My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013380
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
PATTERSON PASS
>
0
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
GP-89-11
>
SU0013380
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/2/2020 4:22:18 PM
Creation date
6/2/2020 4:07:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0013380
PE
2600
FACILITY_NAME
GP-89-11
STREET_NUMBER
0
STREET_NAME
PATTERSON PASS
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
TRACY
Zip
95376-
APN
20904003
ENTERED_DATE
5/29/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
PATTERSON PASS RD
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\gmartinez
Tags
EHD - Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
373
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
Ms. Kitty Walker January 27, 1989 <br /> "Mountain House" New Town Proposal Page 3 <br /> transfer to a new municipality. There are, however, a number of revenues allo- <br /> cated by the State to cities which are shared with counties prior to incor- <br /> poration. These could potentially provide some income to a new city, although <br /> not a substantial amount. The financial viability of a new city largely depends <br /> upon a diverse property tax base (not significant in this case unless the county <br /> had provided extensive and costly services from its General Fund previously) and <br /> commercial development which can provide a substantial source of sales tax, <br /> business license fees, etc. <br /> An economic analysis to determine whether or not the cost of infrastructure <br /> including public water facilities, public sewage treatment facilities, storm <br /> drainage facilities, road construction, etc. , should be done. The cost of deve- <br /> lopment of these public facilities should be compared to the costs of extending <br /> similar services now provided by an existing municipality such as Tracy. <br /> Conclusion <br /> My comments above were only intended to raise a few of many issues which ought <br /> to be explored before approval of this project. I think the applicants would be <br /> far better off if they could locate the proposal in a site that does not involve <br /> two counties. Even if the issues were only presented to one county, we have <br /> serious reservation as to whether the proposal is economically feasible from the <br /> governmental finance point of view. I would be interested in attending any <br /> general staff reviews or discussions of this proposal . <br /> MGW:dly <br /> c: David D. Rowlands, Jr. <br /> County Administrator <br /> Richard Laiblin <br /> Deputy County Administrator <br /> #BO1-21.1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.