CCMIN120605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. McGovern noted staff mentioned the majority of funding for Parks and Miscellaneous projects comes from developer fees and the CIP General Fund. In addition, as indicated in the CIP, General Fund contributions to the CIP may be impacted as greater emphasis is placed on providing public services and facility/infrastructure maintenance to the City's growing public assets as the City approaches build out. She asked if commercial, retail, office or industrial development pays fees that could be used for CIP projects? Mr. Fialho said yes. Ms. McGovern asked if the fees were lower than residential fees? Mr. Bocian said residential fees were typically lower. He noted that a fee amount is assessed for residential and commercial projects that were developed as part of a fee study the City conducted in 1998. Ms. McGovern believed consideration of increasing the residential and commercial fees could be a possibility to help the City continue the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Fialho said it could be a consideration. Mr. Sullivan mentioned Environmental Awareness is a major category listed in the Council's priorities with several prioritized projects listed and he did not see these projects reflected in the proposed policy. He believed the policy needed to broader to include the categories of Environmental Awareness and Regional Benefits. He appreciated staff's comments related to flexibility for funding projects and questions asked by Councilmembers Brozosky and McGovern related to how the highest priority projects continually receive funding and the projects with a lower priority are never funded. He inquired about the process that would provide this flexibility? Mr. Fialho said it would a Council decision, which is why the proposed system would not tie the Council's hands in any way. The proposed system allows for a community conversation to occur and assist the Council in organizing which projects should be funded. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Fialho envisioned the Council's existing five priority projects as reflected on page six of the staff report being handled separately. In moving forward, if Council identified new projects as part of its priority workshop, staff would attempt to organize these projects using the proposed policy that would identify criteria for prioritizing future Parks and Miscellaneous Capital Improvement Projects and in advance of preparing the CIP, direct Council to have a conversation in the context of the proposed policy to determine funding. Mr. Thorne wondered if Council could expand the use of the Park In-Lieu Fee Funds for a project, particularly as the City approaches build out as opposed to holding onto the funds for the purchase of property. Mr. Bocian said Park In-Lieu Fee Funds are currently dedicated to purchase property. If Council wanted to expand the use of the Park In-Lieu Fee Funds, he believed it would be appropriate for it to direct staff to research the matter and outline the restrictions to expand the use of these funds. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 9 12/06/05