CCMIN052306 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Stern replied that would be cost recovery, which is a little different than revenue generating. Mr. Fialho felt the problem with the Goal was that it was not correctly worded. The important point is cost recovery. That is the issue that Pleasanton is behind on. Many communities have gone to a cost recovery model where the full costs of providing a service are identified for a facility and then they set the recovery threshold. It could be 100% or 50% of the cost recovery. Ms. McGovern then referred to page 16, Program 8.2, which says "continue to investigate new revenue sources," but it doesn't talk about implementing new resources. She asked for additional wording such as continue to investigate potential new revenue sources and somehow talk about how to generate revenue from those sources. She also had questions about Program 13.2 and 13.3 about the word "prohibit". She was opposed to using long-term debt for current operations. Mr. Fialho agreed the practice should be discouraged, but felt if the word "prohibif is used it limits staff's ability to have short-term borrowing between internal reserves. From time to time that is necessary to advance a capital project or Council priority. Ms. McGovern referred to Program 13.8 and the preparation of periodic financial reports on funds received and expended. She did not understand why the program only talked about revenue received. Mr. Fialho said the program could be changed to say "prepare periodic financial reports of actual revenue and expenditures for review by the City Council." That is currently done through the comprehensive annual financial report. Ms. McGovern had the same comments as Mr. Brozosky regarding a definition for large housing in Program 13.9 and the necessary fiscal report. She understood and agreed with the need for flexibility as mentioned by staff. Regarding Program 14.4, she wondered if that could be an endowment account where the interest could be used for something else. Ms. Rossi indicated it was a decision of Council whether to credit interest to the account or not. There are pros and cons for both sides. This is a general fund contribution, so the interest could flow to the general fund. There are no exterior regulations that require the city to credit the interest to that fund. Mr. Fialho pointed out that 9.5% of payroll for miscellaneous employees and 16% for public safety employees is set aside for the reserve. Ms. Rossi cautioned against setting a dollar or time limit on the fund because it follows economic cycles. A cycle could be ten years. Ms. McGovern understood that but was uncomfortable having that much money tied up. She wanted to use the interest for other public needs. Mr. Fialho commented that when the policy is implemented, the particulars would be identified and brought to Council for review in the future. General Plan Workshop City Council 3 OS/23/06