My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
4A Presentations 2018 0507
CityHall
>
City Clerk
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2018
>
Packet 2018 0507
>
4A Presentations 2018 0507
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/2/2018 12:49:42 PM
Creation date
5/2/2018 12:49:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CM City Clerk-City Council
CM City Clerk-City Council - Document Type
Agenda
Document Date (6)
5/7/2018
Retention
PERM
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.
/
258
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
5 <br /> <br />impact of each project upon the operation budget is considered in the project scores but <br />isn’t quantified. Any changes to the operating budget due to implementation of a project <br />should be calculated and included separately in the City budget. <br /> <br />Staff within the Engineering and Transportation Department initially score each project <br />in each category. A CIP committee comprised of all department heads and the City <br />Manager then reviews and modifies the project scores. A list of all projects, with initial <br />scores in each category is located in appendix 2. <br /> <br />All 8 scoring categories may not be equally important and their relative importance may <br />change over time. In consideration of this, weights are applied to the scores in each <br />category. Category weights are distributed per the following schedule. <br /> <br />Table 1 CIP Category Weights <br /> <br />Description Weight Notes <br />Critically Important 15 2 categories <br />Very Important 10 4 categories <br />Important 5 2 categories <br /> <br /> <br />The CIP committee considers the current state of the City and results of the public survey <br />described below and initially sets weights for each scoring category. A proposed <br />distribution of weights is brought to council with the project list and associated project <br />scores, for review and adjustment. A list of all unfunded projects, with initial weighted <br />scores is located in appendix 4. <br /> <br />During calendar year 2016, 620 members of the public completed a survey ranking the <br />importance of funding a variety of infrastructure items. Survey results are shown in <br />appendix 3, the top three categories based on average scores are roadway pavement, <br />parks, and libraries. The category receiving the most #1 votes is roadway pavement. <br /> <br /> <br />24
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.