CC_Minutes_2008_0616 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, June 16, 2008 Page 14 Further discussion on financing options continued, including a revolt'- • ing loan fund; recreation management plan similar to the PMP Fund over a 15 - 20 year period; public support for the park system making a referendum manageable; need to keep reserve funds in place without internal borrowing to reduce or retain annual General Fund levies and budgets; State legislation stipulations for sales tax use confined to re- gional considerations; current 3-year cap for levy limits; options for using referendums for creation of endowment funds; need to identify parks and/or equipment anticipated for a levy referendum; and the need for citizens to hold elected officials accountable to dedicate funds over the long-term. Councilmembers recognized the deficit planning by the City for its park system, while also recognizing this shortcoming in its capital as- set replacement program; and the need to balance needs of all depart- ments (i.e., skating center equipment; Fire Station mold) in the overall budget process. Councilmembers encouraged the P & R Commis- sioners to provide tangible objectives in a comprehensive, yet concise format that could be brought forward to voters for a referendum to • provide initial funds for reserve fund for P & R, as an ongoing en- dowment fund. Park Improvement Program (PIP) Councilmembers clarified that staffing needs and prioritization was a function of the City Manager and City Council, and not .part of the PIP, and balancing those needs with other department needs to pro- vide ahigh quality lifestyle for its citizens; while recognizing the im- pacts of those decisions on the maintenance and planning of the P & R Commission. Councilmembers noted incremental increases put in place last year and proposed to bring the PIP back in line. Discussion included staffing needs and/or understaffing in various City departments; considerations given to and potential policy discus- sions for park dedication of land and/or fees in new developments or redevelopment areas; reliance of the P & R Commission in determin- ing park and/or fee needs based on a master plan, with developers pre- ferring dedication of land rather than cash, and the preference of the P & R Commission for maintaining existing versus new projects; and the need to balance maintenance and replacement of ADA non- •