CC_Minutes_2018_0716 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,July 16, 2018 Page 3 Councilmember Willmus asked if a person can fill out multiple online responses. City Manager Trudgeon noted that each response asks for the resident's name. Sometimes residents think of another comment later, but there has not been a problem with abuse of this in the past. Councilmember Laliberte asked if the name field will be a required field. City Manager Trudgeon responded it has been required in the past, and people have not had a problem with it. Councilmember Laliberte asked about question #1, as it is written with a yes/no/maybe,but there is a lot of space for a longer response. City Manager Trudgeon indicated in some cases people make a note, but that can be shortened up to a yes/no checkbox. Councilmember Etten suggested asking in what ways does the proposed budget align with your priorities? and another question asking in what ways does the proposed budget not align with your priorities? Councilmember Etten also suggested exchanging the word Roseville with the word "his" at the top of the document, to clarify this is not the approved City budget,but rather the City Manager's proposed budget. With no other feedback from the City Council, Mayor Roe concluded the discus- sion and introduced agenda item 7.b. b. Receive the 2019-2038 Capital Improvement Plan Finance Director Miller briefly highlighted this item as detailed in the RCA and related attachments dated July 16, 2018. He explained the 2019-2038 CIP repre- sents the City's long-term plan for replacing its infrastructure, facilities, and vehi- cles and equipment which are critical to maintaining City programs and services. This CIP contains assumptions on asset lifespans and replacement costs. It also assumes that all existing city functions and programs will continue at current ser- vice levels and the City's asset and infrastructure needs will remain unchanged moving forward. In addition, the CIP represents a projection of when asset re- placements are likely to occur. However, each individual asset is scrutinized prior to replacement to determine whether it's still needed and if so, whether it truly has reached the end of its useful life. It is not uncommon to defer the replacement of assets if they are still in good condition. Conversely, staff can sometimes deter- mine that the replacement of an asset needs to be expedited because it is failing sooner than expected. Because of these uncertainties, staff tends to focus on the long-term sustainability of the asset replacement programs rather than committing to a rigid replacement schedule.