It now appears ride service will not expand
The Union County Commissioners will not be moving forward with a plan to provide a public transportation option for all county residents.
Last month, the Union County Area Transportation Services (UCATS) presented a business plan for the transition to bring a public transportation option to the county.
Chelcie Beadnell, mobility manager for the Union County Health Department, had applied for and was awarded ODOT funding for a public transportation system as well the transition. UCATS asked the Union County Commissioners to accept $155,809 from ODOT, which would have triggered another equal grant from the federal government through ODOT.
Todd Barstow, with ODOT, told the commissioners funds must be applied for each year, but said that once a county is approved for funding it is “very, very rare” it does not receive future approval.
He explained that for this first year, ODOT will fund the local match to help the program get started.
Earlier this week, the county commissioners decided not to accept the grant and to continue with UCATS as is currently exists, providing specialized transportation for elderly and disabled clients. Officials said non-emergency medical transportation and transportation for seniors make up a majority of the trips.
Union County Commissioner Dave Burke said he had reached out to employers and got “very little response.” He said none of those who did contact him would use the UCATS services, citing the price.
Kathleen Albanese, with UCATS, said the reason trips are so expensive is because the entire cost of the program, from buses and equipment to training to insurance, is spread over a small number of trips.
“The more the numbers go up, in terms of trips, the total costs go down,” Albanese said. “The reason these other counties are able to provide trips for so much cheaper is they do a lot of trips because they have public funds.”
Albanese stressed there is a need for public transportation in the county.
“It’s hard to predict numbers when people don’t ask for rides because they know there is nothing available,” Albanese said. “That is part of the quandary we are in.”
She and others stressed the local board of mental health, the judicial system, the Hope Center, the board of developmental disabilities, the area agency on aging, economic development officials and others have stressed that transportation is a barrier to employment and quality of life for many residents. Additionally, a variety of community surveys and needs assessments have indicated the need for public transportation or at least additional transportation options in the community.
County Commissioner Chris Schmenk said it is important to look at those who help the “underserved populations.”
Burke agreed there is, “probably is a need for transportation, free transportation, so I suppose you could fill the bill on that.”
Even so, he questioned how filling that need would benefit county revenue.
“Certainly, if jobs and the economy are part of the equation, I support that, but the county doesn’t collect income tax so where is Marysville, Plain City, Richwood…What’s my role as a county commissioner to generate income tax for the City of Marysville, God bless them?”
He said that if the communities that collect income tax are going to benefit from the tax revenue, “why would I take sales tax dollars to increase the City of Marysville’s income tax collection?”
Beadnell said that by helping employers get to work, it will increase the county sales tax revenue because those employed individuals will have money to spend.
Burke called that “a very tertiary benefit.”
He said he is opposed to providing transportation, “not because there isn’t a need, but because the beneficiaries of the program don’t seem to be in the discussion.”
Beadnell said the hope is to be more intentional bringing those stakeholders into the discussion.
She said that if the grant is accepted, UCATS would hire a transportation director who would spend 2021 securing contracts and other funding sources.
She said that until that person is hired, it is difficult for someone from the agency to go looking for the funding.
Janell Alexander, with UCATS said the intention was to use existing contracts to show the state there was enough need for services to sustain the program and to use funding from other, non-tax revenue to provide matching revenue for the state dollars.
“The intent is so that we don’t have to provide a local match. We will use these either sources of revenue,” Alexander said, noting there is always the possibility of a “worst case scenario” like a pandemic, where there would not be contract revenue.
Schmenk said employers do not commit to participate in a program ahead of time.
“It is the nature of private employers to remain flexible and to not commit to things like this ahead of time,” Schmenk said.
She added that it is important to, “put a lot of weight on what we are hearing from the people who work with us every day,” Schmenk said.
Burke said he worries that the county would be liable to pay for the service if the contracts do not come through.
County Administrator Tim Halsey said there is “very little risk” because if the program is not working or is too expensive, the county can return to its current model with a 60-day notice.
Hansley said that given the opposition, the county would apply for funding to continue with the current level of services, rather than expanding transportation options to the general public.
Schmenk encouraged the other commissioners and officials to keep looking for solutions.
“I do think we do need to be looking for what is a way to fill gaps,” Schmenk said. “And if this is not it, we need to be looking for other solutions. I feel like it is our role, as county commissioners, to try to pull all of the pieces together that we think are needed because we are a growth county, whether we are ready for that, whether we want it.”