<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:220749240;
mso-list-template-ids:1423321692;}
@list l0:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l0:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l0:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l0:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1
{mso-list-id:1362434866;
mso-list-template-ids:665988494;}
@list l1:level1
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0B7;
mso-level-tab-stop:.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Symbol;}
@list l1:level2
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:o;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
@list l1:level3
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:1.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level4
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level5
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:2.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level6
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level7
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:3.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level8
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.0in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
@list l1:level9
{mso-level-number-format:bullet;
mso-level-text:\F0A7;
mso-level-tab-stop:4.5in;
mso-level-number-position:left;
text-indent:-.25in;
mso-ansi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Wingdings;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Hi all,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>You may have seen in the memo that all of a sudden, they’re including the cost for WAVs, wheelchair accessible vehicles, as part of the AOD program. This stinks to high heaven. I just had Claude, my AI of choice, go back and make sure that they’re not pulling these costs from the Access-a-Ride budget, which they’re not, because that budget has remained more or less the same.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Here's my conversation with Claude:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>TK<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>What does it say in the memo about why they suddenly started using these new cost numbers for AOD including the WAV vehicles? These vehicles should already be budgeted for under Access-a-Ride, the budget for which is shown later in the memo. So, is there any explanation for why they almost double the cost of the Access on Demand program while the Access-a-Ride budget remains the same? You can double check the Access-a-Ride budget in the peer review report document.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Claude: You've identified a critical inconsistency. Let me examine what the memo actually says about this sudden inclusion of WAV costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>What the memo says about WAV costs:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>The memo states: "Information previously presented to the Board has illustrated the actual trip subsidy paid by RTD to the four service providers and has not, prior to the dissemination of this memorandum, included the Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle (WAV) costs that should also be considered as part of the overall program costs. These costs have been included in the scenarios as described."<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>The problem with this explanation:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>1. No justification provided: The memo doesn't explain WHY these costs should "also be considered as part of the overall program costs" when they weren't before.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>2. Double-counting issue: As you note, the memo shows the 2026 AaR budget at $53.4 million. If WAV vehicles are already budgeted under AaR, then including $12-16 million of WAV costs in AoD scenarios appears to be double-counting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>3. Timing is suspicious: This accounting change conveniently appears just when the Board pushed back on staff's restrictive recommendations, dramatically inflating all scenario costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>Comparing to the APTA peer review:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>The May 2025 presentation (from the APTA peer review period) showed AaR operating costs at $53.3 million annually, very similar to the $53.4 million projected for 2026. This suggests the AaR budget has remained stable while they've suddenly added $12-16 million to AoD accounting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>What this suggests:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>This appears to be an accounting manipulation rather than a legitimate cost discovery. WAV vehicles don't magically create new costs - they're the same vehicles RTD was already operating and budgeting for under AaR. The memo provides no explanation for why moving some of their utilization to AoD should create additional budget line items.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>For your public comment: This accounting change looks like staff moving the same costs from one bucket to another to make AoD appear more expensive, without any reduction in the AaR budget that should logically accompany such a shift. It's either double-counting or manipulative accounting designed to support their predetermined conclusion to cut the program.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>That basically sums it up right there. I encourage everyone, in addition to making public comment tomorrow night, to email your public comment to the OSSC sooner rather than later. In this forum, you’re not constrained by a 3-minute timeline, so you can fully express yourself. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'>I just did that, and my email is below:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Subject: Public Comment for Sept 10 OSCC Meeting<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Dear Members of the Operations, Safety & Security Committee,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>I'm writing to urge you to recommend <b>Scenario 4</b> from staff's August memo and to ask pointed questions about the suspicious accounting changes that have suddenly inflated program costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt;mso-ligatures:none'>My Story<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>I'm a blind Access-on-Demand user who works night shifts at Amazon in Aurora. Some of my shifts start at 2:30 AM, others end at 12:30 AM (sometimes flexing to 1:30 AM). Under staff's preferred Scenario 2, I'd lose access to subsidized transportation for all these shifts. When I have to pay the full $30 Uber fare home after a midnight shift, that's nearly three hours of wages at $22/hour - a devastating hit to my paycheck. I'm not alone - at least three other blind workers at my Amazon facility work these same overnight shifts, and undoubtedly others throughout the system depend on 24/7 service.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt;mso-ligatures:none'>The Broken Promise<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Ten months ago, RTD asked Denver voters to approve Ballot Measure 7A to avoid refunding excess revenue to taxpayers, explicitly promising to "maintain the availability of services for people with disabilities." Sixty-nine percent of voters said yes, including endorsements from the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition based on that promise. RTD now keeps at least an extra $50-60 million annually that would have been refunded to taxpayers. Yet they want to break their promise to retain services in order to save 2.4% of RTD's budget. This isn't fiscal responsibility - it's a betrayal of voter trust.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt;mso-ligatures:none'>The Suspicious Numbers<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Staff's August memo contains glaring problems that demand scrutiny:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>1. Manipulative Accounting:</span></b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'> Staff suddenly includes $12-16 million in wheelchair accessible vehicle (WAV) costs that were never counted before, nearly doubling program costs overnight. Yet the Access-a-Ride budget remains unchanged at $53.4 million. Where were these WAV costs previously budgeted? If they're shifting from AaR to AoD accounting, why isn't the AaR budget reduced correspondingly? This appears to be double-counting designed to inflate AoD costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>2. Basic Errors:</span></b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'> Scenario 2's assumptions reference "18 trips per customer per month based on a lower per month trip cap" - but Scenario 2 has 60 trips, not a reduced cap. This is copied from Scenario 1's text. If staff can't get basic parameters right, how can we trust their cost projections?<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>3. Unsupported Claims:</span></b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'> The memo claims Access-a-Ride on-time performance dropped from 90% to 86% and attributes this decline to AoD WAV demands. But this is pure speculation with no evidence provided. Staff offers no data showing causation between AoD usage and AaR performance problems. They're essentially guessing and presenting it as fact to support their predetermined conclusion.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt;mso-ligatures:none'>The Math Doesn't Add Up<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Even staff's inflated numbers show the program represents a tiny budget impact:<o:p></o:p></span></p><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Current AoD cost: 1.9% of RTD's $1.3 billion budget<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Scenario 4 (reasonable compromise): 2.4% of budget<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo1'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Scenario 6 (most generous): 2.8% of budget<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Staff threatens to cut 3.3% of bus service if they don't get Scenario 2, but that same amount could fund the most generous AoD scenario twice over. This isn't about fiscal crisis - it's about staff manufacturing reasons to decimate a program that for some reason they seem hellbent on cutting.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt;mso-ligatures:none'>Why Scenario 4 Makes Sense<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><ul type=disc><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Fair pricing:</span></b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'> $4.50 matches Access-a-Ride fares - we're not asking for special treatment<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Preserves essential service:</span></b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'> Maintains 24/7 access and full service area for people who depend on it for work and independence<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Reasonable cost:</span></b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'> At 2.4% of RTD's budget, this is hardly breaking the bank<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;mso-list:l0 level1 lfo2'><b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Honors voter promises:</span></b><span style='mso-ligatures:none'> Maintains the paratransit services voters specifically funded through 7A<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt;mso-ligatures:none'>Hold Staff Accountable<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Ms. Johnson has a pattern of giving non-answers to direct questions. When you ask about the WAV cost accounting, the errors in assumptions, the unsupported claims about performance impacts, or anything else, don't accept evasive responses. Keep asking until you get straight answers. You deserve accurate information to make informed decisions.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><b><span style='font-size:18.0pt;mso-ligatures:none'>The Bottom Line<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Access-on-Demand isn't broken - it's RTD's most efficient paratransit service. Staff is manufacturing a crisis to justify cutting a program that enables disabled people to work, live independently, and contribute to the community. We're willing to pay our fair share with a $4.50 fare, but we shouldn't pay premium prices ($6.50) for what staff admits is RTD's most cost-effective service.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Scenario 4 represents a reasonable compromise that maintains essential services while addressing legitimate fiscal concerns. More importantly, it honors the promise RTD made to voters just ten months ago.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to serving all RTD customers.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto'><span style='mso-ligatures:none'>Sincerely,<br>Tim Keenan<br>Access-on-Demand User<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></p></div></body></html>