Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-03-25 City Council (6)THE SUBJECT OF THIS REPORT ISA COUNCIL PRIORITY C ty BUDGET 1996-98 City of Palo Alto Manager Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION: FINANCE COMMITTEE FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT:ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AGENDA DATE: MARCH 25, 1996 CMR:165:96 SUBJECT:BUDGET ISSUE: CONSIDERATION PROGRAM CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR OF 1996-98 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS: This report is information on an important budget issue, providing the conceptual framework for consideration of the 1996-98 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). It is recommended that the Council consider the option of pursuing supplemental long-term financing, for rehabilititating the City’s aging infrastructure, and the City Manager’s Proposed 1996-1998 Capital Improvement Program has been prepared taking this into account. A comprehensive infrastructure plan and recommended t~mancing mechanisms will be presented to the Finance Committee in the fall of 1996. BACKGROUND: City General Fund departments submitted over $14 million in requests for the 1996-1998 CIP, an unprecedented level. The majority of these requests did not represent augmentation of current services or new services, but were instead focused on repair and rehabilitation of City facilities that are nearing the end of their useful lives in terms of service provision. Attachment 1 summarizes the requests received. There may be other needs, as no specific direction was given to staffto submit infrastructure projects in this year’s CIP. The scope and dollar amount of projects clearly indicates that the traditional, $3-4 million pay-as-you- go financing strategy for the General Fund CIP could not meet the identified needs, even after screening the projects, a supplemental long-term financing plan is required. In November 1995. (CMR:455:95), staffrequested that the Council give conceptual approval to proceed with the initial stages of setting up a Landscape and Light’mg Benefit Assessment District (LLAD) to fund additional levels of service related to tree care and maintenance, and CMR:165:96 Page 1 of 12 maintenance of Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) playing fields. The Finance Committee decided to hold the staff recommendation in Committee, pending receipt of a comprehensive review and funding proposal for the City’s non-utility infrastructure needs, along with issues related to park maintenance. In its review of the Tree Task Force recommendations on December 18, 1995, the City Council affirmed this direction. Staff plans to return to Council in fall 1996 with such a comprehensive infrastructure plan. Attachment 2 is a proposed timeline. It would be premature to assume that the Council would approve any or all elements of a supplemental long-term financing plan in fall 1996. Therefore, a somewhat different approach was taken to develop the General Fund CIP for 1996-98. The City Manager’s Proposed 1996-98 Budget assumes the "traditional" pay-as-you-go CIP for FY 1996-97. For the second year of the budget, 1997-98, another "traditional" pay-as-you-go CIP has been prepared, composed mainly of continuing projects. If the Council were to decide not to pursue supplemental long-term financing, the 1997-98 Budget would be adjusted during the Interim Budget process. Under this concept, the second year CIP could also be used, again with adjustments, in the event that Council decided to take additional time or to undertake additional public outreach programs for any elements of a supplemental long-term financing plan, and had not made a final decision by the time the Interim 1997-98 Budget process was under way. If, on the other hand, Council decided, after reviewing all the infrastructure needs of the City in fall 1996, to direct staff to pursue supplemental long-term financing, staff has a contingency plan which could serve as the basis for the 1997-98 CIP. This CIP, with adjustments, would be developed for presentation to Council during the Interim Budget process. To prepare this contingency plan, a review has been completed of all projects submitted for the 1996-98 CIP to determine whether they would be appropriate for either debt or assessment district financing. (No assumption was made about other supplemental long-term financing options, such as increases to utility users tax revenues). The contingency plan envisions a 1997-98 CIP which reflects a combination of pay-as-you-go and supplemental, long-term financing for major capital projects in areas such as buildings, infrastructure and parks. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: It is prudent for Council to consider a change to the traditional pay-as-you-go philosophy for the General Fund CIP, as the City’s aging infrastructure will require significant investment in the next several years, and the traditional pay-as-you-go financing will not be sufficient. Potential supplemental long-term financing options include debt f’mancing and other alternative revenue sources, such as a downtown business improvement district and a Citywide landscape and lighting assessment district. The Council may also have the option CMR:165:96 Page 2 of 12 of extending the utility users tax (UUT) to international and interstate phone calls, or of raising the UUT rate; however, it is unclear at this time how the recent court decision on Proposition 62 may impact the Council’s ability to act. The City has used such alternative financing options for infrastructure in the past. Debt financing has been used for capital improvements to the Golf Course, and was also utilized when the City needed to make major structural improvements to the Civic Center for seismic safety and fire prevention. Parking assessment districts in the Downtown and California Avenue areas were the vehicle to issue debt to acquire land for, and construction of, parking facilities. The UUT, approved by voters in 1989, was a general purpose tax, but filled a funding need to address the backlog of street and sidewalk repair. The Storm Drainage Enterprise Fund was created in 1989 to address major capital requirements in that system, previously part of the General Fund base budget. DISCUSSION: In recent years, it has become apparent that the City’s infrastructure is aging rapidly, and that major efforts will be required to ensure continuation of adequate levels of service. The City’s Utilities are already well along in the process of infrastructure rehabilitation. The Electric, Water, Gas and Wastewater Collection Systems have all embarked on a major infrastructure renewal program. The Water Quality Treatment Plant Partners are currently in the early stages of investigating alternatives for a capital rehabilitation plan for the sludge incinerators that will require debt financing and may range from $15 million to $30 million. In the 1995-2000 CIP, the Council conceptuallp approved moving towards acquisition of the Los Altos Treatment Plant site for construction of refuse transport facilities and possibly a Utilities infrastructure program staging area. This project could cost as much as $6.5 million for site acquisition and construction. The City recently issued $8.6 million in utility revenue bonds to finance first phase improvements to the Storm Drainage system. While the final scope of the storm drainage master plan implementation is dependent upon the results of a public outreach effort and Utilities Advisory Commission review currently underway, it is estimated that up to a total of a 30-year, $60 million rehabilitation program may be required, to be financed through a combination of debt and pay-as-you-go, rate-based financing. It is not only the City’s Utility operations that are sorely in need of attention, however. In February 1996 (CMR: 123:96), staff presented an update to the Finance Committee on the proposed renovation of the Golf Course. Staff anticipates beginning construction in FY 1997-98, and is recommending issuing debt ($5.0-$6.0 million in revenue bonds) to finance the bulk of the improvements, with some in-house improvements being undertaken in CMR:165:96 Page 3 of 12 subsequent years. Consultant work has also recently begun on a planning and feasibility study for the development of a parking structure(s) on one or more sites located within the parking assessment district in downtown Palo Alto. The feasibility study is included in the City’s 1994-95 CIP and will include conceptual designs, cost estimates, environmental analysis, economic impacts and consideration of ground floor retail uses. The estimated cost of the study is $80,000. The General Fund would eventually be repaid for the costs of the study from bond proceeds generated to construct a parking facility, should an assessment district be formed for that purpose. The cost to design and construct a parking structure(s) is likely to be in the range of $4 to $6 million and would be fully financed through debt issued by the assessment district. However, the majority of General Fund-supported programs impacted by deteriorating infrastructure do not have the option that the rate- or fee-based operations have to pass these costs for maintaining the infrastructure back to the customers purchasing the commodity or receiving the service. This report focuses on those infrastructure needs which do not have an identified source of funding at this time. Buildings and Building Support Systems: The 1995-96 Public Works budget includes funding for the first phase of an Infrastructure Management System, which will encompass City buildings and building support systems. The consultant working on the project is scheduled to complete data gathering and have a report to the Finance Committee in August 1996, which will identify a recommended prioritized list of backlogged infrastructure replacement and maintenance items with costs, as well as an annual life cycle expenditure requirement. Information from this report will be critical to determining funding capacity for this element of the City’s infrastructure. It is anticipated that, in future years, the Infrastructure Management System will encompass all other General Fund infrastructure components, such as bridges, parks and parking lots. Over the past several years, the only building system category which has received priority for CIP funding is roof replacement. Many of the City’s buildings are approaching 30, 40 or 50 years old, and their roofs have deteriorated to the point of requiting replacement. While significant progress has been made by funding roof replacements at the Civic Center, Municipal Services Center, Senior Center and several fire stations, a significant short-term backlog remains. It is estimated that $700,000 will be required over the next five years for roof replacement projects, in order to prevent failure and leaks as the City’s buildings continue to age. This figure will be updated upon completion of the building systems assessment. The Police and Fire Departments have significant space needs that are not being met by the space allocated to them in the Civic Center complex. In the 1996-97 CIP, the Police Department submitted a proposal for major structural modifications to the A Level to CMR:165:96 Page 4 of 12 reconfigure the current locker rooms and office space area. The reconfiguration is needed since the existing space is no longer adequate to meet the needs of Police personnel. While some minor changes have been made over the years in order to accommodate female and reserve officers, these modifications have resulted in five small, separate and inadequate locker rooms that still do not provide enough room for all the lockers that are needed. The piecemeal approach has also resulted in a serious compromise to the security of the area. One of the great security concerns is that officers store their weapons in their lockers. Additionally, the design of the office areas on A Level does not meet minimum standards for. efficient use of space, which has resulted in crowded and compromised working situations. For example, until a recent temporary remedy was found, nine sergeants were sharing a 64 square foot office. The Fire Department submitted a project to equip a modem Emergency Operations Center (EOC), utilizing not only the A level, but other City Hall space. The existing EOC is not adequately equipped or sized to function effectively or efficiently during a long-term disaster. Since the current EOC serves as the City’s computer training center, the project would also involve enabling the Cubberley Community Center to be connected via a wide- area network to City Hall, so that computer training can be moved. Preliminary analysis indicates it may be prudent to consider the need for a separate Public Safety Building, prior to spending $1 to $2 million, plus more, for such renovations of the current, inadequate space in City Hall. Community. Services Facilities As part of the discussion of the Comprehensive Plan (CMR: 119:96), staff presented the Council with information regarding the stress on community facilities resulting from longer operating hours, more diverse programs and uses, and more things happening at each site. Reinvestment in these aging facilities - libraries, the Cultural Center, community centers - will be critical in the near future. In addition, emerging service concepts may require consideration of new facilities for childcare, youth programs, homeless services or the performing arts. The Community Services Department is currently preparing an inventory of the facilities needs, and will bring that back as part of the overall infrastructure plan in fall 1996. Tree Program In December 1995 (CMR:516:95), stafftransmitted recommendations to the Council on Tree Task Force (TTF) issues. The Council adopted a goal of phased implementation of certain TTF proposals over a two to five-year period, subject to the development and approval of new revenue sources during that period. The TTF proposals included staffing and funding to undertake: a five-year average trimming cycle, annual planting targets, creation of a nonprofit tree group, and the development and implementation of a tree protection ordinance. Staff estimated the costs associated with implementing the TTF proposals at $342,000 in CMR:165:96 Page 5 of 12 ongoing additional annual costs for the General Fund and $169,000 in one-time General Fund costs. In addition, maintenance costs for Golf Course trees and trees in open space areas, which were not a part of the TTF proposal, will need to be considered in developing 0the total cost of the Citywide tree program. PAUSD Fields As part of the 1995-96 Budget, Council approved a parmership arrangement with PAUSD which involved the City assuming responsibility for the maintenance of the District’s athletic fields at two middle schools and one elementary school (CMR:202:95). Because of the need to identify supplemental long-term financing for the additional maintenance and capital costs associated with the plan, the first two years of implementation envision only an enhanced maintenance effort, with significant capital expenditures not beginning until at least the third year. The 1995-96 and 1996-97 annual budgets of approximately $370,000 will escalate in 1997-98 to $640,000, with the assumption of the remaining 24 acres of elementary school sites into the program; and in 1998-99 to $1,131,000 and 1999-2000 to $1,280,000, incorporating maintenance and initiating capital improvements to all sites. This five year plan does not include all capital renovations required: an estimated $609,000 would remain for elementary school in~gation renovations and major renovations to the tennis courts at JLS and Jordan School sites. Parks and Open Space In early 1989, Community Services staffprepared a condition evaluation of the City’s urban parks, landscaped median strips, landscaped parking lots and three open space preserves, in order to provide the basis for a long-range plan for the City’s CIP to address deficiencies in the parks system and related parks equipment. The- study was updated and revised in 1992 to separate pathways, picnic areas, tennis courts, basketball courts and satellite irrigation sites. This Parks Infrastructure Survey, updated each year to recognize inflation and to incorporate changes to proposed projects, has been used to develop the past six years’ capital program for the parks. Another full revision is planned for the summer of 1996, to be incorporated into the comprehensive report to the Finance Committee on infras~acture. The current cost estimate for parks infrastructure needs totals $6.3 million. The City also manages and maintains approximately 4,000 acres of open space, including Foothills Park, the Arastradero Preserve, Esther Clark Park, Byxbee Park, Palo Alto Baylands and the City-owned marshlands in East Palo Alto. Contained within these open space lands are more than 22 miles of hiking trails, 8 picnic areas, an overnight campground, 2 nature interpretive centers, a sailing station, numerous restrooms, 3 lakes, 21 acres of turf and thousands of trees. Staffhas been working diligently to maintain this critical element of the City infrastructure, but the scope of work and associated costs is daunting. It includes addressing issues of overgrown trees; needed trail restoration; erosion damage; antiquated irrigation systems and the need to install backflow devices for health and safety reasons; CMR:165:96 Page 6 of 12 maintenance of firebreaks given heavy vegetation growth; picnic and campground area amenities; heating and ventilation systems at the interpretive centers and ranger stations, as well as deterioration due to wear and tear; road systems in the open space areas, lake and duck pond aeration and vegetation clearance; parking lots; duck pond aeration and vegetation; signage; fencing; and a host of other concerns. Cubberley Master Plan In the original Cubberley Master Plan, approximately $18 million in improvements to the Cubberley facility were identified. These needs have been prioritized and some capital repairs, mainly to roofs, has taken place. However, in November 1995 (CMR:457:95), staff informed the Council that revenues from the UUT over the past several years have been less than originally anticipated, and furore projections do not provide for significant increases in UUT revenues. Revenues from the UUT are not sufficient to cover payments associated with the Lease and Covenant Not to Sell or Develop with the PAUSD, as well as to provide funding for eliminating the backlog of street and sidewalk repairs over time, provide for operational and maintenance costs associated with the Cubberley Community Center, and, over a period of years, fund capital improvements outlined in the Cubberley Master Plan (CMR:240:91). A separate budget issues staffreport provides the Council with alternatives for addressing this infrastructure and service level issue. Streets and Sidewalks All of the City’s streets are surveyed every two years, to assess condition and to determine maintenance requirements. The last survey was completed in early 1994. A new survey will be conducted in spring 1996. The current backlog of unfunded street maintenance needs is $3 million. This backlog is coupled with an average annual deterioration rate of $1.5 million of additional repairs needed per year. Historically, the CIP has provided $1.8 million per year for contract street maintenance and resurfacing activities. Thus, the annual budget - allocation exceeds the average deterioration rate by $0.3 million per year, enabling that amount to be applied to the accumulated backlog. At $0.3 per year, it would take an estimated ten years to accomplish the known backlog of work. The estimated backlog for sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement is based on a Citywide needs assessment performed in 1985. This assessment is updated based on actual work requirements experienced during annual repair contracts as compared to 1985 estimates. Based upon that data and additional requirements added to the program as legislative mandates, the current estimated backlog is $9 million. This includes an estimated $1.5 million in curb ramp installations, required by the Americans With Disabilities Act, which were not part of the 1985 database. The CIP has historically provided $0.5 million per year from a combination of utility users tax and other General Fund revenues for the sidewalk program. At this rate of funding, the backlog would take eighteen years to be accomplished. CMR:165:96 Page 7 of 12 Two factors could drastically increase the identified backlog: an increase in the deterioration rate; and competing demands for the use of revenues currently allocated to street and sidewalk replacement. Regarding the first factor, the estimated street backlog and deterioration rate was developed from historical information from the late 1980’s through the mid-1990’s, most recently updated in 1994. The majority of this period involved unusually mild, dry weather, and consequently reflects minimal pavement deterioration and tree root growth. After the past two years of normal to above average rainfall, staff has made preliminary observations of significantly increased pavement deterioration, as well as above normal tree root growth. Therefore, staff is concerned that this year’s update may show corresponding increases in both backlog and deterioration rate. The second factor potentially subject to change is the allocation of funding for street resurfacing and sidewalk replacement. Funding for the City’s street and sidewalk program comes from two sources: the General Fund and Street Improvement Fund. In the General Fund, $1 million is annually allocated from L~T revenues, along with $0.4 million in non- UUT funding. The Street Improvement Fund, which relies on State gas tax monies and interest earnings, provides another $0.9 million to $1 million for street resurfacing. The Street Improvement Fund has traditionally been used primarily to fund the City’s street resurfacing program; each year, some monies have also been allocated for minor traffic or bicycle safety improvements. In recent years, however, the number and cost of such projects has escalated sharply, to the point that projections now show that the Fund’s reserve balance will be totally exhausted within the next two years. This means that, unless Council determines that the prior commitment of funding for street resurfacing should be scaled back, the General Fund will have to take on such traffic and bicycle safety improvements or increase its share of funding the total street resurfacing program budget. Insufficient UUT revenue to meet such needs was discussed briefly above, in the section on the Cubberley Master Plan; and is also discussed in more detail in a separate budget issues staff report. Traffic Safety. Improvements Infrastrncture costs associated with the Traffic Program are discussed in a separate Budget Issues staff report (CMR: 161:96). Comprehensive Plan Implementation Implementation of the new Comprehensive Plan is discussed in the accompanying staff report on Service Proposals Proceeding on Alternative Timelines (CMR:139:96). An estimate of the capital costs will be made during preparation for publication of the Draft Plan, scheduled for fall 1996. CMR:165:96 Page 8 of 12 Downtown Business District Improvements Funding of $100,000 for the schematic design for downtown improvements is included in the 1995-96 Budget. The goal is to define the areas of the downtown that are in need of improvement, prioritize improvements to be made, propose a schedule for undertaking the improvements and identify the costs of the program. Based upon the final schematic design, estimated costs for implementation are $250,000 for FY 1996-97 and a like amount for FY 97-98. First year improvements will be in signage, street furniture, newsracks and landscaping. It is anticipated that downtown business owners will participate financially in implementation of the improvements. Future improvements could total as much as $1 to $1.5 million, depending upon available funding. University. Avenue Intermodal Transportation Center ("Dream Team") Planning Department staff indicates there is a high likelihood that the State will provide $200,000 toward the next phase study of issues related to the University Avenue Intermodal " Transportation Center area. Funds would likely become available after fall 1996. A total of $400,000 was originally projected to cover the full costs of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and design development. Staffhas prepared a draft request to three other entities, the Joint Powers Board, County Transit Agency and Stanford University, to contribute the remaining unfunded costs of this element of the project. Staff from these entities have indicated tentative willingness to jointly plan the area, and City staff believe that shared design development and EIR costs is in the interest of all the entities. If funding is identified, it is anticipated that the design/EIR will start in FY 1996-97 and continue into FY 1997-98. Implementation will occur incrementally, may be paid for by developments in the area or other public agencies and is unlikely to be possible until the year 2000, with the exception of circulation and facility expansion and potential circulation improvements now being considered by the Santa Clara County Transit Agency. The entire cost for the improvements is estimated to be $33 million. Infrastructure Project Management Public Works staff is currently developing a computerized project management system, which will fully assess the ability of the Public Works Department to administer the construction-related portion of the CIP budget. Preliminary results indicate that the current level of staff’mg is unable to keep up with the FY1995-96 and proposed FY1996-97 CIP workload. This confirms the findings of the Hughes Heiss audit, which concluded that, in the case of the Engineering Division, three additional FTE’s are required to support the assigned workload. Staff intends to perform a more comprehensive evaluation, taking into account the workload generated from both the Infrastructure Management Study, and from a possibly expanded FY1997-98 CIP program funded from nontraditional funding sources. The workload capability information would be available when these items are discussed with Council next fiscal year. CMR:165:96 Page 9 of 12 ALTERNATIVES: The 1996-97 CIP allocates approximately $4.7 million for immediate capital needs, focusing on projects which represent health and safety concerns or deteriorating infrastructure that, if not addressed, will be significantly more expensive to repair or rebuild in future years. In addition, some projects are recommended because their implementation will have substantial productivity benefits for the entire City. Instead of preparing a "traditional" CIP for 1997-98, however, included in the proposed budget is only the funding which will be required to continue or fulfill commitments rnade for projects through FY 1996-97. It is recommended that alternative additional funding be pursued for capital improvements needed in 1997-98 and subsequent years, and that the 1997-98 CIP should be finalized after Council has given approval to a specific funding strategy. A number of altematives could be considered to address infrastructure issues, alone or in combination one with the other. Pay-as-You-Go Financing or Financing from the Budget Stabilization Reserve The Council could choose to continue to utilize the pay-as-you-go philosophy for major infrastructure needs. This would mean prioritizing the most critical needs, and postponing capital rehabilitation and replacement for many projects. The Council could also make reductions in the operating budget by reducing services, in order to make monies available for the capital program. The Budget Stabilization Reserve, on the other hand, is forecast to be approximately $15 million at the end of this fiscal year. Council has adopted a policy to keep this reserve at between 10 and 30 percent of General Fund operating expenditures, roughly $8 million to $30 million. The current level is within those guidelines. Council could choose to use these accumulated savings to address infrastructure needs. Given the magnitude of the needs, either pay-as-you-go or reserve financing is not viable on its own, without consideration of other sources of supplemental financing. Debt Financing Debt financing is appropriate for large projects or for a number of similar projects (such as facilities rehabilitation) that cannot be accommodated within the pay-as-you-go CIP. Assets acquired or rehabilitated using debt financing must have useful lives commensurate with the term of the debt. Debt financing may also provide cost benefits in cases where advanced deterioration means an asset is more costly to repair or replace than if replacement were planned for the optimal point in its life cycle. This type of financing allows payments to be spread evenly over the economic useful life of the acquired or restored asset(s). It also ensures, from an equity standpoint, that the people who are enjoying the benefit of an asset, such as a facility, are the same ones who are paying for it. There are at least $10 million in such projects that staffbelieves could be debt financed, judging from 1996-98 CIP submittals alone. Finally, debt financing can be identified with a specific geographic area. Assessment CMR:165:96 Page 10 of 12 districts are typically formed for these types of improvements. The next two examples are types of assessment districts. Landscape and Lighting Assessment District A recent staff report (CMR:455:95) provided information on this form of financing. Staff believes that a landscape and lighting assessment district would be appropriate for funding an expanded tree program and the PAUSD fields, as well as augmented parks and landscaping work. The current tree program, or other current parks maintenance and capital programs, could also be funded using an LLAD. Special Assessment Districts Special assessments may be used as a financing vehicle when the value or benefit to property of the improvements for which the assessment is levied can be assigned to the individual properties. This may be appropriate financing for business district improvements. Improve- ments are usually associated with infrastructure or support structures, including street paving, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, street lighting, off-street parking, or landscaping. There are a number of special assessment acts under Califomia law, and districts do not necessarily have to be formed for debt financing purposes, but may be used solely for maintenance. Utility. Users Tax The Council could increase General Fund revenues over the long-term, by increasing the UUT rate or by approving the extension of the tax to interstate and international phone calls. In September 1993, staff presented the Finance Committee with a recommendation to consider extending the UUT (CMR:423:93). It was estimated at that time that the additional revenue that could be generated by such action would be between $400,000 to $600,000 per year. Staff believes that this may have been a conservative estimate. The Finance Committee decided to hold the extension of the UUT in Committee for the purpose of determining which customer classes would be impacted and the nature of the impact, and to recommend to the Council that no further action be taken in the absence of a determined fiscal need. Both the extension of the UUT and an increase in the UUT rate may be affected by the recent court decision regarding Proposition 62, and by a proposed voter initiative that would sharply curtain cities’ ability to raise taxes. It is unclear how the decision affects Charter cities, and until this issue is either clarified by the legislature or the courts, this option may or may not be possible. FISCAL IMPACT" Attachment 3 summarizes cost estimates for each of the infrastructure areas discussed, and provides an indication of potential financing sources. CMR:165:96 Page 11 of 12 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Summary of 1996-98 Capital Improvement Fund Requests for the General Fund and Street Improvement Fund Proposed Timeline for Consideration of Comprehensive General Fund Infrastructure Plan Attachment 3:Estimated Unfunded Infrastructure Needs and Potential Financing Mechanisms ’ DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:~. ~ Em~ily Harrison ¯Deputy City Manager, CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CC:N/A CMR:165:96 Page 12 of 12 ATTACHMENT 2: PROJECTED TIMELINE for the Infrastructure Plan DATE ACTION ITEM FOR REPORT January CIP Screening Committee Meeting to determine goals for the Long-Term infrastructure needs. April-May Gather information, structure report, and write it up. June 30 Consultant Infrastructure Management System report due. July Report to CIP Screening Committee. Aug 21 Report to City Manager. Sept 12 Finance Committee Meeting. Oct 21 Council meeting. ~o~_