Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout02 February 5, 1990 Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Advisory Council" 040268 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION AGENDA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICE ADVISORY COUNCIL 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 1990 RCTC BOARD ROOM 3560 UNIVERSITY AVE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 PHONE # (714) 787-7141 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes (December 4, 1989). ACIUN 3. Public Comments. 4. CAC Meeting Schedule for 1990. INFO 5. FY 1990 TDA Unmet Needs Hearing Schedule. INFO 6. FY 1989 UMTA 16(b)2 Program Results. INFO 7. Potential Policies for Measure A Elderly and Handicapped Transit Programs. ACTION 8. Social Service Transportation Delivery Study. ACIION (To be provided at the meeting) 9. CAC Representative Resignations. INFO 10. Other Business. 11. Adj ournmc nt . " 1 Roure 4o E7 2 ,c OFFtcE S A4P._ LocAT E D AT: 3sccn (J& ij SiW Ave, Stor� loo ctAoaE 0114) 1"1-714 tz 7'Z Sreee r y g" uviveesiTY 44,e TARKtN3G kiA1t.A6le tkl GARAGES on1 �RAGE Sr. 42CiC Lo vAt-1 DATE PAR1aG fog. JI S4 To RS 44 'Po Nor -PA 2<r IN Att-ey oR SekcRS itetflOP n4 -E R rc emt��.Pi^!(�� " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Service Advisory Council December 4, 1989 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Services Advisory Council was called to order by Chuck Schmitt, Chairman at 1:37 p.m. at the Riverside County Transportation Commission Conference Room, 3560 University Avenue, Ste. 100, Riverside, CA. Members present: Anita Alcorn Terry Allen Ace Atkinson Ray Baca Cathy Bechtel Rose Eldridge Don High Herbert Krauch Members absent: Lori Nickel Leon Overton Rena Parker Chuck Schmitt Don Senger Clarence Swalve Dick Weeks * Mike Beggins * Joanne Moore A,,, ( ,, t Lucia Moran **Tom Para " ' e Arnold Dickson ee Norwine Durand Ra`ltt * Excused ** Tom Paradise is the alternate for Arnold Dickson AGENDA ITEM 2 -2 - Others present: Debra Astin, Sunline Transit Agency (Representing Lee Norwine) Sandy Cook, RCTC Staff Joan Ellis, R.C. Senior Citizen Coalition Pat Piras, Consultant to RCTC Jim Stoffer, Riverside Transit Agency (Representing Durand Rall) Hideo Sugita, RCTC Staff Marilyn Williams, RCTC Staff 2. Approval of Minutes M/S/C (WEEKS/ELDRIDGE) that the minutes of the July 24, 1989 meeting be approved as printed. M/S/C (KRAUCH/HIGH) that the minutes of the August 28, 1989 meeting be approved as printed. M/S/C (ALLEN/ELDRIDGE) that the minutes of the October 2, 1989 meeting be approved as printed. Rena Parker abstained. 3. Public Comments Chuck Schrntt commented that he was sorry that more of the Citizens Advisory Committee members could not attend the October 2, 1989 meeting "in the desert". He stated that it was an opportunity for the transportation advisory committee to hear from the individuals who are most intimately involved with the transportation system in the valley. He said he would like to see another meeting in the desert and it is imperative that another meeting is held for public input to obtain public input on transportation issues in the desert. In order to allow for better organization and participation by members of the Committee, he asked for input as to the best time and date for a meeting in the desert. Ray Baca recommended more media coverage announcing to the public the meeting and requesting public input on transportation issues. Chuck Schmitt reported, that there is a set number of meetings to be held in the valley. Hideo Sugita responded, at this point, we are committed to meeting there twice a year. Chuck Schmitt requested the Committee members bring their recommendations on date and time to the next meeting. Hideo Sugitacommented that, in March, there will be an unmet needs hearing in the desert, most likely at Palm Desert City Hall which is a centralized location. This is normally held in conjunction with the Commission meeting. Self-introdu( ions of those present followed the above public comments. " " 3 - 4. Report on the Federal Department of Transportation's Conference on Special Transportation Chuck Schmitt reported that Paul Blackwelder, Pat Piras and he attended the Federal Department of Transportation's Conference on Special Transit held August 1989 in Tempe, Arizona. This conference was organized by the Department of Transportation; specifically, Secretary Skinner. The opportunity presented itself at this conference to talk to people from all over the country with both similar and different transportation problems. Chuck Schmitt received some very interesting information concerning paratransit from this conference and noted the common factor among the participants is there never seems to be enough special transit vehicles, no matter the amount of resources or effort put forth. He further reported that part of the goal of the conference was to create a Federal policy on special transit for the Bush administration. The attendees were divided into rural and urban groups. The individuals conducting the conference for the Secretary of Transportation structured the time to produce a usable document from the conference. Chuck Schmitt has not yet received the report, but will share it when he does. He does not feel that the policy established at this conference will change existing policy at the local level, but feels it is important to have a policy which starts to change things from the top down, to prevent resources from being scattered and ineffective. Chuck Schmitt also reported that he has a copy of the Houston Paratransit Report on the historical account of transportation for the disabled in the United States. He will make it available for those members of the committee who would like to review it. 5. Social Service Transportation Delivery Study Pat Piras reported she has put together a draft memorandum which is a summary of her findings of the Technical Memoranda. The purpose of the draft memorandum is to not only summarize, but also to point out the study has reached the point of making some major findings and some recommendations to the Commission. She highlighted this summary paper by reporting: 1) Coachella Valley - a) Tel -a -Ride services need to be re -designed and re -structured, b) there needs to be an increased availability for general public E&H, and c) there is an interest in a service connection to Loma Linda and Riverside. 2) Western County - a) There are no obvious problems in Western County and Pat Piras did not feel it was appropriate to make any recommendations at this time, b) several key services are currently in personnel transitions, c) the Commission Staff has been made aware that some people, in the Hemet/San Jacinto area are not satisfied with the services provided there, d) there are service standards for Dial -a- Rides not carried through to SRTP process. 3) Countywide -- a) RCTC is interested in increasing its monitoring role, perhaps as broker, and b) marketing of service needs improvement. " - 4 - " Pat Piras then stated that the Measure A "5% money" is currently estimated at $1.54 million to $1.94 million per year for Western County, and that this is split between E&H and commuter services. For the Coachella Valley, the amount is estimated at $600 to $756 thousand annually and there are no policies established yet on the split. From a county -wide perspective, Pat Piras made the following recommendations, pointing out that they are not in any order of priority or significance: 1) Minimum performance standards should be set; 2) Consider use of the Measure A funds for mobility training of clients of the Regional Center and other agencies which would move these individuals from paratransit onto fixed route services; 3) Consider a demonstration project of an inter -regional bus connection, perhaps once or twice a week, from Blythe or the Coachella Valley, to Riverside and Loma Linda; and 4) Set the pricing structure so that the funding services are coordinated so that agencies pay a proportional share of costs for services benefiting their clients/program. Hideo Sugita then gave a historical account of the study, in order to put things into perspective. Over one year ago, the subject of this study was raised because, in the Coachella Valley, there was a question concerning the transportation of individuals to the Foundation for the Retarded by SunLine and whether or not that was a social service function or public transportation function. Since that time, the study locked at 1) defining what was public transportation and what is social service transportation; 2) taking the study a step further to find someone else to contract the service with and make it a third party's responsibility. Debra Astin, representing SunLine and Ace Atkinson, representing the clients for the Foundation for the Retarded, then each gave an in-depth discussion of the need for the study, from their client's points of view. Hideo Sugita then reviewed Technical Memorandum #3 which suggested three agencies as a broker: 1) Operators of consolidated transportation agencies, i.e. RTA, 2) The Commission, or 3) a totally new entity. Along with the study, there has been some parallel work that has been done with the transit operators in the form of minimum performance standards. Discussion then followed by members of the committee expressing their personal experiences and views concerning the elements of the technical memoranda and the summary of findings Pat Piras provided. This included in-depth discussion of the dial -a -ride services and the fact that they cannot meet the capacity needs of the public. Pat Piras stated that these services report a few turn downs a day (due to the time constraints during peak period use), but part of the problem is related to the 24 hour advance reservation requirement. Also, the fact that the public does not know how to use the dial -a -ride services, coupled with the marketing issue of advertising the dial -a -ride service and, the past history for individuals that have been turned down and are reluctant to consider this service. 5 - M/S/C (NICKEL/ALLEN) To make maximum use of existing entities before new ones are established and identify the Riverside County Transportation Commission as an additional option in the CTSA to provide special transit under certain circumstances. Ace Atkinson abstained. Chuck Schmitt requested that, as an agenda item for the next meeting, the members of the committee collect ideas from their constituency concerning elderly/handicapped services that are available, or should be available, and the use of Measure A money to meet these needs. Paul Blackwelder stated that a new Staff Analyst will be coming aboard on December 18th, whose emphasis is transit. Also in the Measure A transit area, Marilyn Williams, RCTC Staff Analyst, will be working with the specialized transit and the commuter services. Paul Blackwelder requested a list of the groups that the Commission could go out to talk to and challenge them to state the problems and also ask their input for innovative ways to correct the problems. Leon Overton expressed concern that the members of his constituency are distressed because they have not seen any progress, either in the freeway congestion, or the commuter rail system. Paul Blackwelder responded that, since this committee primarily focuses on transit, the Commission staff will schedule a presentation at the next meeting stating where the Measure A program is, what has been happening to date, and what can be expected to be accomplished in the next 6 months to a year. At 3:18 p.m. Chairman Chuck Schmitt had to leave and turned the chair over to Vice -Chairman Cathy Bechtel. 6. Meeting Dates As the Commission rescheduled its meeting date to the second Wednesday of the month, the Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting will be on the Monday of the week prior to the Commission meeting at 1:30 p.m. A schedule will be provided to the members for 1990. 7. Other Business There were no items. 8. Adjournment There being no other business to come before the Committee, the meeting was adjourned by Vice -Chairman Cathy Bechtel at 3:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Hideo Sugita, Staff Analyst " " CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING DATES 1990 January 1990 - Meeting cancelled. February 1990 - February 5, 1990 March 1990 - March 5, 1990 April 1990 - April 2, 1990 May 1990 - April 30, 1990 9 5Unbne; - a { t es  lo;OG 4.r^ ,  June 1990 - June 4, 1990 July 1990 - July 2, 1990 August 1990 - July 30, 1990 September 1990 - September 4, 1990 - TUESDAY - MONDAY IS HOLIDAY October 1990 - October 1, 1990 November 1990 - November 5, 1990 r 3r,) ti" �� December 1990 - December 3, 1990 eJec����1.CSllcti_ AGENDA ITEM 4 " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Jerry Rivera, Staff Analyst SUBJECT: Unmet Transit Needs Public Hearings Attached is a schedule of the annual public hearings to be held by the Commission on unmet public transportation needs. Also attached is a general information packet that will be distributed at the public hearings and a flyer, prepared in cooperation with RTA staff, announcing the public hearings. The testimony received and recommendations will be adopted by the Commission at their meeting in May, 1990. The information packet and flyer will be distributed to senior centers and social service centers throughout the county. We will ask for their assistance in distributing the information and to encourage the public's participation. " " TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, February 14, 1990, 9:00 a.m. Riverside County Transportation Commission Board Room 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 WEDNESDAY, February 14, 1990, 2:00 p.m. Lake Elsinore School District Board Room 545 Chaney Street Lake Elsinore, California 92330 THURSDAY, February 22, 1990, 1:30 p.m. VFW Post 2987 Meeting Hall 148 North First Street Blythe, California 92225 WEDNESDAY, March 14, 1990, 2:00 p.m. Palm Desert City Council Chambers 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 " " Information Package for the Transportation Development Act Public Hearing WEDNESDAY, February 14, 1990, 9:00 a.m. Riverside County Transportation Commission Board Room 3560 University Avenue, Suite 100 Riverside, California 92501 WEDNESDAY, February 14, 1990, 2:00 p.m. Lake Elsinore School District Board Room 545 Chaney Street Lake Elsinore, California 92330 THURSDAY, February 22, 1990, 1:30 p.m. VFW Post 2987 Meeting Hall 148 North First Street Blythe, California 92225 WEDNESDAY, March 14, 1990, 2:00 p.m. Palm Desert City Council Chambers 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Overview of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) 1 Legislative Intent for Use of Funds 1 Requirement for Public Hearing 2 Duties of the Hearing Board 2 How Sales Tax Becomes TDA Revenue 3 " " OVERVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT' Funding Programs The California Transportation Development Act of 1971 (SB 325, as amended) provides a major source of funding for local transit and streets and roads projects. The legislation authorizes the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), as regional transportation planning agency, to administer the program. The Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) entered into an agreement with SCAG to locally administer TDA funds for 1990-91. However, until legislative changes are authorized, SCAG retains authority for apportionments of funds and final unmet transit needs findings. The Transportation Development Act (TDA) sets forth several funding programs available to cities and counties. For example, monies may be used to support public transit systems by filing Article 4 claims, or Article 8 claims can be filed to help cover the costs of transit services provided under contracts. Other claims may be filed for local streets and roads and for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The TDA public hearing in Riverside County is jointly sponsored by SCAG and RCTC. Legislative Intent for Use of Funds The legislative intent for use of TDA monies is stated in the TDA as follows (see Public Utilities Code Section 99222): It is in the interest of the State that funds available for transit development be fully expended to meet the transit needs that exist in California. Furthermore, it is also in the interest of the State that such funds be expended for physical improvement - to improve the movement of transit vehicles, the comfort of the patrons, and exchange of patrons from one transportation mode to another. To assure full consideration in meeting the intent of the law, a public hearing to discuss transit needs is held every year. 1This overview of the TDA and public hearing process is provided only for the purpose of the public hearings on unmet public transportation needs and represents only a brief summary of the TDA program. " . Requirement of Public Hearing Before any TDA monies (in the form of claims from cities or the county) may be approved to be used for streets and roads purposes, RCTC must hold a public hearing. From a review of the Regional Transportation Plan and the testimony received at the hearing, RCTC must make a determination in its public record that there are not any areas within the jurisdiction of the claimant with unmet public transportation needs which can reasonably be met through expansion of existing transportation systems, by establishing new systems, or by contracting for services from common carriers and others as provided by the Transportation Development Act. The determination of "no unmet transit needs which can be reasonably met" must make specific reference to the efforts undertaken in the development of the Regional Transportation Plant to identify the public transportation needs of the transit dependent, especially the elderly, handicapped and poor, and the public transportation needs for coastal zones and other environmentally sensitive areas. Additionally, a determination of no unmet transit needs will take into consideration goals, policies, and actions identified in appropriate subregional transportation plans. Duties of the Hearing Board As they apply to the Riverside County hearing board, they are as follows: To receive testimony and make recommendations concerning unmet public transportation needs and the disposition of claims to the Riverside County Transportation Commission. These recommendations could be made in three ways: 1. The Hearing Board could find that there are unmet needs, but that they cannot reasonably be met. 2. The Hearing Board could find that there are no unmet public transportation needs. 3. The Hearing Board could find that there are unmet needs which can reasonably be met, and make recommendations on how those needs could be met. 21989 Regional Mobility Plan, prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments, adopted February 1989. The plan presents goals and objectives, policies and actions to be applied to the region's transportation system. Summaries of the plan are available on request from SCAG, 818 W. Seventh Street, Twelfth Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017. 6-3/4% on every taxable 1/4% state sales ollar 4-3/4% state earthquake relief gov't genl fund " i HOW STATE FUNDS FOR TRANSIT ARE SPENT IS UP TO YOU! ," ,.. i r tsUy Ave. A 9 ........:................:..:::�� J;;i:" `:" "i"iii i i':'t:'i"i'i'%i i": i ��t 'ri:��::.:::,:::::?:'. 350 Uriversit Avenue, Suit nta t Hi eo' ugi a or erry d the Riverside Coun T co ore y mission jjj v}:�::Jf f�::•:::i:ti�i:':!:i:: jji: ;�'rii:ti':: :{.>'i:vi'::i' �iiiii;:':; •:; :: :iii yii: ;: `• r.. • mom ��::r:}" " rs.:os" . rts.:.:'G��" :t��:f.s��" " :::to-`%��!" psi}'.tt��" r>rr!::;<:::::::>;:`::>. r,: s.,��y��; Sa}:t. 35 0 Universit Avenue, iationtontat t Hideo ug " a or err on ored,y the Riverside Coun .n';S:'',<xC��?;i;i3:%iiiiiif'.:;:;h3i" : .... ... " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Hideo Sugita, Staff Analyst SUBJECT: FY 1989 - UMTA 16(b)2 Project Application Results Back in August of 1989 the Citizens Advisory Committee provided recommendations to the Commission on the four UMTA 16(b)2 applications submitted by local private non-profit agencies in Riverside County for consideration in the State evaluation process. The applicants were: o Meditrans Services, Inc. - For (5) sixteen passenger lift equipped vans with tiedowns and (1) expansion, (4) replacement and communication equipment. o Family Services Association of Riverside - For (1) sixteen passenger lift equipped van with tiedowns and (1) mobile radio and (1) base station. o Mount Rubidoux Manor - For (1) fifteen passenger lift equipped van with tiedowns and (1) mobile radio and (1) base station. o Riverside Congregational Homes (DBA) Plymouth Tower - For (1) fifteen passenger lift equipped van with tiedowns. The State's Interagency Review Committee evaluated each of the applications end made the following recommendations on project approvals: o Meditrans Services, Inc. - Approved (2) sixteen passenger lift equipped vehicles with tie downs, (11) mobile radios and (1) base station. Total funds approved = $136,200 (Federal amount = $108,960) o Family Services Association of Riverside - Approved (1) sixteen passenger lift equipped van with tiedowns and (1) mobile radio and (1) base station. Total funds approved = $39,000 (Federal amount = $31,200) Both the Mount Rubidoux Manor and Riverside Congregational Homes (DBA) Plymouth Towers were rated too low for funding in this cycle. " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory Council FROM: Hideo Sugita, Staff Analyst SUBJECT: Potential Policies for Measure A Elderly and Handicapped Transit Programs At your last meeting (December 1989) Chairman Schmitt requested that the Committee members bring forward recommendations/ideas on the types of elderly and handicapped services that should be available and how we should apply Measure A funds to meet those needs. Staff looks forward to the discussion on this request as we are very interested in getting your input for the development of Measure A transit policies. As a refresher, there are several policies that have been approved by the Commission to guide the use of Measure A transit funds. o The first policy was to use Measure A funds to assist operators in complying with the TDA fare ratio requirement. This policy allows operators to claim only those Measure A funds needed to comply with the fare ratio requirement while avoiding the need for a fare increase. o Secondly, the Commission approved an interim policy that divides the Western County share of the 5% of Measure A funds for transit programs into two categories. 50% for specialized transit services and 50% for commuter services. In addition the Commission adopted the following policies relating to commuter buspool funding: o At least 50% of the costs for commuter buspools be covered by fares and employer contributions, and o Measure A subsidies for commuter buspools operating between Measure A areas or between counties should be split equally between the Measure A areas or counties. After the results of the UMTA 16(b)2 program were announced, as reported earlier in the agenda, Commission staff received requests for financial assistance from the approved agencies (Meditrans and the Family Services Association of Riverside) to meet the local AGFIIDA I":m 7 match required to secure the federal funds. After reviewing the requests and noting that this might be a worthy use of Measure A transit funds, staff recommends that the Committee support the establishment of a policy whereby Measure A funds would be made available to provide the local match, or lesser amount, for approved UMTA 16(b)2 projects. Additionally, staff is recommending the use of Measure A transit funds to provide operating assistance to private non-profit organizations involved in the provision of social service transportation. This policy will be drafted with the intent of making maximum use of other funds available to the non- profit organization as well as providing maximum use of the Measure A operating funds. These policies would also contain provisions for the private non- profit applicant to provide documentation to prove they are: (1) capable of operating the vehicle, and (2) that the applicant would operate the vehicle in accordance with any policies that may result from the Social Service Transportation Delivery Study, and any other policies the Commission deems appropriate. Staff believes establishing policy to assist local private non- profit agencies in securing federal funds that provide for 80% of the cost of accessible vehicles and related equipment or providing operating assistance will benefit both elderly and handicapped individuals in Riverside County. The policy will be drafted and presented to the Western County Policy Advisory Committee which is the Commission's policy advisory committee on Measure A. Recommendation: Support the establishment of policy to assist local private non-profit agencies by providing the local match, or a lesser amount, for State approved UMTA 16(b)2 applications. Additionally, that Measure A transit funds be provided to private non-profit organizations for operating assistance with the intent of maximizing the use of other funds available as well as maximizing the use of the Mesure A funds. The policy shall require that the applicant be capable of operating and maintaining the vehicle(s) and equipment, and that the vehicle would be operated in accordance with any policies that may result from the Commission's Social Service Transportation Delivery Study, and any other policy the Commission deems appropriate, A( / " " RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 3560 University Avenue Suite 100 " Riverside, California 92501 (714) 787-7141 " FAX (714) 787-7920 MEETING CANCELLATION NOTICE Due to the Holiday Season and a lack of substantive agenda items we are cancelling the January 2, 1990 Citizens Advisory Committee meeting. Staff would like to convey our thanks to you for your efforts during this exciting and eventful year. As we look forward to the new decade it appears that Measure A program development will continue to keep things hopping! Please note that the next CAC meeting will be Monday, February 5, 1990. We wish you and your loved ones the very best over the holidays!