Laserfiche WebLink
He stated staff would like to get borings in the areas that have cracked concrete to determine <br /> whether they are uniform, or there are bigger issues with the base. <br /> Chairperson Riley supported staff doing some exploratory work to determine what occurred to <br /> cause the cracking and separation. <br /> Councilmember Johns stated she is suspicious with the process if it was supposed to be <br /> bituminous and was then changed to concrete. <br /> The consensus of the Public Works Committee was for staff to explore the reason for the cracked <br /> concrete, conduct soil borings, and prepare a report of their findings and a recommendation. <br /> Then the Council can determine when to slate the project in the CIP and how to fund it. <br /> 6.02: Review Engineering Revenue Budget Item <br /> City Engineer Westby noted the City's budget includes revenues for Engineering Department <br /> expenses incurred for design, implementation, construction, and administering public <br /> improvement projects, review plans and plats, and inspect construction of public improvements <br /> for private development projects. Engineering revenues are estimated based on 12% of public <br /> improvement projects and on billable time spent working on private development projects. <br /> City Engineer Westby stated this engineering revenue was first incorporated into the City's <br /> budget in 2003 after the City lost approximately$300,000 in annual State Local Government Aid <br /> and reduced Market Value Homestead Credit starting in State fiscal year 2003. At that time, <br /> Engineering revenue was estimated at $30,000 a year compared with $274,000 of estimated <br /> revenue in the 2016 General Fund budget based on the current improvement project schedule. <br /> City Engineer Westby asked whether the Public Works Committee had any questions on the <br /> amended finance policy presented by the Finance Department that would split and redistribute <br /> unused revenue funds. <br /> Chairperson Riley stated he had asked about this engineering fee. He felt it made sense if it <br /> involves an outside project but it does not make sense to add a 12% fee to a City project, such as <br /> a sealcoat project where staff time is not involved other than to look over the project road maps. <br /> City Engineer Westby stated when projects are brought forward to the Council, there are indirect <br /> costs (City staff to complete plans, financing, legal, and administrative). Those costs will always <br /> be included as they are an expense for the City. He stated the 12% fee is beyond the indirect <br /> costs and it is also added to City projects. <br /> Chairperson Riley stated this practice ends up inflating the City's project cost, creating `revenue' <br /> that is then redistributed. <br /> Councilmember Johns asked if staff's time (payroll) is actually charged to the project and how <br /> those funds are transferred. <br /> Public Works Committee/July 19, 2016 <br /> Page 7 of 8 <br />