources Available - $140,500 - Insufficient Approximately two-thirds of ADA-eligible trips are for ambulatory (able- bodied) customers. This scenario drops service to the elderly and non- ADA; low income and non-ADA elderly receive little or no service. John discussed other pros and cons of this model. He added that we are allowed to establish a fare up to the federal limit of $1.50 per trip, which is twice the Transfort fare. Care -A -Van currently charges no fares. Colin Gerety stated that the first option may not meet the legal requirements, and the third option appears to be the most inefficient delivery system available because of the buy-back aspect of an existing service. Tom stated that the two questions remain, "Who should be served?" and "What level of service should be provided?" The real question is whether we want to stay with tradition and work with all the groups in the community, or if we want to break with tradition and focus on ADA. ILI! Daggett stated that when decisions are made on specific groups of people to serve, resources are impacted. It was asked what proportion of the senior non -disabled and the other category can use Transfort. John replied that in 1991, there were 29,000 disabled rides on the Transfort system. In 1992, that figure went to 48,000. Year-to-date 1993 figures are up 27 to 28 percent over last year for disabled rides. Tom Frazier stated that during the "504" and ADA days, a fixed route system does not have the right to collect specific information from riders such as their age, residence, destination, etc. However, we can ask Care -A -Van how many people can get to a fixed route, and they can give it to us by number. The question is how it affects the Office on Aging. The Office on Aging and the Fort Collins United Way are both in a similar situation - the City has asked them what they want to do, and they have not made a decision yet; if United Way says they want to focus everything on disabled, then there are seniors who will object, and United Way will have to deal with this. It was also noted that among the non -disabled seniors, there are people 90 years old who are unable to carry groceries from the bus stop to their homes; but by the ADA description, they are not eligible. Colin Gerety stated that other alternatives need to be looked at and that fares need to be looked at more closely as a funding source, which would also have the effect of shifting riders toward Transfort. Tom Frazier stated that Care -A -Van did a study on fares, and the current ridership for this year for the urbanized area, 90 percent are economically disadvantaged. What the Office of Human Development in Larimer County did was to provide passes for people in need. Approximately 30,000 rides were given last year. When the analysis has been done, if we can generate 15,000 in fares, that would be a high number. There is potential, but the majority of these people are economically disadvantaged. Tom stated that, County -wide, the money that the Office on Aging, United Way, and the City of Fort Collins puts in goes to pay for part of the overhead. If we tell United Way that this is a priority and we want to focus all on the urban area, then all the support for the rural is going to diminish. On a County -wide level, it may put an issue back to the Commissioners. John Daggett stated that the City can enter into intergovernmental agreements as to how money is going to spent as long as the City doesn't enter into the agreement with the Office on Aging and United Way. That money goes to Care -A -Van, and the City neither has control nor can direct those dollars. It was suggested that if all of the ambulatory people were taken off of Care -A -Van, then Care -A -Van would be freed up to do other things. However, this would result in half of the Foothills contract being lost. Tom Frazier stated that this all happened April 1. Care-A-Van's Board makes the decisions, and they are looking at the same questions we are looking at and what kind of service they are going to put on the road. M1 The City of Fort Collins is saying that it has a mandate to ADA. Care -A - Van also has other contracts that say if the City wants their $160,000, the City will do what it is told. The system has to be totally analyzed. It is not a matter of just the City of Fort Collins contracting out a service. The difficulty is that when you pull the Care -A -Van module out, you pull $100,000 worth of resources out because they are a 501C organization. Tom Frazier stated that under the current contract with SAINT, they provide about 9,000 to 10,000 rides for seniors using all volunteer drivers. Care -A -Van, through a contract with the City, handles the SAINT program. A question before the Care -A -Van board presently is what would happen if the City puts additional money into SAINT to take care of these ambulatory trips. This would be another form of brokerage. Prior to April 1, the City was paying close to $6 per trip. This has jumped to approximately $13. Tom stated that there are reasonable and effective alternatives, but the fact is that the City has been operating without a contract since January. The Office on Aging has not signed their contract. He stated that the City has to go back to the Care -A -Van board and state the City's position. Colin Gerety stated that since the City has to provide a certain level of service, the City could broker it out. If Care -A -Van could do a portion of that as cost effectively as anyone else (including getting money from the United Way and the Office on Aging), that's great. If not, then the City will have to buy back all the systems, and then we are looking at alternative 3. In a cost effective fashion, the City should provide all the other services. The most effective way may be to put it out to contract. Tom stated that if the City elects to put out an RFP (Request for Proposal) for paratransit service, the City is also in the middle of the Regional Transportation Plan, and it may cause some difficulties in Larimer County. The City is talking about regional issues but bidding on a local basis. It was stated that in the event of non-compliance, the City is the one that is at risk. Tom Frazier asked if the Committee wants to stay with the August 1992 priorities and try to provide the most economic and efficient system as possible. In response to discussion on numbers of eligible riders, Tom stated that the City cannot define an ADA-eligible population any larger than what the requirements state; the City can, however, define who is eligible for paratransit service larger than the ADA's eligible list. Tom added that under the 504 regulations, "disabled" was not defined, and everyone got protection because they were included. Under the new ADA regulation, this cannot happen. 19 0 Daggett stated that it seems that the consensus of this group is to continue to pursue the 1992 policies, to go to bid, receive bids, and come back to the Council with some funding options. Mark Egeland noted that if the City does, in fact, go to a mode where everything is contracted out to Shamrock Taxi, that would have an effect on vehicle miles traveled and air quality. Colin Gerety noted that the budget figures for 1992 indicate that $15,221,000 was spent on roadway and pedestrian systems. The large subsidies for automobiles were noted. Rick Ensdorff gave a handout to the Committee members on background information on congestion management. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m. A ,( /�- Susan A. McWay, Board Secretary -7-