Transportation Coordination Committee

11_17_15_tcc_meeting_minutes.pdf (85 KB)

REASON FOR MEETING:  REGULAR

SUBJECTS FOR DISCUSSION:

1. Call to Order and Certify Compliance with Open Meeting Law: Meeting was called to order and certified to be in compliance with OML at 10:10 a.m. In attendance: Chair, T. Gramling, V.Demers, D. Moore, T. Gramling, L. Lennon, C. Schulte, D. Cheers, J. Brown, E. Klepper, J. Ellington, D. Fry, J. Hyser, S. Blodgett, L. Champagne (ADRC)
2. Adopt Agenda: Motion by DeMers, 2^nd by Moore to adopt that agenda. Motion Carried
3. Adopt Minutes of Previous Meeting: Motion by DeMers, 2^nd by Moore to approve the minutes of the August 2015 meeting. Motion carried.
4. Public Comment: Susan Blodgett welcomes new committee member Darcia Fry who works with Interfaith Volunteer Network serving Norther Sauk County since 2000.
5. Communications: NONE
6. Business Items
   1. Discussion of the Transportation Program: Taxi, Fun Days, Shopping Bus, 2016 Goals

-We are experiencing a distinct lack of volunteer drivers. We have noticed an increase in need for taxi vouchers.

-Discussion of medical prioritizing for medical taxi rides and access to add’l tickets

-The Uplander, per grantor, is to be used for medical and job-related transportation purposes. Can no longer be used by Health Dept. for their medical-related needs.
-Schulte wonders if we have a clear way to seek donations strictly to be used for transportation. We do not, but we do accept donations to be used for transportation.

-T. Gramling wonders if funds from one grant can be used for another.  The 8521 Transportation Grant requires a 20% county levy match – taxi money comes from that fund.
-T. Gramling wonders if we reduce cost of volunteer mileage will more people be helped?  It is too difficult to project any benefit at this time.

Also, wonders if we have a means by which we can identify transportation customers for whom paying volunteers is a hardship.  (We do not. Staff needs to look for examples of folks who have need.)

-The majority of the calls we get for transportation are for escort drivers. Perhaps a meeting with Interfaith is in order to find out where we can each help the other help customers.

-D. Moore wonders if there is data on who is not being served. We do not have such data. Customers are billed and can pay over time when there is a financial hardship. Interfaith V.N. turns away approx.. 10 customers per month within ADRC client base for various reasons, including not having volunteers available. Moore also wonders if Interfaith could use our Uplander.  There would still be a need for volunteer drivers.

-S. Blodgett brings up the need for transportation in the most rural areas of Sauk County. Efforts are in the works for providing transportation to those communities.

-T. Gramling wonders if we can explore getting taxi vouchers for people to get home from ER in the middle of the night as there appears to be a need at both RAMC and St. Clare.

-Fun Day Travels are currently running 5 trips per month. Shopping buses tend to be full, most often needing 2 buses to run. We can accommodate wheelchair passengers. Recent trips taken to Wildcat Mountain, Orchards, and to Amish Country. We have had waiting lists for some trips.

-S. Blodgett mentions that the interior of the buses are in great shape, but the machines themselves are running into high miles. 

-L. Lennon mentions that City of Reedsburg has a bus just sitting there with 5000 miles on it. No one uses it.  Perhaps calling Ken Witt about this is in order.

2. Discussion of fee increase for Fun Day travels excursions: Bus drivers have received negative feedback from those taking trips on imposing a fee increase. An increase to $10 per trip would be too high. $7 might be workable. Discussion of charging more for trips that go out of Sauk County.  Some people can drive and money is not a concern, they like the convenience of the bus trips. Shulte wonders if there is the possibility of offering trips on a sliding fee scale.  Discussion of what other counties may be charging – worth investigation. Final decision will be made by the committee in February.
3. Discussion of client request for shopping bus trips to Ho-Chunk Casino

A customer has been  hiring a volunteer escort drive to travel to Ho-Chunk Casino  since the bus no longer will go there. They are paying $.47/mile and we are paying the driver. D. Moore expresses a fundamental issue with using tax payer money to take people to the casino. L. Lennon suggests saying no to these trips because if people really need transport for this kind of recreation, surely there are people who can drive who will do so. There is a concern that this customer is arranging his own transportation instead of going thru our Transportation Dept. for arranging these rides. J. Pritzkow suggests requesting a language review/recommendation from Corp. Counsel on wording regarding elimination of socialization piece from the volunteer drivers program. The consensus is that volunteer drivers should not be used for recreational purposes.

1. Transportation Financial Review:  Second and Third Quarters of 2015 – none provided
2. Update from the Communities:  Issues Raised, Priorities Expressed: none brought forward outside of previous discussion

4. Public Comment: None
5. Next Meeting:  Tuesday, January 23, 2016 at 10:00 a.m.
6. Adjourn: Motion made by D. Moore, 2^nd by J. Ellington, Motion Carried. Meeting adjourned 11:30 a.m.