Kern Transit Proposal Adds 10% to an Hourly Rate Already Raised in June

An additional hourly increase sits inside a smaller contract-cap change

Kern County’s proposed $90,000 transit-contract amendment is a 6.1% increase in the prior maximum compensation—but the variable rate at the center of the amendment rises about 10.0%. Reading the full proposed contract alongside the October 13 staff letter reveals a second comparison: the new $54.27 revenue-hour rate is 16.8% above the $46.45 rate that preceded the June extension.

What’s the Scoop With Broach reconstructed the two-step rate history printed in Amendment 3 to Agreement 739-2021 with WeDriveU, doing business as National Express Transit Corporation. The June 16 amendment raised the revenue-hour rate from $46.45 to $49.33. The October proposal adds another $4.94, from $49.33 to $54.27, retroactively for July through September 2026.

Those figures answer different accountability questions. The cap controls the maximum payable under the agreement; the hourly rate determines the variable price applied to service hours. Neither percentage is automatically the increase in a rider’s fare, a driver’s wage or the county’s entire transit budget.

The fixed charges explain why one percentage cannot describe the contract

The proposed amendment records three payment components. June’s extension increased the insurance charge per revenue hour from $2.93 to $3.08 and the monthly administration fee from $174,812.40 to $182,049.63, alongside the first revenue-hour increase. The new October proposal changes only the revenue-hour component; its insurance and administration charges remain unchanged.

The first variable-rate increase was 6.2%; the second is 10.0%. Adding the dollar changes and comparing endpoints yields $7.82 divided by $46.45, or 16.8%. Adding the two rounded percentages would give the wrong combined growth because the second increase uses a higher starting denominator.

The proposed ceiling rises from an implied $1,477,259 to the expressly stated $1,567,259. We calculate the earlier ceiling by subtracting the $90,000 increment from the new maximum. Because fixed fees do not increase in this amendment, a 10% change in one hourly component does not imply a 10% change in all contract payments. The packet does not include actual revenue hours, itemized invoices or a reconciliation proving how much of the added ceiling will ultimately be spent.

Retroactivity was contemplated before the wage negotiations ended

Public Works attributes the additional cost to union negotiations resulting in a higher wage. Its letter says June’s Amendment 2 expressly allowed a retroactive compensation increase in that event. The proposed amendment likewise describes the revision as contemplated by Amendment 2 and leaves other original provisions in force.

That is relevant counterevidence to any suggestion that retroactivity alone establishes a secret or unauthorized payment. It does not independently verify the collective-bargaining agreement, how the contractor distributes the increase among employees, or whether every invoiced hour is correct. The new county payment rate is the figure established by this record; individual wage gains are not.

The service-extension period ended September 30. The contractor signed the attached proposal October 2; Public Works and County Counsel signed their recommendation and form-approval portions October 5. In the reviewed packet, the board-chair execution line remains blank. The record therefore documents a proposed after-the-service-period reconciliation, not a completed payment or proof of the county’s transit arrangements after September.

A budget label needs the staff explanation beside it

The agenda and letter label the $90,000 fiscal impact not budgeted. Yet the letter also says the adopted fiscal 2026–27 budget included an allocation of appropriations in preparation for this request. Those statements should be reported together. The packet does not include the budget ledger needed to decide whether not-budgeted describes the contract authorization rather than the availability of appropriations, so we do not present the label alone as evidence that the county had no money set aside.

This is original public-record analysis of the staff letter, three-component contract terms and signature chronology. We checked every percentage against its own denominator and kept the union-negotiation explanation intact. As of October 15, the reviewed request-stage documents do not independently establish the final board action, paid amount, service performance or individual wage increase. They establish a 16.8% two-step change in a specific rate—and why the $90,000 headline cannot stand in for all of those other measures.