CCMIN012098 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Tarver asked what figure was used for the residual value? Ms. Belzer said $70,000 per acre. Mayor Tarver asked what would happen if the residual value was $70,000 and 10% of the residual value was lost, making it $63,000. Would this affect the total infrastructure costs needed to obtain an economically feasible project? Ms. Belzer said with the 200 units, the infrastructure could still be carried. Mr. Pico said the difference is six units, with a swing in the percentage of high price versus low price units. Mayor Tarver had a concern with the number of units the infrastructure was being spread over. Ms. Belzer said the equivalent dwelling units were based on water consumption. Mr. Pico said it was not the number of units that needed to be built to support the infrastructure but the amount of water used. Mr. Rasmussen said for the golf course project (in south Pleasanton), staff assumed that the city could authorize six to ten additional parcels and the revenues gained from those sales would go back to the city. In the Vineyard Avenue situation, the city is not getting the proceeds from the sale of the lots. Mayor Tarver asked what the significance would be of reducing the residual land value to the infrastructure costs as a feasible alternative. Ms. Belzer said if the residual land value were reduced it would enhance the feasibility of the scenario with fewer units. The residual land values are set by the market and that is the benchmark that any developer would use to determine whether or not to move forward with a project. Mayor Tarver asked what the eity's cost sharing amount would be to get a feasible alternative? Ms. Belzer said the total infrastructure costs would be: Alternative 1 - $2,807,300; Alternative 2 - $2,577,400; Alternative 3 - $2,798,500; and Alternative 4 - 0. A break down of these alternatives is shown in Table 2 of the report. There would be additional costs for schools and parks. Pleasanton City Council 1/20/98 Minutes 14