03/17/1986 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e - CIP which could assist the community in understanding the CIP process. That has been added. The funding for the first three years' projects from the general fund are based on a revenue strategy which includes increasing user fees and an incremental transfer of delinquent property taxes to the CIP. The first year has $1,593,000; the second year, $2.7 million; and the third, $3 million. Most of the projects during the first years are designated urgent and non-postponable, concerning safety, liability, and items which would result in deterioration or increased cost if not done: others include those projects which, if done, would reduce operating costs. A few are projects which, if not done, would not be able to done later because of a lost opportunity or the potential to share funds. Mr. McKinley outlined the Planning Commission recommendations: 1. Addition on the Glenwood Sewer Project. 2. Make some changes in the River Road/Santa Clara Sewer System Project. (The details for these two items are included in the addendum dated February 24, 1986, in the council packets.) 3. Clarify the third paragraph in the introduction to make sure it is understood that when talking about urgent and non-postponable projects, we are talking about general fund. 4. Strongly suggested that the funding predicament needs to be addressed throughout the document, especially the introduction. 5. Examine more closely the operating costs in conjunction with projects, including better operating cost figures in the document. Mr. Whitlow emphasized that the CIP document distributed to the council reflects the original figures for the CIP, not the increased number ($2.3 million) agreed to in the discussion process by the City Council. This document was prepared before the higher level was set. Another tier will be added to include the higher amount by the time the proposed budget is presented to the council. Mr. McKinley identified the major issues in the CIP document: 1. Hu1t Center Projects The question has been asked as to why the projects listed are urgent and non-postponable. His answer was three-fold: a} the Hult was never completed as originally proposed and some of the CIP projects are completions; b} other projects address operating problems which have been identified; and c) if we get the Hult facility more user-friendly, more noticeable, and more recognizable from the street, it is likely that attendance and use will increase and that the Hult will generate more revenue. EXCERPT MINUTES--City Council Work Session March 17, 1986 Page 6