Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Brozosky noted that the City has been collecting funds from downtown merchants <br />and asked if these funds would be directed to the improvements. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian said these funds were not included in the funding balance for the Downtown <br />Parking Improvements. <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho believed Mr. Brozosky was referring to Park-In-Lieu fees, which are deposited <br />into a separate fund to help offset some parking impacts in downtown proper. The funding <br />reserve for the Downtown Parking Improvement project is money that staff has set aside over <br />time to acquire the Corridor which is a separate pot of money. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky asked if the Park-In-Lieu funds could be used for improvements to the <br />Transportation Corridor? <br /> <br /> Mr. Fialho said yes. Once funds are coupled together there is approximately $4 million <br />dollars set aside for acquisition of the Transportation Corridor. The debate will be the purchase <br />price programmed with the improvements, which has not been contemplated. Acquisition of the <br />Transportation Corridor would occur in approximately two years and improvements two years <br />beyond. At this point, he believed it would be premature to set aside funding for these <br />improvements. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky noted that the Aquatics Center Expansion project was included in the CIP <br />but not included on the Council's Priority List. He asked staff for an explanation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian said the Aquatics Center Expansion project has been funded for many years <br />and was a CIP project that was created after the upgrade of the Center. Staff realized before <br />doing this project that the City could not afford or pay for everything that was needed at that <br />time; therefore, staff has been trying to build a reserve fund for this project. The reserve fund is <br />intended to do three things: (1) replace the decks as they are showing signs of significant wear; <br />(2) separation of the water filtration system so that no pools filtrate through the same system as <br />required by Alameda County Health Agency by rebuilding the pump house where the equipment <br />is located; and (3) an additional pool for small children. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky noted that when the Planning Commission considered this project, it made <br />some findings related to the CIP to make sure it was consistent with the General Plan. He <br />recalled that the Commission approved this project; however, expressed a concern, which it <br />wanted relayed to Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian seemed to recall that the Planning Commission had concerns related to the <br />Gingerbread Preschool Playground Renovation and Equipment project but not the Aquatic <br />Center. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky clarified that the Planning Commission had some concerns related to the <br />CIP in general. <br /> <br /> Mr. Bocian recalled that the Human Services Commission believed the projects should <br /> be funded at this time. Staff has indicated that it would be considering these projects in the <br /> upcoming year, as it believes that improvements will need to be made, particularly to the <br /> Gingerbread play area and parking areas. <br /> <br /> Pleasanton City Council 27 06/21/05 <br /> Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />