CCMIN120605 - Laserfiche WebLink

priority list and have it integrated with the proposed policy guidelines. He noted Council has set the expectation with the community that it is moving forward with some of the major projects such as the Kottinger Creek Restoration Project and the Fire House Arts Center and he believed it needed to continue instead of starting over. Mr. Thorne believed Council needed some type of system that would aide Council in prioritizing Capital Improvement Program Projects. He concurred with the staff report, which mentioned that any type of system would have gray areas. If the Dual Purpose category was going to be used, he believed it needed to more specific and measurable. As of the part of this process, he believed Council and the public needed to gain a better understanding of funding mechanisms and how the community might wish to fund long-term projects, such as the Bernal property. He did not believe Council needed to rush the implementation of the proposed policy nor did it need to change the priority of any projects that it currently has listed. He agreed in general terms with the funding modifications for the CIP Reserve Account. He supported having a process that would identify criteria for prioritizing future Parks and Miscellaneous Capital Improvement Projects and in directing staff to move forward with it. Ms. McGovern did not believe everything was in place in order for Council to establish a final policy that would establish priorities for funding future Capital Improvement Projects. She wanted Council to have the opportunity to continue to make this a better policy. She noted that staff listed five projects on page six of the staff report that it believed would not be included in the new policy and out of those five projects, four of them require additional funding. She asked staff to provide the current Reserve funding amounts and additional funding information to Council for these five projects. Mr. Fialho informed Council that staff would be presenting a staff report to Council at its meeting in January that would outline all of the Capital Improvement Projects and allow Council the opportunity to close out these projects and redirect them into the Capital Improvement Reserve. The second item would be an update on the status of each project and how much staff believed the projects were under or over budget. Staff would also identify an approach and strategy for addressing these five specific projects. Ms. McGovern reemphasized her number one concern was cost containment and building what is relatively needed. She wanted some part of this process to include financial containment. She asked if a set of guidelines were available for each project that would list the categories of conceptual, design construction documents, construction bid, and final cost so that there is an actual process to follow each project through to completion which would identify and monitor each phase of the project to become a part of the Council's priority process. She wondered if there was a possibility of including a comprehensive plan for funding of Capital Improvement Projects occurring in the future. She wanted staff to return to Council with some type of understanding of where funding could be obtained other than using the CIP Reserve, which might include the possibility of additional developer fees, grants, pOSSible partnerships with other agencies, bonds, sale of City property, and Transit Occupancy Tax. She was willing to move forward on the proposal but was not certain it was in its final stages where she could ultimately approve it. Mr. Brozosky said there were more Capital Improvement Projects than available funding. He did not believe there was an urgency to prioritize the five Capital Improvement Projects as outlined on page six of the staff report because of insufficient funding available. He concurred with Mr. Thorne's comments related to the escalating cost of projects and the longer the money Pleasanton City Council Minutes 12 12/06/05