My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC - Minutes - City Council - 11/22/2011
>
City Clerk
>
Permanent Records
>
Permanent
>
CC - Minutes - City Council - 11/22/2011
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/15/2020 12:14:25 PM
Creation date
11/12/2018 2:40:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC - Minutes
Department
City Clerk
Sub
Clerk Records
Content
Minutes
Committee Status
Current
Document Type
City Council
Meeting Type
REGULAR
Meeting Date
11/22/2011
Retention
Permanent
Retention Type
Permanent
Security
Public
Scanner
Conversion
Scan Date
12/14/2011
Record Series
GS1016, #10260
Conversion Meeting Type
REGULAR
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Prescott City Council <br /> Regular Voting Meeting — November 22, 2011 Page 10 <br /> Councilman Lamerson asked if a park had been defined where it <br /> could be a gathering place. Mr. Kidd said it could be used for <br /> recreational purposes. <br /> Councilman Lamerson asked how the General Fund would be <br /> repaid if they did not do what they were suggesting. Mr. Kidd gave <br /> a history on impact fees. He noted that they were eliminating the <br /> collection of fees, but they could use the fees for the purposes that <br /> they were originally collected through 2020. <br /> Mayor Kuykendall asked if there was input from rural areas on the <br /> bill. Mr. Brehm said that their three elected representatives had the <br /> opportunity to be sure that rural interests were represented. <br /> Councilman Hanna said that it went before the Senate because <br /> builders were being pressed on so hard that no one wanted to <br /> build in Prescott. He said that Prescott was to provide basic <br /> services and basic services did not include recreation. Councilman <br /> Lamerson said that money was set aside for development of parks <br /> and recreation. He thought the General fund should be paid back <br /> and the City should use the money that was collected for <br /> recreation. Councilman Hanna agreed. <br /> Councilman Scamardo said his understanding was that the loan <br /> was not made from the General Fund. He said it was the Capital <br /> Improvement Fund which was separate from the General Fund. He <br /> said that fund loaned Parks and Recreation and the Building Fund <br /> enough money to complete the gymnasium. Over the years the <br /> City had collected Impact Fees and was in a position to repay that <br /> loan. <br /> Mr. Woodfill said that in an effort to clarify a complicated situation <br /> the loan was made from the Capital Improvement Fund in 2007 as <br /> the project proceeded beyond the resources available. Since that <br /> time the fund, through changes in accounting rules had been <br /> incorporated into the General Fund. He said the loan was from the <br /> General Fund to the Recreation Impact Fee Fund. The resolution <br /> was proposing to pay the balance off with monies in the Public <br /> Building Impact Fee Fund. <br /> Bill Kindig, Prescott, said he was not aware of that information until <br /> he picked up the material that day. He asked if there was any way <br /> that citizens who opposed growth not paying for growth could <br /> inform the State that they were opposing it. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.