Laserfiche WebLink
2 <br /> <br />2. Can you outline staff’s basis for a change their recommendation from the $1M Vehicle <br />Impact Mitigation Fee initially presented to the now recommended $1,329,400 Vehicle <br />Impact Mitigation Fee? <br />A. The initial $1M recommendation that was brought to the subcommittee for <br />discussion was adjusted after feedback and discussion with subcommittee <br />members. The increased amount of $1.329M reflects the additional Vehicle <br />Impact Fee that could be included while maintaining an overall recommended <br />rate increase of 3.9%, which is consistent with the Consumer Price Index (CPI). <br /> <br />3. I’d like to understand how much of the $2,909,800 calculated potential Vehicle Impact <br />Mitigation Fee is currently being funded via General Fund dollars vs Grants received by <br />the City – I think we discussed at the Subcommittee the General Fund impact was <br />~$780k annually? <br />A. There is no direct General Fund funding included in the $2.9M VIF. The <br />additional $1.3M + from garbage vehicle impact fees will help cover the identified <br />shortfall for the resurfacing program to maintain the current Paving Condition <br />Index (PCI). Below is a screenshot of project funding for this year resurfacing <br />project. <br /> <br /> <br />Agenda Item #10 Public Service Easement at 870 St. John Court <br />4. Confirmation of whether there is a mapping error, not an additional potential trail access <br />point to the creek trail at this location? <br />A. The public service easement (PSE) proposed for vacation was dedicated to the <br />City across 870 Saint John Court for utility purposes, not trail access purposes. <br />The dedication language states in part, "...the undersigned does hereby dedicate <br />to the public forever a public service easement for the installation and <br />maintenance of all public utilities..." Currently, no utilities exist within the <br />easement, and the City's utility purveyors (PG&E, AT&T, Comcast, and others) <br />confirmed no plan for future utilities. Staff suspect that the easement was <br />created for a storm drainpipe discharge into Arroyo del Valle, but a storm pipe <br />was instead installed within Parcel A, the HOA common area parcel between 772