HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-31-2017JANUARY 31, 2017
At a Called Meeting of the Board of Commissioners, held on Tuesday, January 31, 2017, at 5:30
p.m., in the Lower Level Training Room of City Hall located at 300 South 5th Street, Mayor
Harless presided, and upon call of the roll by the City Clerk, the following answered to their
names: Commissioners Abraham, Holland, Rhodes, Wilson, and Mayor Harless (5).
MOTION
R & F CALLED MEETING NOTICE
Commissioner Abraham offered motion, seconded by Commissioner Holland, that the
Called Meeting for Tuesday, January 31, 2017, be received and filed.
- Adopted on call of the roll, yeas, Commissioners Abraham, Holland, Rhodes, Wilson
Harless (5).
The Board of Commissioners held a Board of Commissioners -Management Team W
WORKSHOP
COMMISSION -MANAGER PARTNERSHIP GUIDELINES
City Manager Pederson discussed updating the Commission Protocol Operating Guide
adopted in 2009 by the Board. He reviewed the roles and responsibilities of the Board
Manager and explained the importance of partnership between staff and the Board. Cc
proposed Commission -Manager Partnership Guidelines were distributed and once fina
be adopted as a municipal order.
SELECTION OF CRITERIA FOR RANKING CAPITAL PROJECTS
Assistant to the City Manager Michelle Smolen and City Manager Pederson led a disci
with the Board and directors to select criteria for ranking capital projects which are prc
during the fiscal year budget process. Selected directors formed a project team to dev
criteria options. The project team chose two types of criteria, outcome and technical, A
outcome criteria having nine options and technical having five. Each set of criteria sho
five options. Therefore, the Board was asked to narrow down the nine outcome criteri,
to five. The outcome criteria options are safety; transportation & mobility; property,1
infrastructure integrity; city services; community development; economic vitality; reci
environmental stewardship and technological enhancement. Technical criteria options
mandate/regulatory compliance; implications of deferring the project; relationship to o
projects/coordination; capital fiscal impact and operational budget impact.
After much discussion, the Board and directors selected the following five options for
criteria.
1. Safety
2. Property, Plant & Infrastructure Integrity
3. Recreation
4. Community Development
5. Economic Vitality
During the budget process the outcome and technical criteria with options will be used
capital projects to develop and maintain a Capital Improvement Plan. ' (For more detail:
read a copy of the City Commission Workshop Highlights which are located at the end
minutes.)
Mayor Harless adjourned the meeting.
ADOPTED: February 7, 2017
vyv J
City Clerk
City Commission Workshop Highlights
Mayor
Commission -Manager Partnership Guidelines
City Manager Jeff Pederson discussed with the Paducah Board of Commissioners and the Department
updating of a document approved in 2009 that outlines partnership guidelines and roles and responsibi
890
of
Mayor
City
of the
Will
Id have
options
ant &
legal
b rank
please
of the
;tors the
for the
JANUARY 31, 2017
elected offi 'ials, city manager, and staff. Paducah operates under a City Manager Plan as outlined in KRS
83A.150. P derson explained that governance in Paducah's form of government relies on the partnership of elected
officials, who set policy and priorities, and city staff, who analyze problems and issues, make recommendations, and
implement t he policies. Pederson says, "This is a working relationship intended to maximize the efficiency and
eftectivenes 3 of city government." Mayor Brandi Harless says she finds the structure of Paducah's government very
appealing d e to its consistency and partnerships. Mayor Harless says, "It's obvious that we get to have a high-level
professional staff." The group in attendance received a draft document that addresses roles of elected officials and
staff in addition to communication guidelines and concepts that would maximize the effectiveness of this form of
government Once in final form, the document will be adopted as a Municipal Order at a future Commission
meeting.
Each year, e City of Paducah develops a list of capital projects for discussion during the budget season. However,
there has not been a formal ranking process. Discussion about capital projects and the need for a prioritization
process occurred during the Next Steps Workshop held July 27, 2016 following the National Citizen Survey. At this
meeting, Ci y Manager Jeff Pederson and Assistant to the City Manager Michelle Smolen led the Paducah Board of
Commissio ers and Department Directors through a process to select criteria that will be used to prioritize
projects. S lecting criteria and implementing a capital project prioritization process aid in decision-making since the
criteria are used to objectively rank projects, which is especially helpful when a project may exceed available
resources.
Over the las few months, an internal team has been researching and evaluating best practices used to prioritize
projects. T1 e internal team evaluated the process used in ten other organizations including Bowling Green, KY,
Tyler, TX, a id the North Dakota University System. The team found that the organizations used a range of 5 to 13
criteria in ei aluating projects with the most common number of criteria being nine. The criteria are often divided
into two cat gories: outcome and technical. The outcome criteria relate to how the project impacts a goal while the
technical criteria focus more on finances, legislation, and timing.
The internal team determined a list of nine possible outcome -based criteria with the goal of having the list reduced
to five. After discussion and voting, the elected officials and staff selected these five outcome -based criteria:
• Safety — Does the project improve public safety and/or promote well-being while reducing risk for the
• Pr perry, Plant & Infrastructure Integrity — Does the project sustain the maintenance and/or improve
e 'sting systems and facilities
• C mmunity Development — Does the project promote strategic and sustainable residential and commercial
• Economic Vitality —Does the project promote or contribute to the economic vitality?
• Recreation — Does the project enhance cultural, recreational, or learning opportunities by making the City
a inore favorable place to live?
The outcom criteria will be used to rank projects during the budget process. Each project also will be ranked using
five technical criteria:
• Le al Mandate/Regulatory Compliance — Is the project legally required by legislation to address a current
or Vture mandate?
• Im lications of Deferring the Project — Will deferring the project create unsafe conditions and/or result in
sig ificant future costs, loss of service, or system failure?
• Re ationship to Other Projects/Coordination — Is the project timely, and will it sequentially work with other
exi 3ting or proposed community projects?
• Capital Fiscal Impact —Are the funds already dedicated or available for the project, and/or does the project
lev rage outside funding?
• Op rational Budget Impact — Does the City have the existing capacity (staff, equipment, resources, etc.) to
sur port the project?
The next s
February.
workshop.
will be for staff to use the prioritization process on a list of potential capital projects in
;n, the project rankings and funding options will be presented at a City Commission pre -budget
891