HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/09/2026 - Meeting Materials (2) CDCIP Board Funding Award Considerations
The intent of this one-sheet is to provide a high-level overview of considerations that staff noted from CDCIP
Board deliberations over the years. This is not a comprehensive list but a reference to help board members
consider how to balance the many competing needs.
New Assets vs Capital Maintenance — Protecting past investments by funding capital
maintenance helps prolong the useful life of an asset. Funding new assets invests in the City's
future and serves a growing population.
Types of Assets — Board members have sometimes expressed an interest to spread CIP funding
between asset classes to avoid one class significantly falling behind over the years. Generally,
assets are classified by the City office responsible for it including Engineering and Transportation
which often coordinate on projects (e.g., sidewalks, streets, traffic calming, and bridges),
Facilities (e.g., buildings), and Public Lands (e.g., parks, trails, and natural areas).
Varying Geographic Needs — Board members have sometimes expressed an interest to spread
CIP funding around the City to ensure multiple Council Districts and neighborhoods benefit from
annual capital investments. The degree and type of need varies between areas of the City. Some
applications have a specific location while some annual program applications are listed as citywide
because the program addresses assets in multiple neighborhoods which varies each year based
on program prioritization criteria (e.g., data-driven, coordination with other construction plans).
Ongoing Annual Programs vs One-time Projects — Annual program applications are typically
from departments and reflect ongoing funding needed to keep up with the lifecycle of capital
assets such as replacing deteriorated assets. One-time project applications are typically single
investments that do not need annual funding or propose a specific project location that would
otherwise be addressed in the regular course of an annual program.
Full Funding vs Partial Funding — Partially funding a project can sometimes allow part of the
request to proceed spreading limited funding to more applications. However, when a project is
split into multiple phases the costs often increase for later phases resulting in a greater total cost
than if full funding was awarded in a single CIP cycle. Partial funding sometimes sits dormant
waiting for full funding in later CIP cycles (e.g., partially funding a bridge reconstruction).
Larger vs Smaller Projects — Projects that are not "shovel ready" often go through planning,
public engagement, and design phases before construction. The time to progress through these
phases can be the same for a large project as a smaller project. A single large, high-dollar project
might be completed faster and more efficiently than several smaller dollar projects.
Different Funding Sources — Staff will identify application eligibility for each funding source
which are listed below from the least to most restrictive with a brief description for reference.
Generally, awarding the most restrictive funding first helps preserve flexibility.
General Fund Dollars: The most flexible funding which can be spent on any application.
Funding Our Future Local Sales Tax: Eligibility is limited to five critical need categories which are
affordable housing, public transit, streets, public safety, and parks maintenance.
Class C Funds: From the State gas tax and a portion is provided to cities for transportation.
County 4t" Quarter Cent & 5th 5th Sales Taxes: Limited to transportation uses per state law.
Impact Fees: A payment from a developer for increased demand on City facilities caused by
population and employment growth. There are four types that may appear in CIP (typically not
each year) which are fire, parks, police, and transportation.