Pitt County to begin nonrenewal talks for paratransit contract with City of Greenville; county cites fleet, ridership imbalance
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
County manager told commissioners that Pitt Area Transit may not renew its paratransit contract with the City of Greenville because of vehicle shortages, staffing limits and a shift in ridership that threatens rural grant compliance; board authorized the manager to continue talks and give notice if needed.
Pitt County officials briefed the Board of Commissioners on Oct. 20 about the county's plan to consider nonrenewal of its paratransit contract with the City of Greenville, a service the county has provided in exchange for roughly $400,000 in annual payments.
County Manager Michele Gallagher explained that Pitt Area Transit provides paratransit rides in the Greenville urban area under contract to the city but that rising urban ridership (driven in part by fare-free service) has strained the county provider's vehicle fleet and staffing. "It may be in the county's best interest to non renew its contract," Gallagher told the board, adding that the current contract runs through June 30 of the fiscal year.
Officials said the county is a rural general transportation provider that must meet rural ridership percentages to keep certain rural grants; higher urban trips have created an imbalance. Gallagher said the city currently pays the county's rate and that cancelling or nonrenewing the contract would not immediately transfer rider fees to individuals: riders would continue to access transit through the city's GRACE/Greenville system, and the city would pay whatever provider it selects.
Board action: After discussion and questions from several commissioners about service continuity and county revenues, Commissioner Manning moved that the county manager "continue her conversations with Greenville and work something out" and, if appropriate, provide notice of nonrenewal with at least eight months' lead time. The motion was seconded and approved.
Possible effects and next steps: Gallagher said the county was not seeking early termination but would give as much notice as possible if it proceeded, allowing the city time to plan in-house service or pursue an RFP for a private provider. She also said county staff had taken steps to prioritize rural ridership (including transit service for Pitt Community College students in rural areas) and planned internal position reclassifications to improve dispatch capacity.
Ending: Commissioners asked staff to continue discussions with the city and consider larger regional transportation planning as Greenville's urban area grows; the board directed the manager to proceed and return with further updates as needed.