01 - Laserfiche WebLink

collected, they actually dipped into the red, anticipating an update of the structure, the list, or both. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed that we can have a plan, but before money can actually be allocated to a project, it requires an additional approval of the TVTC. John Carroll voiced concern regarding Highway 84, said the Triangle Study shows it is extremely critical to Pleasanton, and urged the Council not to approve the fees if they are not comfortable with it. The public hearing was closed Councilmember McGovern thinks that if the Council defers the fee to the actual spending plan, it might be ready in one year. She is worried that the fee could be put forward and no one will come to consensus on what the plan is. She questioned if work halts while waiting for the plan to be completed. Mr. Tassano said no, unless they amend the GEP to have a strategic expenditure plan that includes the List B projects. Staff is not allowed to put money towards the project, so it would have to be used to continue to fund remaining outstanding projects on the A list. Councilmember McGovern felt this was an advantage in the long run; if List B cannot be developed and put forward before List A. She supported deferring the action and work on getting expenditure plan done in a year, and confirmed the issue could be re-visited. Councilmember Sullivan proposed a motion, stating there are many that say Pleasanton is not a partner, that we are always throwing up roadblocks and being obstructive, he said the City did work collaboratively and hard with the region on agreement, and it must be in good faith. After the fact, some partners changed their position, which he is troubled by. He said it is true we would have veto power over the plan if the fee is approved, but the fact that three agencies in the group have pointed in the direction they will head which is to take State Route 84 off of the list, and assuming the Council does not like that idea, we will not have an agreement unless there is compromise. He thinks the Council needs to let partners know that the list, what was approved and what we worked on are important to us. He thinks there is a compromise short of not approving the fee, because we have a year before the fee will be phased in. He said he still supports an increased fee; the Council can express support for this, but defer approval on the fee until the Strategic Expenditure Plan is adopted with a goal that it be done in less than a year. City Attorney Roush noted the fee would go into effect July 1, 2009, each jurisdiction must adopt the fee and there is a 60-day window before fees can go into effect. Therefore, if Pleasanton is the last jurisdiction and there was no other restriction, the new fee would not go into effect here until 60 days. If the Council wants to re-visit the fee for it to go into effect July 1, 2009, it would have to be revisited 60 days prior, which may not mesh with the schedule of a strategic expenditure plan. Councilmember McGovern said she understood the fee increase only affected the Construction Cost Index increase, so that in July 2010 the fees would go up. City Manager Fialho clarified that the "Other Fee" category has an increase back to where it is supposed to be and with the action; it would implement in 2009 the reduction of the affordable housing fee. The majority of the fee does not go into place in 2010, but there are some actions that start in 2009. Councilmember Cook-Kallio voiced concern with the three entities and if they revisit their resolution, she would support placing it on the agenda earlier. Vice Mayor Thorne supported deferral of the fee, as he is bothered that developers have been paying into this all along with the expectation that projects on this would be included in the expenditure plan. He felt that neighbors should not be playing games; staff has already started City Council Minutes 9 October 21, 2008