No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1992.01.02 - 20009MISC. RESOLUTION #92003 Janaury 2, 1992 BY: TERESA KRAUSE RE: A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE LOCAL FUNDING PROBLEM FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE SMART SERVICE AREA TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS: Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners is the legislative branch of the County of Oakland; and WHEREAS, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners is supportive of the continuation of public transportation in Oakland County and south- eastern Michigan; and WHEREAS, many Oakland county residents and employees working in the county have become reliant on public transportation to provide mobility for essential trips; and WHEREAS, the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) is the provider of public transportation in Oakland County and is the grant administrator for both the Municipal Credit and Specialized Service programs; and WHEREAS, SMART is operating in a $7.7 million deficit with no local dedicated source of funding available. This will result in a April 1, 1992, termination of service. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners request that the Michigan Legislature and Governor support legislation which will continue SMART service at the present levels; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that State legislation shall create an advisory committee composed of business, labor, political and community leaders in southeastern Michigan to design a public transportation plan to take to the electorate of southeastern Michigan. This advisory group needs to work with each community in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties to identify transportation needs, operation scenarios and a funding mechanism. This advisory committee should be given twenty-four to thirty six months to prepare their proposal to present to voters; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that such legislation shall replace the SMART policy Board of Directors with a board chaired by the Director of the Michigan Department of Transportation. In addition, this board shall be composed of the Executive Director of the Detroit Chamber of Commerce, the President of the Greater Detroit AFL-CIO Council, the Elderly and Handicapped Advisory Committee of SMART, and a representative of each county in the SMART service area (jointly appointed by the County Executive and the Board of Commissioners); and FURTHER RESOLVED, As a commitment of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners in finding a solution to this latest public trans- portation dilemma, Oakland County offers to subsidize SMART's deficit for Fiscal Year 1992 by $500,000 conditional upon the Michigan Legislature and Governor taking appropriate action. Representatives of both political parties on the Oakland County Board of Commissioners shall actively seek the support of their counterparts in Macomb, Wayne, St. Clair, Livingston and Monroe counties. #92003 January 2, 1992 The Chairperson referred the resolution to the General Government Committee. There were no objections. A PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE LOCAL FUNDING PROBLEM FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN THE SMART SERVICE AREA The Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) is the suburban public transportation provider for the suburban Detroit area. SMART directly operates both small and large bus service, contracts for service with private for profit and non profit agencies, and acts as administrative agent to allow local municipalities to receive SMART "Municipal Credit funds." If SMART does not receive a major infusion of money by March 31, 1992, all service will be terminated. It is proposed that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners develop a short and long term proposal on how to allow for public transportation in southeastern Michigan to continue and even flourish. Existing SMART Services SMART operates seventeen major large bus routes in Oakland County with the major concentration south of the Pontiac, east of Telegraph, west of Dequindre and north of Eight Mile Road. Over 10,000 passengers use the SMART fixed route service each weekday. In addition, in July, 1991, at the urging of Oakland County, SMART initiated privately contracted large bus service in three corridors previously not served by large bus service. Ridership on these three routes has reached approximately 250 passengers daily. Service is being provided by ATE Management, Inc. SMART operates para-transit CONNECTOR service in many communities in Oakland County, including Dial-A-Ride service in Birmingham and Troy. SMART CONNECTOR is an advanced reservation system which is used most frequently by older adults and people with disabilities. Riders call up to six days in advance to reserve a ride on a "tour" usually confined to one or two municipalities. Standing reservations and groups trips are an essential part of the systems design. Dial-A-Ride service as exists in Birmingham and Troy is a higher level of para-transit service. Riders call and receive service usually within ninety minutes for trips within the municipality. The City of Troy subsidizes the cost of providing Dial -A-Ride service_ SMART allocates $3 million of its operating budget each year to all municipalities in Oakland, Wayne and Macomb Counties and is called "Municipal Credits." The amount of funding each community receives is based on their population. Municipal Credits may be used for projects of an operational nature. For example, the cost of subsidizing a senior/disabled van program, free tickets to ride SMART large or small bus service, and reduced cost of charter bus trips. Local communities determine how to spend their Municipal Credits. Over $830,000 is allocated to Oakland County for this program. Attachment 1 is a list of communities in Oakland County receiving funding the Municipal Credit and their chosen projects. Since 1989, SMART has administered the Michigan Department of Transportation (M-DOT) "Specialized Service" grant program. Fifteen municipalities and agencies receive over $198,000 in Specialized Service funding in Oakland County. This program has allowed for the expansion of transportation for older adults and people with disabilities due to the lack of local funding to expand SMART CONNECTOR or fixed route service. As the administrator of the program, SMART must process over 50 grants, contract with over 30 agencies, and staff seven county coordination committees in their service area. SMART receives no additional funding for providing this service. Attachment 2 is a description of the project and list of Fiscal Year 1992 Specialized Service recipients in the SMART Service area. SMART Financial Difficulties Attachment 3 is a memorandum prepared by the Acting General Manager James L. Aho and presented to the SMART Board of Directors at their November 19, 1991 meeting. In summary, SMART is projecting a $7.7 million deficit for their fiscal year which ends June 30, 1992. Much of the shortfall is due to increased insurance obligations and a loss in State of Michigan funding. SMART has made numerous administrative cuts in the past three years. If no additional dollars are found, all transit service will cease on April 1, 1992. The SMART Board of Directors indicated that a merger with the Detroit Department of Transportation (0-DOT) was a part of the solution to the problems of local funding in Southeastern Michigan. Oakland County's representatives on the SMART Board are jean Willoughby and Matthew Wirgau. Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (RDA) became law at the federal level and opened up opportunities for people with disabilities in transportation, housing, employment and communication. The foundation to these new civil rights granted under this law is transportation. SMART is in the process of developing an ADA transportation plan which will identify how disabled riders wno are incapable of using the fixed route service will have access to the transportation system. Attachment 4 is a brief summary of the issues which will need to be addressed quickly by the SMART ADA Advisory Committee and the SMART Board of Directors. Because ADA is a civil rights law and not a transportation legislation, leaders in the disabled community are observing closely the ramifications of a close down of all SMART service. There is believe by disabled leaders that this act by itself is in violation of the intent of ADA and could be subject to a legal challenge. Solution There needs to be a short and long term solution to the constant funding problem being experienced by SMART. Every urbanized area in the State of lichigan and most urban areas in the country have a dedicated source of funding. In Michigan, the property tax is the most often used method. Nationally the sales tax is popular. Whatever the form, a commitment must be made to find a dedicated source of funding. Public transportation's problems, as suggested by the SMART Board of Directors is more than funding. it is an image problem. Transit needs to be an essential element in the debate to solve growing environmental concerns and access by worKers to areas of greatest job expansion in the suourps. To secure a long term solution, the Michigan Legislature and Governor need to create an advisory committee composed of business, labor, political and community leaders in southeastern Michigan to design a public transportation plan to take to the electorate of southeastern Michigan. This advisory group needs to work with each community in Wayne, Oakland and Macomb Counties by identifying transportation needs, operating scenarios and a funding mechanism. This advisory committee should be given twenty-four to thirty six months to prepare their proposal to present to voters for their input. Until this long term solution is identified, the Legislature and the Governor need to empower M-DOT to: 1) Provide funding to continue SMART operations at their current level; and 2) Replace the SMART policy Board of Directors with a board chaired by the Director of the Michigan Department of Trans- portation. In addition, this board shall be composed of the Executive Director of the Detroit Chamber of Commerce, the Presi- dent of the Greater Detroit AFL-CIO Council, the Elderly and Handicapped Advisory Committee of SMART, and a representative of each county in the SMART service area (jointly appointed by the County Executive and the Board of Commissioners). As a commitment of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners in finding a solution to this latest public transportation dilemma, Oakland County offers to subsidize SMART's deficit for Fiscal Year 1992 by $500,000 conditional upon the Michigan Legislature and Governor taking appropriate action. Further, representatives of both political parties on the Oakland County Board of Commissioners should seek the support of their counterparts in Macomb, Wayne, St. Clair, Livingston and Monroe counties. 03- Ap r -Y1 3:5e ''' Attachment 1 SOURBO MOBILITY AUTHOHLTI FOR REGIONAL IR:IMPORTATION FY 92 OPERATING BUDGET MUNICIPAL CREDITS C CURRENT DISTRIBUTION -1 USER SERVICES FYBO POPULATION 1Y90 FOS SIDE ADMIN. SPECIAL PROVIDED BY SHARI CENSUS INCREASE CENSUS PROJECTS SUBSIDY FEE CHARIER III:LETS VANS SERVICE ---sRurrrr-ramrrrun - ALLOCATION (DECREASE) AILOCATIW ()ALAND ANION-W. 100 1,000 2,100 AUBURN HEIGHTS 400 11,000 BERKLEY 500 13,300 BEVEELY HILLS 1, 0)0 BINGHAM FAI:MS 11-t) 400 BIRMINGHAM KONFIELD HILLS 100 2,900 BLOOMFIELD TWP, 1,100 30,700 BRANDON 1UP. 200 7,400 3,400 ,CLARKSION VILLAGE 100 300 400 CLAWSON 400 10,803 COMMERCE lor. 500 12,10- 1,100 FARMINGTON 7,800 300 FARMINGTON HILLS 36,500 1,500 5,000 FERNDALE 10,800 700 FRANKLIN 100 2,000 ROMANI' W. 100 HAZEL PARK 500 5,600 9,400 HIGHLAND TM, 400 12.200 HOLLY 100 3,500 HOLLY TU1.. 100 2,600 HUNTINGTON WOODS 200 4,900 INDEPENDENCE UP. 500 4,300 10,500 KEEGO HARBOR 100 2,100 LAKE ANGELUS 300 IAKE ORION 100 2,000 LATHER VII1AGE 100 3,400 LEONARD 100 200 LYON MI', 200 5,000 MADISON HEIGH1S 900 :75,400 MILFORD 100 3,600 MILFORD TWP• 100 1,600 NORTHVILLE NOVI 11,200 600 ',J,00( OAK PARE BOO 22,600 OAKLAND EDP. 200 5,500 ORCHARD LAKE 100 1,100 ORION TWF, 500 3,000 ::,000 9,000 °RENVILLE 100 BOO OXFORD VILLAGE 100 2,000 OXFORD TUE.. 200 3,600 2,100 PLEASANT RIDGE 2,300 100 PONTIAC 2,000 5,700 19,000 ROCHESTER 200 5,200 ROCHESTER HILLS 1,000 29,300 ROSE Ea. 100 2,000 1,00 'ROYAL OAK 11.1P. 100 4,300 ROYAL OAK 1,800 1,000 1,000 40,200 SOUTH LYN 100 3,800 3,200 SOO 3,700 11,400 1,700 13,100 13,800 (BOO) 13,000 4,200 8,500 (400) 8,100 500 300 800 1,000 16,000 17001 15,300 3,000 300 3,300 11,000 800 32,600 6,000 2.300 0,300 BOO 0 BOO 11,200 (6001 10.600 14,000 1,000 17,000 8,100 (300) 7,000 43,000 14,200 57,200 19,500 (300) 19,200 2,100 (100) 2,000 3,000 600 3.600 15,500 (100 15,400 12,600 1,200 13,000 3,600 700 4,300 2,700 (200) 2,500 5,100 (200) 4,900 15,300 2.900 18,200 2,200 0 2,200 300 0 300 2.100 200 2,300 3,500 (200) 3,300 300 0 300 5.200 2,000 7.200 26,300 (1,600) A,700 3,700 500 4,200 3,700 1,400 5,100 2,600 2,600 15,800 8,600 25.400 23,400 0 23,400 5,700 300 6,300 1,200 600 1,800 14,500 1,600 16,100 900 100 1,000 2,100 100 2,200 5,900 1,000 6,900 2,400 (300) 2,100 30,200 56,800 (7,200) 54,600 5,400 100 5,500 30,300 17,100 47,400 3;300 500 3,800 4,400 (600) 3,800 8,500 52,500 (2,300) 50,200 3,900 600 4,500 3,200 17,400 2,200 10,500 600 13,800 4,000 1,400 2,300 2,400 1,800 2,600 39,900 28,600 55,900 80,100 3,900 118,200 __ 62300 509,500 -71,200 2,800 27,000 9,000 GRAND TOTAL DETROIT LUNhUI USER POS SIDE ADMIN. PROJECTS SUBSIDY FEE SOUTHFIELD SPRINGFIELD TWP. SYLVAN tALE TROY WALLED LAkE WATERFORD TWP. WEST DLOOMFIELD TWP. WHITE 1AKE TWP, WIXOM WOLVERINE LAIA IOTA' OALTAND li1b 1K1 80 1100 - SMILES I180 SFECIAL PROVIDED BY SMART CENSUS CHARTER ITEIETS VANS SERVICE Serra- CONNICIOR ALLOCATION 13,800 -11,900 101006- 20,300 200 5,900 6,100 100 1,400 1,500 0,800 49,800 100 3,500 3,600 1,100 33,600 13,000 47,700 1,100 9,900 20,000 31,000 600 15,600 16,200 200 4,500 300 5,000 100 3.600 32700 7-6;186 -71,200 191;506 71;;Olg -164,100- -57,-000- 70.000 -- 748,TU 10PULATION INCREASE CENSUS (DECREASE) ALLOCATION 1,500 7,600 (100) 1,400 6,100 55,900 1,200 4,800 3,400 51,100 10,800 41,800 1,100 17,300 1,500 6,500 (100) 32600 K,700 - 110,866 1,100 1,800 2,900 6,700 13,300 53,100 28,000 10,700 MACOMB WEIDA ----- ARMADA INF, DEUCE mr. CENTER TINE EHESTERIIEID TWP. CLINTON TWP, EAST DEIROTT FRASER (ROSS[ PTE SHORES HARRISON TUF. LENOX TWP. HACOMP IUP, : MEMPHIS MOUNT CLEMENS NEW BALTIMORE NEW HAVEN • RAY TWP. RICHMOND RICHMOND MP. ROMEO ROSEVILIE SHELBY TWF. • ST.CLAIR SHORES STERLING HEIGHTS UTICA WARREN WASHINGION TOP. TOTAL MACOMB 100 1,000 100 1,700 100 200 3,300 3,200 500 12,800 1,800 25,700 25,600 1,000 400 1,100 16,800 2,100 10,100 sou 13,800 09U 100 1,300 100 2,200 100 2,300 100 1,700 100 2,500 1,400 38,500 1,000 6,600 2,000 19,000 36,000 1,900 18,000 2,800 9,600 15.000 52,700 100 3,800 4,100 114,100 200 6,100 -11400 36,000 17,400 99,800 159,900 179,400 100 1,z00 500 2,300 200 3.100 200 6,700 6,600 19,9C0 12,700 65,800 (900) 27.100 0 10,700 100 100 1,500 18,900 200 2,400 6,900 17,400 100 700 300 14,100 400 4,400 400 1,8u0 200 2,500 BOO 3,200 100 1,900 100 2,700 1500 39,400 8,700 37,300 (3,700) 52,200 10,200 90,300 0 3,900 (7,100) 111,100 _ 800 B2 40,600 550,100 600 100 400 100 $237,800 g209,400 -3510U6-1-3747550-1371,000 36131,350 $25,000 $78,100 --V99,000 -1171077200 104-,ZM 892 800 (104,600) 7802200 -3;006,060 0 --37000,0M 03-41-91 3:50 " SUBURBAN MOBILITY AUTHOWY FOR REGIONAL TRAMPORFATION FY 92 OPERATING BUDGET MUNICIPAL CREDITS CURRIN1 DISTRIEUTION 1 USER SERVICES FY80 1 OPULAIION 1)Y( PUS SIDE ADMIN. SPECIAL PROVIDED BY SHAM CENSUS INCREASE LENSUS PROJECTS SUBSIDY FEE LOANER fICIETS VANS SERVICE %WIFE- CINIECTUR - ALLOCATION (DECREASE) AllOCATIoN $36,300 26.700 12,100 43,600 15,700 63,200 27400-0 WANE AUER BELLEVILLE BROWNS TOWN 111P. CANTON TWP DEAR BORN PEARBORN HOTS, ECORSE FLAT ROCK GARDCN CIII GIBRALTAR GROSSE ILE TWP. GROSSE POINTE GROSSE POINTE FARMS GROSSE POINTE PARK GROSSE POINTE SHORES GROSSE POINIE WOODS HAMTRAMCK HARPER WOODS HIGHLAND EARL HURON TUN INKSTER LINCOLN VANts LIVONIA MELVINDA1E NORTHVILLE NORTHVIL1E (WI. PLYMOUTH PLYMOU1H TWP. REDFORD TWP RIVER ROUGE RIVERVIEW ROCK WOOF' ROMULUS SOUTHGAlE SUMPTER TOP. TAYLOR TRENTON VAN BUREN 1WP, WAYNE WESTLAND WOODHAVEN WYANDOTTE TOTAL WAYNE 1900 19,400 115,200 25,500 11.700) j,E.;:w 100 $2,300 2,400 100 2,500 12,500 450 8,550 :,000 13,500 900 14,400 36,300 7,400 43,700 2,300 65,500 67,800 700 60,500 1,700 17,000 31,900 50,600 (4,000) 16,600 400 10,400 10,800 (1,500) 9,300 2,000 2_000 11,000 5,100 500 5,600 26,700 (:,100) .1,400 1,400 16) 1,800 3,300 0 3,300 200 6,600 100 6,900 .,00 7,500 150 2,000 1,000 1,150 4,300 100 4,400 300 3,900 3,800 8,000 (300) 1,700 400 2,000 1,9 '0 3,900 10,200 (300) 9,900 100 1,000 1,300 2,400 (200) 2,200 7,000 500 5,000 800 14,100 (500) 13,600 115,900 15,900 (1,800) 14,100 12,100 (700) 11,400 14,100 100 2,600 3,500 20,900 (5,500) 15,400 300 7,000 7,300 700 8,000 26,400 (2,800) 23,600 1,200 0,900 71,000 2,/00 33,800 (1,700) 32,100 31,800 2,700 18,800 25,000 78.300 (1,000) 77,300 300 0,000 9,100 (500) MOO 4,106 100 4,200 (2,000) 2,200 9,500 300 9,800 3,500 13,300 7,200 300 7,500 (200) 7,300 600 16,700 17,300 800 18,100 43,600 (1,900) 11,700 200 9,400 9,600 (900) 8,700 11,000 11,000 (300) 10,700 1,200 100 1,200 2,500 (100) 2,400 600 18,000 18,600 (1,000) 17,600 BOO 23,200 24,000 (400) 23,600 200 8,100 0,300 100 8,400 18,000 2,000 17,500 ?00 19,700 57,900 (3,600) 54,300 17000 17,000 (1,200) 15,800 500 13,100 500 14,100 2,000 16,100 15,700 (500) 15,200 63,200 1,800 65,000 300 7,800 8,100 BOO 8,900 900 24,600 25,500 (1000) 23,700 96,800 TiT7U0 1-01T270- 118;i0-0- -197,850 75,000 1-.5,9N .27,000 -1349;-.100---M1,7001-----. -010;900 Attachment 2 MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (M-DOT) SPECIALIZED SERVICES (SS) PROGRAM THE M-DOT SPECIALIZED SERVICES PROGRAM WAS REVISED IN 1987 TO ADDRESS THE GROWING NEED OF TRANSPORTATION FOR OLDER ADULTS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN. PRIOR TO 1987, THE PROGRAM WAS USED ONLY AS A SOURCE OF OPERATING REVENUEFOR PRIVATE NON -PROFIT AGENCIES WHO RECEIVED FEDERAL 16(B)(2)* FUNDS. IN 1987, THE ALLOCATION FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE ADVANCED FROM "NO MORE THAN $2 MILLION" TO "NOT LESS THAN $2 MILLION." FUR - THER, NON 16(B)(2) AGENCIES INCLUDING LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE FOR PROFIT AGENCIES BECAME ELIGIBLE FOR THE GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE SPECIALIZED SERVICE PROGRAM ARE: I SERVICE MUST BE NEW OR EXPANDED; • AGENCIES MUST "MATCH" STATE MONEY. TYPICALLY, LOCAL AGENCIES MATCH THE FUNDING AT A RATE OF AT LEAST 50% OF THE TOTAL OPERATION COST OF THE PROGRAM; • ONLY OPERATING MONEY IS AVAILABLE. THE REIMBURSEMENT RATE BY THE STATE IS $1,16 PER MILE OR $3.70 PER ONE WAY TRIP; 4 GRANTS ARE BASED ON DIRECT OPERATION OR A SUBCONTRACT TO ANOTHER PROVIDER. FOR DIRECT OPERATIONS, THE VEHICLE MUST BE IN PLACE BEFORE AN APPLICATION WILL BE ACCEPTED BY M-DOT: • SERVICE MUST BE FOR OLDER ADULTS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES; $ INPUT IS REQUIRED BY THE TRANSIT SYSTEM'S "LOCAL ADVISORY COUNCIL" ON THE APPLICATION AND THE SERVICE PLAN; • ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM ARE NOT AN ELIGIBLE EXPENSE; AND 9 COORDINATION OF ALL TRANSIT TYPE SERVICES IS MANDATORY. IN ESSENCE, IF THE LOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEM IS OPERATING SERVICE IN THE SAME AREA, IT IS THE ROLE OF THE SPECIALIZED SERVICE APPLICANT TO COORDINATE THE "NEW" SERVICE WITH THE TRANSIT SYSTEM. COORDINATION ALSO INCLUDES PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL "COORDINATION COMMITTEE", THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING VARIES FOR EACH PROGRAM. USUALLY FOR EVERY 40 HOUR PER WEEK OPERATION OF SERVICE, SPECIALIZED SERVICE FUND - ING CAN BE EXPECTED TO BE AROUND $9,500. THE M-DOT SPECIALIZED SERVICE GUIDELINES ARE USUALLY AVAILABLE THROUGH THE LOCAL TRANSIT SYSTEM BY NOVEMBER WITH APPLICATIONS DUE TO THE TRANSIT SYSTEM THE FOLLOWING JANUARY OR FEBRUARY. M - DOT MAY NOT NOTIFY APPLICANTS OF FINAL DECISIONS UNTIL AT LEAST THE FOLLOWING SUMMER. THE TOTAL FUNDS ALLOCATED BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR THE SPECIALIZED SERVICE PROGRAM IN FISCAL YEAR 1990/91 WAS $2.5 MILLION. * 16(B)(2) IS A U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL GRANT PROGRAM FOR PRIVATE NON -PROFIT AGENCIES PROVIDING TRANSPORTATION FOR OLDER ADULTS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, IN MICHIGAN, THE 16(B)(2) ELIGIBILITY IS ONLY FOR SERVICE AREAS WHERE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IS NOT AVAILABLE. Maxim= Fundinq $ 19,190 9,595 9,595 4,979 9,600 9,500 19,000 38,000 9,595 19,190 9,690 7,813 9,090 9,000 9,595 9,690 9,000 9,595 9,595 9,500 9,500 28,785 9,595 9,595 24,035 9,595 6,361 8,750 76,000 9,595 8,650 9,595 19.190 TOTAL Funding Source 1992/7526 CM:2893-1/vs 5470,058 June 4, 1991 ATTACHMENT A Agency: Specialized Services Operating Assistance Program Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation Area Agency on Aging Rezion 1-3 Association for Retaraeci Citizens (Livingston) Bedford Community Schools Berkley, City of Birmingham Area Seniors Brighton Catholic Service of Wayne County (Macomo Co.) Catholic Service of Wayne County 'Wayne Co.) Charter Township of Branaon Child/Family Service - Washtenaw Clinton Valley Center Community Mental Health (Livingston) Community Mental Health (Monroe) Consortium - Livonia Farmington Hills Senior Citizens Dept. Ferndale, City of Gibraiter. City of Hartland Senior Center and Schoois Highland - Milford Townships Holly Area Schools Independence Township Macomb County Community Service Monroe County Opportunity Program Older Persons Commission - Rochester .P-sinte- Area Assisted Transportation Pontiac Community and Human Resources Pontiac Schools - SCAMP Southfield Senior Adult Center St. Clair COA S.T.A.R. Sumpter Township Troy Medigo Warren Parks and Recreation Dept. Funding Rate S3.80 /passenger 1.12 /miie 1.12 /mile 1.12 /mile 1.12 /mile 1.12 /mile 3.80 /passenger 3.80 /passenger 1.12 /mile 1.12 /mile 3.80 /passenger 1.12 /mile 3.80 /passenger 1.12 /mile 1.12 /passenger 3.80 /passenger 3.80 /passenger 1.12 /mile 1.12 /mile 3.80 /passenger 1.12 /mile 1.12 /mile 1.12 /mile 3.80 /passenger 3.80 /passenger 3.80 /passenger 3.80 /passenger 1.12 /mile 3.80 /passenger 1.12 /mile 1.12 /mile 3.80 /passenger 3.80 /passenger SUBURBAN MOBILITY AUTHORITY for REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION 660 Woodward Avenue • Detroit, Michigan 48226 • (313) 256-8600 MEMORANDUM TO: SMART Board of Directors FROM: James L. Aho, Acting General Managerl_i 1 DATE: November 18, 1991 SUBJECT: Financial Status of SMART As requested, we have completed our analysis of the financial condition of the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) vis-a-vis the fiscal year 1992 budget adopted by the Board of Directors on June 4, 1991. We have also made projections of the Authority's financial condition for the fiscal years 1993 and 1994. Our analysis has revealed that the Authority will be in a deficit condition at June 30, 1992 in the amount of $7.7 million. The projections further indicate that the deficit will grow by an additional $5.2 million in fiscal year 1993, and by $6.4 million in fiscal year 1994. The $7.7 million deficit is made up of the following: * Farebox revenue estimates have fallen by approximately $700,000 due to declining ridership of approximately 6% on SMART's base fixed route services. * $300,000 in budgeted local funding contributions are not expected to be made. * Projected State of Michigan Act 51 financial assistance will be $1.3 million below the original budget estimate. * Costs have increased in the amount of $1.8 million for fuel, labor arbitration and legal fees, labor contract settlements, vehicle liability and workers' compensation claims, and environmental compliance requirements. SMART Board of Directors November 18, 1991 Page 2 * An unanticipated deficit of $3 million for the fiscal year which ended on June 30, 1991 (fiscal year 1991) will be carried over into the current fiscal year (1992). A budget surplus of $1 million had been expected for fiscal year 1991. The deficit for fiscal Year 1991 was caused by cuts in State aid, labor zontract settlement and litigation costs, bad debts, and extraordinarily high vehicle liability and workers' compensation costs. $1 million in retained earnings (i.e. a $1 million surplus) is necessary to maintain SMART's self-insurance program in accordance with rules established by the Secretary of State. I have taken steps to reduce the salary and fringe benefit costs of the Authority's professional staff and have made other administrative cost reductions which together total nearly $400,000. We will continue to look at other areas of potential cost savings. However, it is clear that additional revenues will be needed to cure the $7.7 million deficit. This information is presented for your information and disposition at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors to be held on November 19, 1991. Attachment 4 ADA COMPLEMENTARY PARATRANSIT PLAN Definition of an ADA eligible individual: o People who are not able to use fixed route services even if these services are accessible; and people who can use fixed route public transportation if it is accessible, but it is not currently accessible. ADA requirements: 1. Service Area ADA complementary paratransit must be provided within 3/4 of a mile of any fixed route. 2. Fare Policy ADA complementary paratransit fares can be no more than twice the amount of regular fixed route service. 3. Response Time A reservation service must be available during the hours that administrative offices are open on all days prior to a service day. The ADA permits people to make reservations 14 days in advance. 4. Eligibility and Trip Purpose Any person with the type of disability specified in the Act must be provided paratransit service with no restrictions or priorities imposed on trip purposes. 5. Hours and Days of Service ADA Paratransit service must be provided during the same days and hours that fixed route service is provided. 6. Capacity Constraints No capacity constraints such as waiting lists or limits on the number of trips made by individuals can be imposed on ADA service recipients. 1 SMART ADA Paratransit Service Options 1. Service Area Options for boundaries of the service area include: Option 1. The basic 3/4 mile on either side of a fixed route required by ADA: Option 2. The 3/4 mile service area plus the entirety of any partially covered communities now receiving Connector service: Option 3. Option 1 or 2 with additional areas included as a need arises, and resources become available. 2. Response Time Options for call taking on non-service days include: Option 1. Pay someone to take calls on those days: and Option 2. Use an answering machine, and have someone come in early on the following day to schedule that day's trips. Option 3. Use an answering service to take the trip requests. 3. Fare Policy Options for developing an ADA complementary paratransit fare policy include: Option 1. Revise the Connector fare structure to meet ADA requirements: and Option 2. Create a new fare structure for ADA eligible persons only, separate from the Connector fare structure. 4. Trip Purpose Restrictions Options for developing ADA complementary paratransit service hours include: Option 1. Option 2. Option 3. Provide service during all hours during which fixed route service is currently provided; Option 1 including the use of contracted service and/or subsidized taxi during some periods to meet demand: and Reduce fixed route hours of service to limit the requirement for complementary paratransit service. 6. Capacity Constraints Options to be considered for maintaining adequate capacity for individually booked ADA complementary paratransit trips include: Option 1. Limit the amount of agency and older adult service that is provided; Option 2. Limit the practice of standing order reservations; and Option 3. Maintain agency and older adult service as a separate system from ADA complementary paratransit service. • -404 Proole/%4„. 000M)430 3 # Ow, iNlw wona. t kt •_ .? a 1, ' 1, n • WA . 4 ,A. ' w AmAll 1 OTAIN hi- 'oe:i--41104 *IN te Taw/AS 4 \ lealr , --mat 'ma tAtIvirt vv.- A 1 A I, • , _.,hiliNik•Va .."` *Li -.....1 ii W $, .1..rwave,m-ieeig Wtt121.1: VW V-Ii-WIAl MOM •••V•INN, e # 0 t i.' A Mir 'I; k g k L3iTi LIM m 3/44,.44 ks7 . 1 SI .0 lpv,;:xammod, ro ? \ 10 "' nImva • - - 4'0%2k \ WILnI StMN 0.1 iv% %LIMY IVAL:1 11•111•1Mnli • 7..Pc :tr tvAig iv g i\v,: A:4174 Lt-,1,11:A2,11 4) I r-taltrLVN 4,i KM, iq NNVIC itIlt;izia,mt NI N „ II 111- h EtAlMal, 'la rA 4ir vim no vs r%-lt, IL_ :xi= :moms& mug t. 111 I r VE1 14Nt vaTivr.-ri o' Av , nkwa \ IN _ ' 0 I" east • s111H nap AP A N IP I av MN el LAN a&Var Irta _ t.„1Womi VIk+Itlems\ • ' WI M. II 62 1 v lig 0 VI Ent MiT.1 lkIta \\\\ / 01313S 717 ighwals, _ 4 \v1T. arl; V1-1 Oa; L% IP IN I Me _ IlVa‘k 1!4,i I. LIGA. „ • VISL\ aRki, X `a, r rieVILW I 11! " I .7•-• eaJv aainias lisueJlued VOVIIIVINS ealV 831/1199 psueimaed Amtuawaidwoo vav ibmws Repeam in, $ Nk;;ellim,::n41L R 'V&A ca.IIMIL 16.: LW MI, a 13 kNVIMNIIVN -It( LVa'4',.`17:a ZintAV LVOLVIZNI X Z !V IV a 1 eve wArnaveN-Niklke bo o INV= *Imo nMf 41 !It I l ; ii, \i I e l 0- ki! kassl ET :s marzris i 1 gm leak vai n w .kw i 0 a ristAl ! I 0 a kalS_In n v NY Ay /AT 1 .0 _i MOM 101.1•Nti NWWI Askuraikwaa 4 ; 14-1:1.1 *4, Ni v to. liNk n ,,a'q *Owe - SCIN lb' Neje lp • vv. , SMART ADA Paratransit Service Area AdditionalMunicipalities Currentl y Served by SMART Connector Alternative Weekday SMART ADA Complementary Paratransit Service Area Including All Municipalities Currently Served By SMART Connector