The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002 04 22 Regular F ADA Paratransit Ridership COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM F CONSENT INFORMATIONAL PUBLIC HEARD~G REGULAR X .~ MGR ~T REQUEST: The Community Development Department requests the City Commission receive new information on ADA Paratransit ridership in and around the City and consider making a pro rata share contribution toward operating costs in FY 2002 to 2003. April 22, 2002 Meeting ICA PURPOSE: The purpose of this item is to request the City Commission receive new information on ADA Paratransit and authorize a pro rata share appropriation as a funding partner for the continued provision of ADA Paratransit services in the City. 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 servi(;es 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 3/4 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. . On March 25, 2002, the City Commission directed staff to obtain from LYNX and/or determine the following prior to final disposition: a. Documentation of existing and potential ridership in the City. April 22, 2002 Regular Agenda Item F Page 2 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. . LYNX has provided a updated table of projected Paratransit service costs and trip estimates for FY 2002 to 2003, summarized as follows: Outside % Mile 1 ,913 FINDINGS: 1. The requested total appropriation would be used to fund the City's pro rata share of existing Paratransit service for FY 2002 to 2003. 2. A total of 2,404 projected trips within the City in FY 2002-2003 are expected to cost $52,516. Only 490 of these trips, at a cost of $10,713, are projected within 3/4 mile of existing bus routes. 3. The identification of a mutually acceptable or metropolitan wide funding source other than general funds to finance ridership continues to be a goal of policy makers across Seminole County. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the following: A) That the Commission decide if it desires to participate in the funding of Paratransit services in FY 2003. B) If so, staff recommends: 1. The Commission the fund total cost of $52,516 for fiscal period 2003. 2. That the Commission fund the Paratransit services on the: condition that the County Commission will impose gas taxes in sufficient amounts in future years, and to reimburse the City for its temporary funding in the Fiscal Year 2004. ATTACHMENTS: A. Table of Projected ADA Paratransit Costs by Jurisdiction B. Minutes of March 25, 2002 City Commission regular meeting (excerpt) COMMISSION ACTION: ATTACHMENT A I FY 00/01 FY 02/03 - Projected 10% trip increase (4) % of Trips I Client Count by Residential Actual Trips Projected Trips Projected Cost at $21.85 per Trip (5) Cities of Counties Address (1) Counties of Service Area County City Inside Outside Total Total % outside Inside Outside Total Inside 3/4 Outside 3/4 Total Costs 3/4 Mile 3/4 Mile Clients Trips (3) 3/4 Mile (2) 3/4 Mile 3/4 Mile Trips Mile Mile Altamonte Springs 119 I 1 120 6,515 0.0% 7,167 - 7,167 $ 156,588 $ - $ 156,588 17% Casselberry 58 13 71 2,366 23.1% 2,001 601 2,603 $ 43,731 $ 13,136 $ 56,867 6% Lake Mary 1 19 20 563 100.0% - 619 619 $ - $ 13,532 $ 13,532 1% Longwood 23 92 115 1,931 66.8% 705 1,419 2,124 $ 15,409 $ 31,003 $ 46,412 5% Oviedo 22 I 5 27 1,173 39.3% 783 507 1,290 $ 17,113 $ 11 ,080 $ 28,193 3% Sanford 104 17 121 4,023 1.2% 4,372 53 4,425 $ 95,532 $ 1,160 $ 96,693 10%1 Winter Springs 6 441 50 I 2,185 79.6% 490 I 1,913 2,404 I $ 10,713 $ 41 ,803 $ 52,516 6% Unincorporated 254 162 I 416 I 19,979 I 49.4% 11 ,120 I 10,857 21,977 I $ 242,979 I $ 237,216 $ 480,195 52% Total 587 I 3531 940 I 38,735 26,639 I 15,969 I 42,609 I $582,065 $348,931 $ 930,996 100% I I I SA Totals 1 I I I 1 I I 100% I I 1 1 I I NOTE: I 11 Number of clients is as of March 2002 I 210utside percentage is based on sampling of trip during the first quarter of FY02 I I 31 FY 00/01 total trips is based on actual trip counts for all of FY01 and is used to project FY02/03 outside trips. I 4 Costs are preliminary pending final resolution of legislative actions regarding LYNX paratransit services. I I 5 The cost figure shown is the current estimated vendor cost per trip minus the customer fare. I I I I 1 1 I I I Projected increase: 110% I Cost $ 21.85 I Sheet1 4/10/2002 ATTACHMENT B ..;i.'PJ .~~>;f'.. '~. . ,i~ COMMISSION DRAFT MINI-MINUTES MARCH 25 2002 Ms. Carol Fottler, 208 Heatherwood Court, Winter Springs, Florida: remarked about the "'proposed new Arbor Ordinance, Ordinance 2002-08 and felt that more stringent words were used i:1 the current Arbor Ordinance, and thought :hat there was unfair treatment of individual homeowners compared to developers. Ms. Fottler asked this Ordinance 2002- 08 be re-worked. .:. .:. AGENDA NOTE: THE FOLLOWING REGULAR AGENDA ITEM \V AS DISCUSSED NEXT. .:. .:. IV. REGULAR REGULAR L. Community Development Department Req uests The City Commission Direct Staff To \Vork With LYNX And Other Countywide Funding Partners To Identify Current Anel Future Public Transit Needs. Tope I/Side 8 Manager McLemore said to the City Commission, "The leaders at the County have a real concern -about levying a second penny of taxes in the same year that the public has already approved an additional penny for improvements in the road system. So, I think \vhat they are saying to the localities is that we need a temporary way out here where we can re-group here and come back and provide the appropriate in a fair and equitable way of financing this in our next fall year's fiscal period." Further, Manager McLemore stated that "What the Coun!y has brought to the Mayors and Managers is the process of working through an alternative, or the sets of alternatives down to what's a final alternative. I think that what the County is saying to us is tell us what you are willing to do. In other words, they have a~ked all the cities to report back by mid-April, saying what you are willing to do with this dilemma that we are in. ,And, the Mayors and Managers group has discussed this throu~ and - basically the consensus is it should be funded from gas tax." Manager McLemQre added, "You can't solve this with a General Fund appropriation - that gas taxes is, the way to do this." Further, PAGE ~ OF 33 NOTES: (J ... ,j~. ,.;;.j):" .', 'II SlON DRAFT MINI-MINUTES MARCH 25 2002 " .,.;;:,,,,1 ':'::Ji~'f;;'.' ,,/;;:'~' .\fIlIlagcr McLemore suggested that "If you are going to do it, then I think it should be .,. " ,. part of that that you say to them, we are willing to do this if you will address the gas tax next year and if you are willing to pay us back for th~ money that we advance fund you once you get that revenue source. Now that's my recommendation to you. I think it's fair and I think it's the way it should be done, Your other alternative is to just fund it and not ask for your funds back; or don't fund it at all." Additionally, Manager McLemore advised the Commission, "At your next Meeting in April, we are coming to you with the first six (6) month~ of revenues and expenses. We like the County are having our own shortfalls because of the decline in the economy and probably r think you might want to wait until that Meeting happens to make that decision, and] think you can do that within the timeline that the County has asked," "1 WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TI-IA T WE FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND HAVE THEM BRING THIS BACK TO US WITH ALL THE INFORMATION LISTED ON THE AGENDA ITEM UNDER 'RECOMMENDATIONS' FOR A FINAL DISPOSITON." MOTION BY CO[VIMISSIONER MARTINEZ. MAYOR PARTYKA STATED, "AT THE NEXT MEETING?" COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ STATED, "THE NEXT OR - APRIL 22ND," SECONDED BY DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL. DISCUSSION VOTE: COMMISSIONER McLEOD: AYE COMMISSIONER BLAKE: NAY COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ: AYE DEPUTY MAYOR GENNELL: AYE MOTION CARRIED. t III. CONSENT CONSENT A. Utility Department I ' Requesting Authorization To Purchase \\,'astewater Residuals Hauling Service By Piggybacking Ofr The City or Mount Dor~ Contract. i PAGE 8, OF 33 NOTES: tI