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 Minutes <br />December 13, 2016 – Draft Minutes <br />Page 2 of 7 <br /> <br /> 47 <br />Chair Schroeder stated she liked having the maintenance, expanding, and purchasing for assets 48 <br />and services separated and prioritized. 49 <br /> 50 <br />Commissioner Bachhuber asked if the CIP has any spending that involves new services. 51 <br /> 52 <br />Finance Director Miller stated there are a couple of limited areas where new services could 53 <br />apply. 54 <br /> 55 <br />Vice Chair Zeller stated that items that have low priority will have a difficult time getting 56 <br />funding when there are budget shortfalls. He suggested looking at how this prioritization would 57 <br />work with the restricted funds. 58 <br /> 59 <br />Chair Schroeder stated that installing or purchasing new assets or services could be a higher 60 <br />priority if it meets other criteria as well. The Commission has expressed the City should 61 <br />maintain the assets and services they have before adding to these. 62 <br /> 63 <br />Vice Chair Zeller stated he would like to see that low priority items are not left on the bottom 64 <br />and not get funded. 65 <br /> 66 <br />Commissioner Hodder suggested using the term “guidelines” so that the City knows these would 67 <br />be guidelines only. 68 <br /> 69 <br />Commissioner Murray clarified these would be considered guidelines abut if the need arises the 70 <br />City can work outside of these. 71 <br /> 72 <br />Finance Director Miller asked what guidance the Commission would provide for those items that 73 <br />are on the bottom of the priority list so that they are moved up. 74 <br /> 75 <br />Chair Schroeder stated those items could also meet higher priority criteria including public safety 76 <br />or maintaining current assets. She clarified public safety is not restricted to police and fire. 77 <br /> 78 <br />Chair Schroder suggested adding the guidelines outlined by Commissioner Harold to the Capital 79 <br />Investment Policy. 80 <br /> 81 <br />Finance Director Miller stated he would add this language to the Capital Investment Policy and 82 <br />bring the policy back to the Commission for review and recommendation to the City Council. 83 <br /> 84 <br />Chair Schroeder stated she had talked to City Council members about adding additional details to 85 <br />the CIP document for asset replacements for items scheduled to be replaced within the next year. 86 <br />Three Councilmembers stated they would like to see a form added, one would be willing to 87 <br />consider it and one thought this would add too much paperwork. Having a justification could 88 <br />assist the Council in determining if there are CIP items that could be pushed into future years. 89 <br />The Commission would need to determine what adding this justification could look like. 90 <br /> 91 <br />Item #3: Attachment A
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.