02/03/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

- e e Mr. Hansen moved, and Mr. Rutan seconded, to allocate $3 million, or the same amount in 1987 as in 1986, for capital maintenance programs as previously defined, and then working on updating to match inflation; allocating that amount to the generally accepted areas of capital improvement, understanding that we not take on new projects that could be deferred and would not cost more money by deferring. Ms. Wooten objected, saying that the process needs to be discussed before making a decision on CIP. She asked Mr. Wong about current cuts in budget, and he responded that the proposed budget has $1 million in cuts. Ms. Bascom expressed discomfort with a proposal that is one-third more than that proposed by staff. Mr. Miller asked Mr. Gleason to comment on whether the $3 million could be spent on the basis of need versus postponable items. Mr. Gleason explained that the budget is a point of departure only and that he does not make policy decisions. He said a prudent CIP budget would be $8 million. The proposed budget is $1.5 million and is unquestionably a bare-bones budget for the CIP. Mr. Hansen clarified that he intended his motion to reflect the present figure, which is $2.31 million, not $3 million. Mr. Rutan agreed to change the motion to read $2.31 million instead of $3 million. Because Ms. Wooten wanted the process clarified before deciding on a number for the CIP, Mr. Rutan suggested that the figure is a starting point, not etched in concrete; it would be helpful in establishing a process. Ms. Bascom was not prepared to support the motion when the figure was so much higher than staff recommended and because there was no preliminary discussion on how to fill the funding gap. Mr. Gleason replied to Ms. Schue that $.5 million is set aside for CIP in the proposed FY87 budget with the possibility of filling the gap with user fees and with the excess operating budget going to CIP. The user fee could increase by 25 percent or an additional $1 million in the first year. Mr. Miller saw the notion as urging the council to recognize that even with the high CIP figure, the City is still behind where it needs to be. Ms. Wooten agreed that the CIP is a high priority but setting a level of expenditure before discussing how to pay for it is a reversal of her sugges- tions. Ms. Bascom saw the motion as an attempt to maintain a high CIP and cut programs. Mr. Hansen disagreed, saying the motion was intended to help maintain our current position; user fees could be considered. Mr. Obie called for the vote: establishing a level of capital of $2.31 million for budgeting purposes: YES: Richard Hansen, Jeff Miller, Roger Rutan, Debra Ehrman NO: Emily Schue, Ruth Bascom, Cynthia Wooten The motion passed: four yes, three no. MINUTES--City Council Work Session February 3, 1986 Page 5