Agenda - Council - 10/11/2016 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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