CCMIN120605 - Laserfiche WebLink

Four need. On behalf of the Library Commission, she requested that the library project be rated at least a Priority Three given that it would address a community need. Tom Gallagher, representing The Friends of Kottinger Creek, agreed that Council needed to determine a prioritization process for Capital Improvement Projects particularly with many interests and needs being demonstrated by various groups. If the proposed policy was implemented by Council, he believed it should not affect the current Reserve for the Kottinger Creek Restoration Project. He asked Council to consider the project measured against the staff-prescribed criteria as follows: (1) address a community need and provide economic developments to the City; (2) eligibility for a financial grant; (3) a strong multi-purpose focus that benefits the community at large; and (4) historic preservation. Cheri Puis, representing The Friends of Kottinger Creek, expressed concern related to the Kottinger Creek Restoration project and asked how the proposed policy would affect the funding for this project and how would it work for future projects. From staff's perspective, Mr. Fialho said the reserve for this project of $1 million dollars would remain and continue to remain untouched moving forward. The project is currently estimated at $400,000 out of balance and in order to close this gap, staff has applied for grant funding, which it believes the City would be successful. If the City were not awarded grant funding, Council would be faced with a decision as to how it wished to proceed. Ms. Puis expressed concern related to the criteria identified, which mirrored those of Mr. Sullivan's that there is no category that specified environmental concerns. She suggested a subcategory of environmental concerns be defined as fixing what has been damaged, which is the basis for the Kottinger Creek Restoration Project. She also noted there is no mention of quality of life issues by either protecting or making it better. She suggested that whatever criteria is adopted, a better job should be done of measuring projects against them accurately by having a closer dialogue between the actual project managers and the task forces in order to gain a better understanding of the scope of a project. She also suggested using the criteria identified in its grant application to the City or for projects similar to this that would provide staff an opportunity to directly address the criteria that would be helpful to staff and Council in evaluating projects. Mayor Hosterman closed the public comments. Mayor Hosterman indicated she had been struggling with how Council deals with priorities of amenities and projects for the City and up until this time, Council individually numerically ranked its priorities, which has been a subjective process. She believed it was difficult for Council to focus and prioritize what it determines is best for the community. She believed a number of additional sub-areas could be developed for discussion as it pertained to the proposed policy. The proposed policy is a valid starting point and provided some type of construct within which to have discussion and dialogue, which would leave Council with some sense of criteria. Mr. Sullivan believed Council needed a better way to organize its thoughts and projects and prioritize them. He wanted the policy guidelines to remain flexible to enable the Council to fund projects, which are important to the community. He wanted to avoid having a policy structure that prevented or reinforced only projects that are politically popular. He wanted the categories to closer reflect Council's adopted priority list. He asked staff to review Council's Pleasanton City Council Minutes 11 12/06/05