Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1C, CIP Review Process Discussion 1C City Council Worksession January 20, 2009 CIP Review Process Discussion Agenda Title: Ron Moorse Prepared By: MEMORANDUM DATE: January 20, 2009 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ron Moorse, City Administrator SUBJECT: CIP Review Process Discussion Background The Council’s review and discussion with staff regarding the 2009-2013 CIP to this point has involved only the projects for the year 2009.The Council has not discussed with staff the projects for the years 2010-2013. These projects are to be reviewed and discussed in early 2009. The purpose of the review and discussion is to enable the Council to be clear about what each project involves, the need for each project, and how a project may relate to other projects in the same year or in other years. This will enable the Council to make decisions about the projects for the 2009-2013 CIP, and will also provide a head start toward the Council’s review and approval of the 2010-2014 CIP. The CIP project lists should have a relatively small number of changes for the 2010-2014 CIP, other than the projects added for the year 2014. We would like to plan the Council’s review of the 2010-2014 CIP for June of this year, so that review is complete before we begin the review of the 2010 operating budget. The CIP information can then be worked into the budget the Council reviews in August before setting the preliminary levy. Through the Council’s review of the 2009-2013 CIP in early 2009, the Council will be familiar with the projects when we do a review of the 2010-2014 CIP in June. CIP Project Review There has been discussion regarding the most effective and efficient method of accomplishing the review of the CIP projects. The CIP projects are organized by year and by general type of project, i.e. public improvement, equipment, etc. Each department may have projects in each category. There are advantages and disadvantages to reviewing projects by year, by type, or by department. 1/16/2009 Page 2 The advantage of reviewing projects by year is that it provides an overall view of everything that is happening in a given year, and enables priority setting across all projects. The disadvantage is that it is more difficult to see how projects in one year relate to projects in other years. The advantage of reviewing projects by type is that it enables a focus on specific project types, both in a given year, and over a 5-year period. The disadvantage is that it is more difficult to see the overall picture of all projects for a given year. The advantage of reviewing projects by department is that it enables Council to see how departmental projects relate to each other in a given year, and over time. It also provides a picture of what the department is planning to accomplish over time. The disadvantage is that it does not provide an overall picture of all projects in a given year. In terms of project review, it has also been pointed out that the Council members each focus on different projects, in terms of wanting more in-depth information. This results in spending time at a work session discussing details about projects that most of the Council may not need. An alternative is to provide a significant amount of information regarding each project for discussion at a work session. Then, if a Council member wants more information than is provided by the presentation and discussion, this can be provided through communication directly between staff and the Council member. Recommended Review Process Based on the discussion above, the recommended process for review of the CIP is to continue to provide project information by year and project type, but to present the projects by department. Each department will present their projects by year and by type. Council will have an opportunity to ask questions, etc. If one or two Council members need more in-depth information regarding a project, the department will follow-up to provide this information directly to the Council member(s). The presentation of projects to the Council will begin at the regular February work session, and could continue to additional work sessions, depending on how long the review process takes.