Laserfiche WebLink
27 <br /> <br /> Ms. Rita Scott, Director of Finance~ discussed the <br />following regarding funding the Program: 1) projection <br />for general fund revenues, 2) projected cash flow, 3) debt <br />service projection and 4) key financial indicators. Ms. <br />Scott stated that it was proposed that $4 million in <br />Literary Fund loans and $10 million in general <br />obligation bonds be used to fund many of.the projects. <br />Ms. Scott stated that the City would be able to carry the <br />debt projected and that no tax rate increase was <br />anticipated. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix listed the following alternate methods of <br />raising funds to fund the projects: 1) raise real estate <br />and personal property taxes, 2) use 1/4 % of the 1% <br />increase in sales tax proposed to fund highway projects, <br />3) tax cigarettes, 4) user fees, and 5) increase the meals <br />and lodging tax to 4%. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scott stated that should Literary Loan funds not <br />be available, the general obligation bonds could be <br />increased to $14 million. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix stated that there would continue to be <br />the opportunity to make adjustments to the Capital <br />Improvement project, but he felt it was a method to <br />realistically plan ahead. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck questioned whether it was possible for staff <br />to suPervise the projects proposed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix replied that it might be necessary to <br />hire additional temporary help for some project <br />supervision. <br /> <br /> Mr. Towe questioned whether it was possible to do <br />less renovation at Clark and Venable Elementary Schools as <br />improvements were needed at other schools as well. <br /> <br /> Dr. Vincent Cibbarelli, Superintendent of Schools, <br />stated that it was felt that the renovations proposed for <br />Clark and Venable were very important and needed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Donald Sours, Planning Commission member, <br />questioned whether it would be more cost effective to <br />build new schools rather than renovate the older <br />buildings. <br /> <br /> Dr. Cibbarelli stated that it was felt that the <br />existing schools were a part of the community and should <br />be preserved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck requested the following information: 1) <br />justification that the demographic study which will be <br />completed in the near future will not have an impact <br />on the proposed renovations, 2) justification for <br />the additional rooms and relocation of rooms at Clark, <br />and 3) an estimation of the amount of work that would be <br />considered aesthetic. Mr. Buck recommended that the <br />Director of Public Works and a staff member from the City <br />Manager's office work with the Renovation Committee and <br />Architects. <br /> <br /> Mr. Hendrix recommended that the School Board make a <br />decision as to which school should be renovated first, <br />decide on the renovations to be made, determine an exact <br />cost for the improvements and return to Council. <br /> <br /> Mr. Buck stated that he felt it was important that <br />there be a clear underStanding between the City and School <br />regarding the specific roles of the City personnel, School <br />personnel, and architects. <br /> <br />It was agreed that the School Board would return to <br /> <br /> <br />