Mr. Zenner provided a draft letter on the overhead screen based upon previous
years’ letters for the Commission to revise to reflect their thoughts on the current
CIP. Mr. Zenner walked through potential language for the letter from his notes of
the discussion that the Commission had at the May 5 meeting.
The Commission noted they would like the Solid Waste Utility Staff to attend next
year even if there were no projects as they were interested in solid waste’s work
program. They asked that the project section criteria, and a list of all project that
were considered (including those that weren’t ultimately selected) prior to the
presentations. They would like to have increased transparency on the selection
process and how projects were selected and moved up and down in the CIP
timeline. There was discussion on what was asked for last year in their letter and
how they could better clarify what they would like to be provided within future CIP
reviews so as to make a more informed recommendation to the Council.
There was clarification that the Commission was required to review the CIP. There
was discussion on how the Commission could best be helpful in making
recommendations on projects and selection processes to the Council and how the
Council saw the Commission’s role in the review process. The role of other
stakeholder input and how it impacted projects was also desired to be more
upfront and clear. The Commission desired to make meaningful recommendations.
There was also discussion on how the Columbia Imagined Comprehensive Plan was
being used in project selection and how to better tighten the transparency pipeline
of community input and project funding and timing.
Commissioner’s also discussed how the CIP dashboard was designed and used. The
Commission desired to have a full database/spreadsheet of project listings as was
provided in previous years. It was noted that the CIP dashboard could be exported
to a table.
The Commission desired to see broadband internet featured more prominently in
the CIP and thought it should become a “Enterprise” service of the City. This was an
element of the Comp Plan. There was frustration that the Broadband Task Force had
not produced a report before being disbanded. This was an oversight of the CIP.
The role of ballot initiatives in CIP programming was also discussed.
Commissioner’s expressed the need for better alignment between the Comp. Plan,
land use planning, and the CIP. Commissioner’s acknowledged that they have
insight into the immediate and upcoming impacts of growth and changing
development patterns and view their review of the CIP as an opportunity for
sharing that insight in order to be more proactive instead of reactive with CIP
projects and programming.
The Commission discussed ways to make the presentation and question
component with the departments more productive. The discussion component was
generally more productive than the presentations over the project listings. If the
list was provided ahead of time, there would be more time for the discussion of
why and how projects were needed, funded, or chosen. The Commission said they
could give better feedback when they were asking more specific questions.
