CCMIN080795 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Acosta stated that for perspective, citizens should look at a general obligation bond approach rather than a parcel tax. If they look at their property taxes and see the amount they are being charged for the school bond issue ($86,000,000) a general obligation bond of $100,000,000 would be somewhat more. A parcel tax is where there would be a flat amount on each parcel. A general obligation bond can take 20-30 years to pay and takes 2/3 of the community to vote for it. Ms. Dennis stated since this is watershed land and Zone 7 is concerned about the impacts of this proposal for servicing, was there any way to involve them in the discussion. Because Zone 7's district has a greater population, spreading the costs to people outside the City who get the benefit of having a good quality in the ground water basin might be worth exploring. Ms. Acosta stated Zone 7 has expressed comments as a pan of the process; however the further you get away from the property and the more people you add, the less impact it has for those people and they may not be as interested in paying for it. Ms. Dennis stated that there is a lot of concern about servicing this property and the impacts of that. While the City would like to annex the property to plan it, Alameda County would like the City to annex the property after they plan it and have us service it. After the plan is presented the City might ask the residents of Pleasanton if they would like the City to service the plan. After the planning process is complete, the question will be should we service it or should we protect ourselves from it. Mr. Pico stated that there will be an opportunity for the people of Pleasanton to vote on this. He stated the people of Pleasanton are not without leverage in this transaction. He stated that we are continuing to negotiate from strength, as are Alameda County and San Francisco. That is why the issue seems to be at a stalemate. He felt that the city needs to be sure not to give up its leverage in this process. Ms. Dennis stated that there was interest by the public to be educated on this matter and she would like to focus on the feasibility of the plan as far as what the County is proposing so that we understand what the impacts are and how it works. She stated that the County has not done a fiscal analysis and it might be an area for the City to focus on to gain credibility as far as what the County should or shouldn't put on the site. Ms. Michelotti felt that the City would not come to a consensus plan and be willing to service the site if the City didn't buy in to it. Unless the City comes to the table in good faith, it won't build trust between the entities. Mayor Tarver stated that if the City comes to the table in a joint process, the end result is that the City doesn't have to accept the proposal. The City doesn't have to annex the property. It would then be up to the County to service it and develop it. The problem is developing the process that gets the City faith in the process; that gets the end result that all entities want. All entities have to commit to a process that yields a plan that can be approved 08/07/95 -12-