CC_Minutes_2014_0825 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 25, 2014 Page 19 Mayor Roe noted the onerous and unpopular exercise to do that reprioritization and varying points of view on their validity. However, Mayor Roe noted that the point being made by staff was that, until the City Council changed those policies, staff relied on the assumptions and policies in effect at the time to make their pro- jections. Councilmember McGehee asked staff to clarify and confirm the ongoing opera- tional, repair, maintenance, and replacement costs per mile of roadways, path- ways, and other infrastructure as applicable that staff built into their asset reviews. Councilmember Willmus recognized Councilmember McGehee's sentiments about the great plethora of responsibilities of the City and how best to prioritize them; however, on a higher level he opined that there may be greater value in re- lying on periodic community survey results to gauge the timing for those business and budget decisions. Mayor Roe asked if Councilmember Willmus intended that to be part of and prior to adopting the 2015 budget. Councilmember Willmus responded that it would be in the back of his mind as he did his own deliberation on the 2015 budget; and suggested that while it could be started this year, he would push hard to do so if re-elected to the City Council Councilmember Willmus opined that it had not been done in some time, and whether or not people wanted to continue maintaining and building on the current service and program level may be changing somewhat. While not necessarily supporting reconstituting the City Council's Finance Sub- committee since formation of the Finance Commission, Mayor Roe suggested it may be prudent in the near future to consider a couple of Councilmembers get- ting together to initiate the prioritization process by looking at the broader catego- ries and returning to the full body with their ideas. Councilmember Willmus acknowledged Councilmember McGehee's comments to find funding sources for maintenance dollars as new assets come on board; and as mentioned by Councilmember Etten as well, it should be part of the discussion before making the decision or at least part of the decision-making process. Councilmember Etten questioned if when adding a new asset it was also added to the twenty year CIP (e.g. a new park building). Finance Director Miller advised that Department Heads are tasked to look at re- placement needs over the next twenty years, and no matter what year that new as- set is put in place, their projections are for over that twenty year period, whether maintenance or replacement; and while some assets may only have a ten lifespan, and some thirty years, everything was part of the CIP exercise and reviewed on an