CCMIN111505 - Laserfiche WebLink

would know what the likelihood would be that it would receive funds back; however, there is no guarantee that any Pleasanton's contribution would be returned to the City. Ms. Rossi reiterated that under the old scenario, the City's contribution was tied up for 17 years and potentially the City would receive its money back but the reality was the City would get next to nothing back. In this scenario, the City would be contributing money and would only be involved for seven years, and it has the potential to receive its money back. If the City did not receive any of its contribution back, it would not be any worse off than it would under the old scenario; however under the new scenario, the contributions are defined and the City ceases its contributions sooner. Staff believed the new scenario was a better deal for the City than the prior one. When staff reviewed the pro-forma with BART officials, Mr. Fialho said a portion of the revenue that was generated from the site would go towards debt service. BART staff ran two sensitivity analysis, one at a hundred percent projections and one at fifty percent and even at fifty percent, there was no indication that it would be touching the reserves established by Dublin, Pleasanton and the County. Mr. Brozosky shared the same concern Mayor Hosterman expressed with regard to charging for parking. If parking fees were charged, he was convinced that people would park at the Mall in order to avoid a charge and he did not want the City's Police Department personnel to have to monitor the Mall parking lot. Ms. McGovern asked if the Tri-Valley Transportation Fee could be used to provide additional parking spaces at the current BART station? She believed many people in this community would be in favor of additional parking at the current station by perhaps building a parking structure than possibly supporting another BART station. Mr. Fialho did not believe the Tri-Valley Transportation Fee could be used to provide additional parking. His understanding of how this money could be used was for local transportation improvements and the City could drive how it wanted to utilize this money; it could be used locally or regionally as a local match for the City of Pleasanton. Ms. McGovern did not believe the amount of development that would occur in the Tri- Valley was being brought into consideration and what it would look like in the year 2025. She was astounded by the amount of growth that was occurring in this area particularly as Pleasanton is close to build out. Her major concern was regarding the inadequate amount of parking and she believed more residents would ride BART if sufficient parking were available. BART officials have not addressed the issue at the existing BART Station and she did not believe it was fair to charge for parking in order to allow someone to be guaranteed a parking space, which does not solve the problem. She asked if notification to City staff if BART was to use any of Pleasanton's contribution was included in the MOU? Mr. Fialho said he and the Dublin City Manager have discussed a definition of how that money could be used both from an operating and debt service standpoint and included in the MOU so that the perimeters are well defined. Ms. McGovern strongly believed the fully executed MOU should adequately define operating expenses and revenue from the Station, and the reserve established by the Cities of Dublin and Pleasanton and the County of Alameda should only be used as a last option for Pleasanton City Council Minutes 24 11/1 5/05