4/24/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 2 41994 BOOK I`� F'A��E�� Director Baird agreed and confirmed that it was a close decision for staff between MSTU and the Gas Tax. Administrator Chandler stated that actually it all comes down strictly to a question of cash flow and timing with where we are at with Phase III of the Boulevard and the other projects we have on line. These come out of Districts 5 and 6, which also have various intersection improvements on-going; so, on a cash basis, it is very tight in the two districts that this would come out of. Director Baird advised that if we did not go with the MSTU, staff would recommend the Gas fund, and further noted that they would not have to recommend interfund borrowing at this time - possibly down the road. Commissioner Bird asked what source the money came from to acquire the other R/Ws in this area for this project, and Director Baird advised the Gas Tax and impact fees. Commissioner Bird felt that the agreement to pay these fees was a part of the same negotiating process that was used with the other land owners in that area, and he felt the funds we are talking about here should come from the same source of funds that paid for the other R/W in here. Commissioner Scurlock believed the real question is was the acquisition for roads - not for utilities. The deal that was cut - impact fees for R/Ws - was done from our R&B Division, and now the problem is there is a shortfall of money and that is why staff is going to the MSTU contingency to make it up. Director Baird wished to make it clear that there isn't a shortage of funds at this time; we are looking long term. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that you should have to relate the project back to what it was acquired for, and he felt the real answer is that if your impact fees are artificially low because you haven't put enough acquisition cost in there - then adjust your impact fees. 14 M