My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2017 11 06
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2010-2019 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
2017 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2017 11 06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:12:27 PM
Creation date
11/8/2017 1:59:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B5
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 2017 11 06
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
372
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
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />October 17, 2017 <br />Page 9 of 15 <br />cut Capital expenses not operations and should leave the underpass in the Capital <br />Fund. <br />Councilmember Maloney noted the need to make some priority choices. This is <br />probably too much in the first year. We should choose a strategy for 2018 and have the <br />Finance Committee formulate a policy for 2019 and beyond. He doesn't want to deplete <br />the General Fund in the long term. We need a more measured way to address this. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Lipton stated he is uncomfortable leaving an additional $750K in the <br />Open Space & Parks Fund without having it dedicated to something. He would rather <br />leave it in the General Fund and let open space and parks compete with the other wants <br />and needs. He was uncomfortable with the projected costs for the underpass and other <br />capital and feels a need to be more realistic. He suggested putting the $750K back in <br />the Capital Projects fund as this is a trail connection. <br />Councilmember Keany had concerns about pushing off the Hwy 42 underpass, it is a <br />trail connection in the open space master plan, so it should be funded partly from the <br />Open Space & Parks Fund. He was concerned about putting off the underpass when <br />we have represented to the public it would be built in 2018. <br />Mayor Muckle stated the Finance Committee noted the underpass is probably going to <br />take most of 2018 to design. Realistically it wouldn't start construction until 2019 and <br />that would help the budget as well. The intent is to spend more on parks and open <br />space operations. This is what our citizens' want; more money on maintenance that we <br />have let slide; not about building a giant reserve for acquisitions. The Capital Fund goes <br />down because we are building lots of things but this is a commitment to focus on parks <br />and open space. Council can figure out changes next year if needed. <br />Councilmember Leh has the same concern as Councilmember Keany about the <br />underpass timing. He asked Director Kowar about the status of the Hwy 42 underpass. <br />Director Kowar stated engineering is at about 30%, we know the basic information, <br />there are challenges with adjacent property owners and how it impacts them, a high <br />power transmission line needs to be moved, and by affecting the Goodhue Ditch, the <br />City has to review drainage more regionally. Parallel to design work, the City is doing a <br />drainage feasibility analysis which is the biggest delay. The City is targeting to get this <br />out to bid late summer. <br />Councilmember Leh stated we need to keep pressure on getting underpasses done, the <br />public consistently states how much they want these. <br />Councilmember Loo stated it doesn't look as though we funded the underpass enough. <br />Director Kowar stated staff used McCaslin Boulevard as an example. This one is not as <br />big, is less decorative, and only goes under two lanes of traffic. The consultant feels <br />comfortable with 1.8M with 12% contingency, depending on construction costs. <br />25 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.