My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN120605
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2005
>
CCMIN120605
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:42 AM
Creation date
12/1/2005 2:15:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/6/2005
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN120605
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />Ms. McGovern asked who the property owners/developers were, besides the City, that <br />would be repaid with the Specific Plan fees? <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said the developers of the Vista Diablo subdivision to the west of the existing <br />Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan area have made infrastructure improvements and are <br />entitled to be reimbursed. Greenbriar Homes is entitled to reimbursement as are a number of <br />developers who have contributed to the design and other soft costs associated with. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern said she was trying to gain an understanding of the total amount of <br />reimbursement that is due to each developer while making sure the City did not incur any more <br />additional costs, as the staff report indicates the City has fronted approximately $3 million <br />dollars from non-Specific Plan sources and the water system improvements are estimated to <br />cost $5 million. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said the $3 million represents what the City has fronted for the roadway and <br />sewer improvements. The water system improvements are now estimated to cost $5 million. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern believed the City could possibly have to front $8 million and wait for it to <br />be reimbursed. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said that was correct. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked if the water system improvements are needed if Neal Elementary <br />School is not built. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said yes. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked how the City could avoid fronting the extra $5 million dollars? <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said the Specific Plan contemplated the City would front the costs associated <br />with the water improvements when the Plan was first approved. The Financing Plan estimated <br />the water improvements would only cost approximately $1.5 million dollars but, as Council has <br />seen with respect to other CIP projects by virtue of refining estimates, the costs have increased. <br />The funds are available from the Water Expansion Fund. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern wanted to see a list of the actual costs and who would be reimbursed. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said staff would include this information in a separate report to Council. He <br />wanted to alert Council that the reimbursement revisions needed to be reviewed because at the <br />time the Financing Plan was first adopted; the City was not going to be the funding developer <br />except with respect to the water improvements. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman clarified that staff did not want Council to discuss this evening the <br />order of repayment to the City as a funding developer? <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said that was correct. If Council is interested in looking at further revisions to <br />the Financing Program with respect to where the City stands in line for repayment, staff would <br />return to Council at a later time which would give staff the opportunity to identify how much <br />money was available and who needed to be reimbursed. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />12/06/05 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.