HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/06/1975i
1
Pledge
Roll Call
MINUTES
ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
MARCH 6, 1975 - 12:10.P.M.
CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL
PRESENT: John C. Brown, Myron Graham, T. Keith Gurnee, Jesse
Norris and Mayor.Kenneth E. Schwartz
ABSENT: None
City Staff
PRESENT: J.H. Fitzpatrick, City,Clerk;.R.D. Miller, City
Administrative Officer; Robert Strong, Director of
Community Development
ALSO PRESENT: Charles Dills and Foster Gruber, members of the
Citizens Advisory Committee
1: The City Council, Citizens Advisory Committee members,.City
Administrative Officer and the Community Development Director.discussed
at length the philosophy of the Capital Outlay Program of the City for
the past, present and future. They also discussed methods of implementing
the C.I.P. and.past approaches taken by the City Administrative Officer
and Council in trying to arrive at a priority list for the Capital Improve-
ment Program for the City.
2. Foster Gruber, Citizens-Advisory Committee, presented the recom-
mendations of the,CAC subcommittee and suggested a new approach or
methodology for arriving at the C.I.P. priority list. He suggested the
following::
A.. The City adopt a critical path approach for Capitad Improvement Program-
1. .min that extended for three to five years in the future. In this way,
cost.and functions could be better planned and coordinated. An annual
reshuffling of priorities had several counter - productive aspects.
B. First priority be given to projectslthat were-already authorized.or_
,committed by prior Council.action.
C. Second.priority be given to projects,and studies which would lead to the
development of the resource and facilities inventory prerequisite to
determining system deficiencies and programming essential improvements.
D.,.-Third priority..be given to projects required to correct existing
deficiencies with.emphasis toward.-deficiency correction projects
which serve the broadest areas of the community and descending priority
to deficiency correction projects of more localized benefit.
E..- The.continued. development of vacant land.within already.developed.areas
of the City,. ,..
.r
F. ..The expansion of present facilities to serve undeveloped areas within
the City limits,.
G.....The extension of .present.facilities.to serve undeveloped areas.within.
in the City's sphere of influence, but outside the corporate limits.
H. The "wish" lists prepared by City staff members should include more
complete descriptions of the work to be accomplished and the estimated
cost per fiscal year of each project, as well as the elapsed time
necessary to complete the work.
City Council Minutes
March 6, 1975
Page 2
I. The Council should establish a C.I.P. contingency fund in each annual
budget for unanticipated needs. Reserve accounts should be untouchable.
J. Projects by other agencies should be accompanied by City funds for
related City work.
K. The City Council should be provided with quarterly financial and work
progress statements that show amount budgeted, amount spent to date, and
percent of completion for each project.
L. If a project is to be dropped from the adopted C.I.P. list, the decision
to delete should be based upon a cost benefit analysis of that project
in comparison with proposed alternates.
The Citizens Advisory Committee had been able to schedule only one meeting since
the Category III list, prepared by the Administrative Officer, was received by
the members three weeks ago. As a result, the review had been somewhat cursory;
however, the subcommittee unanimously agreed on the following points:
1. Priority No. 1 should be the sewer plant headworks improvements.
Priority No. 2 should be the sewer and water rate study.
2. Items 36 and 56 on the Administrative Officer's list should be
deleted. Item 10 - Construct Community Center Building at Meadow
Park - should be deleted from Category III and placed in Category I.
3. Item 60 - Widen West Side of Higuera, Marsh to Madonna - should be
postponed indefinitely.
Robert Strong, Community Development Director, presented the recommended Capital
Improvement Program for 1975/76 as viewed by the City Planning Commission as
follows:
The Capital Improvement Program was a five or ten year priority schedule of
anticipated, major public expenditures derived from and reflecting the objectives
of the City's General Plan. One fundamental reason for a C.I.P. was to establish,
more specifically than the long -range plan, what needs to be done - first things
first. Another basic objective of the C.I.P. was to anticipate (i.e. plan)
capital outlay needs relative to available funding sources to enable accumulation
of budgeted funds, time to seek alternative financing, or if necessary, new
revenue sources; and to complete other prerequisite design, financing and
project planning. Additionally, a C.I.P. was intended to facilitate coordination,
enabling the City to relate projects as to timing, location, financing, or
function.
The past practice of the City of San Luis Obispo had been for each department
to submit a list of the possible proiects prioritized within the individual
spheres of responsibility, and for the City Administrator, Planning Commission,
and City Council to annually evaluate and rank the top priority projects into
a City -wide program. To provide perspective, the C.I.P. had compared the
proposed programs with the accomplishments of previous fiscal years, tabulating
projects completed since 1970 as "Category I," the status of reserve fund
accumulations as "Category II," and incomplete prior proposals as "Category III,"
but the City had not attempted to forecast long -range nor even short -term cost
ramifications of proposed projects.
It was, therefore, apparent that the local process of prioritizing proposed
projects had been only a partial and preliminary substitute for a "Capital
Improvement Program" in its ideal sense. It was equally obvious that the
City cannot perfect a Capital Improvement Program without completion of: a
comprehensive plan establishing Community Development objectives and priorities;
without further plan refinements such as cost /revenue studies, which define the
fiscal needs and abilities of the City; and without prerequisite definition
of the criteria and relative importance of the project priorities proposed.
1
1
City Council Minutes
March 6, 1975
Page 3
Nonetheless, as a step toward a more effective and coordinated C.I.P.
effort,.this report reflects a departure from the traditionally requested
response by each department and instead, provided a single collaborative
response of all community development departments (Planning and Building,
Public Works, Parks and Recreation and Water Departments), particularly
producing the following results:
1. Establishment of a single set of criteria and "priorities" by
' which all projects could be consistently evaluated.:
2. Focus on only the top priority,.immediate projects and programs
in recognition that the inventory available to many departments
was incomplete or otherwise deficient.
In essence, the Community Development Departments collaboratively establish
the following priority list:
1. That first priority be given to projects already.authorized or
committed by prior Council action.
2. That second priority be given to projects and studies which would
lead to the development of the resource and facilities inventory
prerequisite to determining system deficiencies and programming
essential improvements.
3. ..That third priority be given to projects required to correct
existing deficiencies with emphasis toward deficiency correction
projects which serve the broadest areas of the community and
descending priority to deficiency correction projects of more
localized benefit.
4. The continued development of vacant land within already developed
areas of the City.
' 5. The expansion of present facilities to serve undeveloped areas
within the City limits.
6. The extension of present facilities to serve undeveloped areas
within the City's sphere of influence, but outside the corporate
limits.
Rather than compare the City Administrator's review and recommendations
for ranking projects within the 1975/76 C.I.P. against those initially
requested by the individual departments, this report recommended that _
the Commission and Council re- evaluate the criteria by which projects or
programs were rated. The above six - level priority system should be
discussed and resolved before evaluating individual project proposals.
If the general priorities outlined appear acceptable, the staff was prepared
to present an initial list of 50 top priorities and programs compiled col-
laboratively by cooperative staff effort. These projects were tentatively
outlined in the :.therci exhibit and the list did not attempt to program
all possible or requested proposals. The list could, however, be used to
illustrate the relative importance and mixture preferred collectively by
technical staff, which differs from prior C.I.P. priorities in several
important respects:
' 1. Certain optional reserve funds would be abandoned and the
resources instead allocated to more "essential" and "important"
local improvements.
2. The list itself would reflect relative priority and some worthy
proposals would be excluded until more comprehensive studies were
completed and present critical "deficiencies" were corrected.
Robert Strong then submitted for the Council's information the City
Administrative Officer's priority..list for 1975/76 C.I.P. as recast by the
Planning Commission using criteria listed above.
City Council Minutes
March 6, 1975
Page 4
Mayor Schwartz, for comparison's sake, with that of the Planning Commission,
submitted his recommended priority list for the 1975/76 C:I.P:
After further discussion by the City Council, Citizens Advisory Committee members
and staff, the matter of the priority listing for the 1975/76 C.I.P. was con-
tinued for further discussion., The City Council did not accept or approve any
of the project list presented.
On motion of Councilman Brown, seconded by Councilman Graham, the meeting
adjourned to 7:.30 p.m. on Monday,_March 10, 1975.
APPROVED: July 7, 1975 /!/✓h��y
�/J'. �r zpatrick, City Clerk
1
1