CC_Minutes_2008_0630 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, June 30, 2008 Page 8 Discussion included development of the City's five year Capital Improvement Plan and the PWETC's role in the specifics and priorities for implementation of the CIP; request for the PWETC to identifying funding sources for infrastructure maintenance and/or replacement and their input for cost benefit analyses based on age, condition and priority levels; information generation for the public and iden- tification of alternatives to assure the citizens/taxpayers that the City is properly investing in maintenance of the City's infrastructure today in the most cost- effective manner; and the PWETC's creation of a program to develop standards and an inventory for the City's infrastructure similar to the Pavement Manage- ment Plan (PMP) for indexing various conditions of the water, sewer and storm- sewer systems to develop a priority system based on that condition, not just age, to provide the City Council with recommendations to make cost-effective deci- sions and providing alternatives for financing their maintenance and replacement. Further discussion included citizen lack of awareness or concern for underground infrastructure not readily evidenced until it failed and the need to provide addi- tional information and increase their perception of those utilities they depended on, but were not conscious of until their failure; overall budget goals and priorities and policy in maintaining infrastructure reserve funds and the role of the PWETC in that governing structure (i.e., PWETC recommendations for stormwater man- agement, landscaping, tree planting beyond regulations; sustainability; and alter- native modes of transportation); the role of the PWETC in development and/or redevelopment processes in hand with the Planning Commission and Community Development Department and if and when the Commission's input is sought; and the desire of the City Council and the PWETC to be leaders in the field, rather than have a reactionary role. Additional discussion included recognizing the defined roles without duplication of staff's expertise; the Design Review Committee (DRC); that of the Planning Commission and their statutory provisions, and the PWETC in providing advice to the City Council for their decision-making; concern regarding an additional level of bureaucracy or any further increase in the time and/or cost approval proc- ess for developers delay in their specific projects; and proactive review by the PWETC of environmental and sustainability issues for redevelopment projects in cooperation and conjunction with the Planning Commission's review process. Councilmembers recognized the value of the creative thought process provided to the City Council and citizens in their recommendations to the City Council based on individual commissioner perspectives and expertise, providing for a thorough review of various issues; and Councilmembers and the PWETC noted that issues before the PWETC were similar to those issues coming before the City's Com- prehensive Plan Update Steering Committee that would effect the future overall cost for the City doing business (i.e., pathway; landscaping similar to the County Road C streetscape project; and burying arterials when possible); and desirable amenities versus realistic and available funding sources for those amenities