Laserfiche WebLink
Capital Improvements Element <br />Director Keating explained the figures on the following chart. <br />He also explained the importance of the Capital Improvements <br />Element and how closely staff had worked with the Office of <br />Management and Budget in developing the element. <br />CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT <br />FISCAL YEAR <br />REVENUE <br />EXPENDITURE <br />FY 1989/90 <br />$84,045,000 <br />$82,181,006 <br />FY 1994/95 <br />$112,726,000 <br />$94,947,482 <br />Percentage Increase <br />34.00% <br />16.00% <br />FY 1990/91 -1994/95 <br />$132,570,000 <br />$108,260,000 <br />FY 1995/96 -1999/2000 <br />$191,680,000 <br />$158,700,000 <br />Percentage Increase <br />1 45.00% <br />47.00% <br />Director Keating focused on Objective 2, explaining why the <br />High Hazard Coastal Areas are included in this element. <br />Objective achieved, minor revisions. <br />Minor revisions to policies 2.1, 2.4, and <br />2.5. <br />No new policies. <br />Director Keating also called attention to Objective 5, which <br />is the objective that relates to concurrency in the County's <br />Concurrency Management System. He thought the County has been very <br />successful in the concurrency matters that have occurred, that we <br />have a good -system to track capacity and demand, which is an <br />advantage in dealing with future growth and development. <br />_bili <br />Reaulied _a _T. <br />Facilities <br />Objective achieved, minor revisions. <br />No new policies. <br />Commissioner Eggert observed that this was one of the few <br />areas where objectives have been achieved. Director Keating agreed <br />that staff had done a good job with this element saying there were <br />also fewer policies with which to deal. <br />21 <br />November 12, 1996 4 <br />BOOK 99 PAGE 805 <br />