CC_Minutes_2017_0918 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 18, 2017 Page 9 particular item (e.g. golf course clubhouse/community building) and how to de- fine it. Councilmember McGehee opined that it was more helpful to receive a look-ahead for a few years in the CIP (e.g. fire stations, trucks, equipment, etc.) rather than go through the entire CIP to consider minor items (e.g. replacement of fire gas masks). Councilmember McGehee stated that overall she liked this way to evaluate the CIP to determine whether they matched any of these categories, particularly health, safety and welfare aspects which were of the greatest im- portance to here. Councilmember McGehee opined that she found it frustrating that the CIP is not considered on an annual basis rather than coming forward in little chunks that didn't allow the City Council to strategize how to spend its available monies from a broader perspective even though individual departments and the City Manager are aware of those details. Mayor Roe stated that, from his perspective especially over the last few years, he found the annual CIP picture consistent and helpful for the City Council and pub- lic in understanding CIP needs upfront and why money is being set aside to pay later. However, in the proposed priority rankings provided by the commission, Mayor Roe questioned the validity of# 3 and #4 since such items didn't typically show up in the CIP, even though they may be more valid for new proposals. Mayor Roe opined that it was hard to assign rankings for those CIP items already in place or needing rehabilitation other than perhaps in the area of pathways even though that may be a small piece of the overall 20-year CIP. Mayor Roe ques- tioned how to assign rankings or whether it was a beneficial exercise to do so for maintaining existing assets while agreeing it may make sense to assess new CIP items with the proposed ranking system. Under the circumstances, Mayor Roe suggested that the City Council revisit how to word its policy and how to deal with it. Councilmember Laliberte agreed that this needed further discussion by the City Council, especially since Councilmember Etten was not available to participate. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was in favor of prioritizing existing as- sets and their replacement as well as new projects, but noted all of the CIP was important, even though it was only a snapshot in time in assigning a priority and could change in time (e.g. technology changes that prompt software updates). Councilmember Laliberte recognized that there was definitely a difference of opinion on how or what to rank and how best to do so. Councilmember Laliberte suggested this be included on a future City Council agenda to provide more clari- ty to the commission. Specific to more thought for capital spending for existing CIP items versus new items, Councilmember Willmus opined that it was a combination, with some for- mula needed to look at the existing CIP going into the future, with a detailed look at how that criterion should be developed. Councilmember Willmus opined that it may result in not finding a hard and fast numerical assignment, delving into the detail, but noted that the commission had called to the City Council's attention ar- eas of concern providing for debate and discussion. However, Councilmember