CCMIN120605 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Mr. Thorne, Mr. Fialho indicated there are a few properties that are included in the General Plan and the question as to who pays for these properties is open. These sites include: (1) a site in the quarry area that is contemplated for a community park; (2) a site located off Vineyard Avenue whereby it is not clear to staff whether the City would have any obligation in the purchase of this property; and (3) the property adjacent to the Vervais property that at some point council might want to purchase. When staff drafted the Impact Development Fee Report, Council established a policy that required Park In-Lieu Fee Funds would only be used for acquisition of land; however, State laws allow cities to use Park In-Lieu Fee Funds for acquisition and development of a property. If Council chose to expand the definition at some point and be flexible in terms of how it utilizes this money, it would modify its existing policy. Mr. Brozosky believed the CIP Reserve set an expectation to those involved in working on a project as to what the Council would support. He asked if staff would be returning to Council with cost estimates and work with the Council to establish a level of comfort as it related to the budget for each project? Mr. Fialho said the CIP Reserve Funds are set and staff has a tendency to engineer and plan for whatever is currently available and often the projects exceed that amount in terms of what the estimated costs are associated with each project. He emphatically stated that Council would control the CIP Reserve in terms of how it was programmed and ultimately utilized. The concept behind establishing one Capital Improvement Reserve account is Council would first masterplan the project and hold a discussion and debate through a workshop to determine the size and scope of the project and once Council has determined this, only then does it fund a project. He believed this approach was more fiscally responsible and a conservative way of managing the CIP. Mr. Brozosky believed the CIP Reserve Funds established some type of expectation and when the amounts are exceeded, Council has an opportunity to discuss it. As it pertained to large projects, Mr. Bocian believed the process needed to include determining the community needs to complete a project, which often times Council determines it cannot meet all of these needs and will need to downsize a project. Mayor Hosterman invited public comments. Kevin Close, a Happy Valley resident, expressed concern related to the prioritization of a project and Council subsequently changing its priority because insufficient funding was available as opposed to slowly building a reserve for a project in the future. He provided the example of the bypass road, which would take substantially more funding to complete this project than what is currently available in the Reserve account. He believed the bypass road project could cover the entire spectrum of the CIP proposed categories. Debbie Look, Chair of the Pleasanton Library Commission, presented a letter to Council that outlined the impacts the proposed policy would have on the Library and its planned expansion or rebuilding of the Library. The Library Commission believed the replacement of the Library needed to be recognized as a high priority. Under the proposed CIP priority categories, as noted on page five of the staff report, an expanded library is suggested as being a Priority Pleasanton City Council Minutes 10 12/06/05