Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ ¡ l-A,S <br /> <br />M/S Howard/Foust to adjourn the Redevelopment Agency meeting. The motion passed <br />by a unanimous voice vote. <br /> <br />B. Water Financing Plan - 2004 Update <br /> <br />PWS Director Ingram stated that this item was an extension of the December 13, <br />2004 meeting where discussion and various aspects of the financing plan for the <br />recycled water project. This is the first of several actions to be taken over the <br />next several months. He stated that since the documents were transmitted to <br />Council and posted on the City website on January 7, no questions have been <br />received by staff from the public. <br /> <br />Council Member stated that a request was made from the public to offer lower <br />rates for recycled water and higher rates for others as a matter of philosophy. <br /> <br />PWS Ingram stated that some items will be coming back to Council through the <br />Council subcommittee. A PowerPoint presentation was used to highlight the <br />most important aspects of the four separate items related to approval of the <br />water financing plan, the authorization to issue water revenue plans, approval to <br />reimburse costs pertaining to artificial playfields, and the approval that the SBSA <br />commission may proceed with awarding contract for construction of facilities on <br />that site. <br /> <br />Council Members made various comments regarding policies related to seniors <br />and disabled residents, requesting incentives for use be considered, and <br />consideration of an appeal process. <br /> <br />Public Comment: <br />Rudy Luca stated that in 2003 or earlier, he asked who would be paying for <br />increased water rates to support various developments being considered. He <br />stated that he thinks we need to curb building and asked that staff study this <br />issue. <br /> <br />Mark McLaren, on the community recycled water task force, stated his surprise <br />at the increase in costs. He stated that the deliberations of the task force <br />specifically eliminated several possibilities due to costs. Now that the projected <br />cost is $74 million to $84 million, the equation has changed. He asked that the <br />Council step back and revisit some of the options. <br /> <br />Nita Spangler stated that the plan will not be viable unless a broad view is taken <br />and the community is apprised to come along with the Council. She stated that <br />movement out of the 3 member Utilities Committee should occur with <br />implementation of a community advisory group and open community meetings to <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND <br />PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY JOINT MEETING MINUTES <br /> <br />JANUARY 24, 2005 <br />. PAGE 6 <br />DRAFT - <br />NOT fO~ ClTAnON <br />