Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br /> <br /> ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA <br /> <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 96-13 1 <br /> <br /> A RESOLUTION FINDING THAT DEVELOPER <br /> COLLECTED PROJECT FUNDS AND SEWER FEES <br /> REMAIN UNEXPENDED BUT CITY REMAINS <br /> COMMITTED TO PARTICULAR PROJECTS <br /> <br />WHEREAS, Government Code §66001(d), effective January 1, 1989, requires the City <br /> to make fmdings once each fiscal year with respect to any portion of a fee <br /> remaining unexpended or uncommitted in its account five or more years <br /> after deposit of the fee, and to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be <br /> put and to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the <br /> purpose for which it was charged; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the development fccs collected between January 1, 1989 <br /> and June 30, 1991 to determine if any such development fees remain <br /> unexpcnded or uncommitted; and <br /> <br />WHEREAS, staff has found that there are six development impact fees collected from <br /> developers for this period and a portion of the sewer connection fees which <br /> remain unexpended. <br /> <br />NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLEASANTON <br />RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: <br /> <br />.Section 1: The City Council fmds as follows: <br /> <br /> A. There are six development impact fees remaining uncxpended but <br /> these fees are committed to projects identified in subsection D that <br /> will implement goals and objectives of the City's General Plan; <br /> <br /> B. The City's objective to mitigate the impacts caused by the <br /> development of residential, commercial, and industrial land will be <br /> assisted by the construction of these six projects; <br /> <br /> C. There is a reasonable relationship between the purpose of each of the <br /> developer fees and the purpose for which it is charged and <br /> committed as stated below. <br /> <br /> <br />