My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017_0314_FC_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Finance Commission
>
Packet
>
2017_0314_FC_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2017 1:39:47 PM
Creation date
7/14/2017 1:39:31 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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 />February 14, 2017 – Draft Minutes <br />Page 3 of 8 <br /> <br />Chair Schroeder stated she had heard that it would be good to have all of the CIP information in 92 <br />one place and not presented in smaller pieces throughout the year. The Commission does receive 93 <br />good consolidated information on the CIP. 94 <br /> 95 <br />Finance Director Miller stated it might be a problem if the Finance Commission has a different 96 <br />set of criteria for items they want information on than the Council. This could make it difficult 97 <br />for staff to plan and be prepared. 98 <br /> 99 <br />Commissioner Bachhuber stated he would like t see the Commission consider setting criteria that 100 <br />should be used when preparing the CIP for both the Commission and the Council. The CIP is 101 <br />not fully funded and this would be a way for the City to determine if there are items that the City 102 <br />does not proceed with or if the City needs to look for additional revenue streams in order to fund 103 <br />the items in the CIP. The additional detail would help the City make hard decisions. He would 104 <br />recommend setting a dollar limit to determine what items should have additional justification to 105 <br />assist the Council in prioritizing items. 106 <br /> 107 <br />Finance Director Miller stated the City Council sets the priorities and the City Manager gives 108 <br />recommendations. 109 <br /> 110 <br />Commissioner Bachhuber stated it is not the Commission’s role to help the City prioritize items 111 <br />but rather to provide the information and framework that will aide in the prioritization process. 112 <br /> 113 <br />Chair Schroeder stated if the Council approves the Commission’s recommendation to prioritize 114 <br />items then this would lead into why the additional information would be needed. 115 <br /> 116 <br />Commissioner Zeller stated having more detail on the near term would be beneficial. As items 117 <br />move into the 5-year time frame it is the time to start looking at them more closely 118 <br /> 119 <br />Commissioner Bachhuber stated more information should be available for those items that would 120 <br />be in the CIP for the next 2-years and as you look at year 3, 4, and 5 then part of the 121 <br />prioritization could be if it is an item that the City needs to start taking action on in the next year 122 <br />even though it is not happening for 3-4 years then more prioritization would be needed. 123 <br />Otherwise the detail would be provided as the item is considered near term. 124 <br /> 125 <br />Commissioner Zeller stated it is important to highlight the cost benefits as well. 126 <br /> 127 <br />Commissioner Hodder stated opportunities could be missed if these expenses are not looked at in 128 <br />terms of the impacts it would have on the operations. He would like to see this in the 129 <br />justification section. 130 <br /> 131 <br />Commissioner Bachhuber suggested the Commission shore the ideas and examples they have 132 <br />with the City Council and let them determine if this is something they would like to see. The 133 <br />Council can direct the Commission to refine these ideas further. 134 <br /> 135
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.