PC Meeting 05/25/05

ITEM NO 11:                        CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN FOR 2006-2011 (DRG)

 

Hold public hearing on Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) for years 2006-2011.

 

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Guntert explained the Commission was presented with a full report of all projects submitted by the public and various City Departments for the 2006-2011 CIP.  About 50 projects from the Water and Wastewater Master Plans were scheduled beyond the 2011 time period but included in the CIP for informational purposes.

 

Mr. Guntert said the Commission was asked to hold a public hearing and then consider the conformance of the CIP projects individually and as a whole for their conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.  He responded to questioning that the public was encouraged to comment on the conformance and/or merits of any project.

 

Staff described how the CIP was used in concert with the CIP budget.  The Commission was presented with a memo explaining a 3-tier system defining a range of projects that could be accomplished under the current mill levy as well as under various mill levy increases.

 

It was established that the City Commission had the final decision about which projects would be funded, but the Planning Commission could make recommendations about projects they felt should be given more or less priority.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

No member of the public spoke on this item.

 

COMMISSION DISCUSSION

Staff was asked to explain the difference between the two Peterson Road projects, #32 & #63.  Mr. Guntert said #32 involved the improvement of an existing section of Peterson Road from Martin Park to Folks Road.  Item #63 was for the future construction of an as-yet unidentified route for extending Peterson Road.  This was in response to the identification of a need to provide a major east-west connection north of 6^th Street.

 

Staff responded to questioning that the Planning Commission could recommend Item #32 be moved up in the CIP budget from its current placement in 2011.  However, moving any project up must acknowledge that other projects would have to move down.

 

Haase suggested that the actual construction of the Peterson Road extension (#63) was appropriately placed in the CIP.  The important current issue was designating the alignment of the extension. 

 

Haase asked if anyone found any project not in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.

 

Burress stated that he had a history of voting against the CIP because the Commission was never provided with adequate data showing that each project was in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. He said he had been more involved in the CIP process this year and the system was much improved but still needed work.

 

It was noted that this year’s CIP included a table identifying which HORIZON 2020 policy was addressed by each project.  Burress said this was not adequate.  He wanted information on how each project would be a step in achieving a long-range Comprehensive Plan goal.

 

ACTION TAKEN

Motioned by Lawson, seconded by Eichhorn to approve the 2006-2011 CIP, finding all projects in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and forward it to the City Commission with a recommendation for approval.

 

            Motion carried 7-2, with Eichhorn, Erickson, Haase, Jennings, Krebs, Lawson and Riordan voting in favor.  Burress & Ermeling voted in opposition.