38 august agenda - fmmetrocog.org board... · 1 metro area transit coordinating board july 18, 2012...

ddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

To: MAT Coordinating Board Members From: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments (Metro COG) Metro Area Transit (MATBUS) Date: August 16th, 2012 RE: MAT Board Agenda and Correspondence

AGENDA MAT Coordinating Board

August 22nd, 2012 (Wednesday) 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.

Fargo City Commission Chambers; 200 3rd Street North, Fargo ND

1. Call to Order and Introductions – Chairman Kevin Hanson 2. Review and Action on Minutes from July 18th, 2012 (Attachment 1) 3. Final Budget Proposal [Moorhead] (Attachment 2) – Lori Van Beek

4. Overview of New Surface Transportation Law, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

(Attachment 3) – Wade Kline

5. Joint Powers Agreement Quorum and Voting Interpretation Memorandum and Updated Board Bylaws (Attachment 4) – Kunza / Nigg

6. MAT Board Fall/Winter Schedule Meeting Date/Time (Attachment 5) – Joe Nigg

7. Update on UPASS Discussions – Lori Van Beek / Joe Nigg

8. Other

a. July Ridership Report (Attachment 6) b. July Transit Operations Report (Attachment 7)

Questions, comments or concerns prior to the August 22nd meeting can be directed to either Mikel Kunza (701.232.3242 x34; [email protected]) or Joe Nigg (701.232.3242 x28; [email protected]).

People with disabilities who plan to attend this meeting and need special arrangements should contact Joan Geyer at the Council Office (701.232.3242 Ext. 31), at least two days before the meeting to make arrangements.

Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments

Email: [email protected] http://www.fmmetrocog.org

701.232.3242 • FAX 701.232.5043 • Case Plaza Suite 232 • One 2nd Street North • Fargo, North Dakota 58102-4807

A PLANNING ORGANIZATION SERVING FARGO, WEST FARGO, CASS COUNTY, NORTH DAKOTA AND MOORHEAD, DILWORTH, CLAY COUNTY, MINNESOTA

1

Metro Area Transit Coordinating Board

July 18, 2012 Fargo Commission Chambers

Members Present: Kevin Hanson Chair Brenda Elmer, Moorhead City Council Rob Lynch, NDSU Jim Aasness, Dilworth City Council Mike Williams, Fargo City Commission Jan Mahoney, MSUM Paul Grindeland, Valley Senior Services Angela Mathers M-State Mark Vaux, Proxy for West Fargo Mark Hintermeyer, Moorhead City Council Members Absent: Melissa Sobolik Others Present: Lori Van Beek, City of Moorhead Julie Bommelman, City of Fargo Jim Gilmour, City of Fargo Mikel Kunza, Metro COG Joe Nigg, Metro COG Wade Kline, Metro COG Gregg Schildberger, City of Fargo Matt Peterson, First Transit Chair Hanson called the meeting to order at 7:30 AM Minutes of the April 20th, 2012 meeting: A motion was made to approve the minutes by Mr. Aasness. The motion was seconded by Ms. Elmer. The motion was unanimously approved. Veterans Fare Discussion Mr. Gilmour updated the Board on the data received regarding Veteran’s rides. Mr. Gilmour stated that Minnesota state law requires disabled veterans ride free on public transit. Mr. Gilmour stated that Metro COG projects that Moorhead has about 1500 rides per year and that Fargo would most likely have 3000-4000 rides and estimated $3,000 to $4,000 in lost revenue. Mr. Hanson stated that he would be in favor of offering the rides to disabled veterans. Mr. Gilmour stated the amount of revenue loss is small compared to the overall system budget. Mr. Kline stated that it would be nice to have a uniform policy and sends the message that we do operate as a single system. Ms. Mahoney made a motion to recommend disabled veterans ride free on the Fargo system. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mathers. The motion unanimously approved.

2

Fargo 2013 Transit Budget Mr. Gilmour provided the Board with a summary of the 2013 Fargo transit budget. Mr. Gilmour stated that the budget requests a marketing intern, additional part time paratransit dispatcher, and a mechanic intern. Mr. Gilmour also stated they seek to add a drivers supervisor and they wish to increase route 14/25 or 14kw to 30 minute frequency, and extend evening service one hour. Mr. Gilmour stated they wish to increase marketing by partnering with the Downtown Community Partnership, and perform some maintenance on the Metro Transit Garage. Mr. Gilmour stated this budget is preliminary. Mr. Nigg asked if the Board would be presented the Moorhead budget in August. Ms. Van Beek stated the Moorhead budget should be ready for the Board in August. A motion was made to approve the preliminary Fargo transit budget by Mr. Williams and seconded by Mr. Grindeland. The motion was unanimously. Metro COG UPWP 2013-2014 Mr. Nigg explained the process of the two year Metro COG work program. Mr. Nigg explained the transit items for 2013 & 2014. Mr. Nigg stated that the Sanford Access Study and MTG expansion Analysis are slated for 2013 and that nothing is specifically programmed for 2014. Mr. Nigg listed some options for the 2014 work program including capital cost sharing analysis, Medicaid Strategy, ITS, marketing, and accessible housing study. MATBUS Transfer Policy Mr. Nigg stated the technical memo is written to explore the impacts of opening up the transfer policy to other than designated transfer points. Mr. Nigg discussed the memorandum with the Board. Mr. Nigg explained that now that Fargo has a route (15) that runs on 15 minute frequency more opportunities to make transfers are available at locations other than designated transfer points (i.e., GTC, Kmart, etc.). Mr. Nigg stated the memo outlines impacts from changing the policy. Mr. Nigg shared the re-drafted language for the policy regarding transfers on MATBUS. Mr. Gilmour stated this policy change would make the system more popular to use and likely increase ridership with minimal fiscal impact. Mr. Gilmour recommended bringing the policy changes to the Fargo Commission and Moorhead Council. Mr. Nigg stated this revision is consistent with the TDP as it helps address issues related to on time performance and the number of transfers required for riders. Ms. Van Beek stated that she has some concerns about the policies impact on revenue and abuse of the system. Ms. Van Beek stated the way to avoid the additional fares with transfers is to buy a pass and they now are offering a 14 day pass. Ms. Van Beek stated pass revenue may be lost to cash riders as cash riding may become more attractive. Ms. Van Beek also stated that riders may abuse the system and use transfers to make their return trip. Mr. Williams stated that at the recent transit University Transit conference there were smaller systems with much higher ridership and the Transit Development Plan outlined many ways the system is too complicated. Mr. Williams stated Fargo has more to lose revenue wise, but the simplicity it would give the system is a big improvement. Mr. Gilmour stated there will always be some who abuse the system. Mr. Gilmour stated trying the change and then later reviewing

3

the policy seems appropriate. Ms. Van Beek stated that transfers should still be issued when someone gets on the bus. Mr. Nigg stated that he revised the language to reflect Ms. Van Beek’s comments and that as drafted the policy would allow transfer slips to be issued at boarding not debarking. . Mr. Nigg stated that Moorhead will not have the revenue risk Fargo does because they do not have any routes with 15 minute service. Mr. Nigg stated that if the policy does go forward the language on the route map would likely need to be revised appropriately; however if route 2 transitions to 15 minute service additional transfers could be available from route 2 to route 4 in downtown Moorhead and route 2 to route 3 at Probsfield. Mr. Williams asked if this policy could be a marketing tool. Mr. Schildberger stated that it definitely would be a good marketing tool. A motion was made by Mr. Williams to recommend the policy change to the Fargo City Commission and Moorhead City Council. The motion was seconded by Ms. Mahoney. Chair Hanson asked if there was discussion on the motion. Mr. Hintermeyer stated that he was interested in Lori’s comments on how this policy may reduce the value of a monthly bus pass. Ms. Van Beek stated that if you were a five day rider and used this policy to your advantage you may not need to buy a monthly pass anymore. Mr. Hintermeyer stated he would like to better understand Ms. Van Beeks’s concern. Ms. Van Beek stated that her main concern was that people would use this to their advantage and that they might lose revenue. Ms. Van Beek stated she just does not want a policy that will decrease revenue when they have a wide variety of passes. Mr. Hintermeyer stated that council relies heavily on staff recommendation and he wanted to be sure she was comfortable with this policy. Mr. Williams stated that whatever decision is made the information on cost benefit should be tracked. Mr. Williams asked Mr. Gilmour if he thinks this will be a large revenue loss. Mr. Gilmour stated that based on this policy’s impact to the entire budget he does not see any major changes. Mr. Gilmour stated that they can track this and if there is a problem this item will be brought back to the Board. Mr. Hintermeyer stated that he hears two different opinions and would like to address Ms. Van Beeks’ concerns before this move forward. Mr. Hanson asked if a short term trial would be more acceptable to Ms. Van Beek. Ms. Van Beek stated this would be less of an effect on Moorhead and that she would be willing to give it a try. Mr. Kline stated that if the system is made more convenient and helps balance the overall surface transportation system the potential loss of revenue is minimal. Mr. Hintermeyer asked if the pending motion was acceptable to Ms. Van Beek. Ms. Van Beek stated she was comfortable. Chair Hanson ended discussion and called a vote. The Motion was unanimously approved.

MATBUS Annual Report Mr. Gilmour discussed the report with the Board and thanked Mr. Schildberger for his work on the report. APTA Conference Overview Ms. Bommelman and Mr. Schildberger showed a short video and provided an overview of the conference.

4

MATBUS Fixed Route MAP Ms. Van Beek, Mr. Schildberger and Ms. Bommelman showed the Board the new fixed route map and highlighted changes and improvements that have been made. Ridership/Other Mr. Gilmour and Ms. Van Beek provided ridership reports to the Board.

T:\Transit\MAT Coordinating Board\2012\Aug 12\Memo - 2013 Budget Moorhead.docx 1

Attached is a summary of the proposed 2013 operating budget for the Moorhead Transit System. The 2013 operating budget of $2,038,406 is $115,078 higher than the 2012 budget of $1,923,328. Excluding new service costs, the budget increased by 1.7%. The significant aspects of the budget are provided as follows:

• Implementation of increased service as recommended by the adopted five-year transit plan at a cost of approximately $83,000.

o Extension of night service by one hour until 11:15 p.m. o A second bus to Route 2, which serves MSUM, from 2:15 to 6:15 p.m.,

Monday-Friday, during the academic year. • Continuation of the second night bus started under a pilot program in January

2012. • The contract with First Transit for driver services is in the third year of three and

is a 2.6% increase over 2012. Also an additional Road Supervisor position was added; this person will be stationed at the GTC and provide supervision during the night shifts and Saturdays.

• Senior Ride costs have decreased 3% to reflect actual costs during 2012. • Professional services were increased to $3,000 to reflect actual costs for the

shared marketing intern with Fargo. • Garage operating costs were increased by $7,000 or 1%. • There are no Metro COG planning studies requiring a local match in 2013. • Electronic data processing increased by $3,850 for cellular service for the Auto

Vehicle Location and Auto Stop Announcement system implemented in 2012. • All planning and mobility management budgets will remain stable, with slight

increases in wages to reflect steps. • State grant funds were estimated to remain steady at the 2012 rate. • Fixed Route bus fares increased 7% over 2012’s budget. The computation

assumes maintaining current ridership levels. • Moorhead’s local share has increased to reflect the additional budget costs. • Federal ADA operating funds have again been applied to Paratransit, which

allows for the redistribution of State grants fund to Metro Senior Ride at a lower local match.

Memorandum To: MAT Coordinating Board From: Lori Van Beek, Moorhead Transit Manager Date: August 17, 2012 Re: 2013 Budget

T:\Transit\MAT Coordinating Board\2012\Aug 12\Memo - 2013 Budget Moorhead.docx 2

MOORHEAD MASS TRANSIT

2013 FUNDING ANALYSIS

ALL PERCENT

SERVICES OF

DESCRIPTION FIXED PARATRANSIT

METRO

SENIOR TOTAL TOTAL

HOURS 24,307 6,159 4,463 34,929

% HOURS 69.59% 17.63% 12.78% 100.00%

EXPENSES $1,656,709 $311,419 $70,279 $2,038,406

% EXPENSES 81.27% 15.28% 3.45% 100.00%

COST/HOUR $68.16 $50.56 $15.75 $58.36

FUNDING:

Local Share $361,021 $72,463 $11,042 $444,525 21.80%

Federal Transit 450,688 83,693 $2,000 $536,381 26.31%

MN/DOT 845,000 155,263 57,737 $1,058,000 51.89%

TOTAL $1,656,709 $311,419 $70,779 $2,038,906 100.00%

COMPUTATION OF LOCAL SHARE:

Farebox Revenue $270,000 $32,500 $21,187 $323,687 15.88%

*Other Revenue 30,996 2,040 0 $33,036 1.62%

City of Dilworth 0 0 500 $500 0.02%

City of Moorhead 60,025 37,923 -10,645 $87,302 4.28%

TOTAL $361,021 $72,463 $11,042 $444,525 21.80%

*Other revenue includes advertising, concessions and interest.

College funding for U-Pass included in farebox revenue.

TO: MAT Coordinating Board FROM: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments (Metro COG) Wade E. Kline, Executive Director DATE: August 14, 2012 RE: Overview of New Surface Transportation Law, ‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

P.L. 112-141, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) was signed into law on July 6, 2012. MAP-21 replaces SAFETEA-LU (which technically expired September 30, 2009) on 10/1/2012. MAP-21 authorizes surface transportation programs through 9/30/2014, at about the same funding levels of FY 2012. MAP-21 manages to ensure the solvency of the highway trust fund for the life of the current bill. Now that the legislative process has concluded the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) will initiate the rule making process regarding MAP-21. Once FHWA/FTA issue their final rule on MAP-21 Metro COG will initiate an aggressive program to come into compliance with new provisions of the law. The rule making process will likely take nine (9) to twelve (12) months, on the short end. At the August Metro COG Policy Board meeting the 2013-2014 Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) was approved in Final format. The UPWP and the pending update of our Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) will include a multitude of actions to ensure compliance with MAP-21 both for MATBUS and the overall surface transportation program in the FM Metropolitan area. For informational purposes I have prepared a summary memorandum outlining the effects of MAP-21 on FTA programs. I will discuss these highlighted elements with the MAT Board. In the months ahead we will learn more about how MAP-21 will specifically impact the surface transportation program in the FM Metropolitan area, and develop a more detailed action plan/strategy for how we adjust to new funding considerations of MAP-21. If you have questions or comments regarding this item in the interim, please contact me directly.

Recommendation. No action is recommended at this time.

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP‐21) Effects on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs Related to Chapter 53 – (of) U.S.C. Title 49 Considerations and Implication for the Fargo‐Moorhead Metropolitan area

August 16, 2012

Prepared by the Fargo‐Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments (Metro COG)

1 MAP‐21 Effects on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Programs

Urbanized Area Program ‐ Section 5307

Section 5307 funds are awarded directly to areas with a population over 50,000, also known as Urbanized Areas. Areas with a population over 50,000 are designated by the Census Bureau as Urbanized Areas. Fargo‐Moorhead is currently one (1) contiguous census defined urbanized area. However FTA disaggregates Section 5307 funds based on the Minnesota and North Dakota portion of urbanized area. Therefore the City of Fargo and the City of Moorhead are currently direct (designated) recipients of Section 5037 funds. While only Fargo and Moorhead are direct recipients of Section 5307 funds, the formula (as discussed below) for how urbanized area funds are awarded is based also on the populations of other metropolitan cities such as West Fargo (ND) and Dilworth (MN). The North Dakota portion of the FM Urbanized contains population from Fargo, West Fargo, and Horace. The Minnesota portion of the FM Urbanized area contains population from Moorhead, Dilworth, and Oakport Township. Figure 1 demonstrates the population within the FM Urbanized Area.

Figure 1 2010 Fargo‐Moorhead Urbanized Area

Population % Split

North Dakota Portion 134,149 75.9%

Minnesota Portion 42,527 24.1%

176,676 100%

Urbanized Area or Section 5037 funds are apportioned to urbanized areas based on a formula developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), as follows:

a. 9.32% of total funds appropriated each fiscal year to go urbanized areas of less than 200,000; b. Of the amount in a., 50% are apportioned based on a ratio of the specific urbanized area

population divided by the total urbanized area population of all urbanized areas under 200,000; c. Of the amount in a., 50% multiplied by a ratio for the area based on population weighted by a

factor of the number of inhabitants per square mile.

Figure 2 demonstrates the apportionments of Urbanized Area funds for the City of Fargo and Moorhead, comparing FY 2012 to FY 2013 (MAP‐21 takes effect with FY 2013).

Figure 2 Urbanized Area Formula (Section 5307) Apportionments

2012 2013 Change

Fargo $1,880,979 $2,133,885 $252,906

Moorhead $556,572 $663,944 $107,372

One change made to the Section 5307 program under MAP ‐21 is the consolidation of the Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) Program into the urbanized area program; in essence the JARC program is eliminated. The JARC program was developed as part of the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st


Century (TEA‐21) in 1997 as a companion program to related efforts regarding welfare reform. JARC funds were aimed at improving access to employment and employment related activities, and were to be geared towards niche or innovative services which served to fill identified gaps or needs outside of traditional public transit services. Under TEA ‐21 the JARC program was a purely discretionally; however under the Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‐LU) in 2005 the program was apportioned to both urbanized and non‐urbanized areas in both cases administered by a State DOT through a statewide solicitation.

Under TEA‐21, Metro COG was awarded $297,000 in JARC funds through a Congressional earmark to meet identified transportation needs in the FM Metropolitan Area, pursuant to the 2003 Job Access Plan. These funds were competitively awarded throughout the FM Metropolitan area by Metro COG to fund a total of twelve (12) projects over a four (4) year period. Under SAFETEA‐LU, Fargo and Moorhead have been awarded JARC funds by their respective DOTs to meet a number of locally developed needs, pursuant to needs identified through the metropolitan planning program. Since 2007 Fargo and Moorhead have been jointly awarded $416,416 in JARC funds (through FY 2011) to meet locally identified transportation needs.

There are two (2) primary advantages to consolidating the JARC program into the Urbanized Area program:

1. The consolidation of JARC funds serves to slightly increase the apportionment of Section 5307 funds, as shown in Figure 2;

2. Direct apportionment through the Section 5307 program removes the step of developing applications and applying for JARC funds through the MPO and DOT.

Consolidation of the JARC program into Section 5307 appears to remove the requirement that JARC projects be identified through the development of the coordinated public transit‐human service transportation plan. This may remove the ability for social and human service agencies to apply innovative insight into program/project design to meet certain unique transportation needs.

MAP‐21 gives flexibility to Section 5307 recipients by allowing special provisions to urbanized areas over 200,000, allowing for the continuation of Urbanized Area funds to be used for fixed route operations. Prior to MAP‐21, urbanized areas over 200,000 (areas designated as Transportation Management Areas [TMAs]) were required to expend their Section 5307 funds on non‐operating costs (i.e. capital projects, etc.). Under MAP‐21, transit operators with fewer than 100 buses (operating in the peak) are allowed to continue use Section 5307 funds for operations at varying levels (percentages) depending on fleet size. This factor if kept in place beyond MAP‐21 will benefit to the FM Metropolitan area after the next decennial census when we are projected to be over 200,000 in population and become a TMA.

Issues Specific to the North Dakota Department of Transportation (NDDOT)

NDDOT has not fully allocated remaining FY 2011 and FY 2012 JARC Funds. Clear guidance is needed from NDDOT on how and when these funds will be made competitively available.


Issues Specific to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)

No specific issues regarding this program have been identified for Mn/DOT.

Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities ‐ Section 5310

MAP‐21 consolidates the old Section 5310 program which was focused on the special needs of elderly and disabled with the old New Freedom (Section 5317) program (which was focused on enhanced ADA eligible services). Under MAP‐21 Section 5310 now puts a renewed focus on enhanced mobility for seniors and individuals with disabilities. MAP‐21 apportions Section 5310 funds for both urbanized and non‐urbanized areas. For urbanized areas under 200,000, State DOTs will serve as the recipient and award funds to eligible grantees through as a competitive statewide application process.

Eligible uses for Section 5310 Funds include transit capital and operating funds for entities that provide transportation for seniors and individuals with disabilities. In the FM Metropolitan area Section 5310 funds could be targeted to entities such as Valley Senior Services, Handi Wheels, or other smaller non‐profit providers, etc., for capital or operating related purchases. There is also a continued need in the FM Metropolitan area to use Section 5310 funds to support the ongoing Mobility Management program at MATBUS, which is cooperatively developed and implemented by Fargo and Moorhead. The mobility management program at MATBUS has been traditionally funded with old Section 5317 (New Freedom) funds. Since 2007, New Freedom funds have supported $293,000 in coordinated mobility management related activities between the City of Fargo and the City of Moorhead.

Projects funded with Section 5310 funds need to be tied to projects (needs) identified through the development of the coordinated public transit‐human service transportation plan. The 2012‐2016 Transit Development Plan (TDP) serves as Metro COG’s coordinated public transit‐human service transportation plan. The TDP outlines programs such as a Community Capital Assistance Program (CCAP) and Coordinated Service Development Initiative (CSDI) which would work to support and foster innovation among smaller transportation providers to enhance mobility options for seniors and individuals with disabilities in the FM Metropolitan area through programs such as Section 5310.


Prior to MAP‐21 Section 5310 has been awarded only in non‐urbanized areas in North Dakota, this per the policy of NDDOT. Therefore metropolitan areas such as Bismarck, Fargo, and Grand Forks were not eligible to apply for Section 5310 funds through NDDOT. The development of an urbanized area apportionment for Section 5310 will require to NDDOT to change its policy for how it allocates Section 5310 funds. Recently completed Metro COG planning efforts have identified significant need for Section 5310 eligible projects in the Fargo, specifically for Day Training and Habilitation (DTH) program providers. It was estimated in 2007 that almost 30% of demand on MAT Paratransit is generated by DTH related ridership. The use of Section 5310 funds in the FM Metropolitan area may serve to reduce demand on MAT Paratransit by providing capital and operating capacity to smaller non‐profit providers of public transportation.


Under MAP‐21 NDDOT will receive an apportionment of $380,000 in Section 5310 for use in the three (3) urbanized areas throughout the state. This compares to only $126,000 NDDOT was apportioned annually under the old Section 5317 (New Freedom Program).

Under MAP‐21 NDDOT will see its rural Section 5310 apportionment increase from $400,000 to over $1,800,000 for non‐urbanized rural areas. Figure 3 provides a comparative summary of Section 5310 and old Section 5317 funding in North Dakota between FY 2012 and FY 2013.

Figure 3 Elderly & Disabled Program ‐ Section ‐ 5310 Apportionments

Rural Program 2012 2013 Change

Elderly & Disabled Section ‐ 5310 $405,621 $1,828,721 $1,423,100

New Freedom‐ Section 5317 $78,237 consolidated ‐$78,237

Total Rural Program $483,858 $1,828,721 $1,344,863

Urban Program 2012 2013 Change

Elderly & Disabled Section ‐ 5310 $0 $379,445 $379,445


Total Urban Program $125,918 $379,445 $253,527

MAP‐21 stipulates that the approved recipient (either NDDOT or Mn/DOT) must spend at least 55% of their apportionment on capital projects. Section 5310 will fund capital projects at 80% Federal; and operating projects at 50% Federal.


Traditionally Mn/DOT has used Section 5310 to support non‐profit human service agencies through the purchase of rolling stock. Mn/DOT has traditionally sub allocated (awarded) approximately one (1) Section 5310 funded vehicle to District 4 each year. Typically these recipients are DTH program providers.

Under MAP‐21 Mn/DOT will be apportioned $600,000 in Section 5310 funds to award within the six (6) urbanized areas in Minnesota, which includes Moorhead. This will be in addition to the $670,000 in Section 5310 funds apportioned to Mn/DOT for non‐urbanized areas in the state. For comparison, in FY 2012 under SAFETEA‐LU, Mn/DOT was apportioned only $177,000 in New Freedom Funds (old Section 5317) for urbanized areas in Minnesota.

Figure 4 Elderly & Disabled Program ‐ Section ‐ 5310 Apportionments Statewide/Rural Program 2012 2013 Change*

Elderly & Disabled Section ‐ 5310 $2,000,103 $670,794 ‐$1,329,309


Total Urbanized Areas $2,389,324 $670,794 ‐$1,718,530


Urbanized Areas 2012 2013 Change

Elderly & Disabled Section ‐ 5310 $0 $593,496 $593,496


Total Urbanized Areas $177,000 $593,496 $416,496

* Under MAP‐21 Minneapolis‐St. Paul receives their own Section 5310 apportionment of $1.757 million

Bus & Bus Facilities ‐ Section 5339

The Section 5339 program replaces the old Section 5309 Program which up through FY 2010 was completely earmarked by Congress. For FY 2011 and FY 2012 Section 5309 transitioned to a more competitive grant program. Under the new Section 5339 Program funds are apportioned to urbanized areas and states. Each state receives a minimum of $1,250,000 fort uses statewide. Under Map‐21 each urbanized area receives an apportionment based on formula outlined in Section 49 USC 5336, which is identical to the formula discussed regarding Section 5307 funds under the Urbanized Area program (Section 5307).

The Section 5339 apportionment under MAP‐21 for the FM Urbanized Area is $309,892. This is a combined apportionment based on the entire bi‐state urbanized area. FTA has not disaggregated this funding.

Under MAP‐21 each state has the flexibility to transfer its statewide apportionment ($1,250,000) as it sees fit. So for example, the statewide apportionment does not appear to be reserved strictly as a statewide or strictly non‐urbanized area allocation. This nuance will be important particularly in the State of North Dakota.


Between 2000 and 2010, the State of North Dakota was awarded (by Congressional earmark) approximately $30,000,000 in section old 5309 funds. During this time and as part of that amount, the City of Fargo received an average of approximately $1,000,000 annually in old Section 5309 funds for bus and bus related capital; or a total of $10,830,000. These funds were critical to the upgrade and expansion for the Fargo bus fleet, were instrumental in construction of the Metro Transit Garage (MTG) and the storage facility of Valley Senior Services. Figure 5 (next page) demonstrates historic funding under the old Section 5309 program, MAP‐21 apportionments for the new Section 5339 program, and the estimated annual need of North Dakota’s urbanized transit operators.

Remainder of this page left blank


Figure 5 Section 5339 ‐ Historic Transit Capital Awards/ MAP‐21 Apportionment/Projected Need

Urbanized Area Annual Average 2000‐

2010 MAP‐21

Apportionment* Estimated Need 2013‐

2016

Fargo ** $232,419 $1,580,300

Grand Forks ** $107,584 $614,520

Bismarck ** $130,908 $500,000 Total Urbanized Area ** $470,911 $2,694,820

Statewide/Rural $2,900,000 $1,250,000 $2,000,000

Total ** $1,720,911 $4,694,820

* Fargo's apportionment is prorated based on the ND share of the urbanized area ** Summed as part of Statewide Award

Based on recent statewide capital needs developed in cooperation between Metro COG and NDDOT, there is average annual need in North Dakota for $4,694,820 in Section 5339 funds between 2013‐2016. About 60% of this need is in the three (3) metropolitan areas. More locally, Fargo has an estimated annual need of approximately $1,580,300 over the next four (4) Federal fiscal.

The amount of Section 5339 funds apportioned to North Dakota’s urbanized areas will be far less than is required to meet historic and projected capital needs. It will be imperative for North Dakota’s metropolitan areas to advocate for the use of the $1,250,000 to be used as part of a statewide program including urbanized areas. Support for such a program can likely be justified given the measurable increases seen in the Section 5310 and Section 5311 programs for rural areas in North Dakota as discussed herein.


For Mn/DOT the $1,250,000 annual apportionment of Section 5339 funding is an inconsequential amount of funding in context to the overall state. Traditionally most large transit operators in Minnesota (Duluth, St. Cloud, etc.) have depended on discretionary allocations of Section 5309 funds under TEA‐21 and SAFETEA‐LU. These larger operators in Minnesota have also benefited from sub targeted Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds through the Area Transportation Partnership (ATP) process for large capital needs. This is not the case in ATP 4 which is dominated by smaller rural operators.

Mn/DOT’s ATP 4 typically only sub targets Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds to satiate the need of most rural and the one (1) urbanized transit operators in District 4, which is Moorhead. For ATP 4, this amounts to approximately 420,000 annually. The STP sub target for District 4 only meets the needs of Moorhead Paratransit vehicle’s needs, approximately $70,000 every two (2) to three (3) years. Moorhead is not able to depend on ATP 4 STP sub targets for large capital purchases.

Moorhead has used Section 5309 funds for major capital or capital related expenses, the two (2) largest being a replacement of two (2) of its nine (9) fixed route vehicles between 2003‐2005; and again in 2006 to assist with the Metro Transit Garage (MTG). During its last vehicle replacement process in 2003‐2005


Moorhead also used Section 5307 and STP funds. Figure 6 demonstrates historic funding under the old Section 5309 program, MAP‐21 apportionments for the new Section 5339 program, and estimated annual need of Moorhead.

Figure 6 Section 5339 ‐ Historic Transit Capital Awards/ MAP‐21 Apportionment/Projected Need

Total Award 2003‐2010* MAP‐21 Apportionment** Total Need FY 2015‐2017

Moorhead $3,075,000 $74,374 $3,060,000

* Includes $700,000 in STP Funds for two (2) Fixed Route Vehicles

** Prorated Apportionment based on urbanized area population

Moorhead will need to be creative over the coming years to ensure it is able meet its capital needs, which almost exclusively relate to the staggered replacement of nine (9) of its ten (10) fixed route vehicles between FY 2015‐2017. Moorhead may again need to work with Mn/DOT to secure STP funds for capital replacement needs of larger fixed route transit vehicles. Moorhead and Metro COG may also need to work with ATP 4 regarding a larger sub target of STP funds for transit capital over the years of 2015‐2017.

Small Transit Intensive Community Formula

MAP‐21 continues a provision from SAFETEA‐LU for the Small Transit Intensive Cities (STIC) grant program. The STIC program awards performance based funding to transit operators in urbanized areas between 50,000 and 200,000 who can meet the average performance of transit operators in urbanized areas between 200,000 and 999,000.

The criteria are passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue mile; passenger miles traveled per vehicle revenue hour; vehicle revenue miles per capita; vehicle revenue hours per capita; passenger miles traveled per capita; and passenger trips per capita. Transit operators are eligible for an additional $218,917 in operating assistance (pursuant to Section 5307) for each performance metric it is able to meet.

Fargo is close to meeting a three (3) of the five (5) performance factors of the STIC formula grant requirements. Figure 7 (next page) demonstrates Fargo’s operating statistics compared to the average performance metrics established by FTA. Figure 7 also demonstrates peer systems, such as St. Cloud (MN) and Bismarck (ND). No data is currently reported by FTA for Moorhead; an inquiry to FTA has been submitted.



Figure 7 Small Transit Intensive Cities Formula

Performance Metric

Passenger miles/vehicle revenue mile

Passenger miles/vehicle

revenue hour

Vehicle revenue

miles/capita

Vehicle Revenue

hour/capita Passenger miles/capita

Passenger trips/capita

Factors met or Exceeded

STIC Funding = $218,747/factor

met

Average for urbanized areas 200,000 ‐ 999,999) 6.536 109.294 12.609 0.819 97.343 16.388 x x

Fargo, ND 5.207 66.695 9.203 0.719 47.923 14.11 0 0

Bismarck, ND 1.226 18.188 12.967 0.874 15.891 3.993 2 $437,494

St. Cloud, MN 5.112 72.013 19.119 1.357 97.74 26.445 4 $874,988

Future planning efforts on the part of MATBUS and Metro COG should focus on developing a clearer understanding of the cost‐benefit of trying to meet the performance metric in order to secure STIC formula funding. This work can likely be integrated in future MAP‐21 compliance efforts (as discussed below) or done as part of a separate technical assistance planning item with in Metro COG’s UPWP.

Formula Grants for Rural Areas – Section 5311

Section 5311 funds are apportioned to states for transit operations in non‐urbanized (rural) areas. In North Dakota there are approximately 30 rural transit operators who are awarded Section 5311 funding through NDDOT. Valley Senor Services currently provides rural public transit to a multi‐county area which includes Cass County. Both Fargo and Valley Senior Services have lobbied NDDOT to transfer Section 5311 to the 5307 program for use in the urbanized area to meet additional needs in the Fargo urbanized area. These efforts were unsuccessful.

In Minnesota rural and small urban public transit is provided in all but eleven (11) counties with Section 5311 funding apportioned to Mn/DOT through fifty‐two (52) rural and small urban transit providers. In many cases rural and small urban transit in Minnesota is provided via multi‐county operators. Productive Alternatives currently operates a multi‐county system which includes Clay County, and portions of the FM Urbanized area.

Figure 8 Section 5311 Rural Formula Grants

State 2012 2013 Change

North Dakota $4,098,445 $4,962,111 $863,666

Minnesota $12,767,441 $14,976,196 $2,208,755




As shown in Figure 8 (next page), NDDOT will see an increase of $863,666 in Section 5311 under MAP‐21. The size of the rural apportionment to North Dakota could influence decisions regarding Section 5310 and Section 5339 as discussed earlier, as follows:

1) Freeing up non‐urbanized Section 5310 dollars for urbanized area; 2) Freeing up Section 5339 statewide dollars for urbanized areas.


Discussions with Mn/DOT are needed to determine if funding currently awarded to Productive Alternatives for service in and around the FM Urbanized area could be more effectively met by either MATBUS or Valley Senior Services. Since Clay County lost control of the rural transit contract (2011), there has been little local input into the operational decisions being made by Productive Alternatives.

Performance Management

MAP‐21 will require that transit operators (in cooperation with MPOs) develop performance measures for state of good repair, planning, and safety. FTA will define state of good repair, and all transit operators are required to develop their own asset management plan, covering all transit modes. These new planning and asset management requirements will need to be developed in cooperation with Metro COG’s Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP). In general, and in specific to public transit, Metro COG and MATBUS will need to establish performance targets regarding all facets of transit operations over the next 12 to 18 months.

Summary

In the near future Metro COG will be working with MATBUS, NDDOT, and Mn/DOT to develop a detailed action plan to address new requirements of MAP‐21. As part of this effort additional work will be needed by Metro COG and MATBUS to ensure local transportation needs can be met with in the funding parameters established by MAP‐21. Metro COG will report back through its Policy Board and the MAT Board as we initiate these items.

TO: MAT Coordinating Board FROM: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments Mikel Kunza, Planner DATE: August 14, 2012 RE: Joint Powers Agreement Quorum and Voting Interpretation Memorandum and Updated Board

Bylaws Background. Metro COG staff recently became aware that Section 4.1 of the MAT Coordinating Board Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) which addresses ‘voting, membership, quorum and order’ is not explicitly clear on a number of items. This memorandum has been drafted to outline Metro COG’s interpretation of this section and to also formally update the associated MAT Coordinating Board Bylaws (last updated and approved in December 2005) relative to certain points. Attached to this cover memorandum are the applicable pages of the JPA. Metro COG’s interpretation of this section is as follows, per the approved JPA (December 2011):

Members. As currently written in the JPA, there would be a total of twelve (12) members, inclusive of: Fargo – two (2) members of City Commission Moorhead – two (2) member of City Council West Fargo – one (1) member of City Commission Dilworth – one (1) member of City Council NDSU – one (1) administrator MHD Colleges – one (1) from each college (MSUM, MState, Concordia) Valley Senior Services – one (1) administrator Board Chairperson – one (1) ______________ Total = 12 Quorum. Pursuant to the JPA, a quorum would be reached at which time a total of six (6) voting members were present. This means representatives from MSUM, MState and Concordia; as individual members, would count individually as ⅓ towards the quorum. Voting. The JPA states “…..items requiring action need a simple majority to pass” and that MSUM, MState and Concordia “….will share a total of 1 (one) vote…”. Moorhead colleges ‘share’ the single vote (prorated) thereby each member has ⅓ vote. For example, if two of the Moorhead Colleges were present it would equate to a total vote of ⅔. All members would vote on a motion unless otherwise recused. Any member can make a motion or second a motion.

MAT Board Bylaws. The interpretation presented above has been transcribed accordingly within an updated version of the board’s bylaws. See attached bylaws for additional information. Recommendation. Approve the updated MAT Coordinating Bylaws which would solidify the interpretation of this section within the Joint Powers Agreement.

TO: MAT Coordinating Board FROM: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments (Metro COG) Joe Nigg, Principal Planner DATE: August 14, 2012 RE: MAT Board Fall/Winter Schedule Meeting Date/Time Background. At the April (2012) meeting the MAT Board discussed whether a consistent date and time should be established for future meetings. Metro COG had requested the board’s consideration of this matter with the idea that a consistent date/time would result in more predictability and improved management of meeting content. At the time, meetings were being held on the third Friday of each month at 7:30 a.m. and the board felt that during the summer months the schedule should remain a little more flexible as Friday’s could provide some difficulties for members (vacations, etc.). The board requested that this item be brought back for their consideration at the end of summer with the intent of establishing a consistent date/time for the fall and winter months. In August (2012) MAT Board meetings were shifted from the MAT Transit Garage (7th Ave N) to the Fargo City Commission chambers (3rd St N) to accommodate recording and dissemination via cable access. Meetings in July and August have been held on Wednesdays, and that has seemed to work well with most calendars. Metro COG has checked the availability of the commission chambers and it appears the following would be possibilities: 3rd Wednesday of each Month (7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) 2nd Friday of each Month (7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) Recommendation. Metro COG and MATBUS recommend that the MAT Coordinating Board discuss and consider establishing a consistent meeting date/time for the fall and winter months.

TO: MAT Coordinating Board FROM: Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Council of Governments Joe Nigg, Mikel Kunza, Lori Van Beek DATE: August 14, 2012 RE: Update on UPASS Discussions Background. Metro COG

Mechanical Failure 8 Route 1 3

Accident 1 Route 2 5

Driver/Dispatch Error 3 Route 3 0

Passenger Issue 5 Route 4 1

Traffic 2 Route 5 0

Weather/Road Conditions 0 Route 7 9

TOTAL MISSED RUNSTOTAL MISSED RUNSTOTAL MISSED RUNSTOTAL MISSED RUNS 19191919 Route 8 8

Total Runs in July 13,265 Total MHDTotal MHDTotal MHDTotal MHD 26262626

System Percent of Missed Runs 0.14% Missed Transfers - FAR

FIXED ROUTE MISSED RUNS

Quality Service Indicators Volume of Telephone Calls

4,710

26

Missed Transfers - MHD

Average Number per DayAverage Number per DayAverage Number per DayAverage Number per Day 136136136136

181181181181

Social Media & Marketing

FIXED ROUTE - Ground Transportation Center (6:00 a.m. - 10:30 p.m. M - Sat)

Total Calls Recorded

Number of Operating Days

Average Number per DayAverage Number per DayAverage Number per DayAverage Number per Day

Total Calls Recorded

PARATRANSIT - MTG Dispatch Center (8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. M - F)

2,854

Number of Operating Days 21

System Percent of Missed Runs 0.14%

Route 11 33 MATBUS.comMATBUS.comMATBUS.comMATBUS.com 13,571

Route 12 16 FacebookFacebookFacebookFacebook 394

Substantiated 2 Route 13 17 TwitterTwitterTwitterTwitter 199

Unsubstantiated 14 Route 14 0 YouTubeYouTubeYouTubeYouTube 5,702

Pending 2 Route 15 14 MATBUS Rider AlertsMATBUS Rider AlertsMATBUS Rider AlertsMATBUS Rider Alerts 898

Compliments 1 Route 16 32 Sanford M3TRO ProgramSanford M3TRO ProgramSanford M3TRO ProgramSanford M3TRO Program 137

Other 0 Route 17 5

TOTAL COMPLAINTSTOTAL COMPLAINTSTOTAL COMPLAINTSTOTAL COMPLAINTS 19191919 Route 18 33

Total Passengers in June 112,005 Route 21 9 FAR FixedFAR FixedFAR FixedFAR Fixed MHD FixedMHD FixedMHD FixedMHD Fixed ParatransitParatransitParatransitParatransit

Complaints per 1,000 passengers 0.17 Route 22 0 Total Passengers 75,493 32,209 4,303

Route 23 0 Vehicle Miles 63,561 28,313 29,048

Route 25 0 Revenue Hours 4,581 1,881 1,996

Total FARTotal FARTotal FARTotal FAR 159159159159 Unpreventable Accidents 1 1 0

Rude 2 Preventable Accidents 1 0 0

Policy 6 Accidents per 100k MilesAccidents per 100k MilesAccidents per 100k MilesAccidents per 100k Miles 0.64 0.00 0.00

Driver Behavior 5 Accidents per HourAccidents per HourAccidents per HourAccidents per Hour 0.05 0.00 0.00

Other 6 Completed Ride-AlongsCompleted Ride-AlongsCompleted Ride-AlongsCompleted Ride-Alongs 5 1 4

A Missed Transfer occurs when a

bus arrives too late to make

transfers with other routes.

Missed Transfers - FAR

PASSENGER COMPLAINTS -- BY TYPES

(Excludes Pending/Compliments/Other)

FIXED & PARATRANSIT PASSENGER COMPLAINTS

First Transit Accidents

Social Media & Marketingpage views

likes

System Percent

of Missed

Transfers

1.39%1.39%1.39%1.39%

video views

followers

email subscribers

monthly participants

Metro Senior Ride Service - 2011 Miles

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 2010 2011 2010

Fargo Vans 2,213 2,072 2,165 1,930 2,043 1,890 1,574 2,054 1,943 1,885 1,860 1,823 23,452 0 147,806 0

Fargo Bus 500 471 506 417 425 450 367 458 389 394 404 384 5,165 0 8,124 0

West Fargo 772 663 646 576 623 573 547 667 709 700 569 666 7,711 0 65,631 0

Moorhead 681 737 833 639 610 566 480 611 552 623 514 367 7,213 0 50,586 0

Dilworth 30 55 62 50 35 15 16 27 40 53 26 14 423 0

days served 21 20 22 21 21 23 20 23 21 21 21 21 255

Totals 4,196 3,998 4,212 3,612 3,736 3,494 2,984 3,817 3,633 3,655 3,373 3,254 43,964 0 272,147 0

M/Dil Miles 4,703

Metro Senior Ride Service - 2012 Miles

Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total 2011 2012 2011

Fargo Vans 1,866 1,874 1,986 1,965 2,151 1,794 1,803 13,439 13,887 86,195 147,806

Fargo Bus 384 359 362 220 290 246 254 2,115 3,136 3,166 8,124

West Fargo 715 636 732 644 727 665 626 4,745 4,400 33,477 65,631

Moorhead 585 577 631 674 663 583 581 4,294 5,026 33,590 50,586

Dilworth 29 21 4 11 6 12 9 92 263

days served 22 21 22 21 22 21 21 150

Totals 3,579 3,467 3,715 3,514 3,837 3,300 3,273 0 0 0 0 0 24,685 26,712 156,428 272,147

M/Dil Miles

Metro Area Transit Coordinating Board By Laws Membership and Terms: The MAT Coordination Board (Board) is comprised of 5 voting members, 2 non-voting members, and 3 ex-officio members. The appointment of voting membership shall be as follows: 2 - City of Moorhead 2 - City of Fargo 1- Joint Appointment of made by the Mayors of Fargo and Moorhead The terms of voting membership shall be at the discretion of the affected jurisdiction. The term of the joint appointment shall be reviewed annually and a new appointment or potential (re)appointment will be acted on by both the Moorhead City Council and the Fargo City Commission the term of which will be based on the calendar year (January 1st – December 31st). Each City shall appoint one (1) non-voting member. The term of each non-voting member shall be at the discretion of the appointing entity, and the approval of such appointment or (re)appointment shall be at the discretion of said entities governing body. Officers: The only officer the Board shall have will be that of Chairperson. The Chairperson will preside over all Board meetings. Meetings: The Board may meet at least 6 times per year, or more often as needed. Quorum: The presence of three (3) voting Board members will constitute a quorum for the transaction of official Board business. Minutes: Recorded minutes shall keep of all Board meetings. Staff of the FM Metropolitan Council of Governments (Metro COG) shall be responsible for the keeping and filing of Board minutes. Open Meetings: All Board meetings shall be open to the public. Rules of Order: Expect as otherwise required, the Rules of Order shall be in accordance with the latest edition of ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER REVISED. Advisory/Ad-hoc Committees: As needed, the Board may direct staff from the City of Fargo, City of Moorhead, or Metro COG to form ad-hoc or permanent sub-committees to carry out various technical investigations or engage in other business related to the interest of the Board. Membership on such committees shall be approved by the Board, and the committee will report directly to the Board. These by-laws will run with the duly adopted Joint Powers Agreement forming the Board itself and any amendments in said agreement will warrant a review of these by-laws to ensure consistency. Revised 12/12/2005

M:\Transit\2005\MAT Board\Admin\MAT CB ByLaws (revised Dember 12 2005).doc



701.232.3242 • FAX 701.232.5043 • Case Plaza Suite 232 • One North 2nd Street • Fargo, North Dakota 58102


Metro Area Transit Coordinating Board By Laws Membership: The MAT Coordination Board (Board) is comprised of twelve (12) voting members. The appointment of voting membership shall be as follows:

Fargo – two (2) members of City Commission Moorhead – two (2) member of City Council West Fargo – one (1) member of City Commission Dilworth – one (1) member of City Council NDSU – one (1) administrator MHD Colleges – one (1) from each college (MSUM, MState, Concordia) Valley Senior Services – one (1) administrator Board Chairperson – one (1)

Voting: Each Member shall constitute one (1) vote; however, Moorhead Colleges (MSUM, M/State and Concordia) shall share one (1) vote which shall be a prorated ⅓ split. Board Chairperson: The MAT Coordinating Board chairperson shall be a joint appointment and such appointment shall be reviewed on a biennial timeframe. A new appointment or (re)appointment shall be acted on by both the Moorhead City Council and the Fargo City Commission. The term of which shall be based on the calendar year (January 1st – December 31st); or as otherwise specifically established through the appointment process. Officers: The only officer of the Board shall be the appointed Chairperson. The Chairperson will preside over all Board meetings. In the circumstance where the Chairperson is not present for a meeting, the Board shall identify a member to preside. Meetings: The Board shall meet at minimum three (3) times per year; or as deemed necessary to adequately and efficiently conduct business. Quorum: The presence of six (6) voting Board members will constitute a quorum for the transaction of official Board business. Minutes: Minutes of meeting proceedings shall be documented and approved by the Board. Staff of the FM Metropolitan Council of Governments (Metro COG) shall be responsible for the keeping and filing of Board minutes. Open Meetings: All Board meetings shall be open to the public. Rules of Order: Expect as otherwise required, the Rules of Order shall be in accordance with the latest edition of ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER REVISED. Advisory/Ad-hoc Committees: As needed, the Board may direct staff from the City of Fargo, City of Moorhead or Metro COG to form ad-hoc or permanent sub-committees to carry out various technical investigations or engage in other business related to the interest of the Board. Membership on such committees shall be approved by the Board and the committee will report directly to the Board. These by-laws will run with the duly adopted Joint Powers Agreement (as amended) forming the Board itself and any amendments in said agreement may warrant a review of these by-laws to ensure consistency. Revised 8/16/2012





Metro Area Transit Coordinating Board By Laws Membership: The MAT Coordination Board (Board) is comprised of twelve (12) voting members. The appointment of voting membership shall be as follows:

Fargo – two (2) members of City Commission Moorhead – two (2) member of City Council West Fargo – one (1) member of City Commission Dilworth – one (1) member of City Council NDSU – one (1) administrator MHD Colleges – one (1) from each college (MSUM, MState, Concordia) Valley Senior Services – one (1) administrator Board Chairperson – one (1)

Voting: Each Member shall constitute one (1) vote and agenda items require a simple majority to pass. Agenda Items: The chairperson shall have the discretion to remove or table an item on the agenda if the chairperson deems there is not appropriate representation from a city, college(s) or applicable stakeholder. Board Chairperson: The MAT Coordinating Board chairperson shall be a joint appointment and such appointment shall be reviewed on a biennial timeframe. A new appointment or (re)appointment shall be acted on by both the Moorhead City Council and the Fargo City Commission. The term of which shall be based on the calendar year (January 1st – December 31st); or as otherwise specifically established through the appointment process. Officers: The only officer of the Board shall be the appointed Chairperson. The Chairperson will preside over all Board meetings. In the circumstance where the Chairperson is not present for a meeting, the Board shall identify a member to preside. Meetings: The Board shall meet at minimum three (3) times per year; or as deemed necessary to adequately and efficiently conduct business. Quorum: The presence of seven (7) voting Board members will constitute a quorum for the transaction of official Board business. Minutes: Minutes of meeting proceedings shall be documented and approved by the Board. Staff of the FM Metropolitan Council of Governments (Metro COG) shall be responsible for the keeping and filing of Board minutes. Open Meetings: All Board meetings shall be open to the public. Rules of Order: Expect as otherwise required, the Rules of Order shall be in accordance with the latest edition of ROBERTS RULES OF ORDER REVISED. Advisory/Ad-hoc Committees: As needed, the Board may direct staff from the City of Fargo, City of Moorhead or Metro COG to form ad-hoc or permanent sub-committees to carry out various technical investigations or engage in other business related to the interest of the Board. Membership on such committees shall be approved by the Board and the committee will report directly to the Board. These by-laws will run with the duly adopted Joint Powers Agreement (as amended) forming the Board itself and any amendments in said agreement may warrant a review of these by-laws to ensure consistency. Revised 9/27/2012





38 august agenda - fmmetrocog.org board... · 1 metro area transit coordinating board july 18, 2012...

Documents