Laserfiche WebLink
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.