Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTranscriptsHoesterey Edgar Hoesterey TRANSCRIPT March 8, 1982 That now brings us to the second phase of tonight's meeting, which is for the capital budget. Mr. Mayor? Yes. Edgar May I make one kind of a comment, and I want to make this while we are still for- mally constituted because of the fact that it is appropriate. As we think in terms of capital improvements, I think that it's valid for us to reiterate our statements of many times, and that is that if there is a possibility of a capital improvement being funded by Redevelopment Agency funds, that we should use those funds accordingly and that includes Water Department improvements because I think that as we go into the more austere times that we see in the months and years ahead that we should certainly use that Redevelopment money literally every place we can. So with the intent of reemphasizing what we said before, I want to make the motion that if the capital improvement can be funded through Redevelopment funds, it should be, so that there's no doubt on the part of staff's mind that that's our intent. So I make that as a motion just to reemphasize what we said before. Hoesterey Do we have a second for that motion? Kennedy Well, I'll second it for purposes of discussion and just comment that I thought that we had already agreed upon that. Edgar I think so, but I think that it's appropriate to reiterate it, just to emphase the fact that, uh . . . and we may not have been clear in saying that it should include Water Department improvements. We have done Water Department improve- ments. For example, we've put the water main down El Camino with Redevelopment money, but I think it's appropriate to reemphasize it. Hoesterey I think that along those lines, that the purpose of Redevelopment is to help rebuild an area to bring in new business, to revitalize a business area, and therefore, that Redevelopment money should be used in any facet of revitalizing the area. Edgar Yeah, but would it achieve that purpose? Hoesterey Absolutely. If that's what you're stating. Edgar It's restating. I think we've said it before, but I think it's appropriate to repeat it. Hoesterey OK. Any other comments or discussion on the motion, just a restatement of policy. Ok, then, I'll call the question. Any opposed to the restatement? Car- ries. Kennedy Question. Hoesterey Yes. Kennedy A question to Bob Ledendecker. Bob, as we look forward to a November completion date, does that include the street? Edgar Oh, yeah. Ledendecker Yes, that will include the reconstruction or refurbishing of the street, new curb and gutter, and the sidewalk areas and all landscaping. Kennedy Thank you. Hoesterey OK. Now, we'll go to the second phase of our meeting which was called as a capi- tal improvement workshop, and we'll have a statement of the purpose of the meet- ing. Mr. Huston. 0 0 improvements. I'm not sure it would be practical to go project by project and attempt to put a priority on it. I think what may be more helpful is if the Coun- cil and Agency, from a policy standpoint, would give us some direction as to what are your priorities. Are they beautification projects, or are they projects rela- ted to traffic safety and pedestrian safety? Is undergrounding a priority? Just what types of projects do you feel have highest priority, and that'll help focus our attention. With the numbers we'll show you tonight, there's no question but that we need a long-term capital improvement financing program. The City has virtually depleted resources that traditionally have been allocated for capital improvements, and that's not anything unique to Tustin or that doesn't reflect that we've been spending money without any consideration for the future. That merely reflects that Tustin, like all cities in California, accumulate funds because of the nature of financing in government and spend those funds as they're available. For example, in the gas tax fund, you routinely accumulate monies to combine that with Federal and State and County grants which assist the City in conducting multi-million dollar projects where we otherwise couldn't afford them. So, we're in effect in our own banking business to accumulate the money and spend it as the time allows, or funding allows. We're at a point now we're at the bot- tom of the curve. We're at a point where there are not alot of funds available and we have to make decisions in terms of how do we let those funds accumulate again. Historically, you've gone in cycles of maybe every 3-5 years you accumu- late enough money to have a capital improvement program that may be two or three times greater than prior years. Unfortunately, with the cutback in State funding and the problem of the gas tax fund where it barely keeps pace with inflation, let alone expand projects, we're in a dry period. For that reason, we're proposing and the Council has endorsed the concept of developing a long-term financing pro- gram for City capital improvements. One of the items on the agenda is the status of selecting a consultant. We had hoped to finalize that last week, however, we need a little additional time to do that. So we expect within the next week or two weeks we'll come to the Council with a firm to recommend for preparing that plan. Tonight will be helpful in focusing that plan. We have water improvements, we have redevelopment funded projects, you have street improvements, any number of improvements that are desir- able, but until we come up with a financing plan, we can't tell you how to imple- ment them. There are a variety of techniques, redevelopment, there are revenue bonds, the historical accumulation of funds and combining those with other funds to carry on a project. But until we know what your priorities are, it's pretty hard to come up with a solid financing plan which we can give to the Council and say here's how you can do it. The other major variable is the engineering analysis of the water system. Mr. Ledendecker indicated in his report that that'll soon be going out for solicita- tion of proposals from firms, and again, we hope to have that within the next few months to where we'll have one, a comprehensive financing plan, and secondly, a detailed plan as to what improvements are needed over what period of time. Again, I can't stress enough that I think it's tonight more of a policy direction session than coming up with a list of 50 or 100 projects. If you want to do that, we're fully prepared, but I think if you can give us some key priorities in terms of major projects, and in broader priorities in terms of do you want to see our focus be on street improvements, storm drains, flood control, beautification, just what, we can focus our attention even greater. What I'd like to address in very general terms on our flip chart what resources staff has identified as being available through the end of next fiscal year for capital improvements. Starting with the general fund, now this number - $1,115,000 - I have to stress is a very tentative number for a number of con- siderations. First and foremost, until the State deals with the issue of the State budget, we don't know how much State bailout money, if any, we're going to receive. So that number is highly dependent on what Governor Brown and the legis- lature manage to do to State subventions to cities in California. It's based upon a moderate increase in property tax revenue, sales tax revenue, and our other sources of revenue which historically come into the City. It makes an assumption about operating costs going up. It does not provide for any expansion of City services. In other words, it makes an assumption that our present level of ser- vices - maintenance, police protection, fire protection, park and recreation and interest, which becomes income from the general fund, and as a reserve for unanti- cipated expenses. So from staff's viewpoint and from a fiscal standpoint, we don't feel there are funds projected in the general fund through the end of next fiscal year that would be available for capital improvements. Edgar May I ask a question. Now, you're projecting a balance at the end of the next fiscal year. Now that doesn't indicate the, how much money is going to be received. Huston No, we've just shown the one equation. We didn't show revenue, expenses, and any transactions within funds. We're merely stating that given projected income for next year, and projected expenses for next year, we should have a fund balance by the end of next fiscal year of approximately $1,115,000. Keeping in mind that the portion that is reserved for the . . . Edgar No, I can appreciate the general fund and I relate to that, but when we go to the next line with revenue sharing . . . Huston Ok, I'll get into that. I should point out that the numbers we're using are essentially the numbers presented in the six-month review. As you recall, in the six-month budget review, we got into some analysis as to where we see the City heading over the next fiscal year. So alot of these numbers are predicated upon those assumptions. Revenue sharing is based upon current revenue sharing funds combined with projected income for next fiscal year, less approximately $200,000 which would be set aside for the major road improvement program which is a ongoing program. We consider that to be an operating expense more than a capital expense and we've taken that right off the top. Edgar Ok. Huston So the $292,000 is discretionary money which the Co4il could directly put into water improvements, any capital improvement which you feel is honorable. It would be staff's recommendation during the budget sessions that we restrict revenue sharing money for non-recurring or one-time expenses and not use it for recurring operations. Hoesterey Mr. Saltarelli. Saltarelli Well, I think we need to make a general policy directive to the staff for the next couple of years, and I've been studying last year's budget and the five-year capi- tal improvement program, and going over what we have for the workshop the last few nights. And it appears to me that the time has come to where we're going to have to reduce the beautification undergrounding projects because of the economic cli- mate and because of the need for what I consider to be more important capital improvements. So my suggestion is basically this. We've done a very good thor- ough job in getting the center islands in on all the major arterials and we still have more to do on the long-range plan. Yet, we're already finding ourselves hav- ing to make modifications to those. We've modified now on First Street, we've modified on Irvine Boulevard, and I can see modifications coming to what we've just put in recently on Newport Avenue, because the stacking lanes aren't long enough, and so I think it would be wise for us to defer any further center island projects for probably a 12 -month period until we see what new developments are coming and so on. As far as the undergrounding, there are $1,700,000 of projects in terms of undergrounding. All of them are meritorious projects, and yet when I take a look at the needs of the water system and some of the traffic facilities such as street signals, interconnect facilities and so forth, I'd say those have to have a higher priority. So I think that we should set on the back burner the undergrounding of utilities unless and until projects come along, like we did on Newport Avenue and when Larwin Square redeveloped, where we can dovetail an under - grounding project with another project and save money and do it at the same time. I know that's been the policy, but when I look at the numbers here for under - grounding, that frightens me also. Edgar Let me react to that because I share your feelings. I think that the real, the real challenge that we have is that when you think in terms of all of the area in the City that have needs, I wouldn't hesitate in spending money for those projects 0 0 there is an alternative, traffic, street, storm drain, traffic signal project, by all means, it takes second place. But you can't equate that to areas that you can't expend the money on. Saltarelli Well, I understand that, and I'm saying that the El Camino project with which includes the master plan we've been doing, the storm drains, the undergrounding, and all that should proceed. But when I take a look at the beautification of like Irvine Boulevard undergrounding, and of Holt, and so on, and Newport Avenue, and Red Hill center islands, and things like that, it appears to me that since traffic is our number one problem, until we have long-range solutions like a new freeway interchange, the new Myford Road, getting Edinger through, uh, getting down to Edinger on Newport, and things of that nature, until we've got to move the traffic as quickly and as efficiently as possible, and in alot of these cases we're spend- ing hundreds of thousands of dollars, or would be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to simply tie up the traffic more, and I'm against that. So. Edgar Well, the undergrounding doesn't do that. Saltarelli No, the undergrounding wouldn't do that. Edgar And that's why I would put that as a priority if we can't spend the money in the traffic area. Huston Mr. Mayor and Council, if I might add. I think if we focused now on the gas tax fund and the Redevelopment Agency and water fund, it might help tie that together in terms of at least in the forseeable future, you know, what should your priori- ties be. In the gas tax fund, the $215,000 figure is based upon projected income next year. Now there is a nominal amount which is due to an increase in the State gas tax which actually won't take full effect until 1983-84. Now that number assumes that all of it should be earmarked for the Moulton Parkway project. As you know, that's scheduled for 83-84. However, to meet our matching share requirement, we have to start accumulating funds. I think there's no question that's a priority project and we have to do it. That $215,000, because of that requirement, we would propose be earmarked for that project, which means there will he no other monies available for gas tax funded projects in 1982-83, with the exception that out of revenue sharing would come, again, approximately $200,000 for the resurfacing program. In the beautification fund, that's an amount that's accumulated and would be within your purview to either direct it for a special project or put it in some other fund. For example, you could put it in the gen- eral fund, or you can earmark it for a particular project. The Redevelopment fund balance at $245,000 is based upon carry-over projects from this year, which are primarily E1 Camino Real, and the undergrounding program. It's based upon pro- jected income or tax increment for next year, and that's it. Now the reason why that fund balance is run down to that amount is that you have accumulated tax increment income over the past 2 or 3 years and have expended it for projects. Just this year alone you have El Camino, you have the parking structure and the mall which have consumed a good share of those funds. Staff would recommend that that amount of money not be earmarked at this time with the qualification that when the long-term financing plan is complete, which will occur within the next 90 days, you at that time take up the question of what do you do with that $245,000. I think there's no question in staff's mind that we're gonna have to get into a bonding program in Redevelopment or we're gonna run the serious risk of losing our tax increment income. We cannot incur enough debt given projected increases in tax increment. The general fund doesn't have the ability to advance funds to the Redevelopment Agency and incur debt, which you've done since the life of the Agency. So we feel that we have to give serious consideration to a long-term financing program through tax allocation bonds or a combination at some other technique. So we're proposing it at this point, the $245,000 be reserved to meet any requirements in a bonding program, for start-up costs, for bond counsel, for financial studies, for debt reserve requirements, any other requirement that would be part of a bond program. Hoesterey Well, what I see presented here is much deeper than where we're going to spend the money because we do have capital needs, but how are we going to finance it? In the past the way cities have been financed, we have had general fund surpluses that allowed us to borrow from our general fund for our Redevelopment projects. Edgar One of the questions that I have, and I can appreciate the dialogue up to there, but when we're talking about the Redevelopment funds, what we're saying with a simple projection of 1982-83 revenue, that we are projecting the receipt of a mil- lion and a half dollars. And a million and a half dollars in 82-83 is way more than enough to complete every committed project and everything that's been identi- fied in the budget today (end of side 1) . . . Huston (beginning of side 2) . . . the beginning balance this fiscal year revenue, expen- ses, and revenue for next year and carry-over projects. So what that the bottom line is after you take into account all revenue received through 1983, fiscal year 1983, and the carry-over projects committed to date, you're gonna have a balance of $245,000. Edgar And yet as I look at all the details, I don't see, I see that that implies the expenditure of well over a million dollars of things that we haven't started. We're going to complete the expenditure of, you know, of the E1 Camino and some of the things that are committed, obviously. But beyond that, there's alot of money there, and the data that we've been given doesn't show the depletion of that money. Huston Well, we can give you the data. We can come back the next meeting and give you a detailed accounting, but if you add up the total of projects that are committed to date, they exceed current revenue. Now you're using accumulated funds in the Redevelopment Agency to finance those projects. In effect, you've been banking money over the last couple of years, and now we've had this bulge of expenditures in the Redevelopment Agency, and that has made those funds dry up. Now that's not in a negative sense. That just means you're fulfilling the obligation of incur- ring debt, which we have to do by law. Edgar I understand that. And yet the data that's been presented doesn't show that as a fact. Huston Well, what you're saying is you feel that that figure is too low, the $245,000? Edgar My feeling is that there needs to be the expenditure in 82-83 of a million and a half dollars. Now, we, because that's how much money is going to come from our tax increment. Huston OK, that expenditure will be a function of carry-over projects. E1 Camino Real is just one project that is in excess of that. We have a carry-over of approximately $200,000 in the undergrounding program, we've even factored in $100,000 debt ser- vice on the loan from the general fund to the Agency for the parking structure. So all those expenses are factored in. Edgar But those are the details that justify what we're going to be committed to. And until we have that detail, the commitment of what we want to do next year is unrealistic. Now I would have to be the first person to acknowledge that if the balance with all of our obligations were to end up $245,000, no way could we touch an underground project. I agree. But that data isn't what we've been given. Huston OK. Maybe I can just verbally give you the numbers and we can give you the details at the next meeting. The beginning balance for this fiscal year, July 1, 1982, was $480,000. Now I'm going to give you round . . . Edgar 480. Now, that's the money in the bank. Then, how much do we owe to the City? Huston Well, you've got loans to the City of $1,125,000 and you've recently authorized a loan of $350,000. So you have loans to the City in the amount of $1,475,000. Edgar OK. Huston OK, we have projected income of $1,250,000. Hoesterey A million what, Bill? Huston I'm sorry, when I said, I was giving you the . . . Let's go back to clarify. Huston Well, no, the E1 Camino is, uh, we have for example, $10,000 for the identifica- tion signing. Edgar Yeah. Huston OK, it consists of, again, primarily the E1 Camino project. it's a carry-over project which is . . . Edgar Because we deleted some of that to fund the undergrounding on Irvine Boulevard. Huston That's correct. Edgar That's 200. Huston We've allowed $100,000 as a repayment to the general fund. Now that's on the $350,000 loan. We have no schedule to repay on the original loan of $1,125,000. OK, and then the operating costs of about $70,000. That's in effect a reimburse- ment to the general fund for staff expense. Edgar OK, I understand. Huston So when you combine that, again, the balance of $480,000, revenue of $1,250,000, /expenses of $1,435,000, the projected ending balance is approximately $245,000. Edgar \ / Well, I think it would be very appropriate to have that in detail because the real VVV issue as I see it, in terms of my understanding, is that I don't see the expendi- tures next fiscal year from the detailed data that's been presented. And, you know, a million and a quarter, a million and a half, that's the money that's gonna come in and clearly that money must be committed as a debt before we start the year. Huston I think to interpret the number of $245,000 we have to look at it over a two - fiscal -year period of time. And that's what we've done. In fact, we've taken 81-82 with projected 82-83 and that's the ending balance. That's the non - committed or unrestricted balance in the Redevelopment Agency fund. Edgar Yeah, I understand what you're telling, but I just don't see the detail. Huston OK, we can give you the detail as information at the next meeting. The last item, the water fund, we put a question mark because as we indicated in the six-month review, we show a projected deficit of $174,000. However, we feel confident we can make it balance by the end of the fiscal year. At the next meet- ing, staff will be proposing a meter charge for apartments which we feel would help eliminate that deficit and create income into next year. We're not proposing any specific plan for water at this point until we have the engineering analysis because that's the key variable to determine what level of funding is required and then also the long-term financial plan which will also address water. There's no question but that in water there are a number of improvements required and we have to come up with a long-term program, but it's a question of do you do it through Redevelopment and a water rate structure, or do you get into a water revenue bond in water, or do you combine it with things like revenue sharing, Redevelopment and whatnot. We feel that has to be addressed in more detail as far as the budget. Edgar Let me ask a Water Department question. In the report that we got in January the 28th, Bob's analysis of the Water Department, we indicated that the funded $45,000 for engineering study and analysis including the appraisal was 508 complete, and you know, a month and a half has passed, and yet I hear words like it's gonna be another month or two before we know what this analysis tells us. Ledendecker I believe the 508 complete figure referred to the appraisal portion of it. The water analysis has not commenced yet. There has just not been enough staff time to sit down and get a request for proposal prepared and get it out. It is quite a time-consuming chore. But I do believe that the 508 complete referred to the appraisal. 0 0 to make improvements. So in effect, it's on its way. We're only talking second phase which, as Bob pointed out, will be starting pretty quick. Edgar OK. Hoesterey I have one question along those lines. Are we in a position that after we fix up the downtown area under the Redevelopment plan that a year later we're gonna come through and dig up the streets to put new pipes in under a capital improvement project? Ledendecker It is not our intent. We have undergrounded the utilities which should be totally complete. We have notified the only remaining utility company, which is the gas company, that we are going through a major street rehabilitation project and have requested that if they have any future or intended replacement, that it be done prior to, or concurrently with, the downtown construction. The last phase of the water main replacement will come during the course of construction, is when we will retire the old existing main and tie all of the existing services into the new main that was put in about four years ago, three or four years ago. Hoesterey OK, so that will be complete, we will come back later . . . (inaudible) Saltarelli That's what we said on Red Hill about six years ago. Huston That's all we had planned for our presentation, Mr. Mayor. Again, we recommend that, you know, to help focus, that you identify some very broad parameters and any major projects which you feel should be done next year and we can respond to that. Hoesterey OK, I'd like to make a couple of comments. I think one is that whenever we look at capital improvements or spending of money that our first priority has to be public health and safety, and I include in that any work that has to be done in the downtown area on a capital improvement basis to upgrade the water system, because that has two elements for me, public health and safety for the Fire Department. There will also be a boon to help revitalize that area. We'll then be able to support more business in that area, to really put the final package together on redeveloping our downtown. I agree with Mr. Saltarelli that under - grounding, I believe at this time in very fiscally tight years, where we're look- ing at trimming all facets of the budget, takes a low priority along those lines. I have to look at it that way. Beautification projects do have to take a back seat to providing for the financial integrity and continuance of our community without having to be a burden on the people that already live here and that we should help plan to build a strong financial base through our capital improvement projects. Kennedy I have some comments on that line. Hoesterey Yes, Mrs. Kennedy. Kennedy I feel that there's a debate that goes on constantly as to whether we have or have not major traffic concerns, and Don hit on that earlier. And I feel that if we cannot get scientific data, which we saw we could not get in our recent approval of the Town Center Project, to support the fact that we have no major traffic problems that we ought to, as a Council, move in a strong direction to look at all of the City's traffic problems, even if they are peak hour traffic problems, and commit some funding and commit some staff and some experts in the way of a consul- tant perhaps to find out why our traffic does not move in a pattern that allows our citizenry to move around. And it's sort of a ghostly thing because I call Bob each time I have a problem with it and, you know, he tells me "I came by 20 min- utes later and I didn't have that problem," and we go the same direction. So and yet when you talk to the people of our City, and I'm sure you all are meeting with same concerns, we have some sort of a problem in Tustin. Hoesterey When we look at it, I think that just about anybody who drives through Tustin or picks up a newspaper (?) knows that we have a north -south circulation problem in the City. There has been alot of efforts to get the Jamboree Road around the base to hook into new Myford over by there. There are efforts going on in those areas • 0 Kennedy Well, the point is I do want to see a commitment. And that includes funds for Myford, it includes, uh . . . I don't think there's going to be much help when we go through at Newport to Edinger. But I feel we need to really zero in on traf- fic. We all talk about it. We've all been talking about it for years. But as far as a City-wide effort to coordinate redevelopment and all other funding avail- able to us, I feel it's time. And that's, since this is a sort of a meeting to identify our areas of concern, that one, and that one is backed up by efforts to insure the long-term fiscal health of the City. occasionally something as trivial as beautification means that we're gonna have a strong business attracted to the City. And so I never beautify for the sake of beauty, 'cause I can't afford it. But I will beautify for the sake of attracting business, or attracting stronger business, or attracting a bigger business. Whatever is gonna generate the most revenue for the City. So . . . Saltarelli It also generates traffic, though, right? Kennedy Well, it depends on where it comes in. Saltarelli I had one comment I'd like to make, if I may. Hoesterey Yes, Mr. Saltarelli. Saltarelli I just want to, in looking back at our capital improvement programs, I want to say that I feel that for a City our size we have accomplished more and better capital improvements than probably any other city in this County. And we embarked on this program at a time which, I guess, would coincide roughly with the time that Bob Ledendecker came with us, and in whom I place the credit for most of this improve- ment, because we have, I think a better system of streets now than any other city that's been in our condition. We don't even flood out anymore. We have solved our drainage problems, our flooding problems. We have done so many good capital improvements that the general taxpayer and voter doesn't even know about because they've moved to the town in 4 or 5 years ago. They don't remember what it was like to drive through this town with water going over your headlights, you know. We had that just 8, 9 years ago. And I, you know, really want to congratulate the staff for the number of projects that we've had going on in this City is volumi- nous. And I really don't know how, with the size of the staff that we've had in the Public Works Department, that we've accomplished all this. Notwithstanding that, we've got the new facility down there at the Corporation Yard and all those kinds of things that we've accomplished. Even though it may look like we have an awful lot of undone work, I think we have really accomplished a great deal. And I guess what I'm saying is that if we could totally identify what these needs are, for say the next 5 or 10 years, and most of those were in the redevelopment area, I wouldn't be against a bond issue and get them all done now, as fast as you could, at the cheapest possible price, and then paying off the bonds with the increment, which is I guess what the staff is in some ways recommending. But I think we've got to have a very clear delineation of what those projects are. And I don't think we're gonna be able to do it until some of the major projects are completed so we know what their impacts are gonna be. That's where my concern is. But I'm perfectly willing to bond to get more things done. Huston Yeah, I think it's an excellent point, Councilman. You know, the City has been very prudent in striking a balance. There's always a temptation to divert money from operations into capital and vice versa, and you do it at the expense of the other. But I think the City's had a good, sound plan of maintaining operations and responding to increases in crime, and dealing with traffic problems, and maintenance to provide a good environment for the community and what -not. I think we have to, you know, continue on that posture and I'm sure we will. I think we don't want to put all our eggs in one basket, but again, we feel from the staff's viewpoint that a long-term financing plan is the answer. The days of accumulating funds so you can spend them 2 and 3 years down the road as a means of financing are coming to an end because we're just barely keeping pace with our ongoing maintenance costs and street and road repair. We're at a point where we can just barely maintain operations in the general fund so there's nothing left. That's it. So we've got to get into a long-term program and fortunately, we have the capability. We want to spend money on those improvements and we have the capa- bility when the market opens up. And that's just a question of time. We don't 0 0 Edgar I have a number of comments that I'd like to make. Hoesterey I'd like to bring up one point about that. Edgar Yeah, sure. Hoesterey Uh, there's apparently been some misconception about committed funds that we have in our budget. For instance, going out for studies and spending $50,000. I think it's important to point out that that community center reserves are committed funds for a specific purpose that was gained through a calamity that happened a few years ago and that people should not confuse that as wanton spending, etc., as has been brought out in the past. It is committed for a certain purpose and we do have to go through steps to make sure that those funds are used for a community center, and planning, and architectural design, and everything else. So I just wanted to bring that up to dispel a few comments. Yes, Mr. Edgar. Edgar Yeah, I want to echo what Don said. I think that Bob has done a fantastic job and although I will needle Bob over the years, he knows that I just have an appetite for more that'll never be satisfied. But that's alright. That's healthy. I went through the whole list of things and I have a number of specific things that I'd like to suggest as the things that I'm going to be looking for. I'm very pleased to see the separation of south and central Redevelopment Agency projects. Alot of streets, alot of storm drains and that, and that's healthy. And I'd like to sug- gest that the minimal amount of money that might be garnered next year, and I don't know how much it'll be, it might be 50,000, it might be even less than that, that we commit that to making the plans for all the things that are identified in this list. I think that Bob's point is well taken, that the manpower of the staff is not adequate to do all the planning. But when you have some of these straight- forward things such as streets and storm drains, I think it would be healthy for the 1982-83 budget for that Redevelopment area, to have the planning for the future projects, and then as the funds become available there can be a timing in terms of that being fulfilled. In terms of the Town Center, my comments there clearly relate to what I've already said. And that is, obviously, I'm completely in favor of expending funds for storm drain on Prospect, for the signal at First and Prospect, for the widening of Prospect streets and roads. But I think that it's essential for us to be com- mitted to the principle that the full 1982-83 fund be committed up -front. And if there aren't enough of these smaller projects that you can spend your money on for traffic and safety and under, uh, that, hey, undergrounding is fine. But the other things that I'd like to suggest as a possibility that we put into the budget over and above what we have is a commitment to acquire additional land. I look at the parking structure that we have committed to on C Street as perfect. I think it's a very, very excellent facility. But I look at that facility as being some- thing that serves the parking needs of what I would call the southwest quadrant of our downtown. Southwest of Main and El Camino. And I think that we should be committed to serving parking needs in the northwest quadrant, in the northeast, in the southeast. Now I see the main parking service we might get in the northeast, uh, northwest as being the Peppertree parkland adjoining Peppertree Park from the School District. However, we may be delayed in acquiring that because of the School District's desire not to get the funds until they can optimize how they can use them. And they may not be able to accept those funds without a terrific loss for 2 or 3 years. I think that's going to be the area where the northwest quad- rant is served. I think the northeast quadrant, we need to identify a parcel of land that might be good for a two-story parking structure and commit to the acquisition of the land, and in time for the fulfillment of that. I think that we should think in terms of a parking structure to the southeast. And I would visualize that as being some- thing that might be integrated with whatever plans John Prescott has so that there can be a double story, something like there. But I think that we should commit to 3 additional facilities in the downtown as being able to serve the entire commu- nity. Now the other thing that I think is a land commitment that we might address in this upcoming year is the initial acquisition of land to expand City Hall. I as the year emerges and we know what we have, we back off of doing some of the projects we've committed to, and then delay them another year. So I would like to see a higher commitment for the funds that might optimistically be available, but to commit the principle that if that funding is not available, there are projects that we delete, rather than that we have a minimal commitment and then be con- fronted with the necessity to expand it because more money comesin. I'd rather go the other way. That's my feeling. As far as the downtown, I would also suggest that the street improvements on old Irvine Boulevard and on Newport that are committed in the long-range plan be com- mitted to the Redevelopment fund and perhaps accelerated because of that fund availability. As far as the water district is concerned, obviously we're going to have to await the plan for that. What I would suggest as a simple principle, and hey, there's all kinds of things that we can have, I think that maybe the opti- mistic goal is that we try to spend 10% of our net revenue on capital improve- ments, that we set that as a bogey. And that we apportion the expenditures of that money in the proportion to the people that are served between the County and the City. So, you know, if we have twice as many services in the City as the County, we spend twice as much money in the City. I would say that the downtown area has a high priority for the expenditure of some of this capital money so that we can get some of the mains that serve the individual households. But aside from downtown, I would suggest that the priority be that the main streets where we have the main dispersion of water get the priority over the individual streets. But again, that can all be superseded in terms of some real critical need that is sur- faced by our analyst, 'cause, you know, if there's something real critical that needs to be done. Now in the balance of the budget, I went through things in detail and I have a couple of specifics I want to relate to. One of them is that there is a funding of $100,000 for the improvement in our community center, City Hall, and the like, and I would like to delay that, because I feel that before we spend anymore major sums of money in our City Hall, we should have a plan of how the City is going to grow and how that's going to reflect on the City Hall. I would not like to see that sum of money spent unless it were part of an overall plan. Rather than just something that comes along and there's that much money so it can be spent. So I would feel that way. I feel that as far as the major maintenance, we should delete the items that can be done through the Redevelopment funding, and hopefully with the amount of accelerated items that we did last year, maybe we've only got 3 years to go to cover all the things that Bob has on his list. One of the items that was noted, the Red Hill Avenue widening, I think that is not a logical item. There's $98,000 committed for Red Hill widening, but I believe that that money will be fully paid by the developer of that area so that the City is not committed to that. Is that correct, Bob? Ledendecker Yes. Edgar Yeah, and I'd also like to verbally, at this point in time, say that I'm in favor of delaying any improvement on Red Hill and Walnut, to not do it this year. I'm not prepared to condemn Matiness' (?) property, and I think it's appropriate to acknowledge that right now, that I don't intend to do it this year. So that should be delayed. One thing that if these deletions can accommodate, one thing that I would like to add to the budget for the coming year, and that is that we've had some comments of the people downtown relevant to the drainage on Second Street from the property that's been developed. And I think that the project which would accommodate that drainage, and I believe it would be nothing but a few curbs and gutters in critical places, I think that's the project that I'd sure like to see in this upcoming budget as serving a need there. But again, it would relate to the available amount of money that might be there. In terms of long-term plans that I don't expect to see at this particular time, I'd like to see three items listed in terms of the long-term, what do you call, wish list of things that we'd like to do. One of those is that the open storm drain on the north of Main Street, easterly of Newport Freeway, should be closed in. And I think that should be noted as a project with whatever priority. I think that as we look at the arterial highway financing programs, that there are two projects that should be listed. One of those is widening Red Hill southerly of Melvin Way to the ultimate right-of-way. That would involve the acquisition of some land and then, of Hoesterey Ledendecker Hoesterey Huston Hoesterey Edgar Saltarelli Hoesterey 0 0 traffic. So those are the thoughts that I have and there's no action here, but I'm just putting everybody on notice that when I look at the capital budget, I can be looking at those things as long as alot of others. Does anyone else have any comments that they'd like to bring up at this time? Mr. Ledendecker, anything? No. OK. Mr. Huston? No. OK. With that, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Motion and second to adjourn. So be it. (transcript prepared by Eva Solis)