~Capital Improvement Committee~

The Capital Improvement Committee worked diligently this year to implement an enhanced plan to better serve the Town of Milford in both it's short- and long-term planning. The Capital Improvement Committee's charter was voted and adopted by town meeting members on June 19, 1995 under Article #18. In accordance with this article, the committee is responsible for reviewing all Town requests in the following four areas:

a. any acquisition, disposition, lease or transfer of land;
b. any acquisition, disposition, lease or transfer of motor vehicles;
c. any acquisition or lease of any single item of equipment with a total cost of $25,000 or more and a substantial useful life as determined by the committee;
d. any construction, reconstruction, replacement, extension or other improvement of public buildings, highways, sidewalks, storm drains, sewerage installations, playgrounds, parks or substantially similar public works, or for a facility, structure or a utility appurtenant to any of the same, with a total cost of $25,000 or more.

No capital improvement, as stated in the by-law, shall be voted upon at any town meeting until it has been presented in written form to this committee. It is the committee's charter to make recommendations to the finance committee on the scheduling of capital expenditures and assist the town meeting members with regard to the priorities of the projects and the impact of these projects on the operating budget. Every project submitted to the committee is entered into our new computer database. Meetings are scheduled with the item sponsor to discuss the merits of the project.

Each project is then evaluated according to the following criteria:

1. Quality of life enhancement is the first category. In this area we look at how the project will make people's lives better, whether it is needed to keep us current with other towns and what percentage of the town's residents will be affected.
2. In the area of Public Safety Enhancement, we look at how the project will make the town safer and why, and the risk of danger to people and property if it is not completed.
3. Financial or Operational Impact if Delayed analyses the cost to the town if the project is delayed. This includes projected repair costs and increased costs if done at a later time.
4. Under Subjective Value the committee member has the opportunity to assess the relative value of the project in his or her own personal way, outside the limitations of the other criteria. In this category the members call upon their personal life and business experiences in determining a ranking.
5. Due Diligence explores the department's general preparedness in their presentation. Department heads are questioned about possible grants and other funding sources for the project, and are asked to rank their projects in order of importance. The cost effectiveness of the project versus other alternatives is also reviewed.

Every category is worth 20% in the total evaluation of a project.

1. Quality of Life Enhancement
2. Public Safety Enhancement
3. Financial Impact if Delayed
4. Subjective Value
5. Due Diligence

The criteria are ranked from 1to 5 by each of the five committee members. The scores are then tabulated and the final ranking between 0 and 25 is determined. This information is then sorted by our database and a prioritized ranking of all projects is produced.

The result of this process allows us to present to the finance committee our ranking of importance of each of the projects properly presented to the committee for evaluation as specified in our by-laws. Furthermore, our new database now allows us to provide the town with a detailed overview of all short- and long- term capital improvement projects the town will be facing.

We wish to thank each of the Town departments that have cooperated with the CIC in implementing this new ranking system presented at the 1999 Annual Town Meeting. We are endeavoring to represent all residents of Milford when we hold our scheduled open meetings. This is a tedious process that has resulted from many scheduled open meetings this year. During these meetings, department representatives provided the CIC with all the information the CIC needed in order to properly hold a vote to rank each project.

Sincerely,

Peter D. Wish

Chairman Capital Improvement Committee