CCMIN100201 - Laserfiche WebLink

01-106, postponing the annexation election from October 11, 2001 to March 2002; and direct staff to review alternative annexation plans and costs. Mr. Campbell referred to Mr. Howell's suggestion about giving residents additional incentives. He requested additional information on bringing the sewer and water lines to the houses. Mr. Lum said the arrangement made with the Happy Valley developers is that they are willing to construct the public water and sewer mains and laterals to the property lines at no expense to the property owners. The property owners would then be responsible for the connection fees, which are about $21,000, and about $5,000 of on-site costs. That includes the cost of the laterals from the property lines and abandonment of wells or septic systems. Ms. McKeehan indicated that for over a hundred homes that is about $2.5 million. Staff has reviewed these costs before and can bring information back to Council. The original idea was that to bring water and sewer to the property line was a significant expense and incentive. Ms. Michelotti indicated that is why she wanted to confirm that commitment from the developers. She was very uncomfortable about the amount of money spent so far on this project. The City has spent $4.3 million to date with no golf course yet. She considered the necessity to balance all the capital improvement projects for the entire City. There was commitment for the Aquatic Center and the City went forward with that project. There has been a commitment for the golf course and the City has spent $2.5 million and now we are trying to finalize the plan to allow final evaluation. She was very uncomfortable about this. There has still not been consideration of the bonding for $11.5 million for the golf course. Her other concerns were the annexation of Happy Valley, whether or not there will be a bypass road or a means of getting to the golf course, etc. With regard to the water and sewer lines, it was the developers who came forward with the proposal to provide that. She agreed with the suggestion to look at other road alternatives to the golf course. She said she reluctantly supported the motion, but felt the City had to justify all the costs of this. Ms. Ayala pointed out that when other properties were annexed to the City, the City has never provided connections to the houses. Ms. McKeehan indicated development generally happens in a linear fashion and adding sewer and water lines to the next property is usually not that expensive. Taking the lines all the way to the south side of town is what is driving the costs up. Ms. Michelotti stated that infrastructure costs usually have reimbursement agreements involved. The bypass road was to be funded in large part by developers in that area. Ms. McKeehan referred to a comment that the City would go to the voters for a bond measure. She said that was not correct. The bond is to be repaid from the revenue expected to be received from the golf course. A City facility is put up as collateral, like a mortgage. There is no payment that will appear on anyone's tax bill. Pleasanton City Council 20 10/02/01 Minutes