CC_Minutes_2009_0810 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, August 10, 2009 Page 8 Mr. Miller noted that this updated document represented approximately $10.2 million in capital needs, up several million from last year; and expressed his ex- pectation that the documented needs would continue to grow annually as the document was periodically revised. Mr. Miller addressed the sizable funding gap between asset funding mechanisms and asset requirements; and advised that the document included items discussed in the four most recent community meet- ings held over the last few weeks. Mr. Miller reviewed the formatting of the document by category and function with cone-page summary of larger capital items, in an effort to provide the City Council and community with an aggregate look. Mr. Miller noted that he was fi- nalizing more detailed spreadsheets, similar to those provided last year and linked to this document that would provide greater detail and consistency for each cate- gory and/or function. Mr. Miller asked that Councilmembers review, reflect upon, and provide input to staff for further refinement; at which time staff would ask that the Council formally adopt the document as a planning tool. Councilmember Pust advised that she was pleased to hear that, contrary to the re- quested action in the Request for Council Action for tonight, that staff was not seeking adoption at this time, as she had numerous questions. Councilmember Pust specifically addressed the Police (page 14) and Fire De- partment (page 17) functions and rationale for those particular departments recita- tion of historical operating costs and staffing deficiencies not related to capital, which appeared inconsistent with the formatting of other departments. Council- member Pust also questioned references to the chart on page 16 to correspond with that page. Councilmember Pust noted that page 17 (Fire Department) didn't include community meeting discussions (i.e., held at Central Park) related to re- placement and/or relocation of stations; and noted the need for further discussions beyond the Study completed in 2008 and current leadership vacancies. Council- member Pust cautioned that, if this document is to represent a consensus of the City Council to the public, the document itself was premature of those policy de- cisions and priority details being discussed by the City Council. Councilmember Pust suggested that the document needed more work. Mayor Klausing asked Councilmember Pust if prioritizing wasn't part of the an- nual budget process, rather than attempting to prioritize over a 10 year period; and opined that he saw this CIP tool as a high-level analysis of long-term capital needs over that 10 year period. Councilmember Pust responded that it was vital to differentiate between levels of analysis provided for funding during budget discussions, based on specific fund- ing sources versus a "wish list" identified as a "capital plan" that had yet to be vetted by Councilmembers during policy level discussions before representing it as a consensus document to the public.