Item 4 - Capital Improv.Program - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of a variety of transportation projects. Commissioners were also interested in the on-going discussion regarding the acquisition of land to develop a community park in the Santa Clara area. On December 14, 2004, three members of the public spoke at a public hearing held by the Planning Commission. In addition, three pieces of written testimony were received by the Planning Commission and have been included with this material as Attachment A. On January 10, 2005, the Planning Commission approved a motion to recommend that the council adopt the Draft CIP with the following amendments. · Move projects including traffic-calming, residential street lighting, residential street trees, access ramps and mixed-use pedestrian amenities from the unfunded category to the funded category of the transportation section. (The Planning Commission did not identify a funding source.) · Reinstitute the neighborhood needs analysis process in the next CIP process. The Planning Commission also asked that the council pay close attention to the long held goals of the City while reviewing the CIP and to acknowledge that not all of the projects in the Draft CIP were completely through the deliberation process. On February 7 and February 22, the Budget Committee reviewed the draft CIP. While the committee did not conduct a formal public hearing, at those meetings two individuals provided testimony indicating projects they supported and those they did not support (Attachment A). They also expressed concern regarding funding for capital projects ahead of other City needs. On February 22, the Budget Committee recommended that the council adopt the Draft CIP with the staff recommended changes (Attachment B) and the following additional amendments: · Combine City Hall Phase 1 and Phase 2 into a single, unfunded project in FY09. · Restore $30,000 in General Funds for traffic calming in each of the six years of the CIP. · Increase the funding for Street Lighting (Arterials and Collectors) by $30,000 and reduce the funding for Transportation Services for New Development by a like amount. The Budget Committee also deliberated over the formatting of the draft CIP document and debated the future uses of the document as a planning and budgeting tool. The Budget Committee agreed to form a subcommittee to develop formatting recommendations for the next iteration of the CIP that would improve communication with policy makers and citizens and would increase their understanding of project choices. On February 28, the council held a public hearing on the draft CIP where one person provided testimony identifying projects that he did not support and expressed concern regarding the opportunities for the public to provide input on the Draft CIP (Attachment A). L:\CMO\2005 Council Agendas\M050307\S0503074.doc