Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cip Prioritization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McMinnVille council reviews proposed CIP prioritization framework to guide multi-year project choices
Summary
Public Works Director Jeff Hunsecker presented an eight-category CIP prioritization framework at a 6 p.m. work session, proposing staff score projects, a committee weight categories set by council, and a phased rollout beginning with facilities; council members urged simplification, transparency and attention to funding readiness.
Public Works Director Jeff Hunsecker presented a proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) prioritization framework at the McMinnVille City Council work session, saying the tool is intended to help the city rank major projects, improve grant competitiveness and increase transparency about how multi-million-dollar capital decisions are made.
Hunsecker told the council the framework will score projects using eight categories — maintenance responsibility; partnership and project coordination; health and safety; community engagement; socioeconomic impact; economic vitality; resiliency; and livability and connectivity — and that subject-matter experts would score category questions while the council sets category weightings that determine the final ranked list. "The weighting is done after, and that's the most important role that the council plays in this process," he said.
Why it matters: The council is facing growing infrastructure needs and limited resources, staff said. Hunsecker said a repeatable, public scoring system will make the city's priorities easier to understand and help staff pursue grants by having ready project information. "We want the community to know why we're doing the projects we're doing," Hunsecker said.
How it would work: Project leads would complete a scorecard with objective questions; a scoring committee of subject-matter experts would assign low/medium/high or numeric scores for each category; staff would apply council-approved weightings to produce a ranked list that feeds into the five-year CIP and the annual budget. Hunsecker described typical CIP limits: projects generally with a 10-plus year life and costs over $100,000. He said scoring one project takes roughly 15–45 minutes for a scorer and that staff time to run the program historically has been about 10 hours per year for individual staff roles in similar rollouts.
Council feedback and concerns: Councilors endorsed the idea of a structured process but pressed staff on several points. Councilor Cunningham argued deferred maintenance — citing the swim center and recreation center — should be prioritized, saying deferred upkeep risks "demolition by neglect." Councilor Gary asked how the framework measures net citizen impact (for example, how many households a street or sewer project would affect); Hunsecker said socioeconomic scoring includes questions about the number of residents impacted and equity considerations. Councilor Tukalski raised two concerns: that subject-matter experts could unfairly "sell" projects and that funding-readiness (design completion, permits, environmental reviews) should be captured; Hunsecker said metrics and administrative checks are part of the plan and that partnership/coordination questions include some funding-readiness elements.
Staff experience and timeline: Director Henry said a similar CIP program used in Sherwood — a smaller city — was "as robust as this one" and helped secure grant opportunities. Staff described the difference between a five-year CIP view for budgeting and longer 20-year master-plan horizons used for rate-setting. Hunsecker said the rollout will be phased: this year’s focus is facilities projects (where staff have asset-condition information), next fiscal year will add parks and wastewater as master plans come online, and later years would address streets and stormwater. Staff aims to have projects scored by January so the information can inform the recommended facilities budget. Councilor Peralta noted the council previously set aside $1,000,000 for facilities this year; Hunsecker said staff will provide a breakdown of those funds.
Next steps: Hunsecker said he will revise the tool based on tonight’s feedback and return with a recommended weighting and adoption item for council consideration; staff will train project leads and pilot elements in the upcoming budget cycle. No formal vote or resolution was taken at the work session.
Ending note: The council closed the work session at 7:17 p.m.; staff will bring a refined proposal and supporting materials back for a future decision point.
