Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout08 August 28, 1989 Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Transportation Advisory CouncilRIVERSI COUNTY TRANSPORTATION VOMMISSION 040265 AGENDA CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE/ SOCIAL SERVICES TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COUNCIL 1:30 P.M., MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 1989 PLEASE NOTE NEST MEETING PLACE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OFFICES 3560 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 100 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 (MAP ENCLOSED) 1. Call to Order. 2. Approval of Minutes (July 24, 1989). ACTION ACTION 4. Social Service Transportation Delivery Study. DISC/ACTION 5. Other Items. 6. Adjournment 3. FY 1989-90 UMTA 16(b)2 Projects. " RIVERSIO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Minutes of the Citizens Advisory Committee/ Social Service Advisory Council July 24, 1989 1. Call to Order. The meeting of the Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Advisory Council was called to order by Chairman Chuck Schmitt at 1:40 p.m., at the SCAG Riverside County Service Office, 3600 Lime Street, Suite 216, Riverside, CA. Members present were: Ace Atkinson Ray Baca Cathy Bechtel Mike Beggins Herb Krauch Don Kurz Members absent were: *Alternate for Others present: Lori Nickel Rena Parker Chuck Schmitt Don Senger Dick Weeks Terry Allen (Excused) Rose Eldridge (Excused) Jim Judge Jim Kenna Joanne Moore (Excused) Arnold Dickson Debra Astin - SunLine Lee Norwine - SunLine Richard Cromwell, III - SunLine 2. Approval of Minutes Leon Overton (Excused) Arnold Dickson Don High *Tom Paradise Paul Blackwelder - RCTC Hideo Sugita - RCTC Naty Kopenhaver - RCTC M/S/C (KRAUCH/KURZ) to approve the June 26, 1989 submitted. minutes as The following comments were made, but the minutes were changed to reflect this discussion: A. Herb Krauch . minutes showed him as attendance. Noted that the January and absent when, in fact, he not February was in " " Page 2 B. Debra Astin of SunLine wished to clarify the following points with regard to the 06/26/89 minutes: 1. Item #3, Paragraph 1 reflected the amendments were received too late for Hideo Sugita to review them before the meeting. She reminded the Committee that SunLine had sent the answers to the two tabled questions (back-up vehicle issue and dollar amount of contract services for Social Service Transportation Delivery Study) to the RCTC staff to be presented at the meeting. 2. Item #3, Paragraphs 3 and 6 reflected that Hideo Sugita contacted the SunLine staff and was told they were not able to be present at the last meeting due to scheduling problems. Debbie stated that SunLine is a very small company. The only people able to attend the meetings and participate intelligently in the discussion are: Dick Cromwell - Assistant General Manager, Lee Norwine - General Manager and herself, Debra Astin - Senior Planner. She said that Dick Cromwell and she were out of town that day and Lee Norwine had prior commitments that he could not get out of. SunLine wishes to reassure the Committee that they realize the meetings are very important and, again they did send their responses to the two tabled questions to RCTC staff prior to the meeting. Chairman Schmitt stated that these issues were put forth on the table at a prior meeting; therefore this was a continued discussion. 3. The SRTP stated that they would continue the service (Intervalley) until the Commission had a chance to review the outcome of the study. Chairman Schmitt responded that the Study is under review by the Committee and, SunLine's response was considered unsatisfactory at the time. 4. Paragraph 5 indicated the Committee does not have a list from SunLine which identifies contractors for a particular service. Debra responded that the list had been sent in the past and it was available. 5. Page 7, Paragraph 1 - Pat Piras discussion regarding social service transportation. There was an implication that SunLine is not willing to continue to be a provider of record for dial -a -ride services for the general elderly or handicapped. Debra stated that SunLine has never requested to not be a provider for these types of services, nor do they have a problem in providing dial -a -ride services for the general elderly or handicapped population. These services are social service oriented or subscription oriented. SunLine is concerned and created a need for a CPTA study. This paragraph may have been a mis-communication. " " Page 3 Chairman Schmitt - The connotation of this paragraph is open to interpretation. He appreciates SunLine's input and the need to see specific representations in SRTP that address these issues. On the basis of that, the Commission could make very specific decisions and judgments. He thanked SunLine for providing the information from their perspective. 3. SunLine FY 1990-94 Short Range Transit Plan Paul Blackwelder - One of the two issues that this Committee needs to deal with concerns the SunLine Short Range Transit Plan. The table in the Short Range Transit Plan shows funding for all services except for the Foundation for the Retarded Service. The correct name for that service is the Intervalley Handicapped Service. A line further down in the table title "Contracted Services", has a dollar amount of $340,994. The SunLine staff has explained the $340,994 is the amount that would be used for contracting services; which includes the Intervalley Handicapped Service. Paul suggested to add up the rest of the service (elderly and handicapped dial -a -ride) take the sum total of that number, subtract from the $340,994 and place the new total on the line and change the name from "Foundation Service" to "Intervalley Handicapped/CTSA". That result would be $184,570 for Fiscal Year '90 and appears to be an adequate amount. The Commission has 5% of the Measure A funds that will be available this coming year. They are also considering, depending upon outcome of CTSA Study, having 5% of the transportation funds for this area available for elderly and handicapped services. At this time, the amount stated, is adequate to run the services that are currently being run through contract by SunLine for the full year. It should be noted, in the Coachella Valley, the rest of the LTF funds that are available after funding this plan, will be reserved for capital. None of the money is going for street and roads. Some of the funds will be reserved for transit and there is already a reserve transit capital amount of roughly $1 million. If, at end of the CTSA study, the Commission sees that more money is available, they could program more money for elderly and handicapped services over and above the contract amount, specifying it is for elderly and handicapped services. A lot of money has been reserved for capital for future bus purchases for SunLine. However, the Commission maintains discretion on how these funds are used. Chairman Schmitt does not want the misunderstanding that there is a lot of money being stashed away, when in fact, there is a real capital dilemma on hand as far as having enough money to replace the existing fleet. Paul Blackwelder - The Federal dollars for capital and operating costs are shrinking each year. RTA, or the Western end of the county, gets about $800,000 a year that can be programmed in for capital (80% money that matches 20% LTF). SunLine gets between $40,000-50,000 a year and a new bus costs about $180,000. SunLine has a peak fleet of 31 buses and wants to expand, but the " . Page 4 annual amount is not adequate to supply the amount for capital needs. The way SunLine proposes funds to be programmed in the SRTP, it assumes either LTF or Measure A. Now that there are Measure A funds, there is an opportunity to go out to other urbanized areas throughout the country that do not utilize their Section 9 funds and buy some of those funds at 60-70 cents on the dollar. The Commission traded funds away from the Western end a couple of years ago, and with the current capital funding shortfall, the Commission may be able to use Measure A funds to purchase discounted federal dollars. The Commission is proceeding with the assumption that SunLine will ultimately receive an UMTA Section 3 Grant for capital purposes. Basically, the Commission is trying to schedule a match to put into reserve. If SunLine is able to get a Section 3 Grant, the capital project will require a 25% match. They are not putting money away to be used for a non-specific purpose. Debra Astin - There are no dollar figures for Intervalley Service. The rate of passengers is 50-60 thousand. There is concern about the numbers represented in tables as being an over estimate. There is a need to stabilize the issue without money. She doesn't see language to commit SunLine to either a financial or management position so that the people who are currently using Intervalley Service will have service. All she has is what is in her hands and is not going to be able to proceed any further until Pat Piras' study is completed. SunLine wants to see stabile service and are going to end up back on the table, not transit plan, but rather, on a CTSA level. service delivery study is done, the SunLine extremely important factor in the outcome of CTSA study. They have taken the attitude that the Foundation Service, because of its nature, is not appropriate to provide. This has resulted in the service being set on the shelf to see what happens when a consultant is brought in and reviews the service in an objective manner. Everyone is in limbo until the CTSA study is complete. There is no stability for the service until the study is done. What happens in the study will determine the outcome of Foundation service. This is going to be a negotiated process. feels these issues in a short range When the social Board will be an Ace Atkinson is reviewing the comments concerning SunLine's position as a public agency,and representing several government agencies and elected officials. There are 9 cities (5 person councils), 45 elected officials in the Valley, which is up to 50 elected officials when you include the Board of Supervisors. The officials of SunLine said they are not going to promise stability of transportation services to persons with developmental disabilities. What SunLine is saying, is the elected officials really don't have a commitment to decent service to people who are elderly or people who are handicapped concerning planning and management of public transportation agencies. Lori Nickel agrees that Ace has hit the reason for the CTSA study. Hopefully, the study will be an unbiased look at the " " Page 5 responsibilities and roles of a social service, public transit agency. Ace's argument is valid for perspective. Although the study is taking longer than thought. Future rounds of funding will be deferred until the study is completed. Chuck Schmitt and Hideo attended the Board of Directors meeting for SunLine Transit. There was considerable discussion and it was the opinion that the Board is of the same mind as SunLine directors here today. They are not happy with providing service under present situation and constitution. Once the study is completed, there may still be a fight because the people need to have quality service. They hope to reflect this quality of service in the future. This issue should be deferred to the CTSA. SunLine is providing a contract with Shoreline's Intervalley Serivice and is adding new members as space becomes available. Ace Atkinson - The cap on the level of funding is far in excess of the amount needed. Full and limited tax funds are being used for a parallel service that SunLine usedto provide and consists of 12 buses. The policy is clear cut for SunLine. Their staff consists of 43 people until the CTSA study is complete. $190,000 has been budgeted for this year to cover additional people. If RTA operated the same way as SunLine there would not be adequate coverage. It is unfair for RCTC to accept less than all the columns filled out on table, as this represents a commitment over the long term. There are no TDA funds for streets and roads in Coachella Valley. Also, Coachella Valley has capital need. SunLine, in lieu of discontinuing service, will continue to provide service at the current level. In order to accomplish this they contracted with Shorlines. Paul Blackwelder - There is a level of funding that will show when the Committee recommends putting a number on "Intervalley Handicapped/CTSA" line. We will know how big the group is and how they are to be brought together when study is complete. At that time, the recommendation will be brought forth for the Commission to go back and look at the Intervalley/CTSA number. If the number needs to be bigger, money is reserved in capital and that could be used. This issue should be revisited once the CTSA study is done and can be implemented. It was M/S (Krauch/Parker) to adopt the recommendation to defer further action until the study is completed. An Amendment was added demonstrating that there has been a commitment to the citizens of Riverside County in the past and the welfare of individuals under discussion at this time are in the Coachella Valley. Discussion: The idea is to move the short range transit plan on to the RCTC with the recommendation to address the issues " " Page 6 brought up today. With a motion on the floor, it was decided to combine the two issues. Issue #1 - the back-up lift equipped vehicles. Debra Astin - There are six E & H services in total. (1) Desert Hot Springs dial a ride is a service offered by SunLine with one lift -equipped vehicle in service and one available as backup. The vehicle has a one tie down. (2) Palm Springs/Cathedral City (provided by the Desert Blind Association). There is one lift equipped vehicle in service and one back-up vehicle which is not accessible. (3) Palm Desert is operated by the Senior Center. There is one vehicle in service and one back up vehicle. Neither is accessible. (4) Eastern Valley dial a ride is provided by a private contractor - Shoreline Transportation. There are three vehicles in service and one is accessible. There is one back-up vehicle that is accessible. (5) Foundation Service is also provided by Shoreline Transportation. There are three vehicles in service, one of which is accessible and there is one back-up vehicle that is accessible. (6) Hands of the Desert is outside the Desert Hot Springs city limits. Service is provided by Hands of the Desert Agency. There is one vehicle in service which is accessible, with no back up. Debra stated she could read the question in the Committee's mind - why aren't all services accesible or a spare lift equipped vehicle provided for all services. The reason is no one brought up the question before. In order to cure the problem, SunLine contracted, for the Foundation, a lift equipped back-up vehicle. Since this is the first time this issue has come up it is now a "squeaky wheel". One service has no back up - the Palm Desert Senior Center Community Service. Debra suggests as a recommendation, if the Commission would like to see all services wheelchair accessible, it should be made a condition of the SRTP - that wheel chair accessibility will be assured on all dial a ride services, as soon as possible, but realizing that no capital expenditure will probably occur until after the CTSA study is done - probably FY 1990. In the East Valley Service there is a back-up vehicle now. Shoreline doesn't have a back-up vehicle because SunLine won't pay for it. This is an issue that should be discussed with ShoreLine - does the Foundation service have a back-up vehicle that is lift equipped? SunLine transit was the operator of this service, but since that time, has contracted with a contractor that does have lift equipment and also back-up lift equipment. This has been addressed in the SRTP. There is a supervisory role (by SunLine) to some extent over the equipment. Ace Atkinson - Eastern Valley Service has the same four vehicles as Intervalley and is using the same contractor. The issue of accessibility affects the people in both of these service areas. " " Page 7 If there is a problem with accessible back-up, there has been discussion concerning the use of Shoreline's vehicles. Ace Atkinson gave a brief history of the services in the Coachella Valley. The cost per passenger for services in the Coachella Valley use to be cost prohibitive. Dick Cromwell came on staff and immediately began conversations with the social service agencies in the Coachella Valley. In addition, he developed a RFP to find qualified dial a ride providers to come in and take over the existing dial a ride services. First of all, there were very few respondents because of a lack of interest in establishing provider offices in the Coachella Valley. Those that were interested, had a cost per passenger that would have been cost prohibitive, probably over $15 to $25 per passenger. The remaining option, was for Dick to continue conversations, almost coercion, of our social service partners. Dick was able to leverage the services currently being provided. As we could, we tried to turn over our services to these agencies. We now pay $5.00 per passenger for dial a ride service which serves a great deal of elderly and handicapped passengers in the Coachella Valley. The prime problem, as far as butting heads with either the Commission staff or the Committee, is the Foundation for the Retarded. The rest of the services, are fairly well received. However, there are certainly great opportunities that we share in trying to improve the quality of the service because most of these are small organizations, providing their services with a great deal of volunteer labor. Lori Nickel stated she never realized that same vehicles that ran the Intervalley Service ran the East Valley dial -a -ride service and brought up the question concerning both services needing a back-up vehicle at the same time. Debra Astin - The services would have to be prearranged, although there has not been a problem up to this point because the majority of the business has been in the morning. Ace Atkinson - By the same token, in Desert Hot Springs, if there is a vehicle in for maintenance, then we are without a back-up vehicle in that instance also. Shoreline is a fairly well run business and has operated the services without maintaining a back-up vehicle. However, there could be a great deal of stress placed on these people because, for many handicapped people, being stranded could be both emotionally and physically dangerous, especially considering the environment in which your dial a ride operates. If there were no air conditioning and the individual was stranded with no other opportunity to secure other transportation, we would hate to see an ambulance be the back-up unit. Chairman Schmitt - Asked Lee who does SunLine for a back-up service and he responded "a taxi". Is it possible to have an emergency back-up contract with Laidlaw; even if you only use it once a year or every other " " Page 8 year? Would they be able to accommodate? A service "as required" back up contract with Laidlaw. That way, you would cover the whole Coachella Valley, you could invoke that as needed within their school program. Debra Astin - It is certainly an idea, and is one that SunLine has suggested. Chairman Schmitt brought the motion to the floor and there was more discussion concerning clarification. Cathy Bechtel recommended to ask that all of the services be wheelchair accessible with back-ups available, pending the CTSA study, that no purchase will be done before the CTSA study is completed, but that something will be done during Fiscal Year 1990. Chairman Schmitt discussed the policy "separate but equal", and stated it is a policy that can be supported. He expressed concerns, as a handicapped person, with the problems that they have experienced in the past. He also expressed his feelings concerning wheelchair accessible vehicles as primary and back-up vehicles. It was M/S/C (Krauch/Parker) To release the SRTP from the Committee table and move it forward to the RCTC including recommendations made and commitments SunLine has made to the services described. Hideo asked if it is helpful to have Lee and his staff present to address the Committee, and they responded positively. He went on to say that the earlier statements by SunLine staff on information either not being communicated or incorrectly communicated to this committee is largely due to SunLine not being here at last the two meetings, and is not necessarily due to staff bringing incorrect information to the committee. Chairman Schmitt - Concerning Pat Piras' discussion on Page 7 of the minutes which was brought up earlier. Pat just completed more road work. The Study is far more complex than first anticipated and she feels we deserve the best possible study. She is aiming for a late September or early October completion date. Pat just released a second technical memorandum with corrections/improvements to the draft the committee reviewed. It includes incremental updates on where she is and what she is doing. She will be at August meeting and will present her work, to date. Agenda Item 4 - Meeting Attendance/Meeting Places/Discussion on Increasing Coachella Valley Representation. Hideo Sugita - Last month, Ray Baca brought up the issue of " " Page 9 inadequate Coachella Valley representation on this committee. One thing we can do is look at the issue and start with reviewing committee attendance since Committee's bylaws specifically allow us to dismiss a member of the committee should they miss three consecutive meetings without calling in or having a reason not to be in attendance. What is included in the agenda was based on reviewing sign in sheets and minutes and reconstruct an attendance record for the Committee. This might not be 100% accurate, are there any other corrections to attendance record? Ace Atkinson - In March I did not attend because I was sick. I see that you get an A if you call in. I did not call in. Hideo Sugita - On Jim Kenna, there is a letter on file dated June 1st from the Auto Club (his secretary) stating that due to personal reasons, he would not be able to attend for several months. Also, Arnold Dickson from the Gas Company is a relatively new member. There are 20 member, one being an alternate, (Tom Paradise) and one slot open. It is the committee's pleasure as to what to do to about people that have missed a number of meetings with unexcused absences. Jim Kenna has not this attended this year. Chairman Schmitt - As able of a representative as he is, we do not get the perspective he would provide and would much rather see another representative appointed. Hideo spoke with Supervisor Larson and encouraged her to find quality representation from the Valley. Hideo Sugita asked if it was the pleasure of the committee to remove those members that have not met the attendance requirements of the by-laws, if so, he would ask for a motion and second. M/S/C(BACA/BECHTEL)with the amendment that the individuals be notified in writing that they have been removed by committee. The one exception is (subject to 496 committee requirement) Don High which represents Meditrans. His attendance falls has not been regular, but a para-transit operator must be represented on the committee. Hideo will write a letter to the Meditrans Board to have an alternate appointed. Chairman Schmitt - Please convey to them that, just in the form of discussion, that we are not trying to be punitive in this discussion, but do value their representation on this committee. Since they have not been available, and we do understand the constraints on committee members, and we are looking for someone that would be able to participate. Lee Norwine wished to thank everyone for listening today. Would it be the desire of the committee to have a geographical configuration that would somewhat represent the population of the area. That would be about 1/3 Coachella Valley and 1/3 West End. Also, requirements call for CTSA representative from both the east and west end to be at the meeting, which would include both SunLine and RTA. " . Page 10 Hideo Sugita - Yes, committee representation requires participation of a CTSA. The intention, through the study, is to form an independent CTSA, and therefore, we have a committee position open. That is why there are currently 19 members. Lee Norwine - SunLine would like to take an active role and be willing to hold the meetings at their facility. SunLine does have a room large enough to accommodate the committee. Chairman Schmitt - In preliminary discussion with the members, there has been a definite interest in holding some meetings in the area. Where, specifically, has not been determined. To the matter of a geographical configuration for the committee, we can take this under advisement and discuss it more fully at a later date. We will be serving more representatives from the Coachella Valley to provide perspective. He challenges the people from the Coachella Valley to send people with good representation of the concerns of the people in the Coachella Valley. Everyone has been chosen, not because they represent a particular view, but because they all have been involved in the for a period of time and have varying interests in the on transportation. We need to look at membership before coming up with arbitrary assignments. point of Community Community carefully, Hideo Sugita - If it is committee's pleasure to move forward with invoking the attendance rule, the other item would be to look at the possibility of meeting, maybe twice a year, in the Coachella Valley, either at SunLine or at the CVAG offices. Chairman Schmitt - The board room at SunLine would be an excellent place to meet, while at the same time, the members of the committee that have not had a chance to see the SunLine facility may do so. I would like to see all of us come down as a group, rather than in separate vehicles. I will accept the recommendation by staff that a minimum of two meetings be scheduled in the Coachella Valley. Lee Norwine would like to change the meeting time at the Coachella Valley and he will work on the logistics. September is better for SunLine because of prior meeting commitments. 5. Other Items. SB 821 - Bicycle paths sidewalk funds.. Need SB 821 funds this year. Three members from and three from Technical Committee. Members Chairman Schmitt, Lori Nickel and Ray Baca. committee to act on Citizens Committee to serve are to be 6. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 3:48 p.m. Don Kurz - The Riverside CTAC recommended that there be an electric door at the county building for handicap and elderly. " " Page 11 This was recently installed. If you think of things that are needed, let the county know. Ace Atkinson - We owe statement of gratitude to Supervisor Ceniceros who, when using a wheelchair for an extended period of time, made the facility project successful. Chairman Schmitt recognized for Melba Dunlap's efforts on encouraging the county building department and county for making this project successful. Respectfully submitted, Hideo Sugita Senior Staff Analyst " I i RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION TO: Citizens Advisory Committee/Social Service Advisory Council FROM: Hideo Sugita, Staff Analyst SUBJECT: FY 1989-90 UMTA Section 16(b)2 Project Applications UMTA Section 16(b)2 is a program which provides capital support to private non-profit agencies for the purchase of lift equipped vans and support equipment for specialized transit services. The program provides funding for approved projects on an 80% federal/20% local match basis. For this year's funding cycle, four agencies in Riverside County have applied for 16(b)2 funding, and they are: o Meditrans Services, Inc - (5) lift equipped vans, (4) replacement, (1) expansion, and communication devices (cellular phones/radio). o Family Services Association of Riverside - (1) sixteen passenger bus with (3) tie downs, one mobile radio and one base station. o Mount Rubidoux Manor - (1) fifteen passenger van with a mobile radio and base station. o Riverside Congregational Homes (DBA) Plymouth Tower - (1) fifteen passenger modified van with lift and (3) tie downs. The project requests were reviewed by representatives of the Riverside Office on Aging, Developmental Disabilities Board Area #12, California Department of Rehabilitation and Caltrans. This committee made recommendations to the statewide Inter -Agency Review Committee with either a "highly recommended, recommended, or not recommended" finding. The review committee recommended the following: o Meditrans - "Highly recommended" with a condition that Meditrans provide cellular phones for their fleet. o Family Services of Riverside - "Highly recommended" no conditions. o Mount Rubidoux Manor - "recommended" with a condition that the vehicle be lift equipped with at least (1) tie down. o Riverside Congregational Homes (DBA) Plymouth Tower "Recommended" for approval. 41P - Staff has reviewed the applications and agrees with the recommendations for Meditrans and the Family Services of Riverside. The only question is how did the review committee come up with the idea of cellular phones as communication equipment for the Meditrans application? Staff believes that given the 80/20 matching provision of the UMTA program and the lower operating cost of a radio alternative, (Don High, Director of Meditrans has a received a bid from a radio vendor for an operating cost of $125.00 per month for the entire fleet (12 vehicles)) it appears that this condition is not justified. Staff would recommend that Meditrans amend its grant application to included 11 radios and base station for a cost not to exceed the standard Caltrans specified costs for this type of equipment. For the Mount Rubidoux Manor and the Plymouth Tower applications, given what we were able to assess with the evaluation of the Riverside Special Services transit system, it appears that at most times of the day there is adequate service available within the City of Riverside. In recognition of the value, both mental well-being and social , of recreational group trips for the people who live in these facilities, it is not appropriate to recommend not supporting their applications. However, staff believes that it would be appropriate to recommend, given the relatively close proximity of the facilities, that they coordinate their activities and combine their request into a single lift equipped vehicle. Staff believes that this would provide a higher rating for the project, thereby increasing the probability of approval. Recommendation: Recommend the Commission to support the FY 1989- 90 (Cycle 21) UMTA Section 16(b)2 applications with the following conditions: o That Meditrans amend their application to include radio equipment, both mobile and base station, at a cost not to exceed Caltrans cost specifications. o That Mount Rubidoux Manor and Plymouth Towers combine their applications into a request for (1) van and coordinate their services. PATPIRAS 892 GRANT AVENUE SAN LORENZO, CA 94580 Consulting Services (415) 278-1631 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION DELIVERY STUDY REVISED TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #1 DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION July 17, 1989 Prepared In Association With: Virginia Cerenio Dennis Guinaw RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION DELIVERY STUDY REVISED TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #1 The purpose of this first report is to provide a basis for defining what is "public transportation" and what is "social service transportation". It is intended to discuss the generic characteristics of the various types of transportation services, and to provide a basis for discussion and consensus among the interested parties throughout Riverside County. This memo is not intended to discuss the specific services and funding programs now found in Riverside County; those are discussed in future memos. Background In 1979, the California Legislature enacted AB 120, the "Social Service Transportation Improvement Act". Regional Transportation Planning Agencies and County Transportation Commissions throughout the state (such as RCTC), whose primary transit funding responsibilities lie with UMTA and TDA moneys, were required to develop an inventory and an action plan to "coordinate and consolidate" social service transportation. However, the term "social service transportation" was nowhere defined in the legislation, and there was no requirement that other state departments participate in the local planning and consolidation activities. In their Final Report to the Legislature (dated July 1982), Caltrans presented a definition of a social service agency and defined social service transportation costs as "encompassing the following four major categories of activities: o Transportation services provided by social service agencies (e.g., vehicles purchased, drivers hired, and maintenance and operating costs furnished). o Cash payments, i.e., chits or tokens given to securing transportation for an approved activity. o Purchase of transportation services from public, private, or private, nonprofit providers for eligible clients. o Payments made to social service agency personnel or volunteers for transporting clients in their personal vehicles to approved locations (mileage)." In each of these cases, however, applicable transportation costs were those relating to specified clients or activities. AB 120 also exempted certain types of transportation costs and activities (schools, AFDC/welfare, and Social Security Title XX) from the consolidation requirements. 1 An additional provision of AB 120 required the Department of Finance to identify in the state budget "all state funds that are available for the support of social service transportation services", as well as applicable federal funds, to the extent possible. The compilation has been continued. A listing of such programs for social service recipients (which have changed little, except for magnitude, from the 1982 budget submittal) is shown as proposed for the 1989-90 fiscal year, by state department, at the end of this report. It should be noted that the entries in this table are determined by the Department of Finance and have not been adjusted in any way by consultants. Like social service transportation, public transportation is seldom clearly defined. In the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Section 99211 of the California Public Utilities Code defines a public transportation system (in relevant part) as "any system of an operator which provides transportation services to the general public by any vehicle." The federal Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) provisions generally refer to "mass transportation" services. Discussion In general, public transportation is perceived as that available to the general public, on an open, non-discriminatory basis, of a level and type determined by a local policy board of elected or publicly appointed officials. TDA law requires that a public transit operator "own or lease the equipment, establish routes and frequency of service, regulate and collect fares, and otherwise control the efficiency and quality of the system" (PUC Section 99209.5). Service may be provided via fixed -routes, demand -responsive (dial -a -ride), or some combination. The purpose of the service is to provide the greatest number of trips, to the greatest number of users, at the lowest possible cost. Fares are payable on an individual basis, either on a per - trip, or some cumulative (daily, weekly, monthly) pass, basis. Users of the service are referred to as passengers or riders. Social service agencies can be organized as public or private non-profit entities. Availability of services usually requires some determination of eligibility, with the criteria based on the agency's self -defined mission, or funding program restrictions. In turn, this implies that people not deemed eligible for the social services may be excluded from the program or its benefits. Social service transportation services usually pay particular attention to the "personalized" aspects of the transportation, and often provide significant levels of assistance to users, sometimes including provision of an escort. Payment for transportation services may be based either on an individual payment, or to reserve use of the vehicle for a specified group; under some programs, no user fees are allowed, 2 although donations may be permitted. Service hours and area for transportation are generally geared to provide a catchment for schedules of other agency programs. Users of the services are most often referred to as clients. The charts on the next three pages depict a number of characteristics that may be generally ascribed to public transportation or social service transportation. The list is intended to be expansive rather than exhaustive, and to portray the range of characteristics of the types of service. It may be more useful for readers to think of public transportation and social service transportation as elements of a continuum (rather than as polar opposites), for there are a number of areas of overlap, interface, and even, similarity. However, there are also areas where the two types of service are dramatically different. What these charts try to portray, by checking off applicable characteristics, is the relative shade of "grey" along this multi -faceted continuum. Characteristic of: Public Social Service Functional Indicators: Transportation Transportation A) Eligibility/Availability: -Open to the Public X -Specified (Exclusive) Clientele X B) Destinations restricted to agency- X approved activity. C) Specified purpose is to aid in alleviating social, health, or X economic conditions. D) Transportation is part of a social service program or episode. X E) Freedom of choice for trip purpose, X sometimes time, frequency, and destination. F) Public body sets service policies. X sometimes G) Opportunity required for public X sometimes input for service changes. H) User referred to as: -Passenger X -client X I) Relation of transportation to agency mission: -Purpose of trip is to support agency's mission. X -Transportation is agency's mission. X Operational Indicators: A) Mode of service: Fixed -route X X Demand -responsive X X Subscription X X B) Fare Payment: Required X Per Person Basis X sometimes Exclusive Use of Vehicle X Paid by Passenger X sometimes Paid by Third Party X X C) Eligibility Criteria for Use some specialized X services D) Publicly available notification of service X E) Published schedules X X F) Serves specific area X X G) Service hours: "Business Hours", generally Monday through Friday X X May include evenings/weekends often sometimes H) Routes and schedules based on: Public Usage X Individual requests dial -a -ride X Other agency programs X I) Level of Personal Assistance minimal can be considerable J) Required Productivity Measures X 4 Financial Indicators: This part of the chart is somewhat different from the previous page. It depicts a number of funding sources, and characterizes them both by their intended purpose or target group and by identified types of uses. The two are not necessarily the same, often (particularly in recent years) because limited funding leads to either a pooling of resources or the imposition of new restrictions on eligibility or use. For example, as shown below, TDA funds are originally intended for public transportation purposes, but, in many areas, programs funded under Articles 4.5 or 8 have become "more like" social service, because limited funding often results in eligibility criteria and/or trip purpose restrictions, in an attempt to equitably distribute a limited amount of service. On the other hand, transportation funded through health departments, Regional Centers, and the Dept. of Rehabilitation is targeted toward services for particular client groups, but it may be more cost effective to spend the funds on public transit services, again in order to maximize the "bang for the buck". Thus, the cross -over in use of a number of these funding sources goes both ways, although it may not be consistent with a purely technical interpretation of the purpose of the funding programs. Public Social Service Transportation Transportation Intended Purpose or Target Group of Funding Sources: TDA 4 X TDA 4.5 X varies TDA 8 X UMTA 9 X UMTA 16(b)(2) X UMTA 18 X Local X X Fares X Donations X Health & Human Services (federal) Older Americans Act X Medicaid X Head Start X Public Health X Mental Health X Title XX X Regional Centers X Dept. of Rehabilitation X 5 Public Social Service Transportation Transportation Identified Use of Common Funding Sources: TDA 4 X TDA 4.5 X varies TDA 8 X varies UMTA 9 X UMTA 16(b)(2) X UMTA 18 X Local X X Fares X varies Donations X Health & Human Services (federal) Older Americans Act sometimes X Medicaid X Head Start X Public Health X X Mental Health X X Title XX sometimes X Regional Centers X X Dept. of Rehabilitation X X 6 Summary: One way to look at the qualitative differences between the types of service would be to characterize public transportation as "off the rack" clothing, and social service transportation as "tailor-made". The former is based on quantity and uniformity; the latter is based on personal attention and a concept of individual needs. It should also remembered that public transportation cannot serve all transportation needs for all persons. Its efficiencies are based on mass transportation; to the extent that other (including social service) funding is available to supplement, or cost savings can be realized through coordination, public transit may be able to expand to serve additional needs and specific constituencies. Future reports will discuss opportunities for coordination in Riverside County, including possible funding and institutional arrangements. Other areas in California have been, or are, developing funding policies relating to the interface between public and social service transportation -- these include CTSA organizations in Fresno, Placer, and Santa Cruz counties, and new sales tax measures in Alameda, Contra Costa, Sacramento, and San Mateo counties. Recommended Definitions: Public transportation is a service that is available to any member of the general public, upon payment of a fare, upon generally established routes or openly -available demand - responsive services (which may include subscription trips). It has a publicly -accountable policy board, and is subject to performance and/or revenue requirements, usually legislatively imposed by its funding source(s). Any other transportation service has elements of a social service nature. This is the open-ended side to the continuum. To the extent that any particular service is restricted to certain types of users or purposes of use, it takes on greater aspects of a social service nature. The general distinguishing characteristics of public transportation include: o Available to all; limited personal assistance o Fare required o Directed by a public policy board o Opportunities for public input required o Generally longer hours of service. The general distinguishing characteristics of social service transportation include: o Availability limited to a specific type of person(s) o Generally for specified purposes or destinations o Decisions on service use are made sponsoring agency, rather than by individuals o Highly personalized and driven by agency activities. 7 Excerpt from the Governor's Proposed Budget FY 1989-90 (Budget Category #2650 as prepared by the State Dept. of Finance) Transportation Services for Social Service Recipients (in $1,000) 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 actual budgeted proposed Dept. of Developmental Services Regional Centers - Day Program 50,374 55,329 69,122 Dept. of Alcohol & Drug State Drug Programs State Alcohol Programs Programs (state $) (federal $) (state $) (federal $) Dept. of Transportation Special Transit Services Special Transit Equipment (state $) (federal $) Equip. Research & Develop. Dept. of Rehabilitation Purchase/Alter/Maintain Client Vehicles Client Travel Costs Dept. of Aging Access Services for Older Persons Dept. of Mental Health Short -Doyle Trans. Program 196 84 0 21 282 333 453 106 1,288 4,518 3,814 63 84 139 22 350 514 252 126 1,338 4,688 63 84 139 22 371 546 273 135 1,471 5,156 3,900 3,970 4,300 4,300 4,300 8 PAT PIRAS 892 GRANT AVENUE SAN LORENZO, CA 94580 Consulting Services (415) 278-1631 RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION DELIVERY STUDY DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #2 COORDINATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES July 17, 1989 Prepared In Association With: Virginia Cerenio Dennis Guinaw RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) SOCIAL SERVICE TRANSPORTATION DELIVERY STUDY DRAFT TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #2 The purpose of this report is to identify opportunities and processes to coordinate social service transportation and specialized transportation services in Riverside County. The report first defines the terms "coordination" and "consolidation" specifically as these terms relate to the provision of social service or specialized transportation. The report also lists types of activities which have successfully been coordinated or consolidated. Recognizing that coordination and/or consolidation each require a significant amount of consensus building among providers, the report then offers alternative opportunities and processes that should be considered in the Coachella Valley, as a case study. Background: For the purposes of this study, coordination is defined as a set of administrative and operational activities that can be performed jointly by social service transportation or specialized providers to achieve improved efficiency or effectiveness. Examples of such activities may include fuel purchase, parts and vehicle purchase, and developing reporting formats. Consolidation takes the concept of coordination one step further by merging an activity performed by several providers into an activity performed by only one provider. Examples of consolidation may include centralized dispatch and scheduling, joint ownership of vehicles, pooling of insurance or maintenance facilities, and unified data collection services. A brokered system of transportation services usually consolidates several administrative activities and often involves several modes of service delivery, usually involving contractors. (In some areas, the term "unification" has come into recent favor, indicating an institutional arrangement with a single policy board and administrative structure, but with multiple service providers and/or service areas). Efforts to consolidate service functions are usually more difficult to achieve than coordination activities. This is due, in part, to a certain loss of "corporate" control and identity that may be a result of the merge, or is feared to occur as a result. The use of coordination techniques as a management tool has been recognized at the Federal level, the State level, and at several regional and local levels. In 1986, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation entered into an agreement with the Secretary of Health and Human Services to coordinate services funded by the two agencies. A federal Interagency Coordinating Council was established to review state and local efforts to use this technique to improve service, and to identify barriers arising from each of the governmental levels. In 1979, the California Legislature enacted AB 120, the "Social Service 1 Transportation Improvement Act." The Legislature acknowledged what it saw to be the value of coordination by requiring an extensive review of such efforts and, subsequently, county -level plans were developed that were expected to lead to improved services through coordination. Many examples exist of local coordination efforts. The value of coordination has also been stressed in industry publications, for example: "The benefits of coordinating or consolidating transportation services ...are: 1) reduced duplication and administrative activities; 2) increased service capacity; 3) improved vehicle productivity through more effective use of that capacity; and, 4) reduced costs through group purchasing of supplies and other services." (1) However, achieving these results often involves the investment of a considerable amount of work and compromise, and the "downside" of coordination attempts has seldom been reported. (2) There is strong evidence that, while coordination may foster reduced unit costs, due to increased efficiencies or greater capacity, the total costs seldom decline. Coordination opportunities are as varied as the community environments in which they exist; however, as discussed below, certain activities are common to all paratransit providers, and understanding these can provide a framework for examining coordination opportunities. Coordination Activities: The following is a list of all the functions or responsibilities that every paratransit operator must handle to at least some extent, no matter what the size of the operation: 1. Fundraising and Grantsmanship. ("Getting Money") 2. Budgeting and Accounting ("Spending Money") 3. Reporting and General Administrative Services 4. Purchasing and Inventory Management 5. Risk Management and Insurance 6. Personnel Management and Volunteer Recruitment 7. Management Decision -making (by policy board and staff) 8. Organizational Effectiveness 9. Public Relations/Marketing 1) Joseph S. Revis, Coordinating Delivery of Rural Transportation Services, 1980. 2) Jon Burkhardt of Ecosometrics reported on efforts to coordinate UMTA/HHS funded programs in Coordinated Transportation Demonstration Results, NTIS, 1980. This report is currently out -of -print, but consultants are expecting a copy through transportation library processes. 2 10. Client Registration and Referral (through eligibility criteria) 11. Passenger Reservations (order -taking) 12. Scheduling and Dispatching 13. On -street Service Delivery 14. Vehicle Maintenance and Storage 15. Safety and Training Essentially, every paratransit provider in Riverside County must, to some extent, handle every one of these functions. It is clear that it would be both more efficient and more effective to coordinate and/or consolidate at least some functions among some agencies. One task of this study are is to determine which activities lend themselves to coordination in Riverside County. In order to address this question, it may be useful to consider which of those activities can be coordinated County -wide, which activities can be coordinated at a more local level, and which may be candidates for full consolidation. Coordination/Consolidation Opportunities : To graphically illustrate the opportunities to coordinate certain functions the following chart has been developed: CAN BE CAN BE BEST APPLICATION FUNCTION COORDINATED CONSOLIDATED STATE COUNTY LOCAL Fundraising X X X X Budgeting X X X X Reporting X X X X Purchasing X X X Risk Management X X X X Personnel X X X X Decision Making X X X X Structure X X X Public Relations X X X X Registration X X X X Reservations X X Scheduling X X X Service Delivery X X X Maintenance X X X Safety/Training X X X X Certain functions are controlled outside of the discretion of the provider, such as reporting requirements and accounting procedures. Coordination or consolidation of these functions, therefore, may actually be required of providers. However, the majority of coordination activities depend upon the voluntary participation of the providers. 3 Most coordination activities work best at the local level wherein day-to-day monitoring can occur and service adjustments can be made quickly. Other coordination activities work best at a regional or County -wide level. This is especially true of those activities that rely on or benefit from economies of scale, such as vehicle purchasing and driver selection. A few activities can produce best results if performed State-wide. Examples include participation in State-wide insurance pools similar to the Paratransit Insurance Corporation (PIC, for non-profit providers) or the California Transit Insurance Pool (CalTIP, for public agencies) or State-wide industry associations like the California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CalACT). These State-wide activities also provide excellent opportunities for legislative influence. Prescription for Coordination (What Makes It Work?): Having defined coordination, discussed the benefits of coordinating activities, reviewed functions which can be coordinated and determined at which organizational level functions can be coordinated, it is now necessary to focus on factors which may be able to lead to successful coordination. As early as 1980, James Miller of Penn State University discussed key elements that existed in successfully coordinated services in Pennsylvania. Those are: "1. Self Interest 2. Local Political Support 3. Competent Personnel 4. Local Leadership" (3) * Self Interest -- The participant must recognize a tangible product or result. This may take the form of reduced costs, increased service, or improved efficiency. Linking revenue enhancements to coordination participation is another form of motivation. * Local Political Support -- Policy makers, including those who are making funding decisions, must recognize the value of coordination. Issues of "turf" and "responsibility" are resolved at this level. Perceived barriers to coordination are removed by such individuals. Political support is not restricted to elected officials and should include appointed agency board members and advocacy groups as well. 3) James Miller, Coordination in Pennsylvania from the Local Perspective, 1980. 4 * Competent Personnel -- Clearly, staff responsible for establishing and implementing coordination activities need to possess the appropriate knowledge and skills. These include the ability to work cooperatively with others, the possession of a comprehensive knowledge of the community, as well as appropriate technical skills. * Local Leadership -- In the transportation community, an individual or agency needs to be acknowledged as the leader in coordination efforts. In several California communities, this role has been assumed by designated Consolidated Transportation Service Agencies (CTSAs) as provided in AB 120. In other cases, a single dynamic individual can play this role. All of these key elements must exist in order for coordination to be successful. If not, things "just don't seem to work", and bitterness by/toward participating agencies, or toward the concept of coordination itself, may ensue. According to Caltrans' report to the Legislature in June 1982, the effectiveness of the initial AB 120 planning effort varied widely throughout the state. Although substantial progress had been made in understanding the barriers to, and the problems of, coordination, the results generally fell short of legislative expectations. For the most part, social service agencies based their decision to participate in a coordination project on an expectation of attainable benefits. Coordination does not always translate into appreciable cost savings or improvements in the quality of service. When cost savings do occur, they are often in the favor of the funding source or other agencies. In effect, the mandate of AB 120 was to maximize the transportation resources within a given area without specific regard to the benefits, or lack thereof, which may accrue to individual agencies or their clients. Additionally, it was documented that the AB 120 planning effort (and, by extension, many other efforts at coordination) has been influenced, to varying degrees in different communities, by: o The geographic and demographic characteristics of the area served -- Urban and rural environments have significantly different operating characteristics. In rural areas, many social service transportation providers were faced with geographical barriers; large, often multicounty service areas; and low -density settlements. o Social Service agencies' previous involvement in coordination, or lack thereof. 5 o The number of public agencies responsible for planning and service delivery. o The size, type, and scope of the transportation services provided -- Small social service agencies, particularly those which provided little or no transportation on their own, were more eager to coordinate. Additionally, enthusiasm for coordination was influenced by the type of clientele served and the number and type of trips provided. o The prevailing assumption that coordination applied solely to vehicle operations. o The presence of unfavorable conditions, including understaffed social service agencies and TPAs, lack of additional funding for the planning effort, tight deadlines, and lack of local political support. o The ability of the implementors to identify and utilize appropriate coordination strategies. o Perceived barriers to coordination, often more so than actual or legal constraints. (4) Coordination Processes: There exist several approaches, or processes, that can be used to develop and implement successful coordination programs. This section will discuss three such processes: * the voluntary, self -motivated approach; * the externally mandated approach; and * the combination of both voluntary and mandated. The voluntary approach requires participants who share a common vision (or are affected by a common problem) and are willing to devote the time and energy to develop programs. This approach works best in a cloistered situation wherein a "common enemy" has been identified or a crisis has occurred. Examples of external motivators include cuts in funding, rising fuel prices, loss of maintenance facilities, or a lack of skilled personnel available for hire. In a typical situation, providers will jointly develop programs to resolve the presenting issues and then explore other areas of potential coordination. A second approach to coordination is in response to a mandate (usually tied to funding) from an oversight or "regional" agency. An example is the coordination effort that must be 4) Caltrans, AB 120 Final Report to the Legislature, 1982 6 " identified by a private non-profit agency applying for funding under UMTA Section 16(b)(2). While this effort is often temporary and superficial, it can result in the development of ongoing relations among providers and the sharing of technical information. Sometimes the mandated coordination results in voluntary coordination. In the above example, it is not uncommon for UMTA Section 16(b)(2) applicants and recipients to identify Caltrans as the "common enemy." In many cases, the third approach can yield the most positive and lasting results. This approach links revenue to coordination but does not mandate which coordination activities need to be pursued. The approach can be very effective if the revenue source is new to the community (such as in the case of Riverside County's Measure A funds). In that case, the provider has an option to join in coordination efforts and to reap some financial benefits, or to operate independently without additional revenue. Under this plan, it is incumbent upon the funding agency to develop a structure, or mechanism, for coordination, as well as an ongoing monitoring (and enforcement) process. This structure can become an ongoing forum for the resolution of provider problems, as well as the coordination mechanism. Preliminary Conclusions and Recommendations for the Coachella Valley Case Study: In the Coachella Valley, it appears that many agencies that provide social services are financially stable and do not perceive a need to coordinate services for economical reasons. The situation appears to be exacerbated the relatively easy availability of private and philanthropic funding sources. This situation leads to a fragmentation of service delivery and is likely to make coordination efforts difficult. However, the level of interest in improving local service and the general lack of technical operations expertise may provide a basis for pursuing coordination. Consultants' preliminary recommendations for coordination opportunities in the Coachella Valley are discussed below. At this time, consultants do not yet, in general, propose to assign "responsibility" for a lead agency for these activities, although some key participants have been identified: o Efforts should be made to work with private funding resources (e.g., Bob Hope Classic, United Way, local foundations) to coordinate the awarding of funds which involve a transportation component (either operations or capital). 7 o Sunline and its contract providers should work closer with local and regional medical facilities, especially Eisenhower, Loma Linda, and Riverside General to establish appointment schedules that can be coordinated with transportation schedules. Medical facilities and practices should be strongly encouraged -- or required -- to contribute to the transportation programs. Consideration should be given to the development of service, possibly through a private contractor or a reduced fare on common carrier tickets, to provide regular, occasional (e.g., one or two round trips a week) to Riverside or Loma Linda. o A data base of equipment and services should be developed and shared by the providers. Procedures for the use of this equipment in emergencies by other agencies should be developed. RCTC's SB 826 Inventory may provide much of this information. o Opportunities to share use of vehicles during off-peak hours should be investigated. This may include Sunline and its contract providers, the Office on Aging, and various small agencies. This may also include a "pool" of back-up drivers for agencies. o A collaborative workshop on transportation services in the Valley should be held. Sponsors could include RCTC, Sunline, the Office on Aging, and other provider agencies. The agenda for the workshop should include a brief description of existing services; a discussion of attempts to meet perceived needs through existing resources; a wish list of additional resources; and a commitment to meet again to share information and develop plans to meet needs. Ideally, such a workshop should be able to develop into an ongoing mechanism for information -sharing and problem - solving focused on transportation issues, perhaps modeled on the Aging Services Network in the Valley. Meetings should be regular, but not burdensome; quarterly may be sufficient. o RCTC or Sunline, together with other key agencies, should establish a special services coordination committee that can serve as a forum for coordination services and recommend policy for the distribution of Measure A funds. The development of such a committee can provide the structure necessary for ongoing coordination activities. The committee should be free to review all issues related to service provision, including organization, operations, legislation and funding. 8 Composition of the committee should include policy makers, providers, and representatives of consumers of special services. A decision would need to be made as to how such a committee would feed into, and interact with: 1) the Sunline Board; 2) the Citizens' Advisory Committee; and 3) other RCTC advisory processes. o Sunline (with cooperation from its contract providers) should prepare -- and make available to the "general public" senior and disabled residents of the area -- an informational brochure that explains the local specialized services and the policies of the program. This current study may help to provide guidance or clarification on such policies. Consultants believe it is premature to make a recommendation at this time regarding the institutional structure for coordinating specialized and social service transportation services in the Coachella Valley. However, there are some apparent pros and cons for a number of agencies which have been identified as potential CTSAs (Consolidated Transportation Services Agencies). These are summarized on the following pages. While the specific responsibilities of such a CTSA have likewise not yet been delineated, in other parts of the state, they may range from direct service provision, or administration of contract services, to simply providing information/referral/ ombudsman services. The 1982 Riverside County AB 120 Action Plan, which designated Sunline as the CTSA for the Coachella Valley, assigned it the following responsibilities: o Centralized Service Information o Funding Review Agency o Combined Purchasing Agreements o Grant Application Agreements o Maintenance Programs and Assistance o Driver Training (5) The CTSA designee for western Riverside County (RTA) was assigned similar responsibilities within its service area. 5) Riverside County AB 120 Plan for Coordination/ Consolidation of Social Service Transportation Programs, January 1982, pp.8-9. t ' POSSIBLE CTSA DESIGNEES (Coachella Valley Case St udy) RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION (RCTC) The Commission could establish a private non-pr ofit age ncy or a subsidiary, with RCTC Com missioners ser ving as the Board of Directors. The agency would a ct as broker for specialized services currently prov ided by Sunline in the C oa chella Valley. The agency could also assum e a lead rote in coordi nation of transpo rtation services in the Valley. An alternative str ucture would be the establishment of a " parallel" Joint Powers Agreement, with the same membership as the Commission, to serve as a service provider and claimant. SUNLINE TRANSIT Sun line could take administrative responsibility for coordin ation activities as well as existin g services. COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (CVAG) CVAG could assume transportation provision and coo rdination activ ities for the Va lle y. A CURRENT CONTRACTOR Although a curren t con tractor has not readily made itself kn own as a leading can didate, it is possible that services contracted by Sunline could be consolidated under one of them. ADVANTAGES The agency would r elat e dir ectly to the only organization in th e C ou nty r esponsible for tra nsportation coordi nati on. The role of th e agency could easily be expanded Countywide if necessary. The agency would be accountable to elected officials from thro ughout the County. F unding of administrati ve activities would be r elativ ely simple. If established as a privat e no n-profit, would be eligibl e for 16(b)(2) funds. ADVANTAGES Su nline already provides servic e in the com mu nity. Su nline has, or can hire, necessary expertise. Sunline is accountable to elected officials. ADVANTAGES CVAG poss ess es th e administrati ve ability necessary to perform the task. CVAG is account able to elected officials. CVAG is well respected in the commu nity. CVAG has a regional/co ordination philos ophy. ADVANTAGES Contractors are familiar w ith the operation. Procedures fo r service prov ision are somewhat established. Most contractors hav e a good reputation in the com munity. DISADVANTAGES May be to o re moved from local issues. May be perceived as interf ere nce in subregional iss ues/s ervices. May be difficult to establish legally . Need to resolve TDA Article 4.5 funding issu es. DISADVANTAGES Su nli ne doesn't appear to wa nt to do it . Sunli ne's reputation for providing this service is poor and may affect credibility . DISADVANTAGES CVAG would be placed in a politically diffic ult positio n. CVAG doesn't want to do it. CVAG already has a full workload and wo uld consider this ser vice as a low priority. CVAG has no experience in transportation provisi on . DISADVANTAGES Most contractors h ave a n arrow focus . Co ntractors may not hav e adequate technical or administrati ve capability. Most contractors pr ovid e a variety of other services and may consider transportation as a lo w priority. 4 4' UNITED WAY United Way could assu me tra nsportation provision and c oo rdin ation activities for the Valley. A FOR-PROFIT PROVIDER A for-profit prov ider could be designated to deliver transportation serv ices and coordination activities for the Valley. OFFICE ON AGING (0oA) The 0oA could assume transportation provisio n and coo rdination activ ities for the Valley. A NEW AGENCY/BROKER An agency, or a consortium of agen cies, could be formed for the pu rpose of providing transportation services and developing coordination programs in the Coachella Valley. ADVANTAGES United W ay co mmunity. United Way United W ay United Way c ontributions . has a sensitivity for social needs in the is politically neutral. is a respected organization . can help to coordinate private fundi ng ADVANTAGES The pr ofit motive could res ult in efficie ncies of operation. The org anization presu mably w ould have the experience necessary to do the job . Depending upo n the co mpany selected, co uld bring additional res ources and expertise to the s er vice . ADVANTAGES The 0oA is well r esp ected in the commu nity. The 0oA is involved nutrition transportation and has some experience with ser vice pr ovision. The OoA is responsible to elected officials (Board of Su perviso rs). ADVANTAGES A new agency wou ld provide a fresh approa ch to transportation serv ice s. A new agency could be organized to focus o nly on transportation se rv ice s. A new agency could hav e a Board that had tran spo rtation as a main interest. A brokered approach can bring consisten cy to o perating policies an d serv ice delivery. A ne w agency could be structured to represent all client/interest groups. DISADVANTAGES United Way has no experience in transportatio n provision. The Board of United Way is n ot totally composed of elected officials . The management of United Way may n eed to be strengthened. With its broad range of responsibilities, Unit ed Way may not be abl e or willing to fo cus on tra nsportation. United Way does not usually participate in direct service provision . DISADVANTAGES There co uld be limited accountability for the ser vic e. The "social co mmitment" may be lacking. DISADVANTAGES The focus of the OoA is restricted to seniors . The experienc e of the 0oA is limited. 0oA does not usually participate in ( direct ser vice provision. DISADVANTAGES It will req uire a great deal of ti me to resolve orga nizational issues and to legally for m the agency. It will require n ew start-up funding for administrative servi ces. A new organization c ould be duplicative of other agencies . Board co uld beco me fractious if agency interests predominate.