10/04/1988 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 10/4/88 _5_ 4) Ordinance No. 88-101 was also reviewed; it provides for additional appropri- ations to the Rec Complex, Concession Supplies, and committee has no objection. 5) Committee reviewed Ordinance No. 88-102 which provides for a modest transfer of funds for animal control as well as an inter-fund transfer within the Recre- ation Department for the Pro Shop; committee has no objection. 6) McKenzie Road Culvert was discussed briefly; Council has already appropriated approximately $16,000 for this project. Mayor Petrigac did not have any firm information at this time, however, Director Noble did advise today that an engineering plan has just been completed and will be forwarded to the county. Mr. Noble will confirm a report that the county would cooperate with a 507 rate, because it was the committee's understanding that the city was going to have to put up the full amount. Mr. Noble will verify and report back. 7) Committee also discussed developing a plan for utilizing the city's bond credit to address some of its capital needs. Based on information received from the administration, the city is anticipating approximately $800,000 in additional revenue for 1989. Approximately $450,000 has already been committed as a result of bargaining unit contract negotiations which will leave $350,000 to be utilized to accomplish some of the goals and needs of the city. This is certainly not going to be sufficient to cover everything. There are two basic areas that were discussed in the area of capital improvement: one centered in the area of Deerfield and the other in the area of Timber Trails, for storm drainage. Councilmen McKay and Tallon will provide committee with some input to try and develop a reasonable program for 1989 which will resolve some of the pressing problems that exist. Mr. Wilamosky gave the following minority report with respect to Resolution No. 88-104: Mr. Wilamosky objects to placing Resolution No. 88-104 back into committee; it will not permit council to speak on its merits or shortfalls by retaining in .committee. If approved by the electorate, the ballot issue on Crocker/Stearns Extension will have a direct impact on the city resources. While Resolution No. 88-104 sounds very good - no new tax - it really does not explain how the city intends to pay its share of construction costs should the extension be approved by the electorate. People should be made aware that it is going to cost money if the road comes through; it may not be through a new tax issue, as this resolution indicates., but it does have to be provided and is going to have to come from another existing service. Does not want Resolu- tion No. 88-104 buried in committee. Perhaps the proponents of this legislation would introduce a resolution stating what existing services will have to be re- duced or eliminated to pay the city's share; does not believe anyone knows. Would like the resolution to come out of committee so council can deal with it and put it behind and move forward. Feels the people deserve to know that this council does not know where the money is going to come from now or in the mid 1990's. Mrs. Bahas responded to Mr. Wilamosky's minority report by advising that the administration has received a preliminary sign of interest for county interest in this proposal. Further, Issue 2 money is for construction of new roads; is not proposing borrowing, right at the moment, .like in Ward 3 for the culvert, which Mr. Wilamosky does not seem to have a problem with. This is not a tax issue, which is one of the reasons it is staying in committee; majority of the council feels it is a confusing issue. Feels this is a valid criticism. This resolution is a consent to study the feasibility of Crocker/Stearns and will be met just like all of Ward 3's projects - it will have a priority and budget just like Ward 3's projects. .k~~: v.~.,,