My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2018_0326
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
CC_Minutes_2018_0326
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/18/2018 2:35:30 PM
Creation date
4/18/2018 2:35:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/26/2018
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, March 26,2018 <br /> Page 15 <br /> numbers that are in the CIP listing, some of them could have two numbers and <br /> some categories do not apply to the existing CIP. <br /> Councilmember Willmus stated he does not have objection to prioritization of the <br /> CIP. He suggested what would be needed is perhaps a broader discussion on how <br /> to define those individual categories and what they encompass. One concern is <br /> when the City is looking at a prioritization schedule such as what was presented, <br /> it can be very easy to categorize anything related to emergency services at the <br /> very top. Doing so might ultimately neglect other areas that might have an indi- <br /> rect correlation to emergency services. One example: the parks fall into disre- <br /> pair. What does that do long-term for need for emergency services? It probably <br /> increases it. If there is no place for people to safely recreate, there will be a need <br /> for greater emergency services. Roseville has strong emergency services, public <br /> works, and parks. It is important to maintain that balance, as it creates a healthy <br /> community. When looking at the initial categories, he had some discomfort with <br /> how we are categorizing certain things. <br /> Chair Schroeder agreed the categories do need to be defined more. She regards <br /> parks as a safety issue. When one thinks of safety, it is not just emergency ser- <br /> vices. It also has to do with what maintaining what is already there, or it is not <br /> safe for residents. <br /> Mayor Roe noted another example is public health: if the City does not maintain <br /> the water system or the sanitary sewer system, there will be health issues. <br /> Councilmember Etten expressed agreement with a lot of what has been stated. <br /> That gets back to the Mayor's point that category 1 and 2 are often overlapping. <br /> He wonders if the point is that these are not rigorous enough or they are not <br /> fleshed out enough to make them matter. Staff could easily make these categories <br /> work without much trouble. The parks and the fire station were examples of <br /> things that had not been maintained and then required significant bonding to fix <br /> things. He wondered whether there is a mechanism to say why something is be- <br /> ing shifted from one category to another, because at some point priority 3 has to <br /> be paid for. <br /> Commissioner John Bachhuber noted that the FC would suggest the main empha- <br /> sis of this prioritization is that the City ought to be able to fund existing assets be- <br /> fore additional assets are added. It is not totally clear that the City has the funding <br /> for its CIP, and yet the Council is considering new items that would add to that <br /> burden over time. The FC believes those things should be talking to each other, <br /> and before new items are considered for funding, care should be taken to button <br /> up items in 1 and 2. That conversation needs to happen so that the City is cover- <br /> ing the things it already owns. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.