Laserfiche WebLink
COMMITTEE PROCESS: <br />The City Council has reviewed proposed format for Committee work at its November 6, <br />1996 City Council morning work session. The basic structure of the Committee is outlined <br />below. <br />Phase 1: "PRIORITY SETTING": <br />A. �ategories: Facility improvements, land acquisition, park improvements, PIP, <br />pathways, forestry and naturai resources, cultural, and aesfihetic. <br />B. Values: Benefits to all ages, aesthetics, general community support, <br />enhances life safety, meets urgency/emergency requirement (tEming, <br />urgency, and lost opportunities), consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, <br />affordable, handicapped accessibility, assures preservat�on of natural <br />resources, benchmarks, other. <br />C. Outcomes: The above evaluation of community values and specific <br />recreational needs will result in a priority listing of infrastructure improvement <br />projects {without identifying cost implications or consideration of leverage/ <br />partnership possibilities). <br />Phase 2: "FINANCIAL CAPACITY" <br />A. Evalua iQn of Community Financial Capacity for Each Potential Projec# <br />'[ . Evaluation of Financial Criteria: tota! cost per participan#, affordability <br />(to build and for participants), etc. <br />2. Leveraae public/private partnerships, City nonprofit linicages (incfuding <br />State, Metropolitan Council, Ramsey County, churches, etc.}, City <br />neighborhood partnerships, other. <br />3. Life Cycle Costs and Reco�ni#ion of Future Maintenance Obligations. <br />B. Outcomes: Reordered list of attainable infrastructure needs based on <br />financial capacity (financial capacity would not necessarily change the order <br />of priorities; however, the potential of leverage and Iong-term life cycle <br />maintenance costs may provide practical limitations which affect the final <br />order of projects). <br />