My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017_0117_FC_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Finance Commission
>
Packet
>
2017_0117_FC_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2017 11:48:16 AM
Creation date
1/26/2017 11:47:42 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
Finance Commission 1 <br />Meeting Minutes 2 <br />DRAFT – DECEMBER 13, 2016 - DRAFT 3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />Roll Call/Announcements 6 <br />7 <br />The Finance Commission (FC) meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Chair Schroeder called 8 <br />the roll. 9 <br />10 <br />Commissioners Present: Robin Schroeder, Peter Zeller, John Bachhuber, Matt Harold Edwin 11 <br />Hodder, Nagaraja Konidena and John Murray 12 <br />13 <br />Commissioners Absent: 14 <br />15 <br /> Staff Present: Finance Director Miller 16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />Receive Public Comments 20 <br />21 <br />There being no one wishing to address the Commission, Chair Schroeder moved to the next 22 <br />agenda item. 23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />Approval of the November 9, 2016 Meeting Minutes 26 <br />27 <br />Commissioner Murray stated in line 29 change “Ms.” to “Mr.” 28 <br />29 <br />Commissioner Murray moved, Seconded by Commissioner Zeller, to approve the November 9, 30 <br />2016 meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried unanimously. 31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />Continue Discussion on the CIP Document Format & Priority Setting Process 34 <br />35 <br />Chair Schroeder stated at the October meeting, the Commission had agreed to discuss the 36 <br />concept of assigning CIP priorities given the fact that some of the City’s asset replacement funds 37 <br />are not fully sustainable. The CIP priorities identified by the City of Minnetonka are an example 38 <br />of what Roseville might consider. 39 <br />40 <br />Commissioner Harold stated he liked the concept of prioritizing the CIP and proposed the 41 <br />following bullets: 1. Projects necessary for public health and safety, or to meet legal mandates 42 <br />(from the Minnetonka CIP document), 2. Projects that responsibly maintain existing assets to 43 <br />either extend or maintain service life or to create efficiencies, 3. Projects that expand existing 44 <br />assets or services in order to benefit the public good, 4. Projects that purchase new assets or 45 <br />services to benefit the public good. 46 <br />Item #3: Attachment A
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.