IN YOUR CORNER

The Martin County Taxpayers Association believes that it is important

that we get the biggest bang for our buck at all levels of government.

We feel we must report on the following issue discovered by one of our

members even though the funds are mainly from state and national

sources.

At the October 23rd meeting of the Martin County Commission,

representatives from The Council on Aging and Community Coach sought

direction on whether or not to purchase a site off Central Parkway for

their new bus station, administrative, parking and dispatching facility.

After discussion, this site was dropped from consideration in favor of

focusing on a site at the airport, a decision we support. A sum of

$875,000 of "pass through" funds was available to begin this project.

This fund emanated from state and federal sources and was being held by

Martin County pending disposition. The total cost of the project would

exceed $1 million. These numbers got our immediate attention and

triggered our interest in Community Coach operations.

In 1984, Martin County opted to have its own transportation system,

which was established as a program of the Council on Aging and is now

funded by federal, state, county and City of Stuart tax dollars.

Community Coach is the provider of choice.

Since its inception, Community Coach's fleet has grown to 27 busses,

each costing $60-70,000. Operating this service is a staff of 33

employees which includes 21 drivers, two drivers' supervisors, an office

staff of six dispatchers/schedulers, their supervisor, a Transportation

Specialist serving double duty as the Community Transportation

Coordinator and a secretary, all managed by the Director of

Transportation. The salaries and benefits of these employees account for

62% of the total operating budget, projected for FY 2002 to be

$1,532,787. Additionally, from the Council on Aging, a financial manager

lends support, as does a transit planner from Martin County Engineering.

We are told that Community Coach's staff size and budget are neither

unusual nor excessive for this type of service provider.

This staff and these dollars generate approximately 105,000 trips per

year, seventy percent of which are personalized door-to-door service,

while the other thirty percent are "group trips" which typically travel

to events. Utilization of this service is not limited to the elderly or

needy, but is offered to anyone anywhere in Martin County to go anywhere

else in the county for only one dollar! The fundamental problem with

this service is that it has insufficient ridership and is cost

deficient. A random survey, done last spring by volunteers, revealed an

average of 1.2 passengers per bus observed. We can't attest to the

accuracy of the survey, but the results were nonetheless an eye-opener.

Based on their proposed operating budget, for every passengers fee of

$1.00, taxpayers pay an additional $14.00! This means we are spending a

total of $15.00 for every trip. We have seen nothing to prove that

increasing service will save money, but more likely, it may accelerate

the flow of deficit spending. We were told that the Renaissance Planning

Group (independent transit consultants) found our local system efficient

and ridership sufficient, given Martin County's demographics.

Few of us realized the true costs of riding the little white coach, or

that all public transit systems are heavily subsidized. Potential

critics who knew the numbers might have little stomach to rock the boat

and threaten the continued flow of our "returned" tax dollars from the

federal and state governments, which make up the great majority of

funding for this program. If we don't use these dollars, they will go

to someone else. An additional deterrent to critics is that the Council

on Aging, which provides many local services, is the lead agency.

In an effort to strengthen operations, Community Coach has purchased a

computerized scheduling/routing program, STRATAGEN, at a cost of

$60,000, with the object of increasing ridership. We hope that this

program will increase ridership and efficiency, but that remains to be

seen. Martin's more affluent population seems to prefer their personal

vehicles versus the Community Coach.

In the Community Coach staff, we have a wealth of talented people

performing their assigned tasks as they have been instructed. If

Community Coach has attempted to make benchmark comparisons with other

transportation operations in other counties, we have not seen them, and

we suggest they do so to satisfy themselves that they are making the

best use of their current system. We are told the Community Coach's

costs of operation compare favorably with similar public transit

operations nationwide, leaving us with the distinct impression that if

we are concerned with transit costs locally, we would be appalled with

them nationally.

Are there any other approaches to performing this service? If so, a

modeling exercise might result in revelations as to the future. The

Taxpayers Association has relied only on the information provided by

Community Coach, which clearly indicates that before further expansion

or proliferation of this costly system or this particular mode of

service occurs, all parties, beginning locally, but most especially our

state and federal legislators, should step back and reflect on two

questions: Are we truly pursuing the question of local transit systems

in the best possible way? Is there a greater, more compelling need for

the tax dollars being consumed by this program?