My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2011 11:42:01 AM
Creation date
10/11/2011 11:41:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, September 12, 2011 <br /> Page 30 <br /> Public Utility Costs <br /> Ms. Bloom advised that staff was not proposing changes to public utility costs; <br /> but simply to update estimates to reflect actual costs with development of a per <br /> acre cost for Subarea I, then extrapolating that cost to Subareas II and III. Ms. <br /> Bloom provided a cost allocation overview, based on the size of a parcel, with <br /> Table 4 unchanged and recognizing reclassification for right-of-way acquisition to <br /> from private to public property. <br /> Regarding traffic added for previously developed properties, Councilmember Pust <br /> sought clarification that if traffic increases are seen over time with redevelopment, <br /> existing infrastructure was adequate to serve their parcels; with Ms. Bloom refer- <br /> ence the staff report in addressing the proposed methodology changes to infra- <br /> structure improvements for the Twin Lakes AUAR—Final Report. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon advised that Attachment C (4th column) showed the 2010 updated <br /> compared to the 2011 Scenario C update; with public costs at $14 million. How- <br /> ever, Mr. Trudgeon emphasized that staff wanted to very clear that grant and/or <br /> TIF dollars, not tax dollars, should suffice, with TIF generated revenue over the <br /> life of the TIF District anticipated to be $16 million, covering the cost of public <br /> improvements in the Twin Lakes Redevelopment Area. Mr. Trudgeon advised <br /> that this would leave little, if any, TIF available to assist development projects <br /> beyond that. Mr. Trudgeon clarified that there were limited funds still available <br /> in the Environmental Hazard District. <br /> Mayor Roe sought clarification that the TIF analysis had been done based on Sce- <br /> nario C and on development levels, not done based on the most intense use. <br /> Mr. Trudgeon concurred; however,he noted that there remained a lot of variables, <br /> with the timing of redevelopment the main one; and the longer you wait to devel- <br /> op, the less you collected. <br /> Councilmember Pust questioned if the $14,260,683 on Attachment C should cor- <br /> respond to the 2013 background traffic amount. <br /> Ms. Bloom responded that the traffic background PLUS the base line highlighted <br /> in lines 13 — 18 of Figure 21 (Attachment C) for other improvements had already <br /> been included in other amounts; and advised that staffs next iteration would high- <br /> light public costs on that table. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Johnson, Mr. Trudgeon advised that Table 4 <br /> was indicative of approximate cost-based scenarios for private land owners as <br /> they came forward with a proposed use and development proposal. However, Mr. <br /> Trudgeon advised that, at that time, they would need to provide a traffic study to <br /> determine a hard number and pay according to that finding as part of the devel- <br /> opment process. Mr. Trudgeon noted that the Twin Lakes Overlay District docu- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.