Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Transit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge county to preserve rural transit as commissioners weigh $75K-$115K shortfall
Summary
Hall County held a public hearing after state and federal grant cuts left rural transit facing a roughly 27% funding reduction; transit staff said the shortfall could require an additional $75,000–$115,000 from county coffers. Dozens of riders and families pleaded to keep the service, and the board authorized a contract review with the county attorney and Brown Transit to explore options.
Hall County commissioners on June 30 heard urgent testimony from riders, family members and transit staff after the county received notice that federal and state matching funds for its rural transit program were likely to drop by about 27 percent.
Transit department head Bob McFarland told the board the program’s total budget runs roughly $350,000 and that Hall County has historically contributed about $40,000 a year as local match. McFarland said the program’s full taxpayer cost per ride has approached $147 while riders typically pay $2 per trip. He said the projected grant reductions could leave the county responsible for an additional $75,000 to $85,000 for the coming year, and under worst-case budgeting assumptions county exposure could be as high as roughly $110,000–$115,000.
That figure prompted more than a dozen residents to describe how the transit service enables employment, medical access and independence. “Without this service, I don’t feel like he would be able to go to work,” said Mindy Little John, who described reliance by her adult son on the transit system for his daily shift. Gavin Troda, another regular rider, said he feels “completely safe” using Hall County Transit and that the service is his only way to get to work.
Speakers repeatedly urged the board to avoid a lapse in service and suggested practical steps the county could examine, including limited fare increases, employer contributions, expanded outreach to raise ridership, and pursuing alternative providers. Several commenters noted a paradox: raising rider fares can reduce grant reimbursements and therefore produce no net gain in outside funding.
Commissioners acknowledged the service’s community value but said they must weigh fiscal responsibilities. “There is a need for the service,” one commissioner said, while urging staff to review options that would protect taxpayers and riders.
The board voted to direct the county attorney’s office, transit staff and contractor Brown Transit to meet in short order to review the contract and identify options — including negotiating scope, seeking other providers, or budget adjustments — and report back to the commissioners. The motion passed with a unanimous or near-unanimous vote, and commissioners said they intend to avoid a service lapse while pursuing alternatives.
Next steps: county staff and counsel will analyze contractual notice periods, cost-reduction scenarios, and the feasibility of rebidding or re-negotiating with the contractor. The board flagged the upcoming county budget season as the appropriate time to finalize any additional local funding requests.
