My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017_0613_FC_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Finance Commission
>
Packet
>
2017_0613_FC_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/14/2017 1:46:53 PM
Creation date
7/14/2017 1:41:17 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
281
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
Roseville Finance Commission <br />Agenda Item <br /> <br />Page 1 of 2 <br /> <br />Memo <br />To: Roseville Finance Commission <br />From: Chris Miller, Finance Director <br />Date: June 13, 2017 <br />Re: Item #7: Continue Discussion on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Document Format & <br />Priority Ranking (Scoring) Methodology <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Background <br />At previous Finance Commission meetings, the Commission discussed alternative CIP document <br />formats used by other cities including the value of creating a separate section that establishes a <br />justification for the proposed asset replacements, projects, or initiatives contained in the CIP. The <br />Commission also discussed the value of establishing a priority-ranking system and associated scoring <br />methodology that would assist in the assignment of those rankings. <br /> <br />Earlier this year, the City Council adopted the Commission’s recommendations for establishing a CIP <br />priority ranking system. Those rankings were incorporated into the City’s Capital Investment Policy <br />which reads: <br /> <br /> Capital Replacements should be considered using the following priority rankings (in order): <br />1. Projects necessary for public health and safety, or to meet legal mandates. <br />2. Projects that responsibly maintain existing assets to either extend remaining service life <br />or to create efficiency. <br />3. Projects that expand existing assets or services in order to benefit the Public Good. <br />4. Projects that purchase new assets or services in order to benefit the Public Good. <br />Based on these priority ranking criteria, the Commission may now want to consider how these rankings <br />might be assigned to individual items contained in the CIP. The Commission should be aware that there <br />are over 700 individual categories listed in the CIP spreadsheets. However, there are over 18,000 actual <br />assets or major components that have unique lifespan. The City is in the process of assigning condition <br />ratings to these assets but that effort is on-going and does not have a firm timetable. <br /> <br />Finally, I will note that City Staff did prepare project/initiative summaries for most items contained in <br />the 2018 year of the CIP. It may contain some of the information the Commission was advocating for. <br />A copy of those summaries are included in Attachment A. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation <br />Not applicable. <br /> <br />Requested Commission Action <br />For information purposes only. No formal Commission action is required at this time.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.