My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1984 06 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1984 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1984 06 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:23 PM
Creation date
10/16/2008 11:56:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
6/5/1984
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1984 06 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6/5/84 Page -17- <br />St<~.ff presentation -none. <br />Public comments for or against Ordinance <br />No. 828 - none. <br />Public questions - none. <br />Council questions and comments. <br />Councilman Luce Aslced what methodology was used to determine <br />thE~ amounts in the ordinance; are we trying <br />to hit a percentage of the costs of the <br />major thoroughfares? <br />Adrninistrator Wurl advised that in the case <br />of this ordinance the change is necessitated <br />by the Agreement with Homart. The fee is <br />being increased $450 as per that agreement. <br />He further stated in conjunction with the <br />Capital Improvements staff had hoped to <br />develop some recommendations relating to <br />thE~ funding of the Major Thoroughfare Fund <br />for all time. This was presented to Council <br />at the C.I.P. study session. What hasn't <br />been done is projecting and fine tuning <br />-ghat so there is a financing plan for the <br />tonal package. Part of the reason that <br />hasn't been done is in some of these major <br />roads are extremely expensive, i.e. 96th <br />5t.. We need to review with Council whether <br />that should be the responsibility of the <br />Cii~y or if part of that should be broken <br />oust and perhaps go for State funding. <br />Councilman Luce commented that he under- <br />stood the need to move forward in terms <br />of our agreement with Homart. His con- <br />cern was twofold - #1 that we get the <br />fine-tuning done quick enough so that <br />we can capture some of those growth revenues <br />be_Eore it is already passed; and secondly <br />it appears that for a variety of reasons <br />we keep coming back and bumping up assorted <br />revenue collection devices that we have. <br />He felt that it would be advantageous to <br />pull together a comprehensive package to be <br />ab:Le to do that at least at the policy level. <br />Adrninistrator Wurl concurred with Council- <br />man Luce and stated they did not have all <br />the facts and figures together. The 20 <br />year program presented to Council on the <br />Major Thoroughfare is all encompassing. <br />Now Council needs to decide how much they <br />feel legitimately the City should be respon- <br />sible for and then recommend how that fund- <br />ing would come about. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.