Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesCriteria Scoring. It is becoming more common to use an objective means of scoring or grading the value of projects being considered for funding. Exhibit 7 shows a matrix of 13 criteria the city of Lawrence, Kansas, uses to prioritize capital projects. A project can score from zero to 26 points, and city officials select the projects that have the highest scores.
Factor Consideration. In examining the factors that should be part of criteria scoring, items to consider include statutory requirements, policy issues, cost analysis, public service factors, safes resiliency, and funding availability It is particularly important to ensure that maintenance of critical capital assets is not deferred during times of fiscal stress. Governments need to consider putting a high priority on these projects to avoid critical infrastructure failure or major replacement costs in the future.
Process Flow. Prioritizing many capital projects can be a daunting task, but it becomes increasingly necessary in times of limited capital funding. Taking a step-by-step approach can be useful, as can creating a diagram that shows all the projects in play
Communicating with the Public. Once a decision has been made to proceed with a specific project, that decision needs to be communicated (especially if it is for a large dollar amount or addresses a critical community need). It is possible to communicate not only through text, but also using pictures, diagrams, or other visuals that make it easy for the average citizen to understand the importance of the project. The information can be put on a Web site, communicated through local media, at board meetings, etc.
CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Citizen input can be useful in prioritizing capital projects. Good public participation practices can help governments be more accountable and responsive, and can also help improve the public's perception of governmental performance and the value the public receives from government.
Timing and Approaches. These factors are related because approaches that work in one phase of capital planning may not be effective in other phases. For example, a community goal-setting session would be appropriate to help a government establish priorities when it is developing a strategic plan or is in the early stages of the budget process, but a goal-setting session would not help after the plan has been prepared.
Identifying Citizen Preferences and Satisfaction Levels. Such efforts should occur before a decision has been made, or to test potential solutions. Governments might solicit targeted input for specific projects, plans, or initiatives. Unless there is a compelling reason to target only certain segments of the population (e.g., a neighborhood immediately affected by the project), public involvement approaches should encourage all citizens to participate. In addition, involvement opportunities should be accessible to all citizens, with meetings held at different times and locations to allow for maximum participation.
Creating Public or Neighborhood Advisory Groups, Committees, and Informal Task Forces. These efforts are often ongoing and can be used to seek information during the planning and information-gathering stages, and also in subsequent phases, including consideration of alternatives, implementation, evaluation, and reporting, the specific groups that will be most affected by the decisions made should be identified and included in the initial planning and throughout implementation.
CAPITAL PLANNING TIMELINE
Capital projects should relate to specific goals and be completed on a timely basis, and because taxpayer dollars are being used, jurisdictions also need to be accountable to the public. For larger or more complex capital projects, it is not uncommon to establish expected start and finish dates for specific phases such as property acquisition, design, and construction. Critical milestones can be used for various phases of the project to avoid major surprises in project timing. For instance, a city that is building a civic center might set deadlines for site selection and acquisition; planning, and design, including requests for proposals and the selection process; the completion of the design; the beginning of construction; and the completion of construction.
Any timeline changes should be identified. Strategy changes should be noted as well. Given the speed with which economic conditions are changing; changes in revenue sources need to be identified and communicated to decision makers.
PROJECT CLOSEOUT
Particularly in times of tight revenue, local governments need to closely monitor and then close out completed capital projects. Projects that are essentially completed often remain in the capital projects fund for many months or years. Monitoring these capital projects and officially closing them when completed allows local governments to determine if additional funding is necessary for these projects or if unused funding might be available for a current critical capital project.
CONCLUSIONS
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) has many resources to assist in developing and communicating capital strategy The GFONs Economic Development and Capital Planning Committee has developed several helpful recommended practices, as well as a detail (with examples) of each phase of the capital project plan. The committee also has a recommended practice on the presentation of capital in the operating budget, and one on public participation in the budget process; all are available on the GFONs Web site at www.gfoa.org. Capital Project Planning and Evaluation: Expanding the Role of the Finance Officer, a GFOA publication edited by Joseph P Casey and Michael J. Mucha, is another resource that can provide assistance in this area.
JOHN FISHBEIN is a senior manager in the GFOA's Technical Services division in Chicago, Illinois. He can be contacted at jfishbein@gfoa.org.
CHRISTOPHER R MORRILL is assistant city manager--management and financial services for the City of Savannah, Georgia. He is a member of the GFOA's executive board.
FEED