The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003 04 14 Regular L Add-On ADA Transportation Funding 041403 Commission Meeting Add-On Regular "L" ADA Transportation Funding Page I Of I COMMISSION AGENDA ADD-ON ITEM L Consent Informational Public Hearing Regular X April 14, 2003 Meeting Mgr~ / Dept. Authorization REQUEST: Commissioner Martinez requesting the Commission to rescind its approval of funding for ADA Transportation provided by LYNX. NOTE: This Agenda item was inadvertently left out of the Agenda package. PURPOSE: The purpose of this Agenda Item is to have the Commission consider rescinding its action of February 10, 2003 approving funding for ADA Transportation provided by LYNX. CONSIDERATIONS: On February 10, 2003 the City Commission approved an appropriation of $38,037 to support ADA Transportation provided by LYNX. Commissioner Martinez requests the City Commission to consider rescinding the appropriation. FUNDING: Not Applicable. RECOMMENDATIONS: Commissioner Martinez recommends that the Commission consider rescinding its action of February 10,2003 approving funding for ADA Transportation provided by LYNX. 041403 Commission Meeting Add-On Regular "L" ADA Transportation Funding Page 2 Of2 ATTACHMENT: 1. February 10, 2003 Regular Agenda Item "E" (without attachments). 2. June 20, 2002 City Attorney Opinion regarding reconsiderations and rescissions of previous actions. COMMISSION ACTION: COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM E CONSENT INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARING REGULAR X February 10, 2003 Meeting f1r'- //Y MGR IDEPT /CA REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests direction from the City Commission on funding ADA Paratransit services in FY 2002 - 2003. PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is to request the City Commission reconsider the pro rata contribution requested by LYNX for ADA Paratransit services. CONSIDERATIONS: · ADA Paratransit is a demand- or subscription-responsive program, which provides door- to-door service to transportation disadvantaged (economically, mentally and physically, general ridership, and human service) patrons and does not conform to the scheduled or fixed routes of traditional mass transit. · The American Disabilities Act requires that Paratransit service area be provided within 3/4 miles of existing bus routes. . · LYNX has historically provided door-to-door Paratransit service beyond the required area on a needed or requested basis. · A funding shortfall is projected for the continuation of all transit services in the County, since contributions from funding partners have remained stable by comparison to rising operating costs. · County policy makers are concerned about imposing additional gas taxes to fund public transit in the same year the public has approved additional taxes for road improvements. · The funding shortfall has prompted LYNX to reduce Paratransit service to the required minimum (within % miles of existing bus routes, instead of the historic door-to-door service), effective October 1, 2002. · LYNX has requested that funding partners contribute a pro rata share of funds that would continue Paratransit service beyond the required minimum. . LYNX has provided a updated table of projected Paratransit service costs and trip estimates for FY 2002 to 2003 to serve 50 clients in the City of Winter Springs, summarized as follows: February 10, 2003 Regular Agenda Item E Page 2 Outside % Mile $30,214 · On March 25,2002, the City Commission directed staff to obtain from LYNX and/or work toward the following objectives: a. Documentation of existing and potential ridership in the City. b. Identification by policy makers of a source of funding other than general funds to finance ridership; and ideally c. Identification of a metropolitan wide source of funds to operate a metropolitan wide transportation system. · On April 22, 2002, staff presented LYNX's explanation of the methodology for the study which resulted in ADA Paratransit client counts by residence, number of actual trips taken annually, project trips, and projected costs. · On April 22, 2002, the City Commission approved an appropriation of $52,516 for one (1) year, contingent upon the adoption of an interlocal agreement between the City and Seminole County for the imposition of a new funding source for that project year and for the repayment of the fund expended by the City over no more than two (2) years outside the year of funding. . On April 22, 2002, the City Commission also directed staff to challenge the Paratransit service costs and trip estimates provided by LYNX, justify the data to the satisfaction of the Commission and present it as additional information at a future meeting date. . LYNX provided an explanation of the methodology used to determine existing ADA ridership and projected operating costs in the City, which subsequently reduced the initial request from $52,516 to $38,037. This information was presented by staff to the City Commission at the June 10, 2002 regular meeting. . On June 10,2002, the City Commission directed the Mayor to prepare a letter requesting that LYNX further justify the projected service costs and trip estimates. · On June 14, 2002, the Mayor prepared a letter requesting that LYNX further justify the projected service costs and trip estimates, as shown in Attachment A. . On June 20, 2002, the Seminole County Board of Commissioners accepted the recommendations of the Mayors and Managers Committee (Attachment B) and determined the 9th cent local gas tax revenues would only be used to fund fixed route services in FY 2002 to 2003 and that individual cities would be responsible for funding their pro rata share of ADA services during the same period. . The Seminole County Board of Commissioners further committed to working with LYNX's funding partners to identify a funding source for ADA Paratransit beyond FY 2002 to 2003. . The County's decision to limit funding in the next fiscal year only to fixed route services thereby rescinds the City Commission's conditional appropriation of $52,516 on April 22, 2002, and further direction is requested from the Commission for final disposition of this item. . All other cities within the county have agreed to participate in this program and pay their pro-rata shares. February 10,2003 Regular Agenda Item E Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Commission reconsider the following alternatives and make a decision regarding ADA funding in FY 2002 to 2003: A. Approve LYNX's requested appropriation of $38,037 without reimbursement from Seminole County; or B. Deny the request. ATTACHMENTS: A. Letter from Mayor to LYNX, dated June 14, 2002, B. Letter from Seminole County Manager's Office, dated June 13,2002 COMMISSION ACTION: ./ BROWN, WARD, SALZMAN & WEISS, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Usher L. Brown + Suzanne D' Agresta Anthony A. Garga.neseo Gary S. Salzmano John H. Ward + Jeffrey S. Weiss Debra S. Babb Jeffrey P. Buak Alfred Truesdell Joseph E. Blitch Scott D. Danahy Theodore F. Greene, III Kristine R. Kutz Brett A. Marlowe Todd K. Nonnan . Cheyenne R. Young Two Landmark Center 225 East Robinson Street, Suite 660 Post Office Box 2873 Orlando, FL 32802-2873 (407) 425-9566 (407) 425-9596 FAX Email: agarganese@orlandolaw.net Website: www.orlandolaw.net Cocoa: 866-425-9566 +Board Certified Civil Trial Lawyer oBoard Certified Business Litigation Lawyer oBoard Certified City, County & Local Govenunent Law June 20, 2002 The Honorable Paul P. Partyka and Members of the City Commission City of Winter Springs 1126 East S. R. 434 Winter Springs, FL 32708 RE: Boat Docks Dear Mayor and Members of the City Commission: At the June 10, 2002 City Commission meeting, Deputy Mayor Gennell sought to have the City Commission change its CUITent position on whether to adopt additional boat dock regulations. As a result, Parliamentary Rules were invoked. I advised the City Commission that under certain circumstances the Commission always has a right to reconsider a previous official action and, if desired, to change its official position on an issue. In general, this is done by either a Motion to Reconsider or a Motion to Rescind in accordance with Robert's Rules. These two rules are often used interchangeably, but they should not be. They are two very different motions. For example, a Motion to Reconsider can only be made by a Commissioner who voted on the "prevailing side." By comparison, any Commissioner, regardless of which side they voted,. can make a Motion to Rescind a previous vote. Accordingly, my interpretation of Robert's Rules would permit any Commissioner to make a Motion to Rescind the Commission's April 22, 2002 decision not to pursue additional boat dock regulations. The Honorable Paul P. Partyka and Members of the City Commission June 20, 2002 Page 2 Several key aspects of a Motion to Reconsider should be emphasized: . 1. It can only be made on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day. 2. It must be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side. 3. Any member may second it and a majority vote is required. 4. It cannot be applied: a. When the same result may be attained by some other parliamentary motion; b. When the vote has been partially executed; c. When an affirmative vote to contract has been taken and the other party to the contract has been notified; d. On a Motion to Reconsider; e. When something has been done as a result of the vote that the Commission cannot undo. 5. The effect of adopting this motion is to place before the Commission the original question in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon. On the other hand, a Motion to Rescind has the following key aspects: 1. It is a main motion that can be introduced only when there is nothing else before the Commission. 2. It may be made by any member and is debatable. 3. Any vote taken by the Commission may be rescinded by a majority vote, provided notice of the motion has been given at the previous meeting or in the agenda for the current meeting. A two-thirds vote, or a majority vote of the entire Commission is require to rescind a vote without notice. 4 . Votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the Commission cannot undo; or when the vote was to approve a contract and the other party has been informed of the vote; or where a resignation or expulsion from office has been acted on, and such person was present or officially notified. Nevertheless, for the reasons discussed above, if the Commission desires to take another look at regulating boat docks, Robert's Rules would require the Commission to rescind the April 22, 2002 vote. ~ J . The Honorable Paul P. Partyka and Members of the City Commission June 20, 2002 Page 3 I will be happy to answer any questions regarding this letter at the Comniission's June 24, 2002 meeting. AAG:jf cc: Ronald W. McLemore, City Manager Anthony A. Garganese City Attorney