CCMIN120605 - Laserfiche WebLink

when staff presented the CIP it would fit with its collective direction for how it wanted to proceed with capital projects. The prioritizing system would also allow for this type of discussion to occur outside of the CIP process. Mr. Brozosky wondered what the advantage was in establishing a policy that would identify criteria for prioritizing future Parks and Miscellaneous Capital Improvement Projects as opposed to the Council priority system. Mr. Fialho believed one advantage would be that staff would attempt to define Priorities One through Five rather than a simple one through five numerical ranking. Ms. McGovern indicated she had requested a chart that would outline Capital Improvement Projects over the past five years and include the original cost for each project as approved by Council and the actual ultimate cost once the project had been completed. She was concerned about placing all of the money into a reserve fund. Based on the proposed priority categories, she wondered how the Reserve Fund could be prevented from funding one project while the remainder of the projects fall short and remain unfunded for a longer period of time. She wanted cost containment included as part of this process in order to keep each of the Capital Improvement Projects contained within a budget and have cost overruns and contingencies be within that budget so that the overall cost would not continue to escalate and reduce the possibilities for additional projects. In moving forward with the proposed CIP policy, she wondered how Council could take the current Capital Improvement Projects and have a complete picture which would entail and outline all of the CIP projects as noted on page six of the staff report, the status, design costs, and predicted funding to complete the projects, which would eliminate a project being underfunded and make the agreed upon cost as close to what was predicted as possible. Mr. Fialho said Council would manage the CIP Reserve, which would eliminate staff from taking money from the Reserve to pay for a shortfall. The CIP Reserve was established in part because no project was ready to move forward until it had completed the appropriate planning process. Assuming Council supported this concept, staff would bring back language that would set this in motion for the upcoming fiscal year and secondarily, add language that states the CIP Reserve is intended to be used as a mechanism to create and establish sufficient funds so that Council, when it is ready to focus on a project, could move forward and the Reserve Fund would not be used indiscriminately for any reason other than what Council authorizes it to be used for. Ms. McGovern noted that staff in its presentation mentioned that a project would be funded with the most money available because it would be the highest priority project, which concerned her because she did not want to fund a project with the most money available. She wanted to fund a project on what Council believed the cost should be based upon the scope of the project. Mr. Bocian said this concept would eliminate the current practice of establishing multiple funding reserves for CIP projects. The advantage of this approach would establish a process whereby funding tracks the highest priority projects and as a result, there is a greater chance that an individual project(s) in the highest priority category would be fully funded more quickly as opposed to utilizing the current process of establishing reserves to partially fund numerous projects. This approach would not have the intent of putting more towards the highest priority projects in excess of what the project needs. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 8 12/06/05