CC_Minutes_2016_0418 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, April 18, 2016 Page 13 is that of the Pavement Management Program (PMP) and its condition indexing calculations. Mayor Roe opined that if the intent is to maintain an average rank- ing across the board, and the numbers. drop below that average, then that asset moves up in priority for rehabilitation and/or replacement. Councilmember Laliberte agreed with Mayor Roe's synopsis, stating that she found this helpful at a first glance. However, Councilmember Laliberte noted that she also wondered about the cost for each level and where the average would get pushed down. Councilmember Laliberte agreed with her colleagues that the im- portant information was what pieces needed the most attention sooner rather than later. Councilmember Etten also expressed appreciation for the information. However, he noted his interpretation of inconsistencies in how the information was rated or broken down, with variables from 3, 5 or 10 point scales for that ranking. Coun- cilmember Etten recognized that some rankings were from other agencies (e.g. bridges), but asked if there was some way to make them more meaningful and connected (e.g. ADA ramps similar to curb conditions) and how the rankings could be more unified. Councilmember Etten admitted that perhaps it was just a learning curve for individual council members. Also, Councilmember Etten noted that some assets were rated for a certain number of years (e.g. a thirty year life span), but replacement isn't indicated until at forty years. Councilmember Etten stated that it seemed the maximum life span differed from the replacement date, and again admitted he needed to understand that better or have more information in order to effectively consider programming for those assets. City Manager Trudgeon advised that this discussion was already helping staff re- fine internal policy discussions for recommendation to the City Council and de- velop deeper conversations in how to utilize this framework. Once this initial draft proceeded to the advisory commissions and was further refined form one it- eration to the next, Mr. Trudgeon advised that additional information could be added. For example, Mr. Trudgeon noted that dollars could be assigned, even though some may be firm while others would remain speculative until they were able to be more refinement. While each asset had a rating goal, Councilmember McGehee opined that the document seemed to indicate that "fair" ranking was what was being aimed for, but questioned if in general that was the actual intent. If so, Councilmember McGehee noted that some were falling far below that goal. Specific to format, Councilmember McGehee stated it would be nice to have a similar format for the Parks & Recreation assets with that provided for the Public Works assets. While the categories seem to be similar, Councilmember McGehee noted that they ap- peared more focused on lifespan, and suggested tying these categories together with the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) document to use this information and anticipated life spans to inform the CIP rather than doing so by hand. Coun-