Transit contractor defends manager, says ADA paratransit plan approved as advocates press for more service

An ATE representative told the Missoula Urban Transit District that ATE has helped develop Mountain Line’s Americans with Disabilities Act paratransit plan, that the plan was approved by the Federal Transit Administration, and that recent complaints about service and management misrepresent the system’s performance.

The statement, delivered during a public presentation and Q&A, came in response to criticisms from Summit Independent Living Center and several former employees alleging reduced specialized transit services and personnel problems. The ATE representative said usage of the paratransit service rose from 17,914 trips in 1989 to 20,348 trips in 1992 and that the system had saved roughly $35,000 in purchasing discounts over the previous 18 months as part of ATE’s broader management services.

The discussion matters because FTA approval of a paratransit plan is a condition of some federal funding, and disputes over service levels and personnel affect both access for people with disabilities and the transit district’s operations. The ATE representative emphasized the distinction between desired service expansions and legal requirements under the ADA, saying the law does not require fixed-route systems to provide night or weekend service if those hours are not offered to the general public.

According to the ATE representative, ATE’s technical staff has assisted Mountain Line with its ADA paratransit plan, operations and maintenance manuals, vehicle specifications, routing and scheduling, labor negotiations and marketing and computer systems. “This plan was submitted to and approved by the Mountain Line Board and the Federal Transit Administration,” the presenter said. The presenter also told the board that some services provided under ATE’s management agreement — including software, purchasing coordination and marketing support — reduce the need for separate contractors and lower costs for the transit district.

Advocates with Summit Independent Living Center, speaking during the meeting, said they have not asked for 24-hour service but have asked for more evening and weekend service and raised specific operational problems, such as callers getting busy signals when trying to schedule rides. “For some reason, they’ve undergone some kind of a change over there. Ever since the first of the year, people... have been getting almost all busy signals,” the Summit representative said.

The ATE representative acknowledged constraints on expanding service, saying a move from the current schedule to 24-hour, seven-day service would require about an additional $500,000 a year — roughly a 33% increase in current operating costs, as stated in the presentation — and that capital and operating priorities are set according to available funds. The presenter added that recent capital purchases have prioritized paratransit equipment and that replaced fixed-route vehicles must be ADA-accessible as they enter service.

The presentation addressed personnel complaints and grievances. The presenter said 22 grievances were filed over a recent period (an average of 6.8 per year as reported) and that 16 of those grievances (73%) were filed by four current or former employees. The presenter said a grievance by former operator Rudy Borg was taken to final and binding arbitration, and that the arbitration panel ruled 4–0 that Borg’s termination was for just cause. The Teamsters business agent, Jack Cutler, was quoted as saying the matters referenced in an anonymous memorandum had been resolved and that there were no unresolved issues between the union and management related to that memorandum.

The presenter described financial improvements under General Manager Mary Plumley’s tenure, saying a projected deficit of $200,905 was reduced to $43,006 within six months and that subsequent fiscal years were balanced. The presentation also cited ridership gains, noting ridership of just over 442,000 in fiscal 1989 and 516,000 in fiscal 1991; the fiscal 1992 figure in the presentation was unclear in the transcript.

As next steps, the ATE representative said ATE would assist in renegotiating the bargaining agreement and proposed convening a broader disability committee meeting to work on operational fixes, including options to address busy telephone lines (such as adding phone lines, scheduling windows or volunteer support for call-taking during peak times). No formal board vote or policy change was recorded during the presentation.

The public discussion combined operational, financial and labor issues: advocates pressed for clearer scheduling access and more evening/weekend service, the contractor defended current ADA compliance and management practices, and both sides described follow-up meetings and efforts to address specific problems. The presenters and advocates emphasized that funding constraints largely determine service expansion possibilities.