08/12/1992 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Responding to a question from Mr. Rutan, Mr. O'Connor said that the current expenditure for this area is $1.5 million. Mr. Boles noted that most of the physical space is a General Fund (GF) responsibility, though many of the structures are occupied by staff paid out of other funds exclusively. He suggested moving the costs associated with these groups to the appropriate fund, lessening the burden on the GF. Mr. Mounts said staff has discussed a facility/utility chargeback that could be used for that purpose, but the concept has not been fully developed. Mr. MacDonald said he favors providing 100 percent of facility maintenance and repair through the GF to maximize the assets and protect the citizens' investment. He felt, however, that since the proposal dramatically enhances this activity, the time line can be extended. Mr. Nicholson said the council might consider selling enough assets to pay for deferred maintenance to reduce the figure to approximately $3.5 million for ongoing maintenance. Mayor Miller wondered if it would be prudent to establish a maintenance and repair budget out of the capital fund. Mr. Boles favored evaluating expendi- tures for maintenance and repairs in five years and imposing directives by charter amendment only if necessary. Mr. Rutan questioned the level of funding for maintenance and repair, saying it is formula-driven. The replacement value of the assets, he said, is an e arbitrary number. He felt that the number represented an ideal situation, something the City cannot afford. Ms. Bascom shared Mr. Rutan's concern and suggested modifying the percentage to 2 percent (approximately $860,000). Mr. Boles argued that the City has been able to avoid a crisis situation by making prudent fiscal policy decisions such as these. Mr. Nicholson felt the council did not have the proper information to make a decision, saying the experience of other jurisdictions would be very helpful. He also felt the decision should be made in tandem with how much capital investment the City should be carrying. Mr. Boles moved, seconded by Mr. Robinette, that the Facility Preservation Fund be $4 million, but with the following notes: 1 ) every effort be made to ascertain the need for the current asset base in order to determine if some can be sold; and 2} that the capital cost externalization to appropriate funds be a priority. The motion failed, 4:5; Mayor Miller, Ms. Ehrman, Mr. Green, Mr. Rutan, and Mr. Nicholson opposed. Mr. Rutan moved, seconded by Mr. Green, that Facility Preservation be funded at $3.7 million (2 percent of asset value), with the e MINUTES--City Council Work Session August 12, 1992 Page 4 11:30 a.m.