HomeMy WebLinkAbout35. 15-517NOVEMBER 24, 2015 15-517 RESOLUTION
(CARRIED___7-0____LOST________LAID OVER________WITHDRAWN________)
AS AMENDED
PURPOSE: APPROVE 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
INITIATED BY: CITY ADMINISTRATION
PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved
WHEREAS, the City Manager has prepared, submitted and recommended a
Capital Improvement Program for the year 2016, wherein is listed all anticipated
revenue and expenditures for said year, which program has been filed with the
Common Council and the City Clerk, and is available for public inspection.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Common Council of the City of
Oshkosh that the 2016 Capital Improvement Program, on file in the City Clerk's Office,
is hereby approved with adjustments as listed in attached Exhibit “A”.
Bold & Italics Indicate Amendments
- q ' ' -
- - - -
< 2 n p ~ -
% e a
je a m a m m a m a
�§\ , ,
- , _
mow §
u
n e a m a m m a m a
§
§ e a m a m a m
�
Ge a m a m a m
_ ,
§ \ \
� /D e a m a CRI m m
k k
IL
2 e a m a m a m
} � z
a ■ u , _ , , _ , , - -
§7
Za k e a m a m a m
0
k k
n e a m a m a m
% § & @
Q a \ \ \
to ®
k Z 0 -Q }
00z o
\ /\\ �
ƒ\ \ \J \
t7 CZ, /
�- \ \
Ira // ®
@ \ \
z _ e J\
®
\ �� �( 6
$ - \ ( }\ /
2
k _C: (L \/ L SZ
k
E /§ $ } § a
c
_0 \ §� \\ / � \
U) E ® °) J J ]
e /
0 ao
u
\ I / \ k \ CO \ \/
ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: 2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAIVI
Plan Commission meeting of September 15, 2015
BACKGROUND
Staff requests review and acceptance of the 2016 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
The purpose of this review is for the Plan Commission to make a determination of consistency of the proposed
programs and activities in the 2016 CIP with the City's Comprehensive Plan, official maps, or other planned
activities.
ANALYSIS
Annually, the CIP is prepared by the Department of Public Works and approved by the Common Council.
While the five-year CIP covers the period 2016-2020, the City will officially adopt for implementation only one
year of the plan (2016), leaving room for change as conditions and opportunities warrant.
Prior to Common Council consideration on 11-24-15, a review by the Plan Commission for consistency with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, official maps, and other planned activities is required. In this regard, staff has
reviewed all proposed projects and activities and none have been identified as being contrary to the
Comprehensive Plan, official maps, or other planned activities.
RECOMMENDATIONS/CONDITIONS
Staff recommends acceptance of the 2016 Capital Improvement Program with a finding that listed projects are
not in conflict with the City of Oshkosh's Comprehensive Plan.
The Plan Commission approved of the 2016 Capital Improvement Program with the required finding that it is
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The following is the Plan Commission's discussion on this
item.
Mr. Buck stated that Planning Services staff has reviewed all of the projects in the document and did not find
any projects that would be in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan or other planned activities and was
recommending acceptance of the 2016 CIP as presented. He briefly reviewed the major sections of the CIP and
distributed maps depicting most of the City's major improvement projects included in this document.
The public hearing was opened at 4:35 pm.
Mr. Thoms stated that approving this document without discussing costs would be ignoring the Common
Council's budget expense restraints and although it may not be in conflict with the City's Comprehensive Plan,
he felt it would be in conflict with what the Common Council policy regarding spending restraints.
Mr. Buck responded that the Plan Commission's responsibility was to determine if the projects within the CIP
are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as far as the projects proposed and the costs of these projects should
not be considered as that portion of the CIP would be reviewed by other City entities and the Common Council.
Mr. Nollenberger stated that the projects were not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and that the Plan
Commission was not endorsing the costs relating to these projects.
Mr. Thoms stated that he felt there was a financial component to the Comprehensive Plan that should be
considered.
Steve Gohde, Assistant Director of Public Warks, commented that the costs of the projects proposed in this
document have been balanced out to meet the Capital Improvement Program's total.
Ms. Propp questioned if the principal street projects are selected by the utility infrastructure.
Mr. Gohde responded that the utilities are one of the factors considered as well as maintenance to some of the
streets that are being selected due to their poor condition. He further explained the connectivity involved with
street and utility projects which he described as a three-dimensional puzzle. He continued to discuss the
underground utilities that need to be in place and explained the factors involved with Bowen Street, Mill Street
and other areas represented on the map and the reason for their selection in this year's program.
Mr. Borsuk stated that he felt the overall document was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and questioned
the large expense for the Little Oshkosh portion of Menominee Park as to whether this was for deferred
maintenance or expansion of this facility.
Mr. Maurer indicated that there were issues with Little Oshkosh due to the wear of the facility and the materials
used to construct it, which was wood. He further explained the safety issues and maintenance concerns and that
the Parks Department was working with the Southwest Rotary on developing funding raising opportunities
which would cover the majority of the costs.
Mr. Borsuk commented about the amount of funding allocated to the gas remediation for Quarry Park and if it
would be more cost effective to just excavate the sites.
Mr. Gohde responded that the costs to excavate these two former quarries would be exorbitant and explained
that they were once privately owned quarries and explained the complications due to this factor.
Mr. Borsuk then commented about the funding allocated for HVAC improvements and if this was an ongoing
program.
Mr. Gohde responded affirmatively.
Mr. Borsuk stated that he felt the City should be considering paying out some more of these expenses from
general cash flow rather than continuing borrowing.
Mr. Thoms responded that he serves on the Long Range Finance Committee which is looking into those options
now but has not yet come up with a plan on how to finance it.
Mr. Borsuk commented that he felt the borrowing issues need to be brought to some type of resolution.
Mr. Cummings stated that they are looking into some options to reduce this such as leasing and discussed other
ways the City could attempt to reduce costs.
Mr. Thoms added that the Long Range Finance Committee was continuing to review options.
Mr. Borsuk discussed water infiltration costs and questioned what the City was doing about illegal hookups to
address these issues.
Mr. Gohde responded that the City is currently addressing it with the street reconstruction process and explained
that current state budgets have made the option of addressing illegal hookups by tying it to the sale of homes an
illegal process and that the City would have to pursue these matters in another fashion.
Mr. Gray inquired if the CIP project scoring process was useful and if the department heads had an impact on it.
Mr. Gohde replied that it was providing interesting insights and discussed the process and how projects were
scored and confirmed that department heads did have an impact on the decision making process.
Mr. Gray questioned what dates the public hearing notice was published and what class of notice was used.
Mr. Buck responded that he was not aware of how the public hearing was noticed and this forum served as a
public meeting and in addition it would be proceeding to the Common Council at a later date which is also a
public hearing.
Mr. Gray inquired when the five-year CIP would be available to the public as it was not currently posted on the
City's website.
Mr. Gohde responded that the document is not posted to the website until after the final draft is approved.
Mr. Gray commented that he felt this was a bad mistake as people could not provide comments on it when it
was not available to view in advance of its approval.
Mr. Barsuk noted that there was no one from the public present to comment on the item and he felt it should be
posted on the website as soon as it was available as the newspaper was no longer a reliable source for public
notices and the City should look into other avenues to inform the community on its plans for future municipal
improvements and projects.
Mr. Fojtik commented that public input on these matters was welcome however it could also invite
unproductive comments and it should be limited to infrastructure and those types of discussion.
The public hearing was closed at 4: SS pm.
Motion by Borsuk to accept the 2016 Capital Improvement Program with a finding that listed projects
are not in conflict with the City of Oshkosh's Comprehensive Plan.
Seconded by Nollenberger.
Mr. Gray commented that he was frustrated with this process as the Commission is recommending approval of
spending a lot of money with this document.
Mr. Fojtik stated that so many of the proposed projects are in need of being completed specifically the
infrastructure improvements proposed.
Mr. Thoms commented that it is a five-year plan and that it is not discussed as much in detail as it was in the
past and it may not be necessary as nothing that he could see was outside of the ordinary municipal functions for
our community.
Mr. Borsuk commented that the purpose was to determine its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Cummings discussed how the process is a rolling plan that is subject to change and that to review the entire
five-year expenditures was not practical as projects may change before the future years arrive.
Mr. Gray commented that more staff should attend the meeting to address questions for their department's
expenditures.
Board discussion continued as to the review options for future CIP requests and how asking questions and
reviewing specific projects should be part of the Plan Commission's realm of review rather than just
determining its consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Commission members discussed how the process
could be changed and that not enough discussion took place on expenditures and that the public is not
adequately informed of the public hearing and the decisions being made relating to this item.
Mr. Cummings stated that histarically the public has not attended the Common Council meeting for discussion
on general matters and that the street reconstruction projects seem to be the biggest item that causes concern.
Mr. Gohde explained that the City Manager is the first review of the proposed CIP and the public hearing used
to be held prior to its presentation to the Plan Commission however this was discontinued due to the confusion
it caused related to street reconstruction projects as some were included in the initial draft but were removed at a
later date when the final document was approved. The public hearing is now scheduled to be held near the end
of October when projects are more certain, which is four weeks prior to its presentation to the Common Council
for final approval.
Mr. Cummings further discussed the CIP process and how it functions to provide a better understanding of the
entire process.
Motion carried 8-0.
�