Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Transit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee pauses action on $825,000 transit match-and-loan proposal after policy questions
Summary
Senate Bill 195, a proposal to create revolving loans and grants to help public transit providers meet federal match requirements, received testimony from statewide transit providers but was deferred for further work; the Bureau of Finance and Management raised questions about program design and administration.
Senate Bill 195 would create a program to provide revolving loans and grants to public transit providers so they can qualify for federal operating and capital grants that require local matching funds. The Joint Appropriations Committee heard extensive proponent testimony but deferred action to a later date.
Senator Randy Deibert, the bill’s sponsor, said state seed money for matching or loan funds leverages federal transit dollars at roughly 5-to-1 or 10-to-1 rates depending on the federal match requirement. “We take this money, and we get a higher return on it, and we help public transit,” he said. Proponents described services ranging from rural Medicaid and nonemergency medical transport to fixed-route urban service and youth-ride programs.
Multiple transit providers described the practical effects of local-match requirements. Barb Klein, executive director of Prairie Hills Transit, testified that asking eight counties and 15 communities for match is challenging in sparsely populated areas and that a modest state match could make the difference in acquiring needed buses. Gail Klute of People’s Transit described how the agency must raise about $300,000 in local match on roughly $405,000 in federal operating funds; she said fares cover only a fraction of operating costs and that matching shortfalls threaten service continuity.
The Bureau of Finance and Management, represented by Brandy Meissner, opposed the bill as written and noted existing federal and state programs administered through the Department of Transportation. Meissner said DOT currently distributes roughly $11 million annually (federal and state) to providers and that the bill would create a new program that DOT does not currently operate; she raised questions about capitalization, loan terms, nonpayment handling and sunset language (this appropriation would be limited to four years under the bill as filed).
Sponsor Deibert responded that the bill’s structure draws on other state-administered competitive programs (for example, bridge improvement grants) and that the $825,000 figure reflected stakeholder input and late-session negotiations. The committee deferred action to allow more work on program design and administration; proponents asked the committee to consider the long-term cost-savings and service benefits of improved rural transit access.
