Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutManagement Records - Capital Improvement Plans (3) TOWN OF ORO VALLEY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION MEETING DATE: September 21, 1994 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & COUNCIL FROM: David A. Williams, AICP Project Coordinator SUBJECT: Capital Improvements Program: Overview and Evaluation Criteria SUMMARY: Attached is the first report from the Town's CIP Consultant, Planners for Strategic Action. Their memo details the benefits of preparing a CIP, what a CIP is, and defining capital projects. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has been formed to guide the preparation of the CIP. As a component of the CIP process, a survey has been prepared by the consultant and the TAC, and is currently being conducted within the Town. The results of that survey will form important input into the CIP process and will be provided to the Town Council in a timely manner. Staff recognizes the importance of the survey results in responding to resident desires and concerns. At the TAC's second meeting on September 12, criteria and a weighting system was developed to evaluate capital projects for the purposes of placing them in a capital improvement program in a properly prioritized manner. The TAC is requesting approval, by the Town Council, of this evaluation criteria, as it is critical to the next step of the project, which is the identification of capital projects and the incorporation of those projects into a logical, implementable plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of the evaluation criteria as presented in the attachment from PSA. Curt Dunham of PSA, will be present at the Council meeting to explain in detail the evaluation criteria and answer any questions you may have regarding the criteria, capital improvement projects, or the preparation of the CIP in general. SUGGESTED MOTION: I move to approve the evaluation criteria for Capital Improvement Projects as presented by the Technical Advisory Committee. Attachments: 1. Technical report No. 1 from PSA 1111ka t, 1,4 (- SIG:ore OF 1 A ME! T HE D TOWN MANAGER'S REVIEW FROM Partners for Strategic Action PHONE NO. 602 786 35F- P02 Ta ,N' ar o po VAILerseZZLI- Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) Technical Depart #1 September 13, 1994 Prepared by: Partners For Strategic Action 1990 North Alma School Road Suite 371 Chandler, Arizona 85224 (602) 786-3583/FAX(602) 963-9721 FROM : Partners for S tra to c,'c Action PHONE NO. : 602 786 35' P03 • • INTROD(JCTION The need for investment in public facilities -- roads and bridges, water supply, sewage treatment, and drainage facilities that support life in our communities — is obvious. In both stable and growing communities, the lack of adequate public facilities impedes growth and saps economic vitality_ Since providing infrastructure is a primary function of local government, it particularly affects the public decision- making process. Infrastructure is necessary to maintain a community's public health and welfare_ In recognition of the need to adequately plan for future infrastructure improvements, the Town of Oro Valley applied for and was awarded a matching grant from the Arizona Department of Commerce Capital Improvements Plan program. The grant provided financial assistance so that the Town of Oro Valley could develop a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). In early 1994 the Town solicited proposals from consultants to provide the necessary technical expertise and to work with Staff to develop the CIP_ Proposals were received from several recognized firms. Following thorough reference checks and interviews, the selection committee chose the Partners For Strategic Action Team. The strategic planning and consensus building expertise of PSA is augmented with extensive engineering expertise provided by A-N West, Inc. A random resident telephone survey regarding infrastructure issues was also solicited by the Town. Research Advisory Services, a survey specialist, is acting as a sub-consultant to PSA to complete this task. The information gained from the survey will be utilized in the CIP evaluation process. The Planning Director organized a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of citizens, utility representatives, a Council representative and all department managers to work with the consultant to develop the Oro Valley Capital Improvements Plan. Appendix A is the membership list of the TAC_ The first step in the CIP development process was to revise the project Work Program. The TAC reviewed the Work Program and agreed to a meeting g schedule. The Work Program is divided into five key phases, culminating in the �?��►� f `ice=la�«Adir. FROM : Partners for S tra to 'c Action PHONE NO. : 602 786 30 PO4 presentation of a Capital Improvement Plan to the Town Council for approval. The five phases are; Development of COP Evaluation Criteria, Needs Assessment, Financial Analysis, Capital Project Evaluation, and Draft Oro Valley CIP_ After reviewing the Work Program, the TAC discussed what their expectations and desires were for the CIP process: ✓ Creation of an unfunded project list ✓ Institution of maintenance schedules ✓ Vehicle replacement programs ✓ Capital budget plan ✓ Smooth out the budget process; make it easier to get capital project into the budget ✓ A tool to implement other plans ✓ Determine potential sources of revenues ✓ Definition of what capital is; Dollar values, life cycle ✓ Examination of external impacts ✓ Understanding of the public's priorities • Establishment of policies for debt service ratios and reserves I Flexibility to respond to changes in policy, but provide a strong structure Based on the expectations, the TAC then developed a Mission Statement for the project: "To define five year capital improvement priorities and financial feasibility by creating a process and producing a document that responds to public desires and needs." The following report represents Technical completes Report 1 which the p Evaluation Criteria Phase. This report summarizes progress achieved to date and presents the evaluation criteria that will be used to evaluate all capitalF rojects. Adoption of the evaluation criteria is critical because it willp rovide the foundation for decision-making throughout the rest of theF rocess. Purina"rex,jfPTI/L'Cjfl.Action 2 for decision-making throughout the rest of the process. Purincr3 lir Strukcitt. As01, .2 Technical Reports are required at key points during the planning process. The Technical Reports serve two purposes. First, they ensure that agreement is reached at critical points during the process and second, they document the process and the decisions being made. The aggressive meeting schedule and the reports will allow us to keep on the proposed schedule. The CIP is scheduled to be completed and adopted by March of 1995 so that the plan can be utilized during the FY1995-96 budget process. B. WIIaTIS .'ICIP? A Capital Improvements Plan is a multi-year plan that projects spending for all anticipated capital projects. The Plan addresses both repair and replacement of existing infrastructure as well as the development of new facilities to accommodate future growth. The CIP links the Town's planning and budgeting functions. The CIP looks at competing needs for infrastructure and determines how much money the community can afford to spend on them. There are five basic components to the CIP: 1. Infrastructure inventory which identifies existing infrastructure. 2. Needs assessment which identifies all needed and planned community infrastructure. 3- Financial analysis and determination of options and projected costs. 4. An infrastructure plan that programs infrastructure by year for a five year period. 5. A capital budget for the first year of the CIP_ C C,4PITaL PIW/ECTS DEIFfED Capital Projects are defined differently from community to community. They can be defined very broadly or narrowly. For the Oro Valley CIP, the following definition of Capital Projects will be used to describe which projects arc to be Capital Projects are dc_ _Led differently from community to community. They can be defined very broadly or narrowly. For the Oro Valley CIP, the following definition of Capital Projects will be used to describe which projects arc to be included in the CIP: Pcwlrwrs FUP.S/fJICVA/LAM 3 FROM : Partners for S tra to-i c Action PHONE NO. : 602 786 3' P05 Cost over $10,000 and have an expected useful life of three years or more, The only exception to this definition will be police patrol units which may have a useful life of less than three years but will still be considered Capital Projects. P Ore Valley CIPEvaluat/wi Crier/a One of the most important requirements for an effective selection process is the establishment of clearly defined, pre-specified criteria upon which the assessment and subsequent selection of capital projects will be based. imposition of the decision-making matrix is understandably stressful in organizations previously characterized by relatively clear departmental distinctions, a strong sense of professional turf, exclusively vertical lines of authority and general skepticism of the purposes and methods of planning. Clearly written policies make capital allocation decisions easier. Most decision makers intuitively have such policies in mind but seldom put them in writing. Each year discussions of the policies begins the CIP process. This usually results in changes to the policies which reflect changes in priorities. The evaluation criteria are selected on the following basis; 1. They refer to issues important to local governments inasmuch as ignoring them could have potentially serious consequences_ 2. They refer to items generally measurable in one form or other. 3. They are realistic. 4. They permit at least some degree of objectivity in ratings. 5. Most importantly, in their generic form, they represent criteria applicable to a wide variety of capital projects. The Oro Valley Technical Advisory Committee has selected the following nine criteria for use in the formation of the Capital Improvements Plan. Since some criteria are associated with more critical operations of the Town, each criteria has been assigned "Weighting Points". For instance, Criteria 3: Impact onp eration and Maintenance (80 Weighting Points) will have twice the emphasis of Criteria 9; Har/Wars hr 5lrci&yit Aclivr, 4 FROM : Partners for S tra te"i c Action PHONE NO. : 602 786 3` P06 Relationship to Other Projects/Coordination (40 Weighting Points) when the capital projects are evaluated. Every project will be evaluated against these same criteria and weightings. This assures the most objective process possible and leads to consistent decision making_ 4RITERI$ 1; Public Health, Safety, and Welfare 100 Weighting Points • How does the project improve the health and safety in the community? • Does the project specifically address a health or safety problem within the community? EVfiL(J. TION CRITER! I Fiscal Impact 95 Weighting Points • Is the project a negative or positive impact on city revenues? • Does the request bring in additional outside funds in some proportion? • Is there a strong probability that alternate sources of funding other than local revenues can be found? • Does the request generate a large recurring impact on the operating budget? • Are budget figures and cost estimates contained in the request realistic and appropriate? • Is the project realistic from a financial standpoint? • Are funds already dedicated or available for the project? • Does the project positively impact on local economic development efforts? • Does the project promote economic growth? EVfFLWIT!O!/ cRITERIg 3: Impact on Operation and Maintenance SQ Weighting Points • What impact does the project have on current city operations? • How does the project impact maintenance? Does it require extraordinary maintenance costs? • Is the project doable from an operations and maintenance standpoint? YoPincri 1 car 61Ailevie Ar1I(n FROM : Partners for S tra to^i c Action PHONE NO. : 602 786 3' P07 gyintlifTION CRITERI&4 Public Desire SO Weighting Points • Has the project been specifically identified by the public in a previous Community forums, surveys, etc.? • If the request is to expand or enhance an existing service, to what extent is the need for the expansion demonstrated? • If the request is to provide a new service, to what extent is need for the new service demonstrated? • Have citizen groups provided input or expressed a need for the request? IV6L(1N7191V a 5: Implements Locally Adopted Plans 65 Weighting Points a Does the project work to implement current adopted local plans? • Is the project a part of or consistent with an articulated, acceptable mid-or long- range program? • Does the request implement some or all of the recommendations of a previous study? • What is the level of benefit to the community? • What is the number or percentage of citizens within the community who benefit? EV.ILCNI..ON CRffERI#6 Legal Ramifications 60 Weighting Points • Does the project increase or decrease the city's exposure to liability actions? • Is the project required to address a federal, state or local mandate? • How does the project meet local regulations? • Does the project address a mandatory requirement in which the Town is currently deficient? Porfiic,.r I v-Sfiufjic Arlin', () FROM : Partners for S tra to^i c Action PHONE NO. : 602 786 3' P08 EVfiL(JfiTION CRITERIfi 7' Environmental Impact 50 Weighting Points • Will the project positively or negatively affect the environment? • Will the project help the city to deal with an environmental issue/problem/mandate? EVNLIIATIQN CRFTERIfi 2: Impact on Service Levels 45 Weighting Points • How does the project positively or negatively impact current service levels? • Does the project bring the city up to a required serviGe level? • Does the project meet service level deficiencies? E OL11 0 , CRITERIA 9� Relationship to Other Projects/Coordination 40 Weighting Points • How does this project relate to other projects underway? • Can the project be effectively coordinated with other projects? i.e. water and/or sewer line repairs done in conjunction with road work • Is there another project that has to be completed before this project can be done? • Possible beneficial/adverse effects on relationships with other jurisdictions or quasi-governmental agencies in the area? E. Next Steps Working with PSA Staff, the Oro Valley Technical Advisory Committee is currently working on the Needs Assessment phase of the project. This consists of completing Project Sheets which outline the infrastructure and service needs of the Town over the next five years. When the Project Sheets are completed, they will be entered into the computer data base_ The Needs Assessment phase also consists of a community workshop_ Pan/narr Fro,SImkgic/4L101711 7 FROM : Partners for S tra to^i c Action PHONE NO. : 602 786 3' P09 PSA will also be working with the Town Finance Department to complete an analysis of the budget and potential funding sources for capital projects. Once the Needs Assessment and Financial Analysis are complete, the TAC will begin to evaluate all of the capital projects using the. Evaluation Criteria. The results of the evaluation will become the basis for the final CIP. Paditet>/Cie&CA*14/,,n 8 FROM : Partners for S tra to-i c Action PHONE NO. : 602 786 :ft) P10 appendixy - Technical.dvisa CammIttee ream � • David Williams, Town of Oro Valley Planning Department, Project Coordinator and Contact Person • David Andrews, Town of Oro Valley Finance Department • Mike Cadden, Oro Valley Chamber of Commerce • Don Chatfield, Town of Oro Valley Planning Department • Jim Degrood, Town of Oro Valley Public Works Depa r'tm en t • The Honorable Bill Kautenburger, Town of Oro Valley Council • Charlie Len to er, Town of Oro Valley Police Depa rtm en t • Bob Maassen, Town of Oro Valley Building Official • Patti Morris, Public Improvement Coordinator, Tucson Electric Power • Gene Riser, Citizen of Oro Valley • Chuck Sweet, Oro Valley Town Manager Consultant Team • Peggy A. Fiandaca, Partners For Strategic Action • Curt Dunham, Partners For Strategic Action • Glenn Shearer, A-N West, Inc. • Tony Sissons, Research Advisory Services • • Adite'f for 51m/Rgir.