CCMIN120605 - Laserfiche WebLink

6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS 6a. Review of Dolicv to establish Driorities for fundinG future CaDital ImDrovement Droiects. (SR 05:312) Steven Bocian, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. Fialho clarified that from staff's perspective, the projects that Council currently had prioritized as listed on page six of the staff report had equal value and importance. Council had previously discussed and determined that these were five important projects and staff would return to Council to present a fiscal plan that would enable it to embark on some of these projects. The proposed policy is for CIP projects going forward and as new projects surface and as Council approaches each CIP, the idea is for Council to utilize this system to assist in focusing on the collective priorities in order that they may be funded appropriately. There is one current example in the CIP that he believed was the correct way to approach a conceptual CIP project: the Youth Center. Staff set aside approximately $50,000 to embark on a master plan process to plan out how and what this facility might look like with the thought that staff would gain an understanding of what the layout and square footage would be and then ultimately if Council chose to bid this project, staff would gain a broader understanding of the cost. Depending upon this information, the idea of the CIP Reserve would work adequately and once it was established as a priority and once Council was ready to proceed and fund this project, staff would transfer funds from the CIP reserve for this project. In taking this approach, it would help to defuse the situation that surfaces from time to time that the project was under budget when in fact it was never under budget and the real detail work had not been completed until the time additional allocations were being made. Mr. Brozosky inquired how a project that was categorized Priority One or Priority Two and cost significantly more money than what was available for a long period of time would effect a lower priority, particularly the Bernal property. Mr. Fialho said the proposed policy would allow for this type of discussion to occur in advance of programming money into these individual projects. He believed Council would engage in a meaningful quality discussion at a workshop whereby it would prioritize CIP projects and inform staff and the community about its collective priorities. He believed there might be some projects whereby Council would allocate more money to a Priority Two versus a Priority Three project, but the key is flexibility. Mr. Brozosky believed any CIP project could potentially be a dual-purpose project and wondered if it would be wise for Council to prioritize these projects in this manner, such as the Veterans Memorial Building project, which could conceivably be argued to be a Priority One - Health and Safety. Mr. Fialho said he was trying to find a way whereby Council could tackle two issues with one project. Staff believed that if a project qualified under that category, it should outweigh Priorities Four and Five - Community Need and Community Enhancement. In advance of a workshop, staff would attempt to identify the forecasted needs and put these projects into this priority ranking system and present those reasons to Council, which would be the launching point for the policymakers to discuss, debate and ultimately decide what the ranking should be going forward. In using a prioritizing system, it would allow Council to have a discussion and Pleasanton City Council Minutes 7 12/06/05