The most pressing and time-consuming topic was the approval of the revised Master list of projects for the capital improvement plan. The board noted contributions from several departments, particularly Fire and Building, while the Department of Public Works (DPW) made some changes. Despite limited input from other departments, the board approved the list unanimously. The chair emphasized that the goal was to send the list to the mayor and council without any new rankings or comprehensive reporting.

Substantial debate followed about the template for updating the rating of projects. Councilor Tyros had developed an initial template that was subsequently refined by another committee member to include additional information about costs and fiscal years, facilitating a five-year planning perspective. The board explored the idea of integrating more information into this template to better identify funding sources, especially for grant-related projects.

Another topic of discussion was the necessity for a ranking system for the projects. One member argued that it should be the committee’s responsibility to rank projects rather than leaving it to the individuals submitting requests. This led to a discussion about defining terms such as “emergency” and “critical need.” The board considered establishing criteria to guide the ranking process, with a member recalling that past committees used a detailed scoring system, although some found it tedious.

To streamline the process, a suggestion was made to allow department heads to perform an initial ranking based on their knowledge of project urgency, with the committee then reviewing those evaluations. This approach would reduce the workload on committee members while ensuring a more accurate representation of the projects’ needs. Additionally, the board discussed simplifying the template by removing unnecessary fields, such as location for equipment like fire trucks, where it may not be relevant.

The timeline for project needs was another point of discussion. Members suggested categorizing projects based on urgency—immediate, within two years, or within five years—arguing that this would enhance the decision-making process. There was a consensus that prioritizing projects based on urgency would be beneficial, and the board also considered adjusting terminology to clarify the urgency and necessity of projects.

As the discussion progressed, members reflected on the importance of clear definitions for project categories and types to eliminate ambiguity. They noted that clarity would be crucial for those submitting projects to ensure consistent evaluations. The board suggested modifying the terminology in the template to better fit the needs of the DPW and other departments, as many items on their lists pertained to equipment rather than vehicles alone.

In another discussion, the board considered restructuring project descriptions and justifications for clarity and ease of understanding. The idea was to combine project description and justification into a single entry, which was met with agreement. One participant noted, “I think that’s a pretty good stab at this,” and a commitment was made to clean up the draft and circulate it for feedback. The board debated whether a vote was necessary at this point but concluded that a final product was not yet available.

The presentation of project costs, particularly in relation to timelines, was another focal point. One participant raised concerns about auditors’ potential reactions to high project costs and suggested breaking down costs into phases. For instance, presenting a million-dollar project as $250,000 for design in the first year followed by $500,000 for construction in the subsequent year could help secure funding without alarming stakeholders. This phased approach could allow for clearer presentations of costs associated with different project components.

Grant funding was also discussed, with one member expressing skepticism about the availability of grants for various projects. They highlighted a common misconception that funding is readily available for all initiatives, recalling a past experience with a dog park project that had unexpectedly received grant support. The participant emphasized the committee’s primary responsibility to identify necessary projects rather than secure funding.

The board also debated combining project justification and description within forms into a single streamlined section to simplify the submission process. They discussed creating a fillable form to enhance accessibility and usability. One participant proposed developing an access database that could automatically populate an Excel sheet, though it was unclear who would have the technical expertise to implement such a system.