CC_Minutes_2018_0326 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 26,2018 Page 15 numbers that are in the CIP listing, some of them could have two numbers and some categories do not apply to the existing CIP. Councilmember Willmus stated he does not have objection to prioritization of the CIP. He suggested what would be needed is perhaps a broader discussion on how to define those individual categories and what they encompass. One concern is when the City is looking at a prioritization schedule such as what was presented, it can be very easy to categorize anything related to emergency services at the very top. Doing so might ultimately neglect other areas that might have an indi- rect correlation to emergency services. One example: the parks fall into disre- pair. What does that do long-term for need for emergency services? It probably increases it. If there is no place for people to safely recreate, there will be a need for greater emergency services. Roseville has strong emergency services, public works, and parks. It is important to maintain that balance, as it creates a healthy community. When looking at the initial categories, he had some discomfort with how we are categorizing certain things. Chair Schroeder agreed the categories do need to be defined more. She regards parks as a safety issue. When one thinks of safety, it is not just emergency ser- vices. It also has to do with what maintaining what is already there, or it is not safe for residents. Mayor Roe noted another example is public health: if the City does not maintain the water system or the sanitary sewer system, there will be health issues. Councilmember Etten expressed agreement with a lot of what has been stated. That gets back to the Mayor's point that category 1 and 2 are often overlapping. He wonders if the point is that these are not rigorous enough or they are not fleshed out enough to make them matter. Staff could easily make these categories work without much trouble. The parks and the fire station were examples of things that had not been maintained and then required significant bonding to fix things. He wondered whether there is a mechanism to say why something is be- ing shifted from one category to another, because at some point priority 3 has to be paid for. Commissioner John Bachhuber noted that the FC would suggest the main empha- sis of this prioritization is that the City ought to be able to fund existing assets be- fore additional assets are added. It is not totally clear that the City has the funding for its CIP, and yet the Council is considering new items that would add to that burden over time. The FC believes those things should be talking to each other, and before new items are considered for funding, care should be taken to button up items in 1 and 2. That conversation needs to happen so that the City is cover- ing the things it already owns.