Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 30, 1993 <br />One option would be to televise the entire system over <br />a three year period to determine if there are <br />corrections that could be made to reduce I and I. <br />The Administrator reported that the Sewer Budget will <br />be presented to the Council at a later date for <br />adoption along with a recommendation for rate <br />adjustment. <br />The Administrator reviewed the General Capital <br />Improvement Budget pointed out that this was a first <br />attempt at this type of plan, and was a recommendation <br />of the City department heads. The capital improvement <br />requests were discussed in committee fashion, and the <br />ranking shown is a product of that discussion. The <br />Administrator reported that the plan still needs a lot <br />of work, and recommended that a workshop be held to <br />fine-tune the document. The Administrator felt that <br />the current budget year would be finalized annually, <br />and subsequent years would be a plan that would be <br />reviewed and modified annually. The Administrator also <br />indicated that before any dollars are spent, the <br />expenditure would have to be justified. With the <br />exception of the Comprehensive Plan Update and the <br />Community Survey, there will be more information <br />presented documenting the need for each expenditure. <br />Scalze indicated that she had a problem with some of <br />the items listed in the plan and agreed that the plan <br />needed a lot of fine-tuning. Scalze felt that the <br />Parks & Recreation Commission will have to review the <br />rankings to determine if they are in agreement. <br />The Administrator agreed that the Park & Recreation <br />Commission should review the document. However, the <br />final priorities should be a comparison of needs from <br />department to department. This first draft is an <br />attempt to show how it might work. <br />Scalze reported that the Park & Recreation Commission's <br />10-year plan does not match this document, and felt <br />that the Capital Improvement Plan should have been <br />presented to the Commission before the Council. <br />The City Administrator replied that staff had a copy of <br />the Commission's listing and used it in putting <br />together the draft plan. The Administrator indicated <br />that he had no problem with the Commission reviewing <br />this document and felt it merits their review. The <br />Administrator suggested that perhaps when the <br />Commission sees the dollars available, priorities may <br />chanqe. <br />Page 12 <br />