Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Paratransit Cost Sharing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee endorses paratransit cost-sharing language, presses MTA and BART for study by June 30, 2012
Summary
The Budget and Finance Committee agreed to amendments requiring the SFMTA and BART to complete a paratransit cost-allocation and administrative-fee study by June 30, 2012, and to memorialize retroactivity; members sought stronger Board oversight of any future fiscal impacts.
The Budget and Finance Committee on Tuesday negotiated new language to a proposed paratransit cost-sharing agreement between the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District, pressing the agencies to complete a study of cost allocation and administrative fees by June 30, 2012.
Annette Williams, Accessible Services Manager for the SFMTA, described the long-running arrangement to provide paratransit service to riders unable to use fixed-route service and said the agencies have agreed to commission a new allocation study. "We have agreed with BART to do a new cost sharing study because it hasn't been done since 1994," Williams said, adding that BART previously paid 8.8% of costs and the new agreement includes a 5% administrative fee to cover SFMTA oversight.
Budget Analyst Mr. Rose told the committee the agreement, as submitted, does not legally require that study and warned the Board could lose oversight of future fiscal impacts. "If there is no study done... there is no incentive for BART to continue to pay the 5% administrative costs unless it's built right into this agreement," Mr. Rose said, urging amendments that would make the study deadline and retroactivity explicit and require the Board's approval for any early changes with out-of-pocket city costs.
Committee chair Carmen Chu said the changes were reasonable and that staff should work with the City Attorney to draft language reflecting a June 30, 2012 study deadline and retroactive application. Williams told the committee the agencies expect to hire Nelson ygaard as the consultant to perform the analysis and can return with either a report or formal amendment depending on the committee's preference.
Members noted the administrative fee is small in absolute terms—"probably more like $10,000 in any given year," Chu said—but argued the Board should retain fiscal oversight if the study finds a different long-term allocation. The committee agreed to take the budget analyst's recommended retroactivity amendment and to ask staff to memorialize the study commitment in the resolution before formal action, and the item was held to allow City Attorney edits.
Next steps: the committee asked the SFMTA to work with the City Attorney to update the resolution language and to return with the study results or a formal amendment once the NelsonNygaard analysis is complete.
