Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Capital Facilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Group recommends linking capital facilities plan to CIP and relabeling facility improvements
Summary
Participants recommended explicitly referencing capital facilities master plans in the strategic plan and using those projects to populate the CIP and sustainability model; they proposed relabeling and consolidating items (3.7/3.8) and distinguishing city-owned buildings from utility infrastructure.
Participants flagged that the draft strategic priorities lacked explicit references to the capital facilities master plan and urged clarifying where facility projects should appear in the CIP. “There’s really not anything in here specific to our capital facilities master planning and our CIPs,” the Moderator said, recommending identification of plans that need updating and ensuring projects populate the CIP and sustainability model.
Discussion focused on renumbering and consolidating items (making a capital-facilities item 3.7 and putting building upgrades under it) and on the proper placement for utilities vs. city-owned buildings—several participants argued a water tank should live in a utilities CIP, while city-owned buildings (parks, halls) should be catalogued under facilities.
