CCMIN081605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Roush believed that what Ms. McGovern was requesting was that if the Plant were not relocated by December 2009, Council would either be sitting on $562,500 or $500,000 that was otherwise going to be used for relocation costs. If that relocation has not occurred, Council at that time could decide where and how the $562,500 or the $500,000 could be used. If the waiver is approved, Ms. McGovern asked if the $562,500 would be set aside and used specifically for relocating the Asphalt Plant and the $500,000 could be spent automatically? Mr. Roush said that was correct and noted that Centex Homes would spend the $500,000 on energy efficient improvements within its homes, which he anticipated would occur by summer of 2006. If the waiver was not approved by January 2006, Ms. McGovern asked if the City would retain the $500,000 and set it aside until 2009 to make sure that is there to be used specifically to relocate the Plant. Mr. Fialho said that was correct. Mr. Sullivan believed the proposed amendment to paragraph six of the Centex Agreement was essentially the same condition as proposed by staff with the exception of the change in date and if the Williamson Act was not waived, it would be decided at a later time how these funds would be spent versus energy efficiency projects in the City someplace. Mr. Fialho confirmed Mr. Sullivan's statement and noted that was the primary distinction. The assumption in the staff report is that if the City lost the option to relocate the asphalt plant in 2009, the $562,500 or the $500,000 would be dedicated to energy efficiency projects. The proposed amendment is suggesting that the City Council at that time would determine how the Centex donation should be used. If the Williamson Act was waived, Mr. Sullivan asked if it changed the $500,000 that would be spent immediately for energy efficiencies. Mr. Roush said that was correct. Mr. Sullivan mentioned a partnership between Centex Homes and Power Light to have a zero net energy home development in Tract 7385. He noted that a state grant has been provided but it primarily provides funding for marketing, education and monitoring systems. Mayor Hosterman invited public comments. Written communication was submitted to Council from Mary Roberts, a Pleasanton resident, who expressed her concern about a loophole wherein some future energy efficient project could take precedence over the asphalt plant's removal. The ability to use the funds for other projects throughout the city is not something she agreed to as an impacted neighbor. She requested Council to reword the agreement in such a way that the City would retain any donation from Centex Homes until the plant is removed. Mayor Hosterman closed the public comments. Pleasanton City Council 22 08/16/05 Minutes