Proposed CIP & CIB Funding

[dhyatt]

The following document lists the currently proposed FY '06 CIB & CIP items to be funded, along with their staff-assigned priorities...

http://carypolitics.org/CIB_and_CIP_Budget_Listing_May6.pdf

[StanN]

where are the roads??

[kellyc]

They are listed in the handout Mike gave out during the first meeting.

[dhyatt]

Here is a newer and more complete listing of the proposed funded items for FY '06:

http://carypolitics.org/Funded_CIB_and_CIP_Budget_Listing_May10.pdf

[StanN]

The current budget process yield priorities that make little sense to me. I have got to believe there is a better process and have taken a stab at it. My objectives are priorities that are more results oriented, more transparent, more data driven and more easily explained to the public.
What do you think?

Trying to make sense out of the current list, I did as follows:
First, I divided it into two parts: nuts and bolts and discretionary items.

Nuts and bolts includes:

1. items related to health and safety - this included fire, radio system, traffic calming, sidewalks and traffic signal - total ~3M

2. maintenance of existing infrastructure, incl. streets - 2.3 M
since I am not knowledgable enough to properly categorize it, I added in 0.8 for water = 3.1 M

These two categories seem to me to be the nuts and bolts of running the town - they should be, IMO, RANKED ahead of other items. Within each of these two categories, each line item should be RANKED.But by-and-large there has to be some pressing rationale NOT to procede with the line items in this category

This leaves $27M for what I will call discretionary capital items. The major categories are:
1. parks (5M),
2. roads capacity and planning (14.25M),
3. flood and drainage issues (3.5),
4. TCAP streetscape (0.5).

These seem to be QOL issues. If so they should be RANKED within each category.

I prefer a ranking approach to a prioritizing approach as I believe, based on experience, it yields a truer picture of real world priorities. It clarifies the mind when you have to rank, knowing the lower ranks may not get done. Its all to easy to rate everything "high priority".

Ideally, all the ranking should be done by staff along with a narrative giving the factors leading to the rank, e.g. roads ranked in order of congestion at key intersections; parks by noting the facilities/population served by each proposed project. Staff should have a more encompassing vision of needs and priorities than any group of citizens.

In addition to this ranking process, a more comprehensive examination of road and park priorities is warranted. For example: what are the most congested intersections in town and how does this match up with the projects and rankings proposed, i.e. what has been left out of the proposed budget. How do the proposed park projects compare to the population served by other parks?

In addition to these rankings there needs to be an over-the-top allocation of available funds into road, park and TCAP categories. While this is highly judgemental it could be rationalized by reference to historic data, studies of how each category impacts such strategic goals of increasing the number of high quality jobs or the tax base. This too should be proposed by staff. Again, I am trying to ensure a results orientation.

Finally, the proposed revenue allocations could be matched against the rankings and final adjustments made by the citizens group.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Obvious is that this is a time consuming job - likely needing a permanent financial advisory board (FAB). It requires a more result oriented approach to prioritization by staff and lots of interaction by the FAB and staff. It requires endorsement by the CTC and follow-up by the CTC to ensure the system is working as intended.

What I suggest is that we spend some time on talking about the current budget process - what is good and bad about it? Would the proposed process yield improved priorities? How would you improve my proposal?
What are the next steps.? What do we want to recommend to the CTC?

Comments?

stan