Laserfiche WebLink
logical area to borrow these funds from is the Water Fund. This money wi~ come back <br />over time when all of the lots sell, but the true cost to the City is $35 million dollars, with <br />the total cost of the golf course at $40 million dollars. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iremonger pointed out that out of the 34 total lots, developer reimbursement <br />fees are owed to the City for the first 24 lots. He noted that about one-half of the 24 lots <br />are currently in escrow and there may not be the need for this loan. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern was not uncomfortable in authorizing a loan, she wanted have the <br />ability to track it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iremonger reemphasized that not only is there a nexus with the water that will <br />be used on this project, but also with the water improvements that were done for the <br />total project down Alisal Street and the water tank. <br /> <br /> Ms. McGovern pointed out that staff is also requesting authorization to use any <br />additional accrued interest in the golf course construction fund. <br /> <br /> Mr. Iremonger noted that as interest has been accruing, staff has only asked for <br />what has been needed for this project, which is why staff is requesting appropriating <br />$983,802 from additional interest earnings generated from the golf course construction <br />fund balance to give staff the ability to use the interest earnings as it is earned and only <br />if it is needed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan noted that staff provided an estimate of $500,000 to reorient the <br />driving range. He asked staff how these funds would be expended. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wilson said the first issue staff would be dealing with would be with the <br />property owner where the driving range would be relocated. If the reorientation of the <br />golf course were changed to pivot more towards the east, it would encroach property <br />owned by GE. The City would need to either acquire an easement or the property. He <br />noted that it has been difficult to work with GE in terms of trying to acquire any type of <br />right-of-way or easement. Staff has sent a letter to GE informing them of the possibility, <br />but a response has not been received from GE. Other costs that would be associated <br />with the reorientation of the driving range would be the removal of the poles, a fairly <br />large cost associated with the replacement of the irrigation system in a completely <br />different area, regrading of the land, and an issue with respect to the trail going through <br />the middle of an area where golfers would be hitting balls onto the driving range. In <br />addition to these costs, there would be concrete costs for the pads and design costs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Roush pointed out that there would be a potential for additional costs <br />associated with mitigation, as there are some streams located on the GE property and it <br />would need to be determined whether or not the City would need to amend its regulatory <br />permits and/or pay additional mitigation fees in order to address it. He believed the <br />estimated $500,000 costs to reorient the driving range is a conservative figure in terms <br />of the actual costs. <br /> <br /> Mr. Sullivan asked if staff had a sense of the cost split between construction <br /> related changes as compared to acquiring an easement, etc. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 17 03/15/05 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />