Laserfiche WebLink
City Council <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 13, 2021 <br />Page 2 of 5 <br />respond to the public health emergency; and investments in water, sewer, and broadband <br />infrastructure. Transportation funding is not listed as a direct use. In addition to the direct <br />funding to state and local governments, funding is provided to services providers for <br />emergency housing assistance, education, transportation (transit and airports) and low- <br />income water and energy assistance. <br />Staff is looking to use the funds in the most flexible way including revenue replacement in <br />the General Fund. Staff will come back with more information as the details are <br />determined. <br />Public Comments — None. <br />Councilmember Dickinson asked if we know what our total lost revenue is. City Manager <br />Balser stated staff is still waiting to hear from Treasury how to specifically calculate that <br />number. <br />Mayor Stolzmann stated covering lost revenue is a good approach and then Council as a <br />group can make spending decisions about the General Fund within the normal budget <br />process and funding highest priority needs first. <br />DISCUSSION/DIRECTION — 2021 POTENTIAL BALLOT MEASURE FOR <br />TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION <br />Deputy City Manager Davis stated this is the second conversation about this topic. At the <br />last meeting Council directed staff to bring back information on some projects this might <br />fund and also options for revenue including possibly bonding against existing tax revenue <br />or asking for a new property tax. <br />Staff is suggesting two packages of projects. Package #1 is for about $20M and includes <br />two underpasses and corridor improvements for Hwy 42. Package #2 has five <br />underpasses and is about $40M. <br />If either package is moved forward, there are operational costs which would need to be <br />built in including staffing and long term maintenance costs. Davis reviewed funding <br />options including some non -City funding possibilities as well as new revenue sources that <br />could be considered including bonding against existing tax revenue or asking voters to <br />approve a new property tax. <br />Bonding on existing revenue would require taking money from the Capital Projects Fund <br />or General Fund and dedicating it to bond payments. A new property tax could generate <br />anywhere from $700,000 to $2.8M. <br />If the $20M package is chosen, payment options include bonding on $1.3M of existing <br />revenue or asking voters to approve an approximate 1.875 mils property tax. If the $40M <br />package is chosen, payment options include bonding on $1.3M of existing revenue and <br />