Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Montgomery Road Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council to consider expanding funding sources after Montgomery Road prepayment reduces FRP line item
Summary
City staff told the Finance, Claims, Budget and Audit Committee that a prepayment of roughly $680,000 reduced the Montgomery Road line in the Financial Recovery Plan and prompted an amendment to add Central Park TIF, public lands and buildings, and a street fund as potential capital sources.
City staff told the Finance, Claims, Budget and Audit Committee that a prepayment of roughly $680,000 reduced the line item for Montgomery Road in the Financial Recovery Plan, materially changing the funding picture for the project and prompting an amendment to add additional capital funds as potential sources.
"What I saw when I [reviewed] the beginning of the April FRP, it was, almost 3,000,000, but the for that budgeted line item in the streets. And then when the FRP actually passed, it was in down to 2.3. There was a road project that was paid early. That was about 680 some thousand," a staff member said when explaining the discrepancy. Staff and the safety-service director reviewed options to keep the Montgomery Road project from stalling and identified multiple capital-outlay funding sources.
According to staff, the project—s total cost is about $4.6 million and the city—s net obligation is roughly $2.3 million; the project is set up so part of the total will be reimbursed. To avoid delay, staff proposed expanding the number of funds that can pay capital outlay costs beyond the original general-fund streets allocation to include Central Park TIF, public lands and buildings, and a street fund originating in 2002.
The staff explanation said the exact amounts from each fund are still being determined and will depend on available TIF proceeds; Pat was asked to confirm available TIF dollars for infrastructure. Staff warned that reallocating capital outlay sources means other projects could be delayed or put on hold.
The amendment expanding allowable funding sources was added to the agenda shortly before the meeting. Staff emphasized the urgency: "So that's why it was urgent to get additional funding sources for that," and said they had already discussed the matter with Noah and Ken to identify legitimate funding choices.
Committee members requested disclosure and explanation of the change before council action because the amendment reduces flexibility for other projects and because the change appeared on the agenda late. No formal council vote was recorded during the committee discussion; the amendment was described as on the agenda for the upcoming council consideration.
