Laserfiche WebLink
decision-making body for all aspects of transportation services, including designation of <br />routes, applications/distribution of State and Federal funding, eligible participants, capital <br />equipment needs, billing rates, and any other policies related to transportation services. <br />Initially, the Authority could use HSTM funds to hire a coordinator to handle the transition <br />between service designs. Future funds could go directly to the service provider if desired. <br />The TAB feels that this is not an appropriate time to recommend a private non-profit entity, <br />and that it would not be favorably received. This may be an alternative in the future. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVE 4: MODIFIED CURRENT SYSTEM <br /> <br />This alternative is a combination of the first and third alternatives. Under this scenario, the <br />County would remain as the lead agency for transportation services, and would house a <br />coordinator to act as staff to the TAB. This is based on the assumption that the HSTM <br />funds are available with all required agencies participating. The TAB would have an <br />increased role in the development of policies and procedures dictating the operation of <br />transportation services. TAB would act as the administrative body for the system, and would <br />moderate any disputes that may arise. AIl policy developed by the TAB would have to be <br />adopted by the County Commissioners. The coordinator would provide daily assistance to <br />both the operator and the participating agencies, including monitoring complaints, assisting <br />with scheduling, and reporting monthly to the TAB. The coordinator would also be <br />required to report to the County. As recommended in the previous sec~on, this position <br />would be housed in the County's Planning Depa,~ulent. Transportation services would <br />continue to be provided by a private operator. <br /> <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> <br />The TAB feels that the system design best suited for the future of transportation in <br />Cabarrus County is Alternative 4. A ridership survey completed during the TDP process <br />showed an overwhelming satisfaction in the delivery of services under the private operator <br />system currently in place. Although this survey does not suggest that the system is without <br />need of modification, it does suggest that the general premise is widely accepted by the <br />current clientele. Table 4 provides a brief summary of the key questions asked of the <br />ridership, and the tabulations of each respondent. <br /> <br />The TAB recommends that the County adopt this service design as the future for <br />transportation services in Cabarrus County for human service clients. Specifically, the TAB <br />recommends that it be responsible for the administrative oversight of the system, while using <br /> <br /> <br />