Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Delmarva Community Services seeks $157,000 from Kent County; discusses mobility‑on‑demand and regional cost sharing
Summary
Delmarva Community Services requested roughly $157,157 in county operating support to maintain current transit routes and expand a mobility‑on‑demand pilot; the provider urged commissioners to consider smaller vehicles, service redesign and a regional cost‑share reallocation with Talbot and Caroline counties.
Andy, a representative of Delmarva Community Services, asked Kent County commissioners for operating funding of $157,157 to maintain current rural transit service and to support planned expansion of a mobility‑on‑demand pilot the provider has been running informally.
Andy said the agency has been subsidizing rural routes and that grants and COVID/ARPA funds previously used to cover operating deficits are exhausted: “Rural transit simply does not make money,” Andy said, and Delmarva told commissioners it will need additional county support or route reductions. Andy also recommended smaller, wheelchair‑accessible vehicles for on‑demand service and described early local results: the county’s mobility‑on‑demand pilot performed about 1,405 trips without broad advertising and is already in limited use in parts of neighboring counties.
Henry, Delmarva’s transit director, said the county’s six existing routes delivered roughly 6,728 trips in the last reporting period with the busiest route generating 3,062 trips. He said mobility‑on‑demand increases customer satisfaction by offering door‑to‑door pickups and can be cheaper to operate per trip with smaller vehicles.
Funding and regional cost share: Andy argued that current upper‑shore cost sharing across Kent, Talbot and Caroline Counties is inequitable, with Kent paying the same flat share despite lower ridership and fewer routes. He urged commissioners to pursue a reallocation based on population or usage so Kent’s contribution could be reduced while Talbot’s share would increase.
Service implications: Delmarva said that without additional funding it may need to reduce routes. Andy and Henry presented mobility‑on‑demand as a potential operational redesign to serve dispersed rural areas more efficiently, but both cautioned the shift requires planning, advertising and possibly additional smaller vehicles.
Next steps: Commissioners said they will review the request as part of the FY26 budget process and noted competing budget priorities. Delmarva indicated a willingness to work with county staff on design and said it would return with fuller cost estimates if commissioners asked. No appropriation or formal vote was made at the meeting.
