Agenda - Council - 04/10/2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

attempt to anticipate major capital expenditures in advance of the year in which they areb~fidget requests. Further, several projects may interrelate or require other improvements:"~ribr initiation which would cause delays without prior planning. Additionally, projects:;~Y"require'< budgeting over several years or receipt of funds from other sources (i.e. grant§).,requiring planning completion prior to the funding year. Finally, the plan enables.~a~iii§n~pkh~i!:::;of the identified capital needs of the community allowing for continual priorit~!zat/~n'"of the~(:;~eds. Approval of the CIP by Council does not authorize spending or initiation:'.bf:ia given proj~k'?.ill does, however, provide a guide for the community for a whole array o~',~riTvate and decision-making, impacted by public capital expenditures. Ther, e~o~e;::-the CiP::~hould receive"~'~;i'~::~-,,~.. ratification only if the Council perceives actions contemplated With{~ tt/~.,~ian as reasonable and planned within justified time frames. It shall further be note~t~'initial pf6jectdesign' of pubhc' infrastructure projects identified within this plan often be~o years~r more prior to the date of construction. The CIP is not intended to provide for/~recise budgeting. Capital costs are projected as estimates. Upon each update of the':~l~;'(~t~letions, add2iO-flS, delays, or other revisions may occur, reflecting changing communit~ need~?i;-Thesei'!~h'~ng~s::'allow for budget refinements as a particular project nears actual construction. The:pi'~:does not contain a specific designation which denotes project priorities. There is no weighfingor match~g of priorities between infrastructures types (streets, parks, utilities, building facilifie~)::'as eacti:i:type of project generally has a funding source uniq~i~?"to,.tthe ~roject type and from*~wiffCh:'~nds cannot be Councilmember Hendriksen ir~Ulred if'Changes were.r~'ad~-i0LtI~e ClP.as previously requested by the Council. ~¢,:: 7, ~'-!'.('.5?' -"~i',i':, 5',,'~ Finance Officer Lund reviewed those changesz-:~:' Councilmember Hendriksea~stated that wiih:the ~torm drainage project for 2002, staff is proposing, to-proceed with.;~the project diffel:enfly'~than they are currently handling a storm drainageproject and not ass~g~'ing the project. 4:~?~'~' Councilmeml '-zi . mm. erm -sta ea t-t 4? e aouncil has not discussed how the City is going to handle surface w~ter and storm management in the City. CoUneiImember Hendril~sen.sta£~c[ that if someone from storm district #1 approaches the City as to why t/ey, are proposing:!~i-dO'something different on a future drainage problem what is their response going to be. ~':- ~ Finance Office(Lund replied that the City did pay a percentage of the Storm District #1 project. Councilmember'Hendriksen stated that the City only paid a percentage because the City needed ":-~}to-,.correct a~problem that the City created. The rest of the project was assessed to the property -46- Finance Committee/February 27, 2001 Page 2 of 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I ! Il