McMinnVille council hears proposed CIP prioritization framework; staff to pilot facilities list

McMinnVille — Public Works Director Jeff Hunsicker introduced a proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) prioritization framework at the city council work session, saying the tool is intended to align capital projects with council and community priorities and to make project choices more transparent.

"So tonight, I'm gonna be introducing the capital improvement plan or CIP prioritization framework," Hunsicker told the council, outlining the rationale: aging infrastructure, finite financial and staffing resources, and the need for a repeatable annual process to guide multi-million-dollar decisions.

Hunsicker described the proposal as a scoring and weighting system. Project leads would fill out a project scorecard; subject-matter experts would score individual categories; and the council would set the weighting that produces a ranked project list that staff would use when recommending projects for funding during the budget process. "The weighting is done after, and that's, the most important role that the council plays in this process," Hunsicker said.

The staff-proposed scoring matrix includes eight categories: maintenance responsibility; partnership and project coordination; health and safety; community engagement; socioeconomic impact; economic vitality; resiliency; and livability and connectivity. Hunsicker said livability and connectivity tend to fit transportation and park projects more readily than routine utility work.

Hunsicker defined a typical CIP project for the framework as a major public improvement generally lasting 10-plus years and costing more than $100,000, while acknowledging exceptions and noting that routine maintenance can exceed that dollar threshold.

Council members asked detailed questions about how the system would work in practice. Councilor Cunningham urged prioritizing deferred maintenance and safety at facilities such as the swim center and rec center, saying deferred maintenance has led to "basically, demolition by neglect." Councilor Gary asked how the framework would account for net citizen impact — how many households a project affects versus businesses — and Hunsicker pointed to socioeconomic scoring questions that capture the number of residents impacted.

Several councilors suggested simplifying the number of categories to make the tool easier to maintain. Others, including staff, said a broader set of criteria helps when pursuing state and federal grants, because notice-of-funding-opportunity scoring priorities change over time.

On program logistics, Hunsicker estimated scoring a single project takes about 45 minutes to an hour the first time and that an outside CIP program manager and staff might spend about 10 hours per year on the process once established. Staff described the plan as phased: this year staff will pilot facilities projects in the scoring tool, next fiscal year add parks and wastewater modules, and later incorporate streets and stormwater as master plans and bond decisions permit.

Director Henry, speaking about finance, said the master plans and infrastructure outlook often look 20 to 30 years ahead, but the council’s CIP document is typically a five-year plan. "We're looking at about 20 years to 30 years into the future," Henry said when describing long-term rate and replacement planning.

Councilor Tukalski asked how the framework would guard against scoring bias if subject-matter experts vary in judgment; Hunsicker said the scorecards include objective questions and administrative checks and that the council’s weighting step provides an additional policy-level control. Tukalski and others also asked that project scores and the underlying choice points be published; Hunsicker said project fact sheets and score breakdowns can be made available online or as a GIS-linked database.

Council members also requested a report on how the council’s current set-aside funds are being spent. A council member noted "we actually set aside 1000000 dollars this year," and Hunsicker said much of that money remains as contingency for now and that he would return with a breakdown and a status update on the facilities maintenance program.

Hunsicker said staff will incorporate council feedback, refine weightings and scoring materials, train department staff on the scoring process, and return with a recommended framework for formal adoption and a pilot project list to inform the upcoming budget. The work session closed at 7:17 p.m.

What happens next: staff will finalize tools and training, score the initial facilities projects so they can be considered in the recommended budget, and bring a formal adoption item to the council at a future meeting.