My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2019_0318_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2019
>
2019_0318_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/25/2019 1:50:04 PM
Creation date
4/4/2019 12:43:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
3/8/2019
Meeting Type
Regular
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.
/
297
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
Attachment B <br />Commissioner Bachhuber stated on page 11 of 12, he would like to see a sweeping of what he <br />previously stated or something like that and he felt because the sweep will end up in the General <br />Fund he suggested that be taken off. <br />Chair Schroeder thought the General Fund should still be there to show what monies are in that <br />fund. <br />Commissioner Bachhuber thought the Communication Fund should be higher based on staff <br />analysis. Tech and License would be maintained at 15%. <br />Commissioner McRoberts thought it made sense to increase the Communication Fund given the <br />other element of Tech and License might end up in trouble quickly and having some wiggle <br />room might be a good idea. <br />The Commission requested a scenario be given adjusting Communication to 30% with Tech and <br />License Funds lowered to 15%. <br />Chair Schroeder thought the recommendation the Commission is giving is that the sweep be put <br />into the General Fund. <br />Commission concurred. <br />Commissioner McRoberts asked staff to prepare a hypothetical analysis going back to the end of <br />2015 and sweeping the accounts through 2018 to see where the ending balances would be if they <br />used the process they are proposing. <br />Mr. Miller indicated he could do that for the Finance Commission’s next meeting. <br />Discuss Recommendations on Establishing CIP Categories <br />Commissioner McRoberts reviewed the current policy/process and the Commission’s <br />observations. He made a PowerPoint presentation reviewing the proposed framework and <br />definitions of the CIP categories with the Commission. <br />Category 1 <br />This would include CIP items that are routine and can be incorporated into various replacement <br />policies. It would include day-to-day items such as vehicles & equipment that have a consistent <br />useful life.Items in this category, as reflected in the various replacement policies, would be <br />reviewed annually by the City Council, but less frequently if no significant changes are made. <br />Category 2 <br />This would include CIP items that are incorporated into a broader strategic plan or replacement <br />policy. It would include infrastructure identified in the City’s Pavement Management Program <br />(street replacement), Park Improvement Programs or similar long-termplanning initiative.Items <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.