Englewood budget advisory to revise CIP prioritization tool, set November review and pick sample projects

The Englewood City Budget Advisory Committee agreed to a multi-step revision of the city’s capital improvement prioritization tool and to reconvene in November to test proposed changes. Committee members also selected a set of sample projects—alley maintenance, bridge maintenance, an information-technology audiovisual upgrade and service center building repairs—to pilot the revised rubric.

The proposed changes aim to make the tool more transparent, equitable and responsive to project readiness and budget realities, committee members said. Laura Cooper, a member of the Budget Advisory Committee, said she added “trigger 5, the sales and use tax reliance metric. Trigger 7, legislative or regulatory changes, and a section regarding timing of adjustments and reserve replenishment.”

Why it matters: The committee’s work will feed into the city’s 2026–2027 capital process. Members said they want refinements finished before the city’s joint meeting with City Council and Planning & Zoning, tentatively scheduled the second week of April 2026, so departments and boards can present prioritized, updated requests using the revised tool.

Most important details

- Timeline and next steps: The committee agreed to meet in November to develop redlines to the rubric, then refine the tool so it can be used in the 2027 capital cycle and in advance of the April 2026 joint meeting with City Council and Planning & Zoning.

- Sample projects for pilot: The committee will apply revisions first to two ongoing programs—alley maintenance and bridge maintenance—and two one-time items identified in this year’s submissions: an IT audiovisual upgrade and service center building repairs.

- Funding context: Committee members said finance staff estimated roughly $11 million was available for CIP in 2025 and that available funding will drop to about $7 million for 2026. The group also noted a roughly $3 million building-use tax receipt this year that flowed into the Public Improvement Fund.

What the committee wants to change

Committee members described several specific updates they will seek in the tool and in the process:

- Project persistence and sunset rules: The committee recommended adding an indicator showing whether a proposed project has remained on the CIP list for multiple years and discussing a sunset mechanism to remove unfunded, stagnant projects. Members suggested a 3-year automatic removal unless projects are resubmitted with updated scope and cost estimates; a Budget Advisory Committee member said this would encourage departments to reassess project need and feasibility.

- Project readiness and a separate track for small projects: Members suggested a project-readiness checklist to prioritize shovel-ready projects and proposed a streamlined review track for small projects under a set dollar threshold; the committee discussed $250,000 as an illustrative threshold.

- Equity and visibility adjustments: The committee asked for methods to give “less visible” departments equitable consideration—communications was cited as an example—and to ensure the rubric balances safety, long-term infrastructure needs and community impacts instead of overly weighting safety alone.

- Cross-department coordination and public transparency: The committee recommended encouraging cross-department planning for geographically overlapping projects and publishing project scores, rankings and selection rationales to improve transparency to Council and the public.

Funding detail and municipal revenue mechanics

Committee members sought clarity about where different revenue streams sit and how they are used. Finance staff said the $3 million in building-use-tax receipts flows into the Public Improvement Fund and that capital projects are funded by transfers from the general fund, unassigned fund balance or the Public Improvement Fund. Committee discussion included a short description of the city’s approach to developer-paid use tax (materials are estimated as a share of project valuation and reconciled after project completion).

Rules and charter language

Jenny Nolan, identified in the meeting as budget staff, told the committee that the city charter includes language requiring removal of funding for projects that have not started within five years, and she said members could still recommend a different retention period but should note the charter requirement.

Process decisions, not formal votes

The committee recorded one formal action at the meeting: approval of the September minutes. Laura Cooper moved to approve the minutes and Jay Knight seconded; the committee recorded four aye votes and the minutes were approved. Other items discussed—such as splitting one-time versus ongoing capital requests and selecting the four sample projects for rubric testing—were agreed to by consensus during discussion but were not recorded as formal motions in the meeting record.

What’s next

Finance staff will circulate the current tool, the 2025 budget update (midyear capital report) and the project descriptions for the four sample items. Committee members were asked to redline the tool on their own time so the group can compare proposed revisions at the November meeting and deliver recommendations in time for next year’s CIP cycle.

Quotes

“—We will have a joint meeting with City Council, [and] P and Z, I think, the second week in April. I wanna say 04/13/2026,—” Peter Eckle, chair of the Budget Advisory Committee, said when discussing scheduling expectations.

“I added trigger 5, the sales and use tax reliance metric. Trigger 7, legislative or regulatory changes, and a section regarding timing of adjustments and reserve replenishment,—” Laura Cooper said when summarizing edits she made to the reserve-policy and CIP materials.

“It requires us to remove the funding if the project has not started within five years. You could certainly recommend something else, but that—s what—s in charter,—” Jenny Nolan, budget staff, said when asked about charter language on project retention.

Ending

Committee members will reconvene in November to finalize recommended edits and test the rubric against the four selected projects. The group directed finance staff to circulate the current tool and the capital-budget update so members can prepare redlines ahead of the next meeting.