CC_Minutes_2017_1009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 9, 2017 Page 11 As previously advised, Councilmember Willmus left the meeting at approximately 7:50 p.m. e. Discussion on the Use of Capital replacement Priority Rankings As outlined in the RCA and attachments, City Manager Trudgeon asked the City Council to provide more direction to staff on whether or not to assign individual rankings and how those rankings should be used in determining capital replace- ment priorities. Mr. Trudgeon noted the inclusion of budget and capital im- provement program (CIP) documents for reference to address how to use the poli- cy in practice and beyond theory. Based on the last discussion held with the Finance Commission and as detailed in the RCA, Mayor Roe noted the need to revisit previously-adopted City Council policy on the use of capital replacement priority rankings. Mayor Roe noted the questions raised as to how these particular priorities worked with the CIP. Personally, Mayor Roe stated that he considered the rankings, as outlined in lines 6— 11 of the RCA, as follows: ■ Priority Ranking #2 (Projects that responsibly maintain existing assets to ei- ther extend remaining service life or to create efficiency) Mayor Roe opined that this ranking does not seem to address new capital spending by the city but rather replacement of existing assets. As such, it may encompass all areas of the CIP. There may be a further opportunity to review those items and give them categories (e.g. timing or operationally-critical ver- sus those more optional items). Mayor Roe opined that this could assist in the City Council's decision making about that timing or funding within the CIP and may prove helpful to the process. ■ Priority Rankings #1, 3 and 4 (Projects necessary for public health and safety or to meet legal mandates; projects that expand existing assets or services in order to benefit the public good; or projects that purchase new assets or ser- vices in order to benefit the public good) Mayor Roe stated that he considered these categories to be helpful to the pro- cess for NEW capital items under consideration for the city. Councilmember McGehee stated her total agreement with Mayor Roe's perspec- tive: with Items 1, 3 and 4 perfect for new projects without a current guideline to- date and done piecemeal in the past. While appreciating staff's attempt to provide a description of those CIP items coming forward, Councilmember McGehee stat- ed that she preferred a one-page, non-ranked list of items. Councilmember McGehee opined that it was part of the City Manager's job, along with his De- partment Heads, to determine if a particular CIP item should or could be delayed, noting that staff had been forthcoming in the past in providing that information. However, Councilmember McGehee opined that this knowledge resided within those departments and with the City Manager. She opined it was up to the de-