My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2A Work Session 2016 0209
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2016
>
Packet 2016 0209
>
2A Work Session 2016 0209
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/2/2016 4:32:25 PM
Creation date
2/2/2016 4:31:47 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Staff Report
Document Date (6)
2/9/2016
Retention
PERM
Document Relationships
_CC Agenda 2016 0209 WS
(Reference)
Path:
\City Clerk\City Council\Agenda Packets\2016\Packet 2016 0209
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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).
Download electronic document
View images
View plain text
4. Evaluate and Prioritize Projects <br />5. Evaluate Funding Options <br />6. Program Funding between Prioritized Capital Projects <br />7. Adopt Capital Program and Capital Improvement Budget <br /> <br /> <br />Project Selection <br />The refinements proposed for evaluating and prioritizing projects will be explained and <br />then a recommendation will be made to approve the described process for the selection of <br />CIP projects. <br /> <br />Our process refinement is in the development of evaluation criteria to provide an <br />economics based guide for project selection. The domain of economics is the study of <br />processes by which scarce resources are allocated to satisfy unlimited wants. Our CIP <br />project selection is one of those economic processes wherein the scare resource of money <br />is allocated among our list of proposed CIP projects. As a City we must continually <br />consider whether existing assets are still needed and balance funding for replacing aging <br />capital assets with meeting new needs. An economist will tell us that our decisions are <br />good if they maximize return on investment. While the return or benefit of our projects is <br />hard to quantify, the CIP selection exercise hinges upon the comparison of benefits or <br />value for each alternative use of the money. Current best practice for making these <br />decisions, as outlined in “Capital Improvement Programming – A Guide for Smaller <br />Governments”, and as used by such organizations as the City of Baltimore, MD and <br />District of Wairoa, New Zeeland, relies upon a calculation of the Economic, Social, and <br />Environmental value of each project. <br /> <br />We have developed 8 categories to help judge project value: <br />1. Fiscal Impact <br />2. Economic Development Impact <br />3. Liability, Risk, Public Health, and Safety <br />4. Protection of Existing Facilities and Lifespan <br />5. Quality of Life <br />6. Population Served <br />7. External of Internal Mandate <br />8. One Time Funding Leverage <br />A description of each category can be found in the table at the end of this document. <br /> <br /> These categories are generally aligned with those in the guidebook but each has been <br />selected and defined with consideration for the values of our community. Each project <br />will be scored from low (zero) to high (three) in each category. Scores will be discussed <br />by the CIP committee and presented to council at a budget work session for their <br />adjustment and approval. Although most projects won’t have detailed estimates prepared <br />at this time we will include information on the likely cost of each project. <br /> <br />We anticipate not only that these categories aren’t equally important, but also that their <br />relative importance may change over time. In recognition of this we propose that each
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.