Laserfiche WebLink
File Number: 15-698 <br />K. Cooke said that with scoring these projects, the results will give a perspective of the <br />importance and urgency of each project and will assist in the prioritization. In addition, not all <br />mandated projects have deadlines (example of the ADA Transition Plan project). <br />L. Marshall reiterated that staff will score the projects and then take it to the committee for <br />discussion. Project scores will go to Council in advance of a work session on the topic. <br />RECAP: Staff will do the initial scoring into eight categories, results brought to the CIP <br />committee for overall approval, followed by presentation to the Facilities Committee for <br />discussion and agreement. After final scoring, the categories will be weighted to emphasize <br />priorities. It is recommended that only two categories be given the highest weighting and that <br />two categories be given the lowest weighting in order for the scoring to reflect the priority of <br />the Council. Staff is looking to the committee and council to provide guidance in applying the <br />category weights. <br />Near the end of January 2016, K. Cooke will have an update on this process for the <br />Committee, which the Committee can review and use as basis for their own research. <br />Councilmember Lopez asked about the origin of this process. K. Cooke indicated that <br />Baltimore and other cities are using this type of process and that the proposal is modeled <br />after examples in a book by Patricia Tigue called Capital Improvement Programming, A Guide <br />for Smaller Governments. The book is issued by the Government Finance Officers <br />Association. Councilmember Lopez asked if the scoring method is a standard practice, to <br />which K. Cooke responded that it is a recommended practice. <br />Councilmember Lopez asked whether the Population Served category applies to number of <br />people or geographic area. N. Thom responded that it could be either. Councilmember <br />Lopez asked that the facilities committee be allowed to review project scores before the list is <br />sent to Council. <br />Mayor Cutter recommends that staff bring the proposal to Council keep them informed as the <br />project moves forward. It was noted that this topic is not on the agenda for the Council retreat <br />in January. <br />2.C. Project Updates <br />D. Pollart mentioned having another round of grant funds available to fund additional <br />installation of EV charger stations. The initial grant funding funded the cost of infrastructure to <br />install additional EV charger stations at two city locations. It is currently recommended to not <br />apply for the current grant; but to maintain awareness for future opportunities. The OSI <br />(private project) will install about 40-80 more EV chargers stations in private locations. <br />Councilmember Lopez asked about putting requirements on to new projects that would be <br />included in scope of work. D. Pollart indicated an ordinance is possible in which a percentage <br />of the project cost could be devoted to public art installation. K. Cooke will direct staff to work <br />with developers in influencing the installation of EV charger stations. <br />At Mayor Cutter's request, D. Pollart will supply a map of where additional chargers will be <br />installed. Currently, there are two at the Estudillo Garage and one at WPCP. <br />City of San Leandro Page 5 Printed on 111212016 <br />