CCMIN120605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Hosterman asked if Council changed the existing financing problems would it be changing the amount of time that it would take for the City to be reimbursed? Mr. Roush said yes but any unpaid amount would accrue interest at the percentage rate that was established in the Financing Plan. In addition to the property owners, Ms. McGovern asked if there were any developers that owed the City money for any of the infrastructure improvements that the City is currently carrying? Mr. Roush said there is an outstanding issue with Signature Properties concerning what is owed for its fair share of the roadway improvements, which is a significant portion of the $3 million dollars. Mayor Hosterman invited public comments. Steve Brozosky, a Pleasanton resident, supported Option 2 or 3 as outlined in the staff report but preferred Option 3. He outlined the pros and cons of the three options and believed the current Financing Plan did an adequate job of addressing larger subdivisions. He presented the argument that the City could possibly be reimbursed earlier by going with Option 2 rather than Option 1. He noted the City is a developer in this area and has a community park that fits in with the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan; the School District and Signature Properties are also major contributors. The School District is responsible for 11 percent of the water fees and 40 percent of the roadway for the proposed Neal Elementary School. The City is responsible for the community park and 30 percent of the water fees go towards the Park. He was unhappy that Signature Properties had not been billed for its 40 percent. He believed the City needed to work on collecting the fees it was owed and to make sure that Council knew the City is actually participating as a beneficiary in this plan with the Community Park. When staff provides a cost matrix to Council, he believed it should include the City's portion. He asked if the $5 million dollar water improvements included a portion of the water system improvements for the Ruby Hill subdivision? Mr. Roush said the upsizing of that facility to accommodate the additional capacity to the Ruby Hill subdivision is included in the $5 million dollars. Mr. Brozosky asked if the Vineyard Corridor property owners were being charged for water system improvements to the Ruby Hill subdivision? Mr. Fialho said the cost for the water system improvements for the Ruby Hill subdivision would come from the Water Expansion Fund. Mary Roberts, a Pleasanton resident, encouraged Council to approve Option 2 as outlined in the staff report. She noted the problem with the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan was in how it addressed hillside lots as the hillside lots are spread out. She believed it would be fair to differentiate the Low Density Residential from the Hillside Residential, which is the amendment to the Finance Program #7 as outlined in the staff report. Under Option 1, if she were to attach to the City's water system, it would cost her $208,000 because she would be required to pay the Specific Plan fees for the her three lots. Mayor Hosterman closed the public comments. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 17 12/06/05