Prioritization Process Updated 10/6/23

The city also must coordinate the timing of many of its capital projects with federal, 
state, county, other municipal governments and non-City utilities. For example, a street 
improvement project will be planned with any other infrastructure “underneath the 
street” that may undergo moving or replacement in order to minimize the amount of new 
street surface that may be cut or disturbed. Also, flood control capital improvements are 
coordinated with the Maricopa County Flood Control District to maximize matching funds 
that the district makes available for eligible projects.  
 
The availability of unanticipated financing, such as federal or state transportation grants 
may cause the city to accelerate a particular project. In addition, a scheduled project 
may be delayed in order to take advantage of an unusual one-time opportunity such as 
the receipt of non-governmental grant monies. 
 
The City Council reviews the recommended CIP during the spring budget workshops. 
Council also considers citizen requests and considers the recommendations of staff 
before making the final decision about which projects should be included in which years 
of the CIP.  
 
CIP Project Prioritization Process  
 
The role of a project prioritization process is to objectively rank the order of projects 
based upon a defined set of criteria where the criteria reflect values of the organization. 
At Council direction, city staff developed and implemented a new CIP project 
prioritization process. This process was implemented during the development of the 
FY19-28 CIP, for projects expected to be funded with G.O. Bonds. As with any other 
capital funding source, G.O. Bond funding has limitations on available financial capacity 
to complete projects that fall within this category. In a planned CIP program, typically 
there are more projects that are submitted than there is financial capacity to complete.  
A project ranking matrix was developed and approved by City Council to apply to 
proposed G.O. Bond projects in the 10-Year CIP Plan. It is an evaluating tool for capital 
projects to be ranked according to criteria that is distinctively important to the City. The 
following weighted ranking criteria were used to evaluate projects, and representing 
themes and objectives in the City’s overall strategic plan, as follows: 
1) Mandated Projects – These are capital projects that are required by law or 
contract and would likely result in sanctions or penalties to the City if not 
completed. These are automatically ranked with the maximum points allowable.  
2) Assessing Operational Costs – These costs most likely will have an impact on the 
General Fund. It is important to consider those impacts and apply a scoring 
methodology that aligns with Council expectations for minimizing the potential 
risks of those impacts to the long-term financial health of the City. 
3) Aligning with Strategy – A key focus of the work that Council has been engaged in 
over the last year is creating organizational alignment around Council-adopted 
strategic objectives; inclusion of this category in the project ranking matrix model 
reinforces Council’s vision and is also a best practice. 
ANNUAL BUDGET 
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
 
_________________________________________________________________________________
FY2023-2032 Capital Improvement Plan 
CIP Preparation
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
260

4) Protecting the Public – Creates an emphasis on projects that would mitigate a 
public health, welfare, and safety impact. 
5) Leveraging External Funding –The ability to leverage outside funding sources 
(revenue, grants, IGA cost share, Developer Agreement) mitigates the City’s 
financial impact to fund a capital project. This criteria measures and scores how 
much external funding and proposed timeframe of the City receiving those funds.  
6) Quality of Life – Provides capital infrastructure and the project’s ability to improve 
the overall quality of life for Glendale’s citizens and visitors. 
7) Planning for the Future – Highlights the importance of long-range planning by 
using Council-approved master plans. These are master plans that are generally 
developed through a public input process and formally adopted by City Council. 
This criterion ensures the ability to capture the voice of the community as future 
funding decisions are made. 
8) Generating Revenue – Creates a focus on projects that either increase or help 
maintain existing revenue streams. 
 
Once the G.O. Bond projects were ranked, their estimated project costs and ranking were 
applied to the available G.O. Bond capacity starting in FY21-22. The current FY23-32 CIP 
program reflects the G.O. Bond projects that have made the highest priority out of all 
G.O. Bond projects submitted for the FY23-32 CIP program. Some projects may not have 
available bond authorization but have been deemed as a high priority by City Council 
based on the priority ranking criteria. 
 
Citizen Involvement in the CIP Process 
 
The CIP is an important financial, planning and public communication tool. It gives 
residents and businesses a clear and concrete view of the city's long-term direction for 
capital improvements and a better understanding of the city’s ongoing needs for stable 
revenue sources to fund large or multi-year capital projects. 
 
Input into the annual CIP updating process is obtained from citizens who serve on many 
different city boards and commissions, as well from individual citizens through the public 
hearing and comment process. City boards and commissions are comprised of residents 
and business owners and their meetings are open to the public. A few examples include 
the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee, the Library Advisory Board, the Arts 
Commission, and the Citizens Utilities Advisory Commission. The public can also provide 
comments to the Mayor and Council through public meetings of the Council, Council 
District meetings and through other interactions with them. It is through this public input 
residents and businesses have the opportunity to inform Council and staff about 
infrastructure development and renovation needs, important quality-of-life 
enhancements, and environmental and historic preservation issues that should be 
addressed in the capital plan.  
 
 
 
 
ANNUAL BUDGET 
Fiscal Year 2022-2023
 
_________________________________________________________________________________
FY2023-2032 Capital Improvement Plan 
CIP Preparation
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
261

6/25/23 10 49 AM
Gma  Pub c Records Request No 7328
Page 1 of 1
https //ma
goog e com/ma /u/0/?
a4f60709ed&v ew pt&search …msg d msg f 1769260978962459432&s mp
msg f 1769260978962459432
James Ho 
Public Records Request No. 7328
GlendalePublicRecords@destinyhosted.com
<GlendalePublicRecords@destinyhosted.com>
Tue, Jun 20, 2023 at 3:05
PM
To: 
, jknoll@glendaleaz.com, mmoreno1@glendaleaz.com, daguiluz@glendaleaz.com
This email is in response to your public records request to the City of Glendale. The city last used a scoring
matrix to prioritize G.O. bond-related CIP projects during the FY19-28 budget process. For the
requested years, FY23-32 no ranking exercise occurred.
For the most recent year, FY24-33, city staff planned to use a process like the one used in FY19-28,
but the process was never completed, and scoring was not used to prioritize the projects. Instead,
each department recommended projects including costs and proposed timing to the City Manager.
The City Manager then made his recommendations to the City Council for their discussion and
approval as part of the budget process.
If you have any questions, please contact the Records Center at 623-930-3259.

1
From: Phelps, Kevin <kphelps@GLENDALEAZ.COM> 
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2023 12:23 PM 
To: Tolmachoff, Lauren <LTolmachoff@GLENDALEAZ.COM> 
Cc: Rios, Vicki <VRios@GLENDALEAZ.COM> 
Subject: CIP questions  
CM Tolmachoff – 
The decision to not use a scoring matrix like the one used several years ago was made in my 
office. There were several factors in this decision. 
As a result of previous Council input, we significantly increased the amount of workshop hours 
spent on developing the annual CIP compared to when I first became City Manager. We 
develop the annual proposed 10‐year CIP much the same way we develop our operating 
budget and has several steps. 
First, we receive feedback from each Department regarding their prioritized list of CIP projects. 
Each department uses their own process for developing their priorities. Next, B&F works on 
the available resources so that the proposed CIP projects can work within the constraints of 
our budget limitations. Finally, we take this data and we combine it with Council priorities that 
we have gleaned thru prior workshops and council input throughout the year. We use this 
information to frame our proposed CIP that is presented to the Council. 
The steps we use to propose our annual CIP to the Council is an internal process and is 
modified as conditions and circumstances warrant. This is no different than the manner in 
which we develop our operating budget. Hopefully this answers your questions. If not, please 
feel free to reach out to me to discuss further.