My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 2021 05 04
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
2021 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 2021 05 04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/5/2025 1:08:12 PM
Creation date
6/2/2021 12:55:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
5/4/2021
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Original Hardcopy Storage
Paper copy disposed of on November 5 2025
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.
/
573
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 />April 13, 2021 <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />Mayor Pro Tem Maloney agreed more detailed design work is needed to have better <br />estimates on the costs. He reminded people that if the estimates are off, the backstop will <br />be the General Fund. <br />Councilmember Brown stated he supports moving this forward as they won't happen <br />without this additional revenue from a ballot question. We should prioritize the amenities <br />our residents want. <br />Councilmember Fahey stated she would like to be sure we can deliver on what we ask <br />the residents to support, so perhaps start small. <br />City Manager Balser stated bond counsel's advice is to leave the language in the ballot <br />issue broad but use a resolution to list the intent on how it would be spent. <br />Mayor Pro Tem Maloney noted the $1.3M needed for bonding is not in the 2022 budget <br />so cuts elsewhere would be needed. <br />Councilmember Leh stated the ballot language should be as broad as possible and if we <br />can get design and cost details earlier in the process we should do that. <br />Mayor Stolzmann stated she feels there is enough design information to move forward to <br />ask the voters if they want to do this. <br />Councilmember Brown agreed the Power Line underpass should be included in whatever <br />package moved forward. He also feels there is enough design information to put this <br />question to the voters. <br />Members decided on a package of six underpasses, but did not determine the priority. <br />• South Boulder Road/Main <br />• Dillon Road/Power Line Trail <br />• Bullhead Gulch/BNSF Tracks <br />• Short Street/Hwy 42 <br />• South Boulder Road/Via Appia <br />• South Boulder Road/Hwy 42 <br />Members agreed to move forward with a hybrid approach of bonding against current <br />revenues and a property tax increase. <br />Councilmember Dickinson noted that any money taken from the CIP for bonding will <br />require reducing the CIP projects by that amount. <br />Councilmember Lipton asked if the General Fund can be used to pay for this. Director <br />Watson stated Council could do that but it would affect ongoing expenses. <br />Councilmember Lipton stated he would prefer looking for money internally as much as <br />possible before asking residents to raise taxes. <br />13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.