CCMIN091603 - Laserfiche WebLink

would be less expensive for the Happy l&/ley res/dents and knowing that, what would be the incentive for them to join the city? Ed Johnson, 327 Linden Way, was glad a policy would be implemented for sewer and water hookup outside the City limits. He had a problem with the amount of money proposed to be charged. There are problems associated with this because when you hookup for sewer and water, you must bring the pipeline to you, as there is no pipeline running to the property. This is at a great expense and then a property owner has to pay the hookup fee at another great expense. He felt Council was penalizing him for where he lived and believed Council had two opportunities to annex the area where he lived into the City limits. He respectfully asked Council to review the matter at the same time it reviewed the fees charged for water and sewer hookup. Vince Barletta, 6290 Laura Lane, concurred with the previous speakers' comments and raised the question whether it is fair to charge the people who do not reside in the city these fees without enjoying all the benefits the City has to offer for the same price of those who reside in the City. He drew the Council's attention to the staff report and noted what concerned him were comments in the staffreport that mentioned this fee could be extended to developed property in Happy Valley. He asked if this would apply to the Vineyard Corridor? What would happen if someone decided to develop a granny unit or remodel? The fee may not cover this immediately. He believed the fee to be unaffordable. Kevin Close, 871 Sycamore Road, concurred with the previous speakers' comments. He spoke in strong opposition to the proposed fees and stated that he could not afford it and could not even work it into the cost if he chose to rebuild his house. Mr. Wilson stated that the matter before Council is a discussion regarding the policy concerning fees. The first question asked was whether this policy applied to developed and undeveloped lots. The intent would be similar to houses constructed in Pleasanton that are subject to a development impact fee. If the house is already in place, the impacts are already there. The policy is intended for undeveloped lots. Development impact fees are only intended to cover use of city facilities. As the County fees are raised, this fee could be based a differential and adjusted accordingly. The fee would be based on the differential between whatever the City and County fees were at the time the connection fee is paid or it could be set at a certain amount. The County is looking at alternative systems to hook up to water, specifically in Happy Valley. Staff is aware of one development, which is on Happy Valley Road, where the County is seriously considering a septic tank system. There are some disincentives by applying a fee that could push people into not wanting to hook up to City water and sewer, especially coupled with an additional fee that would be imposed. The cost of using septic tanks is getting to be very expensive. Because of the expense it then becomes an economic decision whether to hook up to City sewer and water or continue using water out of wells and using septic tanks. Staff is trying not to create a situation where there is too much of a disincentive to hook up. Pleasanton City Council 21 09/16/03 Minutes