Buncombe County advisory committee accepts Mountain Mobility slide deck as application, votes to treat transit like other applicants

The Buncombe County Home and Community Care Block Grant advisory committee on Jan. 28 accepted a slide deck from Mountain Mobility in lieu of a formal application for this funding cycle and voted to consider Mountain Mobility alongside other applicants in future allocations instead of guaranteeing a $500,000 annual set-aside.

William High, lead transportation planner for Buncombe County, presented Mountain Mobility’s service model and finances, telling the committee Mountain Mobility “serve[s] about a 100,000-plus customers every year” and that HCCBG funds this year are being used only for medical trips. He described the program as a countywide demand-response service with an ADA paratransit subcontract for the City of Asheville, weekday and Saturday service for most programs, and eligibility focused on older adults and people with disabilities.

The presentation outlined Mountain Mobility’s funding mix — roughly one-quarter local general-fund dollars, city revenue for ADA service, and several grant sources, including three Federal Transit Administration funding pools. High said HCCBG funds have been capped in recent years and that Mountain Mobility continues to operate using other grants and county match when HCCBG funding is exhausted.

Committee members pressed staff on why Mountain Mobility historically had been excused from filing an HCCBG application and why $500,000 had effectively been treated as an annual allocation. One member argued a valid contract should have an end date and asked for documentation; others recalled minutes indicating the committee agreed in FY 2020–21 to excuse Mountain Mobility from an application process. High said Mountain Mobility would provide the slide deck and is willing to complete an application in future cycles if the committee requests it.

The committee first voted to accept the slide deck as Mountain Mobility’s application for the current cycle. Later, members debated and approved a separate motion to include Mountain Mobility with other applicants in the allocation process so that its funding would be determined by the committee rather than by an automatic $500,000 commitment; one member (Dan) recorded opposition, citing funding uncertainty and wanting more time to study potential consequences.

Eileen moved that Mountain Mobility be required to file an application beginning next cycle; that motion was seconded and became part of the committee’s direction to treat Mountain Mobility consistently with other applicants going forward. William High agreed to share his presentation slides with staff for distribution to committee members.

Applications remain open after the committee’s next meeting; staff will circulate outstanding progress reports for member review before final allocation decisions. The committee’s timetable includes further discussion during the next allocation session and staff follow-up on documentation about the prior arrangement.

The committee closed the meeting after approving motions and asking staff to share requested materials. The next steps are staff distribution of the slide deck and progress reports and members’ review ahead of the allocation vote.