Laserfiche WebLink
<br />COMMITTEE PROCESS: <br /> <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 /> <br />. <br /> <br />Phase 1; "PRIORITY SETTING": <br /> <br />A. Categories: Facility improvements, land acquisition, park improvements, PIP, <br />pathways, forestry and natural resources, cultural, and aesthetic. <br /> <br />B. Values: Benefits to all ages, aesthetics, general community support, <br />enhances life safety, meets urgency/emergency requirement (timing, <br />urgency, and lost opportunities), consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, <br />affordable, handicapped accessibility, assures preservation of :latural <br />resources, benchmarks, other. <br /> <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 /> <br />. Phase 2: "FINANCIAL CAPACITY" <br /> <br />A. Evaluation of Community Financial Capacity for Each Potential Proiect <br /> <br />1. Evaluation of Financial Criteria: total cost per participant, affordability <br />(to build and for participants), etc. <br /> <br />2. leverage public/private partnerships, City nonprofIt linkages (including <br />State, Metropolitan Council, Ramsey County, churches, etc.). City <br />neighborhood partnerships, other. <br /> <br />3. Life Cycle Costs and Recognition of Future Maintenance Obligations. <br /> <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 long-term Hfe cycle <br />maintenance costs may provide practical limitations which affect the final <br />order of projects). <br />