CCMIN111505 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Reynolds said in looking at the financing of this significant capital investment for this station and in looking at the revenue sources besides ridership and private development and in looking to reduce both the amount of bonds that need to be issued as well the revenue that is generated, charge for parking is a component of this feasibility assessment. Mayor Hosterman asked if the parking fee was a new component? Mr. Reynolds said no. He reiterated that the Board of Directors is considering on a strategic and incremental basis to charge for parking which could not be implemented system- wide immediately. Relative to this specific project, there has been from the outset consideration of a nominal charge for parking. Mayor Hosterman asked if the MOU included this language? Mr. Fialho said yes and the language is located on page one of the MOU which states, "BART is planning on using some combination of fare box revenue generated from the Station, fare surcharges and parking charges from the parking garages and/or other sources subsequently identified (the "BART Revenues"), as well as the prepaid ground lease to complete the financing package." Mayor Hosterman mentioned that ridership has decreased and the cost to ride BART continues to increase. She asked how the City could encourage the community to use public transit? Mr. Reynolds said people should be encouraged to use public transit because it is the right thing to do and it is environmentally correct; it is a quality of life issue without auto dependency. The Board of Directors and its executive management is sensitive to the elasticity of ridership and cost and ensuring that there is value added to the patrons and incentive to take public transportation. Any time the Board of Directors considers increasing the fees for ridership or charging for parking, it takes it seriously and it is with the respect that there is a finite amount of money that a person can afford to pay on a daily basis to get to work. Unless BART started to look like other mass transit agencies in this country and offer dependable, fast, clean, and safe service for a reasonable price, Mayor Hosterman believed BART would continue to struggle. Mr. Reynolds pointed out that BART was recently rated as the number one transit agency in the Country by the American Public Transit Agency. Mr. Brozosky believed many people do not believe the problem with BART was insufficient revenue; it is the expense of the recent labor negotiations. He recalled when the proposal for a second BART station was first presented to a prior Council, there was nothing located on that piece of property and there was discussion about constructing a second station with commercial development. At that time, BART asked Council to consider waiving the property tax fees in exchange for so many years so that the development could be done, which was at no cost to the City and an opportunity for an unused piece of land. Something similar was done when Stoneridge Mall was constructed and the City exchanged sales tax revenue for paying off the bond indebtedness for the infrastructure, which he believed was beneficial for the City. He also believed the proposed Financing Agreement was a better deal for the City and if Council was indifferent about the second BART station, the existing MOU was better because it Pleasanton City Council Minutes 22 11/1 5/05