We (Suwanee, GA) do have a CIP review committee that includes our City Manager, Finance Director, and myself (Asst. to City Manager). We developed a project scoring matrix with criteria, such as impact to the operating budget, estimated project life, frequency of use, etc. This allows us to score each project to see how it ranks against other projects.

Once we have scored the projects, we develop the five-year plan. Typically the higher-ranked projects are planned earlier in that time frame. However, a project may be planned earlier if it has an outside funding source and we already have access to the funds, such as a grant, SPLOST, etc. We strive to implement our CIP with pay-as-you-go financing, which for us, means our general fund can generally contribute about $1M each year to funding capital projects. So, the project rankings, coupled with project cost and funding sources, are all considered when we develop the recommended CIP for Council to consider.

The document I've attached has an overview of our CIP process and policies, the scoring matrix we use, the scores we developed for our current CIP so you can get a feel for how it works, and the submittal form that department heads complete for their projects that we work from when scoring the projects.

It's a complex process so feel free to call or e-mail me with specific questions.

Jessica Roth, Assistant to City Manager
City of Suwanee, GA
jroth@suwanee.com
770-945-8996

Hi there. Our entire CIP process is described in good detail in our website. Visit our website and scroll down to Capital Improvement Program - http://www.charlottesville.org/Index.aspx?page=3266. I can also send you several files via email that details our application process and criteria. Hope these help!

Hello, Israel,

In addition to the above resources, you might be interested in how some local governments have involved citizens while simultaneously streamlining the process.

This is a case study from Arvada Colorado, detailing the forming of the committee, its activities, and how citizen involvement affected the outcomes:
http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/kn/Document/21018/Involving_Citizens_in_the_Capital_Improvement_Planning_Process

Another paper details how citizen involvement brought more information to decision-making:
http://icma.org/en/icma/knowledge_network/documents/kn/Document/100221/Garden_Citys_Citizen_Based_Capital_Improvement_Planning_Process

I hope you find this information useful.

Gabe Brehm
Knowledge Network Intern
ICMA

Gunnison County, Colorado uses a very thorough prioritization system that has been adapted from the method used by the U.S. Forest Service, which essentially measures each criterion against every other criterion. We have modified the weight factors for typically used criterion such as citizen identification, cost/benefit, and service improvement to suit our organization and have added criteria that we think “amplifies” the importance of a project such as legal requirements, public safety, commissioners’ priority, etc.

The introduction of our CIP discusses the development process and the entire document is located on our website at the link below. Although the plan involves many departments and a lot of minutia, the public and the Board of County Commissioners is basically interested in the resulting rankings. On page 16 of our 2013 CIP, we report the results of the weighting system but we have broken out projects that have obtained their own funding. This allows projects that are competing for unrestricted resources to be easily prioritized.

http://www.gunnisoncounty.org/finance_capital_improvements_plan.html

As a side note, our plan has been tremendously successful when linked to a Managing for Results initiative to align county resources and staff toward accomplishment of major strategic results. The success can be measured by looking at prior years’ plans and observing the tremendous number of high priority projects that moved forward to appropriation in the annual budget and have since been completed on time, on budget and are now placed in service to deliver results to our customers

The City of Oklahoma City focuses both on a yearly capital project request process and a 5-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Some capital projects tend to be smaller in nature and are identified and funded through the annual budget process. The proposed budget is submitted for analysis to the Office of Management and Budget by City Departments, which is reviewed and approved in-turn by the City Manager’s Office and City Council. The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) contains our larger infrastructure projects and is a single document which quantifies and focuses larger long- and short-range goals over a five-year time period. The CIP is reviewed by our Capital Planning Team, which consists of managers from our departments who typically have these types of projects. They identify potential conflicts in capital project plans; review and determine potential funding sources; and provide a collaborative network to stage and work multiple projects in a sequence that is mutually beneficial. The CIP is reviewed and approved by the City Manager’s Office, City Trusts and Commissions and City Council.

Many of the large infrastructure projects are identified in advance of preparation for General Obligation Bond projects that are taken to the voters for approval. Large projects are also identified in master plans that are reviewed and approved by City Council. Examples of these would be Parks, Water and Wastewater, and Police and Fire.

We define a capital asset as a new or rehabilitated physical asset that is non-recurring, has a useful life of more than three to five years, and has a cost greater than $7,500.

Here is a link to our current 5-Year CIP http://www.okc.gov/finance_tab/cip/Proposed_CIP_13-17.pdf