Logan County executives look for how to continue Public Transportation Program

[October 06, 2015]  LINCOLN - On Monday, October 5, 2015, the Logan County Board's Executive Committee held a special meeting to discuss the transportation issue. Committee members Jan Schumacher, Andy Anderson, Kevin Bateman, Dave Blankenship, Scott Schaffenacker and Dave Hepler were present. Also in attendance were Alison Rumler-Gomez of Community Action, Community Action board member Mike Booher, States Attorney Jonathan Wright; and Logan County board members Gene Rohlfs, Chuck Ruben, Emily Davenport and Robert Farmer.

Schumacher began the meeting with introductory remarks reminding the committee that the focus on public transportation is giving rides to people who need rides and said she wants to make sure the committee keeps their focus on getting people rides. She remarked that she has seen the need for this in a way she had not before as she has gotten to know many without cars who have to walk a long distance to work, adding that there a lot of people out there who need rides. Schumacher said the question becomes what is the best way to do that? She said that the meeting was to consider what the best approach is and mentioned three possibilities:
1. To continue working with Community Action.
2. To operate it ourselves (with the Board operating it).
3. To go out for a proposal and invite Community Action and other vendors such as Showbus to come out with a proposal and the board determining which one is the best.

Schumacher also reported that they now have all the financial information that they have been asking for, though there are still issues about expanding the program.

When she asked committee members their thoughts on the possibilities, Anderson suggested putting transportation out for bids by December, since he does not expect a state budget before then. He said they could discuss the bids when they get them. Schumacher asked why he felt they should wait until December and Anderson replied by asking "What's the hurry?" He feels the vendors needed more than a few weeks to come up with a bid as critical as this one.

Ruben said that he agrees with Anderson, but thought that though the vendors need adequate time to come up with bids, even asking vendors to have bids ready by November would give them over a month to come up with them.

Hepler suggested that if they go out for proposal, it would be comparatively easy for Community Action as the incumbent to give the committee a proposal by next week. He noted that Showbus could also provide one, which would give the committee time to give a month's notice if they wanted to make a change.

Bateman then asserted that he is intrigued with the idea of "running it ourselves," since the county already owns all the buses. He said, that way, the routes could be set up the way the county wants them. Anderson mentioned that if they went that route, the city might also be interested and Bateman said that he thinks that is something worth looking into.

Davenport said she is also intrigued by the idea, but wondered if services are currently suspended. Rumler-Gomez told her that Community Action is under obligation under their grant to offer services to seniors, but have modified the program design because they cannot accommodate the five day service schedule in which they operated seven and a half hours a day. She also said that with less funding, they are still only doing critical medical transportation for around 60 people.

Bateman noted that if the county chooses to run it, they do not have to look for a facility or vehicles, and feels that it would mainly entail setting up the administrative part of it. Schumacher said they would have to find a place to park, but Bateman suggested various places they could park such as the airport, highway department, or health department.

Anderson said that if someone else is willing to do the transportation the way the county likes, he prefers that, but is willing to talk to the city doing it if they are interested. Bateman asserted that he likes the idea of the city and county working together on it because it would allow for more manpower and administration and be more of a "community entity" than if just the county ran it.

Ruben expressed concerns about two groups handling grant money and what happens if the state stops funding it, feeling that it would open the county up to a lot of liability financially. Ruben then asserted that he would rather have the county administer it with PCOM [the Program Compliance Oversight Manager] and direct how it is going, but not be financially liable.

Davenport wanted to know if other counties run it themselves. Rumler-Gomez said she thinks Effingham does.

Bateman said that he feels the concerns are valid, but does not want to slam the door on the county doing it since they have had to constantly ask for updated routes and he feels they got nowhere.

Hepler and Schaffenacker said they agreed with Ruben on the county having oversight of the program. However, Rohlfs added that he does not think the county should be in the business of running a bus company because he feels they do not have the expertise. Farmer said he initially thought it was a good idea for the county to run it, but now thinks they should hire somebody to do it.

Bateman said if the county hires a director, the director would run and the county would just oversee it. Then, if the county runs it and hires a director, if the county says "we want to set up a route," the director sets up the route. Bateman noted that then they would not have to listen to a third party saying, "We tried it your way," but then the company would run it the way they see is best.

Anderson said that he agrees with Ruben's concerns about financial liability and Schumacher agreed that the county would get the pushback. Ruben pointed out county liabilities such as IMRF or medical insurance.

Bateman wondered about having someone as a contract employee, but Ruben said the parameters for those employees are strict.

Schumacher then reminded the committee that it is critical to decide what to do soon saying that if they want to ask for a proposal, they need to issue the requests for a proposal in a timely manner, and that if the county decides to do it themselves, there is no need for the PCOM, which changes the job description for the office manager.

Hepler said that there are both risks and rewards if the county runs it, and if they ask for proposals by October 13, they are under no obligation to decide immediately.

Hepler made a motion that proposals be returned by the 13th, and Rumler-Gomez told him Community Action would not be prepared to submit their proposal by that time.

Rumler-Gomez expressed her belief that Community Actions needs to revisit the program design to offer the county what it wants.

Hepler said if no proposals are in by that time, there is no harm.

Schumacher then asked Rumler-Gomez if having the proposal due by the November 10 Executive meeting would give Community Action enough time. Rumler-Gomez said that while it would be better, she would like to see the program design outlined by the grantee [which is the county]. She explained that there is a lot of research that goes into program design and said that if the county had a vision for how much of the budget that they want to spend for a deviated fixed route versus a demand response route, the November date would work, but if she were coming up with a program design in addition to the proposal, it would take longer. Rumler-Gomez said it all depends on how much information the county puts forth in the proposal request. Anderson said the county needs to decide what they want done and see if Community Action could meet that. Rumler-Gomez said specific input from the county about the routes would make the proposal more simple.

Schumacher suggested that a subcommittee come up with ideas on what kind of proposal they want. Schumacher's motion for an October 13th proposal deadline did not pass, so she asked that the Executive Committee put together ideas about what details would go in the proposals. Ruben asked if the proposals would go out October 14th to be returned by November 10, and Schumacher said yes.

Bateman asked whether only the Executive Committee would decide the criteria or whether the full board would have input. Schumacher said that she will share it with the others and Ruben reminded her that it could be brought forward and discussed at the Board Workshop.

Anderson asked if the proposals would change the dynamics of how the money is spent and Rumler-Gomez replied that it should. Rumler-Gomez cautioned the board members that as the grantees, it could mean a program design change, which may need to be approved by IDOT, and that it may take several months to implement it.

Anderson asked if the program would be "lessened" no matter what, but Rumler-Gomez said that they would want to know the design change and implementation plan. She explained that transportation is in a reimbursement program and that the 5311 program reimburses at an eighty percent and a fifty percent reimbursement rate, and then there is a local match. Rumler-Gomez said the agency has used the downstate operating fund as a local match and pointed out that not all of the money submitted under the 5311 is recoverable with eighty percent of the administration fees and fifty percent of the operation fees being reimbursable.

Schumacher's motion for the committee to come up with a proposal by October 13th passed and the committee then went into closed session to discuss a candidate for office manager.

[Angela Reiners]

[© 2015 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.]

Copyright 2015 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.