RES 89079 - Laserfiche WebLink

Paratransit Coordinating Council o While members of the Board of Directors were originally appointed by the Board of Supervisors, this practice has not been followed since 1980. As a result, there has been a lack of public accountability with a sense that the Board is self-appointed, with unlimited terms. o The PCC has been successful in establishing a process for reviewing grant proposals, in lobbying for the inclusion of paratransit funds in Measure B, and involving paratransit users in a public forum about paratransit services. o The present number of committees is fairly large and, in several cases, committees perform similar functions that could be combined. while a large number of committees may be desirable in a volunteer organization, the current relationship between the committees are not clear. o Problems facing the PCC include internal divisiveness, lack of a clear sense of purpose, and inadequate levels of staff support. RECOMMENDATIONS Four categories of recommendations have been made for implementation over the next five years in four major categories: o Structural and functional recommendations. o Policy recommendations for claiming both TDA 4.5 and Measure B funds. o Program recommendations at the zonal level. Individual program recommendations were also made but are not summarized in the Executive Summary. o A redefined role of the PCC and its relationship to the County. Structural The recommended five-year plan organizational strategy is the maintenance of paratransit service management by ten claim- ants in four zones, but with the County playing an important coordination role in such functional areas as planning and evaluation, quality assurance, and information and outreach. ES-7