Laserfiche WebLink
City Engineer Westby explained the streets and utilities are monitored and maintenance is, <br />forecasted and added to the CIP as needed. Sometimes the item can go on the CIP in later years <br />because it is not an imminent need, but the money has to be built up before the project can be <br />done. <br />Councilmember Williams questioned what the Parks Supplemental CIP is. <br />Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood responded it is a new addition to <br />the Parks Capital Improvement Fund. Projects that are needed, but not budgeted, go in this fund. , <br />It helps in forecasting needs better. <br />Mayor Strommen stated she appreciates the separation of these categories. There is a difference <br />of what investments we have to make, and what revenue is available. She wants to understand <br />what critical investments are needed to services used today, and what should be added to the <br />investments used down the road. <br />Finance Director Lund noted there are a lot of projects listed and the cash flow is listed in the. <br />back of the document. The only items that are not funded within this document are the <br />community center, and maintaining the old city hall site. <br />Mayor Strommen expressed concern that someone may see the Plan and see that there is <br />something planned for completion on a certain date and it isn't done, due to the funding, which <br />could be from an outside source. <br />Discussion took place regarding the layout of the document and ideas of how to make it easier to <br />understand. It may be helpful to separate categories into projects that need outside funding, and <br />those that can be handled in-house. Another suggestion was to use color coding. Another option <br />is to re -categorize, and use subdividers for the categories. <br />Parks and Assistant Public Works Superintendent Riverblood pointed out there are limitations in <br />what can be done with the software. The suggestions and discussion taking place is the <br />information that is addressed in the justification paragraph. Perhaps the paragraph could be <br />rewritten to explain the details of the project better. <br />Councilmember Williams commented she respected the limitations of the software and inquired <br />whether some of the items could be asterisked to show they are on the wish list. She stated she is <br />uncomfortable seeing a large project like the Community Center on the Consent Agenda. She <br />suggested working on showing the imminent projects versus the wish list. <br />Councilmember LeTourneau stated he is comfortable with the format. A paragraph on Page 9 is <br />worded well, using words such as "attempt". It doesn't mention prioritization. He advised, <br />referring people to this section if there are questions. He suggested the document does not need <br />to be reformatted, but maybe the language could be more layman's terms. <br />Mayor Strommen indicated a major reformat isn't necessary, though showing a difference in <br />priority would be helpful. She suggested the language is not an issue for her, however the value <br />City Council Work Session / April 26, 2016 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />