My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:153
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:153
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/16/2006 11:34:38 AM
Creation date
6/16/2006 11:18:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/20/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:153
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />years of this CIP from In Lieu Park Dedication Fees, Public Facility Fee and traffic fees. This <br />amount is $3,553,901 more than was projected for the same three years in the current CIP. It <br />must be remembered that the above fee amounts are based on projections and, as a result, are <br />subject to change. To insulate the CIP from fluctuations in these fees, as approved in the 2004- <br />2005 Mid-Term CIP, development fee revenue collected in the current calendar year will be <br />included in funding projections for the subsequent fiscal year. Development revenues for FY <br />2006-07 are collected in calendar year 2005. <br /> <br />CIP Expenditures <br /> <br />As indicated previously, with the exception of establishment of the CIPR, the CIP includes three <br />new projects. Table VIII on page 76 of the Mid-Term CIP details expenditure changes. <br /> <br />Review by City Commissions <br /> <br />As part of the Mid-Term CIP process, staff solicited input from all City commissions regarding <br />the status of currently funded projects. However, as a result of the focus on creating the CIPR, <br />funding the high priority projects, and the fact that the Mid-Term is not intended to significantly <br />alter the approved CIP, staff did not request Commissions reprioritize or alter the listing of <br />funded projects. Rather staff was more interested in receiving any general comments and <br />concerns about the Council priorities for funding the five projects detailed above. All <br />commissions expressed general approval with the approach and projects included in the CIP. <br />Specific comments from commissions are included on page 78 of the CIP. <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br /> <br />The financial impact of the report is outlined in the Mid-Term Budget. <br /> <br />Respectfully Submitted, <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~~-- <br /> <br />David P. Culver <br />Director of Finance <br /> <br />Nelson Fialho <br />City Manager <br /> <br />SR06:153 <br />Page 7 of7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.