CCMIN020304 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Iremonger pointed out that the staff report indicated there was 10 months let~ of construction. Staffis hoping to keep the costs down, but there is always the possibility with the clubhouse construction just begirming that there could be additional expenses. Ms. Ayala noted her frustration as the project began with $16 million dollars and since that time, has increased to $38 million dollars. It seemed that most of the City's projects were going in this direction and doubling in cost. Ms. McKeehan noted that staffhas a number of ideas that it wants to discuss with Council in terms of how projects are moved forward. She pointed out that the scope of most projects changes dramatically from the first time an estimate is provided. She noted that the Golf Course is a good example of how a project is anticipated to begin, and through the planning process a number of changes are made. She pointed out that there was a great deal of interest in proceeding with the golf course as quickly as possible. If the City had taken a few more years to finalized the plans and have more detailed estimates, the projected cost would have been closer to what the actual cost is today, with the exception of some of the in-field changes that staff has identified. Ms. Ayala mentioned that Council was advised at one time that the City could pay for its share of the bypass road by creating 10 additional lots. She wondered what happened to that. Ms. McKeehan said the City allowed the property owners to move forward with the 10 lots, and it was anticipated that $2 million dollars from those lots would get worked into the Golf Course. Mayor Pico wanted clarification as to whether the City acquired title to the 10 lots. Ms. McKeehan said the City did not. Ms. Ayala asked for the monetary value that the City received from the 10 lots. Ms. McKeehan said that the City did not gain value from the 10 lots specifically. The City purchased land to develop the golf course and the lots were part of the economic mix in making this happen. Mr. Iremonger mentioned that the 10 lots were part of the compensation for the land. Originally, these were going to be $7.2 million dollar bond issue for the construction of the golf course, and the second bond issue to pay $3.6 million dollars to the core property owners. At a certain point, it was decided that it made more sense for the City not to develop the 10 lots but to allow the property owners the entitlement to develop the lots in exchange for getting rid of the $3.6 million dollars additional bond issue. Pleasanton City Council 10 02/03/04 Minutes