Laserfiche WebLink
166 <br /> <br /> So, the developers agreed to have the buyers of their homes pay for <br /> the difference in costs, should the State not pay the full amount <br /> expected. If this matter passed this evening, he suggested that <br /> staff weed out the backlogs and see what can be spread out in the <br /> future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver referred to a table on Appendix 3-1 and asked staff <br /> to point out which projects would not be built. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer explained that it had not been decided which <br /> one's were not going to be built. He knew of a few of the projects <br /> but was sure that staff was not aware of them. He added stated <br /> that there was a lot of flexibility left for future Council's. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that he would rather have staff eliminate <br /> the back logged units before approving the Growth Management Plan. <br /> Mr. Swift stated that there were 2,931 units that had some <br /> kind of approval whether that be in the past, the future or this <br /> year. There are approximately 1,100 units on back log not <br /> including 1992. <br /> <br /> There was general discussion by Council and staff on the <br /> number of projects allocated but not built and the number of units <br /> available for allocation in future years. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr pointed out that the 1,100 units are in back log and <br /> the remaining units are in the long term agreements. She asked if <br /> spring construction for 1992 was included in the figures presented <br /> tonight. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered that the tables were based on as of January <br /> i data. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the projects which were currently under <br /> construction were eliminated, how much of the number would drop. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that if the entire project was eliminated <br /> it drop down some. There are approximately 200 units under <br /> construction. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer stated that there are 300-400 projects under <br /> construction. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver still considered these back logs because the effect <br /> of what the occupancy of these units on the road, schools, water, <br /> etc. will be. He asked if there was a plant on line to be used for <br /> recycling water that will eliminate the need for sewage or add <br /> additional water to the supply. He then asked if there were any <br /> project approved through TWA that will give more sewage capacity in <br /> the short term. Mr. Tarver asked if there was a possibility for <br /> any further law suits from Contra Costa County on the Central <br /> Sanitary connection. <br /> <br /> 8/4/92 8 <br /> <br /> <br />