Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Schwartz proceeded to review each function as follows, with related <br />discussions. <br />General Facilities <br />Discussion included providing totals for roof replacement in the next printing; <br />most CIP expenditures in this category supported with property-tax funds, with <br />currently little money set aside for funding some, and others included as part of <br />other buildings projects, such as the recent City Hall campus upgrades funded <br />through referendum debt service. <br />Public Works Administration <br />Discussion included noting the vital need during current budget decision-making <br />to consider impacts of deferring capital needs on the ten-year, long-term picture. <br />Street Li'.~g <br />Discussion included pay-as-you-go; failure(s) of aerial street lights to-date; <br />previous presentation of a proposed draft Street Light Utility Fund to the City <br />Council and their request for additional information from staff and further <br />discussion and a public hearing for public comment on a draft ordinance; 1200 <br />Xcel Energy-owned lights, plus a number of others; power on traffic signals and <br />re-lamping those as part of the City's cost and responsibility; charges from Xcel <br />Energy to the City for monthly maintenance fees; and lack of awell-defined <br />capital improvement program for life cycle lighting for city-owned street lights. <br />Member Vanderwall suggested including "traffic signals" as part of the title rather <br />than just "street lighting" to provide a broader understanding for the public. <br />Mr. Schwartz noted that a Light Utility Fund would be an Enterprise Fund with <br />any funds restricted for that purpose, in accordance with State Statute. <br />Streets/Equipment <br />Discussion included projected costs over a ten (10)-year period and depreciation <br />during that period; cost of replacement; funding proposed for 2010 at 50% of <br />projected depreciation and attempts to increase those funds in 2011 to bring <br />funding up to levy limits; and potential for several community partners <br />(municipalities or agencies) to purchase heavy, unique equipment cooperatively <br />as an option not available for day-to-day operational equipment. <br />Central Garage <br />Mr. Schwartz advised that this was primarily related to the City's fuel system, lift <br />station maintenance, and other items where periodic and emergency maintenance <br />was performed on city equipment. <br />Pavement Management Pro.°r~ am (PMP~ <br />Mr. Schwartz reviewed the successful history of this program, originally funded <br />by gas tax dollars and infrastructure funds; with capital improvement levels <br />Page 8 of 11 <br />