01 MINUTES REGULAR - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tassano said considerations also include whether or not to pursue 100% or a local match funding amount; if a local match is preferred, what is the maximum amount of the fee; and does the upper limit change depending upon which projects are funded. Councilmember McGovern questioned how Councilmember Sullivan felt the discussion was going as far as keeping the match at 20% or possibly looking at a different way of doing it. Councilmember Sullivan said he was not present when the second list of projects was introduced which was several years ago. He has been on for about 2 years, a nexus study was done in the first year to arrive at the cost to fund the projects and how much to charge and they have only held a few meetings since that time. They have been updating the nexus study, there is an action plan from Contra Costa County representatives and this is the work that has been underway. The next meeting is April 30th where potential fee levels would be discussed. Councilmember McGovern questioned when the first list of improvements was done, and Mr. Tassano said it was developed in 1995 and they did not start collecting fees until 1998. Councilmember McGovern said if the first list has been in existence since 1995 and we have only completed 4 projects and we are adding 11 more, it looks like we are behind. She always thought development should pay its way, said infrastructure in California is not kept up and she wonders if this is happening because development is not paying its way. She questioned if there was something other than the recommendation, such as raising the fee for the first 11 projects or fully fund the first list. She suggested making list A the priority and look at what can be done in the nexus for what development might be able to bear, as we are not keeping up with the demand because the fee is too low. Councilmember Sullivan said part of the problem is that the TVTC does not fund the projects completely and depends on state and federal funding. City Manager Fialho said the City must make a strong case that existing development does not bear some of the cost of future improvements. The fee assessment should be on new development and the only obligation that can be made under the nexus analysis. Existing development has an obligation to pay its pro rata share which is done through state and federal grants and other contributions. Councilmember Sullivan noted there is 5,000 hours of delay in the a.m. and if the new projects are not built, we will be at 40,000 hours in 2030, but even if built, we will be at 32,000 hours. He would like to see the committee work more closely with LAFTA and think about transit or land use options which could make an impact in the future. Councilmember McGovern thinks we are driving ourselves for more and more growth in the state, but what happens is there are no CIP monies in the state and roadways cannot be improved and we are in a catch 22. She also believed that public transit costs are increasing and not affordable to a large group of people. Mr. Tassano said staff would like direction on whether to pay for the regional improvements or have a larger incremental fee of $2,400 to $3,000 but then charge a larger local fee so we know 100% of those funds are coming back to our local agencies. Councilmember Sullivan believed it is a balance and there is an effect on the economy and fees on retail. He would be interested in seeing the numbers for a fee which are prioritized for the first set of projects before spending any fees on the second list. City Council Minutes 12 March 18, 2008