AgdaPkt 2006-08-07 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7A Page 2 4. When a project goal or Council commitment ties into resource savings (e.g., artificial play fields). 5. No funding impact to projects targeting high-use public facilities already in the pipeline with additional funding needed to complete the project in FY 2006- 2007 (e.g" Main Library Renovation). 6. CIP reductions should not overly-affect less advantaged areas of the City (e.g., Hoover Park Renovation). C. Criteria for Withholding Funding for the Following Projects/Programs 1. Projects/programs with sufficient funding balance from previous year. 2. Long term programs which have ramp-up funding in the previous year, consider scaling back down to lower level of funding. 3. New projects proposed in FY 2006-2007 which will not have an imminent negative impact. 4. Planning, environmental review and/or design development, defer if future funding not certain. 5. Project can be funded by other funding sources or potential grants. 6. System out-dated, but not broken, by deferring the project one year may result in better or newer technology. Alternatives 1. Council could direct staff to adjust the funding level withholding from the recommended list. 2. Council could elect to fund certain projects/programs from the General Fund Reserve or other funding sources. If we lose the $2 million a year from the UUT, staff will return to Council with a long range approach. Fiscal Impact The recommended list is a short term approach taking in a conservative manner. Staff will report back to Council to amend or reconfirm the budget appropriation, should the additional UUT information become available, but no later than January 2007, prior to the release of the first $1 M dollar budget allocation. ~ rlJJJL .. //f' ,/ Chu Chang I Patterson Ed Everett Manager, Engineering ommunity Development Services City Manager and Construction Director CHU:ss sIIibrarylreports/chulCIP Short Term Spending Page 2 of 3 -, '-