Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Sullivan did not believe the City was ever envisioned as the long-term funding <br />source/developer for the roadway and other infrastructure improvements to assist in getting <br />Neal Elementary School built. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush agreed and said when the Financing plan was adopted; it was assumed that <br />others would be the funding developers, not the City. <br /> <br />Mr. Sullivan supported the proposal for the water and sewer connection issue. He <br />pointed out when the City approved the Financing plan, it never considered that it would be the <br />major funding agency for a considerable length of time. The City designated a certain number of <br />units to be built to pay for the infrastructure and Council anticipated it would be done as <br />development was approved and the early developers would fund it to be reimbursed by the <br />subsequent developers. He had difficulty in asking the taxpayers of Pleasanton to essentially <br />provide a subsidy for landowners or property owners with significant development potential, <br />which meant significant financial gain potential to essentially subsidize what they wanted to do. <br />He would prefer to take this money and spend it on Capital Projects such as affordable housing <br />or set the money aside for some time in the future when the City might need it. He believed <br />people with development potential needed to pay the fees that it agreed to up front, and <br />therefore he could not support the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern asked if the individual property owners agreed to pay the fees because <br />some of these property owners would never develop their properties? <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said it was hard to determine what any individual property owner was <br />thinking. There was an assumption that there would be 189 lots that would be developed within <br />the Corridor and that 189 could support the infrastructure that was proposed to be built. <br /> <br />Ms. McGovern believed the City will still be waiting for the fees to be paid under Option 1 <br />unless someone moves forward with development. <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said that was accurate. <br /> <br />If Council were to change the order and require the City as a funding developer to be <br />paid first, Mayor Hosterman asked if staff needed time to compile the information that Council <br />would need to make this decision, or did staff have an idea of how long it would take for the City <br />to be repaid? <br /> <br />Mr. Roush did not have sufficient information to answer the question. He did not believe <br />the City would be the first to be reimbursed, but it would be on equal footing with the other <br />developers who are entitled to be reimbursed. <br /> <br />Mayor Hosterman validated Mr. Sullivan's comments. While she understood the needs <br />of the property owners, she believed there were issues that Council needed to explore further. <br />She asked how difficult it would be for staff to explore the funding developer issue and return to <br />Council for it to have this discussion again? <br /> <br />Mr. Roush said staff would be able to provide this information to Council by <br />January/February 2006. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council <br />Minutes <br /> <br />19 <br /> <br />12/06/05 <br />