My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1C, CIP Review Process Discussion
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
01-20-09-WS
>
1C, CIP Review Process Discussion
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/2/2011 3:54:42 PM
Creation date
2/2/2011 3:54:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
Document
01-20-09 City Council Work Session
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
3
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1/16/2009 <br />Page 2 <br />The advantage of reviewing projects by year is that it provides an overall view of everything that <br />is happening in a given year, and enables priority setting across all projects. The disadvantage is <br />that it is more difficult to see how projects in one year relate to projects in other years. <br />The advantage of reviewing projects by type is that it enables a focus on specific project types, <br />both in a given year, and over a 5-year period. The disadvantage is that it is more difficult to see <br />the overall picture of all projects for a given year. <br />The advantage of reviewing projects by department is that it enables Council to see how <br />departmental projects relate to each other in a given year, and over time. It also provides a <br />picture of what the department is planning to accomplish over time. The disadvantage is that it <br />does not provide an overall picture of all projects in a given year. <br />In terms of project review, it has also been pointed out that the Council members each focus on <br />different projects, in terms of wanting more in-depth information. This results in spending time <br />at a work session discussing details about projects that most of the Council may not need. An <br />alternative is to provide a significant amount of information regarding each project for discussion <br />at a work session. Then, if a Council member wants more information than is provided by the <br />presentation and discussion, this can be provided through communication directly between staff <br />and the Council member. <br />Recommended Review Process <br />Based on the discussion above, the recommended process for review of the CIP is to continue to <br />provide project information by year and project type, but to present the projects by department. <br />Each department will present their projects by year and by type. Council will have an <br />opportunity to ask questions, etc. If one or two Council members need more in-depth <br />information regarding a project, the department will follow-up to provide this information <br />directly to the Council member(s). <br />The presentation of projects to the Council will begin at the regular February work session, and <br />could continue to additional work sessions, depending on how long the review process takes. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.