My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:152 (3)
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:152 (3)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2006 3:56:14 PM
Creation date
9/14/2006 3:55:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
9/19/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:152
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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 />Certainly, in the near term, the Council could determine to fund the remaining water facilities <br />in the VCSP area by an additional loan from the Water Replacement Fund. Money is <br />available in that Fund and could be used for that purpose. <br /> <br />An alternative to pay for the over-sizing costs to the water facilities (currently estimated to be <br />$1.5 million of the $8.5 million) would be to increase at this time, the water rates for large <br />consumers of water within the Ruby Hill area. Part of the reason why the reservoir needed to <br />be increased from one million gallons to 1.4 million gallons is the high demand put on the <br />existing tanks that serve Ruby Hill. Requiring those residents who choose to use significant <br />water to pay a higher rate and applying those dollars to pay for the over-sizing of water <br />facilities would be an effective funding source. Another option for consideration would be to <br />increase the water rates for all water users within the VSCP area served by the new facilities <br />in order to offset the cost escalation of these facilities. Yet another option would be to create <br />a fourth tier water rate for high consumers of water throughout the City. This would be most <br />appropriate, as the primary reason for the additional capacity is the result of higher than <br />forecasted water consumption, a trend that is common in areas of town with large lots. <br /> <br />Council is not being asked to decide these funding issues at this time, but should recognize <br />that by proceeding with the award of this contract for the reservoir, it necessarily will need to <br />award contracts or enter into agreements for the remaining water facilities (pump station, <br />turnout and completion of the tank access road). In that there is not currently funding <br />available for those remaining facilities (other than by a loan from the Water Replacement <br />Fund), when these other matters are brought before Council for approval, staff will <br />recommend the most appropriate funding vehicle or vehicles for the remaining facilities. <br /> <br />CONCLUSION <br /> <br />In conclusion, staff is recommending, because of the significant annual current escalation in <br />heavy construction bid prices, the twelve to fourteen month construction cycle for the <br />reservoir and the critical need for the reservoir, that City Council approve the <br />recommendations within this staff report to proceed with water reservoir construction. <br />However, also included as part of Council's actions is directing staff to bring back a financing <br />plan or strategy such as discussed within this report to complete all facilities planned for and <br />needed within the VCSP area and adjacent areas. <br /> <br />SR 06:152 <br />Page 12 of I3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.