CC_Minutes_2010_0426 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, Apri126, 2010 Page 18 Mayor Klausing recessed the meeting at approximately 9:14 p.m. and reconvened at approx- imately 9:19 p.m. 13. Business Items - Presentations/Discussions a. Finance Department Presentation regarding Imagine Roseville 2025 Topics Imagine Roseville 2025 Comments Finance Director Chris Miller highlighted the limited number of action steps iden- tified as part of the process related to Finance and/or Information Technology functions of the City, and those items systematically addressed and responded to by staff. Mr. Miller noted the pro-active steps taken over the last decade in leve- raging partnership opportunities with other jurisdictions (i.e., library system, school districts) and other communities in the area; leveraging local and non-local dollars (i.e., grants); and further evolution and expansion of those partnerships in the future. Mr. Miller applauded the willingness of those other jurisdictions for their willingness to discuss and consider such partnership, especially in areas sharing common constituents to achieve economies of scale, and keep tax rates down. Capital Investment Plan (CIP~ Comments While not anticipating significant changes, Mr. Miller noted that staff was in the process of revising and updating this document, hopefully for presentation to the City Council at their meeting on May 17, 2010. Based on assumptions and pro- jections, Mr. Miller emphasized to Councilmembers the significant needs coming up over the next decade and funding gaps in replacing assets at the end of their useful life, while recognizing improving technologies for cost-effective or effi- cient replacement, elimination or shared services where possible. Mr. Miller noted the significant portion of the City's Park Improvement Plan (PIP) substan- tially unfunded with existing funding sources and current revenue streams, with the Master Planning process providing a great template for future park decision- making. Mr. Miller also addressed vehicle replacement, now at approximately one-half of the optimum sustainable amount needed; and future need to rethink the number and type of vehicles in the fleet. Discussion included future realistic decisions for potential joint or shared facilities (i.e., Fire Stations); potential sharing of street/park maintenance vehicles, plowing equipment, and patrol cars; estimated $18 million of the total $40 million shortfall represented in park system assets; original park facility construction and amenities built with money no longer available; continued deterioration of water and sewer system components originally built in the 1960's; need to capitalize on new tech- nologies; and planning for replacement of general City-owned facilities.