Laserfiche WebLink
the Council moves forward with the first phase, it should look at the revenue plan and bring it <br />back before making a final decision. He also questioned whether a CEQA process would also <br />be required. <br />Councilmember Thorne said he agrees with much of what has been said, believes costs are <br />recoverable, but does not agree with making any future funding commitments. He said he could <br />support the first phase but nothing beyond that. <br />Councilmember McGovern agreed with the CEQA concern, noted the operator has indicated <br />every grave he digs tends to fill up with water which must be pumped out, and she felt there was <br />a disconnect between this staff report and the last one which included much more information. <br />She suggested a financing plan to determine long-term maintenance. <br />Mayor Hosterman questioned if the Council could request staff look at ways of creating a <br />revenue stream for future operations and maintenance and-embed that in the price. City <br />Manager Fialho suggested a funding formula embedded or added into the current rate to <br />generate revenue to support on-going maintenance so that irrigation and landscaping are in <br />place for Phase 2. He said he also heard that the Council wants flexibility for special <br />considerations for people who have spouses or family members who are currently buried at the <br />cemetery. Regarding the differences in the previous staff report, he noted that the cemetery <br />was a real mess when the City took it over. There was no accounting structure, there were <br />many outstanding issues and staff has learned a lot and brought it up to a much higher <br />standard. <br />Councilmember McGovern asked if staff wanted the Council to approve the sales of plots and <br />niches at the cemetery and to adopt the initial pricing schedule. She questioned if further review <br />could occur for the cost of private cemeteries and the cost to add on the additional fee. City <br />Manager Fialho suggested the Council simply add in the recommendation to forward this onto <br />the Parks and Recreation Commission and set fees that both address market conditions at the <br />Catholic cemeteries and private industry, and second; that a fee structure get established that <br />generates a certain amount of revenue for on-going maintenance. <br />Councilmember McGovern made a motion to approve the sale of additional plots and niches; <br />that a 12-month purchase period be established for residents of Pleasanton. The Council <br />discussed possibly amending the motion fora 3-6 month purchase period. Councilmember <br />Sullivan asked that no decision be made on Phase 2 and the revenue stream could be used for <br />on-going maintenance of a pioneer cemetery or a landscaped cemetery which is to be <br />determined at a later time. <br />15. Motion: It was m/s by McGovern/Sullivan to approve the sale of additional plots and <br />niches at Pleasanton Pioneer Cemetery; refer the initial fee schedule to the Parks & <br />Recreation Commission to study current market rates, and general operational policies; <br />approve an appropriate initial purchase period of 6 months for residents; authorize the City <br />Manager or his designee to execute an agreement with Catholic Funeral and Cemetery <br />Services for cemetery operation and related services; and approve an appropriation of <br />$190,000 from the Capital Improvement Program Reserve as a temporary advance to the <br />Cemetery Fund for the surveying plot verification and pre-installation of 200 full-size <br />vaults, determine if a CEQA review is required; approve a special dispensation for <br />surviving spouses of spouses buried in the cemetery; and create a revenue mechanism for <br />landscaping and maintenance. Motion passed by the following vote: <br />City Council Minutes Page 13 of 15 December 16, 2008 <br />