03/02/1999 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 3/2/99 lighting. They were surveyed approximately six years ago and were placed on the list ;,~: of streets to be addressed as recently as this year, although that was deemed to be an error. They have since been removed once again from the active list simply because they do not fit into the plan of oldest to newest-the plan that, in her opinion, is not a plan as yet. Even if the oldest to newest idea were to be refined with detailed costs and specific streets to be addressed in some chronological order, it seems to her that lighting in Twin Woods is a unique stand-alone issue--that these streets are not an exception to the plan but rather astand-alone leftover from previous plans that have been completed with the exception of Twin Woods. Twin Woods, and the promise that was made to those residents, has been abandoned. That is the crux of the matter, and that is a matter of integrity. Several Council members proposed either addressing Twin Woods first and then entering into a refined oldest to newest plan or looking for funds elsewhere within in the capital improvement budget. The latter choice would involve some creative financing. The $25,000 that was mentioned has been designated for street lighting. That was a leftover amount that is no longer needed for a particular project. Another idea might be to take some funds ($50,000) from slab repair and move it over, utilizing a portion of the windfall worker's compensation refund of $350,000 which was to be placed in a special fund for such a special need or borrowing an additional $75,000 since we know that $25,000 is already available in order to address Twin Woods simultaneously with the plan of other streets. The last suggestion, to borrow, needs to be discussed. First, increased borrowing is always a last resort. Secondly, we should look to other areas of the capital improvement budget, not the operations, but capital improvement to seek additional funds. Third, if we borrow $75,000, we are still below last year's borrowing. Further, we are not talking about liberal spending here, we're not talking about $300,000, we're talking about $75,000 in relation to approximately $2 million to address acity-wide concern. This leads to the final bit of creative financing which would be to borrow $200,000 in 1999 as opposed to the end of the program in 2001. It would amount to the same amount of money over three years for street lighting, but with the heavier borrowing in the first year instead of the last. It should be noted that street lighting is not a part of the operational budget but rather is, and will probably always be, borrowed money. So the question is borrow now or borrow later and perform the designated work. If the borrowing up front has not changed the total borrowing for the project and it gives rise to lower construction costs and further allows the city to respond to a commitment it made to residents, then she believes that avenue should be explored. Her no vote on the ordinance in committee is based on $100,000 in borrowing for street lights, which she feels is borrowing for a concept without parameters at this point. She is looking for a specific plan for addressing street lighting which will somehow include lighting Twin Woods. It should be noted that, in reference to the issue of borrowing additional funds in order to address Twin Woods, all members of Council present at the Finance meeting agreed to revisit the idea of additional borrowing in August or September when engineering estimates are complete. This would be acceptable and would most likely allow her to vote for the ordinance as it is if and when a plan for attacking the street lighting is clearly established. Until then, her vote would remain no. ,~ 5