CC_Minutes_2015_0218 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Council Meeting Retreat Tuesday, February 18, 2015 Page 26 Councilmember McGehee observed that in other communities they use a five- year timeframe to ensure the commitment is there, stating she was unaware of any other city using a 20 year plan. Councilmember McGehee opined that by looking out so far into the future, some things got pushed off; and she would prefer to fo- cus back into serious funding for a shorter time period. Mayor Roe cautioned that if you don't look out far enough, you don't see upcom- ing problems, which had already been discussed. Mayor Roe noted that the City was already aware of two areas that were unfunded: roads and pathways, and sug- gested focusing on an outcome to fund those areas at a minimum over the next few years. After further discussion, it was the consensus that the KOI was: A list, with identified funding stream, allowing the needs to be identified as the first step; then identifying funding sources; and then how to prioritize the list. The KOI within the two-year timeframe would be to fund the CIP for all identi- fied infrastructure, equipment and other CIP needs. Councilmember Etten clarified that the picture should be completed for the City's larger needs that are in high demand. Mr. Rapp suggested the target may be to adopt a comprehensive infrastruc- ture plan, with the outcome being the strategy to accomplish that. Infrastructure Condition Target: Identify City condition standards and an index for each successful lifespan Mr. Rapp suggested a "how"or Indicator may be "Monitor infrastructure con- ditions and the target: based on industry standards for each. Councilmember McGehee noted the existence of the City's Asset Management Program; and suggested a target may be completion of that data input and use across the board, or a way to feed results from the program back into the CIP funding issue. Public Works Director Schwartz clarified that the data in the program is used to feed back to the CIP and identify city condition standards for users and funding. Mr. Schwartz noted considerations included at point they should be replaced based on community expectations, industry standards, life cycle costs, etc. Mr. Rapp noted that having those standards would not be a simple matter, and the City Council would need to discuss the costs and implications of changing current replacement cycles (e.g. pavement index condition standards).