Laserfiche WebLink
6e <br /> Authorization to submit FY 2005/06 applications for Alameda County Measure B funds and <br /> Transportation and Development (TDA) Article 4.5 funds for Pleasanton Paratransit Service (SR <br /> 05:095) <br /> <br /> Jim Wolfe, Director of Parks and Community Services, presented the staff report and indicated that <br /> that this item is an annual grant that the City is allowed to submit applications for TDA and Alameda <br /> County Measure B funds. As indicated in the staff report, this is a specific allocation that the City is entitled <br /> to request. The majority of the funds for the Paratransit Program is through the General Fund and a <br /> portion through fares. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky noticed that the City of Pleasanton is heavily subsidizing the Paratransit Program. <br /> He also noticed that the City is providing these services to Sunol residents and he asked staff to provide <br /> an explanation. <br /> <br /> Eileen Morley, Community Services Manager, stated since the early 1980's, the City has been <br /> mandated to provide paratransit services in exchange for receiving County Measure B and TDA funds. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked why the Livermore Amador Valley Transportation Agency (LAVTA) could not <br /> provide these services since LAVTA is currently providing paratransit services for Livermore, Dublin and <br /> the unincorporated areas in Alameda County, which is why he believed they were receiving some of the <br /> Measure B funds. <br /> <br /> Ms. Morley stated that LAVTA is receiving Measure B funds for servicing the Livermore, Dublin and <br /> unincorporated areas of these two communities. Since the early 1980's, the agreement with the County <br />- - has been that Pleasanton provides paratransit services to the residents in the Sunol, Pleasanton and the <br /> unincorporated areas because of its adjacencies. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked for the current amount of Sunol riders? <br /> <br /> Ms. Morley said it depended upon the time of year. Ms. Morley stated that one-third of the City's <br /> clients reside in the unincorporated areas of Pleasanton and because there are infield projects in <br /> Pleasanton that are not City tax based services, such as along the Vineyard Corridor or Happy Valley <br /> Road. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked if these areas where within Pleasanton. <br /> <br /> Ms. Morley responded that there was a small portion of land that was not within the City limits. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky pointed out that the cost to provide these services was approximately $892 per client, <br /> per year. He believed this was a significant cost since the ride is $24, which is more than the cost for a <br /> taxi. He noted that County Measure B funds are paying a small percentage of the costs for the paratransit <br /> services, and since the City's General Fund is paying for the majority of these services, he wondered if the <br /> City was allowed to set the fee rates. <br /> <br /> Ms. Morley said the fees are set by the City, and in 1997, a re-engineering program was conducted <br /> and presented to Council. At that time, there was a fare box recovery proposal that was to be increased <br /> on a bi-annual basis. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky believed that the City should consider the cost differences in providing this service to <br /> Sunol residents, and the possibility of charging a higher percentage since the City is not generating tax <br /> <br /> Pleasanton City Council 17 04/19/05 <br /> Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />