My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRECA 11-12-1980
NewBrighton
>
Commissions
>
Commissions-OLD
>
Parks And Recreation
>
Minutes Park & Recreation Commission Meetings P&R 01200
>
AGENDAS
>
1980
>
PRECA 11-12-1980
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2007 4:05:57 AM
Creation date
3/15/2007 12:50:57 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
47
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />November 10, 1980 <br /> <br />TO: The Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council <br />FROM: Dennis S. Zyila, City Manager <br />RE: 1981-1986 Capital Improvement and Equipment Program <br />The enclosed analysis represents projects and project funding <br />proposed for 1981 through the capital planning and budgeting <br />process. In order~to understand the recommendation you should <br />be aware of my logic for .the use of funds. <br />First, if funds are to be spent to fund capital projects, I <br />believe the initial funds to be drawn on should be liquor <br />reserves, revenue sharing, and D4SA funds. I treat all three <br />fund sources as equal and call them "Priority 1 Uses". The <br />use of these funds will not jeopardize the City's cash position. <br />The second, or "Priority 2 Uses" are funds that could jeopardize <br />the City's cash position if drawn down too far, or should be <br />reserved for particular uses, i.e. use utility reserves for <br />utility projects. <br />"Priority 3 Uses" is the general fund,and such funds should <br />be used only when clearly shown to be surplus. <br />Every proposed 1981 proj~ <br />their preliminary review <br />the City Council decides <br />funding is Attachment B. <br />financial projections of <br />by the Finance Director, <br />pct considered by the Council in <br />of the CIP could be funded. If <br />to do so, my recommendation on <br />The recommendation is based on <br />unencumbered fund balances furnished <br />Attachment A. <br />The total value of all projects is $2,050,745. All but street <br />sealcoating is a capital project. Street sealcoating is <br />considered maintenance. $40,000 of the 1981 total project <br />cost is a 1980 expense because the architectural design fees <br />for the new liquor store have been deducted from the 1984 <br />year end cash on hand. To fund the 19$1 projects, cash on <br />hand would pay $1,398,745, or 68~, of the anticipated <br />expenditures. Special assessments or general obligation <br />tax levies would fund the balance. <br />In reviewing the list of 1981 projects my primary concern <br />is the extent of general fund reserves used to pay project <br />costs. Accordingly, I believe that any project that requires <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.