CCMinutes - 01/28/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

concurred with Mr. Papa's statement that this was not a priority. He felt that not enough was known about the future of Public Works, whether the City would partner with the County, if the City would purchase or contract for equipment to do its work, and how much space it would need. He did not object to the interfund loan or the mechanics of the loans, nor did he question the appraisal. Ms. Taylor voiced her agreement with Mr. Pap6. She opined that if it was known that the land would be needed in ten years, the decision would be simpler. She reiterated the need for efficiency in government services. Ms. Bettman concurred that the acquisition was not a high priority. She questioned the assertion that 40 employees would be added to Public Works by 2024. She called this assumption false, given the fact that the City was not intending to expand services. She also questioned the need for the acreage, noting that the master plan had called for approximately 3-1/2 acres less land than the property offered. She did not feel the City had the ability to take advantage of the opportunity at this time. Ms. Nathanson said it was not her top priority either, but the organization needed to take care of its business. She recommended taking advantage of the opportunity before it was taken away. Mr. Pap6 left the meeting at 1 p.m. Ms. Nathanson averred it was a centrally located site and could be desirable to other local agencies. She felt the City could ultimately share the site, stating that the site had not yet shown all of the promise of what it could be in the future. She expressed hope that an investment could be shared with other partners. Mr. Kelly said he was ;;struck by sticker shock." He felt Mr. Meisner's point regarding finding efficiencies with other agencies was well-taken. He commented that appropriate sharing should be proposed and that the master plan could change. Mr. Corey reiterated that the General Fund money under consideration was in the baseline Public Works budget and would not be taken from other City programs. Mr. Kelly could not support using any Road Capital Funds for the purchase given that road preservation and maintenance was a high council priority. He noted that the council had also voted not to increase the Stormwater Fund level. Ms. Solomon thanked Mr. Corey for the clarification on this issue. She felt the information provided had addressed the questions the councilors had raised. She supported the motion, stating that it was important for the City Council to be flexible in order for staff to be flexible. She agreed that opportunities for space- sharing could add to the City's revenue. Mr. Taylor stressed that, should the motion not be adopted, the opportunity to acquire this property and at this price would be lost. He encouraged the council to support the motion. Mr. Poling agreed the property acquisition was an opportunity that should not be passed up. He also felt the property could bring revenue to the City. He supported the motion. In response to a question from Mayor Torrey, Mr. Corey stated that the most critical need for space was for the fleet facility, currently projected out for three years according to the master plan.