Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, September 17, 2018 <br /> Page 5 <br /> CIP categorizations &review process <br /> Commissioner McRoberts stated the feedback the Commission received from the <br /> Council at the last review of this was that there were opportunities with the exist- <br /> ing policy as defined and the categorization was not necessarily helpful in terms <br /> of whether the category was new or recurring. The Commission met with City <br /> Finance Director Chris Miller and worked through examples to find out what it <br /> meant. The Commission concluded that the existing policy does not help. <br /> Commissioner McRoberts reviewed the proposed new CIP Approval Process Re- <br /> view with the Council. He suggested the following objectives for review: <br /> • Adapt the current process such that it allows the council to focus their time <br /> and involvement where it adds most value by extending the management <br /> process around CIP approvals. <br /> • Drive consistency of process and documentation across different CIP pro- <br /> jects and spend areas to facilitate more effective and visible decision mak- <br /> ing <br /> • Codify variations within governance process to reflect the differing nature <br /> or size of expenditures on a specific CIP project. <br /> Commissioner McRoberts reviewed the proposed framework and proposed role of <br /> the Council. He asked for feedback from the Council. <br /> Mayor Roe stated he had a question on some of the documentation provided. At- <br /> tachment A, the draft policy language, is that something the Commission has had <br /> a chance to review or is that something only in draft form for this meeting. <br /> Commissioner McRoberts stated the Commission reviewed Attachment A at the <br /> last Finance Commission meeting and concurred with staff as drafted. <br /> Mayor Roe asked how the retention of the guidelines from the previous discussion <br /> worked into the three-category recommendation. <br /> Commissioner McRoberts stated Capital Replacements was something the Com- <br /> mission went backward and forwards on given the feedback. Primarily, the con- <br /> cern was with item 1; projects necessary for public health and safety, or to meet <br /> legal mandates. There Commission felt that highlighting that fact as information <br /> to the Council was important. <br /> Commissioner McRoberts thought it was a fair observation that all of the catego- <br /> ries do not need to stay. <br />