CC_Minutes_2017_1009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 9, 2017 Page 12 In general, Councilmember Etten agreed with Mayor Roe's comments: with Items 1, 3 and 4 used for additions or major expansions (e.g. Golf Course Clubhouse) after robust community discussions to bring those items to light. Councilmember Etten expressed his confidence in staff filtering and recommendations for CIP without each item being ranked, opining that he didn't find that a useful process other than in staff's typical analysis. Since the City Council had asked staff to provide significant information for a five-year and twenty-year CIP, Coun- cilmember Etten opined that any more layers were not necessary and too labor- intensive for staff. Councilmember Laliberte stated her agreement with the comments of her col- leagues; opining that categories may be useful or helpful, but not necessary to predetermine each item beyond the annual staff review of CIP items and any po- tential deferrals that may be possible. However, Councilmember Laliberte sug- gested that as the City Council also annually reviews the CIP items, it would be helpful to keep these priority rankings in mind as well. Since the City Council has a standing written policy in place, Councilmember Et- ten asked what action was indicated moving forward. In response, City Manager Trudgeon stated that his understanding was that most of the CIP rankings under Item #2 were already addressing things proposed through the CIP, and that large new things were infrequent and rare at this point. Even with the Cedarholm Clubhouse, Mr. Trudgeon noted that was actually es- sentially new versus a replacement, and had involved a deliberate community process. Mr. Trudgeon recognized that the City Council was not interested in pri- ority rankings within the CIP, but also noted that staff could continue to apply the rankings as outlined tonight minimally on an annual basis as long as staff keeps these priority rankings in mind when reporting to the City Council within the spir- it of the intent of the policy. Mr. Trudgeon suggested staff's review of the policy accordingly. Without the benefit of a copy of the policy tonight, and without objection, Mayor Roe suggested directing staff to review the current policy language and bring their recommendations back to the City Council. As part of that language review, Mayor Roe suggested rather than calling them "priority rankings," to consider "decision-making criteria or rubric." However, Mayor Roe disagreed with the in- terpretation of the Cedarholm Clubhouse as a replacement or maintenance item, and opined that it was a new item from his perspective. Mayor Roe stated that his interpretation of replacement or maintenance items would be for HVAC, roofs, windows, or other areas when an entire building wasn't being replaced. Another example of new from his perspective would be the new fire station, and would in- clude other areas where new direction and/or one-time significant monies were involved. Under that scenario, Mayor Roe suggested that policy language should consider that each City Council be able to determine what was "new" and what