Englewood advisory panels push to simplify CIP prioritization tool, ask for clearer project breakdowns

ENGLEWOOD — Members of Englewood’s Budget Advisory Committee and Planning and Zoning Commission pressed staff on June 4, 2025, to simplify the city’s capital improvement program (CIP) prioritization tool, add clearer project breakdowns and prepopulated data, and return with revisions ahead of next year’s prioritization cycle.

Committee members told staff the spreadsheet-based tool in its current form is difficult to navigate and can produce inconsistent results because departments supply different levels of detail and because some scoring categories effectively favor repairs over net-new projects. “Let’s try to get this tool … user friendly,” said Brenda Hupka, deputy chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The concern centered on several recurring problems: a scoring rubric that gives higher points for “immediate asset replacement” than for new infrastructure, inconsistent departmental submissions that leave reviewers unable to judge scope and scalability, and a tendency for departments to mark many requests as “Tier 1” urgent. “When everything’s a priority, nothing’s a priority,” said Noah Kaplan, a planning and zoning member.

Staff described changes they plan to make. Jenny Nolan, Englewood’s budget manager, said staff will prepopulate objective fields where possible, provide a consolidated ranking to the city manager and council, and meet with department directors to clarify tiering and required documentation. Deputy City Manager Tim Dodd said the citizen survey that informed some weighting is on the city’s website and ties back to City Council’s strategic plan, which had prioritized safety and infrastructure.

Members requested specific mechanics for the revised tool: separate tabs for tiered requests, a pivot-friendly rows-and-columns layout, visual budgeting so reviewers can see cumulative costs as projects are selected, and an explicit indication of whether a request is multi-year, under way, or a subsequent phase. Committees also asked staff to show, for large umbrella line items such as “walk and wheel plan implementation,” what a partial funding allocation would deliver; the example discussed was a $390,000 request that this year received $140,000.

No formal motions or votes were taken. Staff committed to incorporate the committees’ feedback, to sit down with department directors about tier definitions, and to return with an updated tool and documentation in advance of the next prioritization window (staff cited an expected preview in February and director presentations in April, with committee recommendations due roughly 90 days before budget submission in early June).

The meeting closed with members asking staff to circulate a note explaining which of the requested changes are feasible and a timeline for implementing them.