My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2018_0917
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2018
>
CC_Minutes_2018_0917
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/12/2018 8:59:48 AM
Creation date
10/12/2018 8:59:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/17/2018
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, September 17, 2018 <br /> Page 7 <br /> Commissioner Harold stated that was part of what the Commission was trying to <br /> do, capture some of those items that come up infrequently, so those items do not <br /> make it into a CIP and try to pull it into the process. <br /> Councilmember Etten stated the two examples given in the report he would not <br /> consider them to be a part of a CIP and if those are areas of great concern, the <br /> Commission might want to propose something that is separate from the CIP pro- <br /> cess. <br /> Mayor Roe suggested not calling it a CIP policy in this category, just a Capital <br /> Investment, which might help. <br /> Councilmember Etten noted the City is not saving money right now to replace <br /> City Hall or to replace the golf course, for example. To him the top end category, <br /> the infrequent category, doesn't belong in the CIP discussion but maybe in those <br /> long-term capital discussions of costs the City has to consider. One of the things <br /> he was struggling with was how does this look in a report to the City Council. <br /> That is something he would like to better understand. <br /> Commissioner McRoberts stated in terms of the source of funding, he agreed but <br /> what the Commission was trying to do was have a consistent view as to the ap- <br /> proval of the expenditure. He understood the item may come from someplace dif- <br /> ferent but in terms of having those codified, consistent processes and information <br /> flow for the actual expenditure and it being approved, it should follow the same <br /> process. <br /> Chair Schroeder thought the Commission was looking at a capital bucket. The <br /> Commission understood some of the items do not show up in reports and never <br /> will so the Commission was trying to figure out how it could be documented dif- <br /> ferently but still have it part of the capital bucket. <br /> Councilmember Etten indicated he would not want it in the regular CIP report be- <br /> cause it would cause confusion. If taking about a process for decision making, it <br /> could make sense. <br /> Councilmember McGehee thought the categories should have some specificity <br /> regarding public engagement on those items because these are big event items. <br /> The other thing about the categorization and indexing that is all very set for the <br /> streets, but she was not sure about other items like sewer and it would be nice to <br /> have those items tied together in some sort of plan as part of this strategy. <br /> Councilmember Etten indicated he would like to have that be a separate conversa- <br /> tion with the Public Works Commission and Department. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.