October 17, 2006 CCP - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMO (September 21, 2006 for the Meeting of September 25, 2006) To: Lake Elmo Planning Conmiission From: C *i ll Subject: 2007-2011. Capital Improvements Program (CIP) On September 25"the Connnission is scheduled to conduct a Public Hearing and develop a recommendation the City Council regarding the 2007-2011 CIP. I have attached a copy of the CIP as proposed by Staff and the Park Commission (regarding the Park Improvements section only). City Administrator Rafferty and Finance Director Boutlailet wit] be available to present the CIP and respond to questions from the Commission. As in prior years' CIP's negative fund balances result for some finds. In most cases the actual funding mechanism for those later years of the CIP are yet to be, decided. In some cases bonding will be required. In other cases (primarily Capital Equipment) the City may lease. In some cases projects will simply continue to be moved out in timing until an appropriate funding mechanism is decided. Since State Law views a CIP as a Comprehensive Plan element a Public Hearing and. formal adoption by the City Council is required each year. We simply drop the current year (2006 in this case) and add a year to the end (2011 in this case). The function of the Planning Commission in its review of the annual CIP is purely planning in nature, not accounting or financial. The Commission's review should go to whether the planning CIP activities proposed accurately reflect the proper project locations and staging related to the Comprehensive Plan. As a radical "for instance", if the proposed CIP indicated a street reconstruction project one year and a sewer line installation in the same street a year or two later, it would be a Comnission function to point out a tinting/order of improvements issue with the CIP. Or, if the proposed CIP showed a sanitary sewer extension in 2008 to an area of the City not staged by the Comprehensive Plan for sewer service until 2010 (or, maybe, never), another timing (and/or Plan compliance) issue should be noted by the Commission. Since in Lake Elmo the staff, Planning Commission and City Council are generally "on the same page" (not always the case in some other cormmunities), major CIP issues have not surfaced at the Planning Cormnission level in the past — nor do I expect they will this year. While tempting, I strongly suggest the Cormlussion not become immersed in CIP financial or equipment details. Those matters are truly City Council concerns, not Planning Commission.