My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2017-05-08 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
AgdaPkt 2017-05-08 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/11/2017 8:43:31 AM
Creation date
5/4/2017 3:47:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
5/8/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
493
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
· Are there projects in the proposed five-year CIP that the Council believes are not <br />warranted? <br /> <br />· Should the substandard street improvement project be included in the CIP? And <br />if so, would cost-sharing of improvements be expected? The substandard street <br />improvement project would require a substantial investment of staff time and <br />could cost up to $110 million to bring all the streets in the City to current <br />standards with curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and drainage facilities. The City <br />periodically receives inquiries about improvements to these streets, particularly <br />because of flooding. These are mostly residential streets that were incorporated <br />into the City in a substandard condition in accordance with the preferences of the <br />residents at the time. The City has not developed a CIP project to <br />comprehensively assess potential improvements to substandard streets, resident <br />desires, or funding mechanisms. Because such a project would be a significant <br />undertaking, staff seek Council direction on whether this should be included in <br />the CIP, and whether cost-sharing of improvements would be expected. Past <br />practice has been to fund such improvements through an assessment district that <br />includes the properties directly benefiting from the capital investment. <br /> <br />· Storm water projects, given the current revenue sources, are unlikely to be fully <br />funded in the next few years. However, these projects are needed to meet the <br />public safety. Should staff explore dedicated funding options to fund storm water <br />projects such as a storm water fee? <br /> <br />· Should staff pursue one or more new revenue options to fund capital projects? If <br />so, an initial step would be discussion with the Finance and Audit Committee. <br /> <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />Council may provide input on the proposed Five Year CIP and/or request that staff <br />modify the approach used. <br /> <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br />The assessment of potential projects anticipates total costs of $527.9 million. Current <br />revenue sources are anticipated to generate approximately $143 million over the next <br />five years. The proposed FY 2017-18 project request of $37.8 million balances <br />proposed project funding requests with anticipated revenue and staff capacity. <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW <br />The Five Year CIP budget and development process is not a project pursuant to the <br />California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(4) <br />9.A - Page 17
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.