CIP Prioritization process Page 1 of 9
Attachment A
CIP Prioritization
Process
Attachments:
Appendix A - Scoring Descriptions
Appendix B – Project Information and Scoring
Worksheet
Appendix C – Prioritization Matrix Template
Effective Date : March 3, 2026 Responsible Department: Public Works Related Policies & Notes: CIP Policy Revised:
Purpose
This Capital Improvement Program (CIP) prioritization process is designed to help the City of Cupertino transparently, consistently, and defensibly rank capital projects across departments. The framework balances safety, regulatory compliance, fiscal responsibility, community benefit, and City Council strategic priorities, while remaining flexible enough to adapt to changing conditions.
Guiding Principles
All CIP prioritization should be:
• Transparent – Clear criteria and scoring that can be explained to decision makers and the public
• Equitable – Considers community-wide benefit and underserved populations • Data Driven – Based on measurable impacts where possible • Strategically Aligned – Supports adopted plans, policies, and Council goals • Financially Responsible – Accounts for lifecycle cost and funding availability
Step-by-Step Prioritization Process
Step 1: Project Intake & Eligibility Screening
Departments submit proposed CIP projects using a standardized form. Projects must:
• Be a capital asset or extend the useful life of an existing asset • Meet minimum cost and useful-life thresholds
• Be consistent with adopted plans (General Plan, Master Plans, Climate Action Plan, etc.) Projects that are strictly operational, duplicative, or infeasible are screened out.
Step 2: Baseline Classification – Information gathering (Non-Scored) Each project is tagged for reporting and tie-breaking purposes:
• Asset/Project Type (Transportation, Parks, Facilities, etc.) • Project Category (New, Rehabilitation, Replacement, Expansion) • Mandated vs. Discretionary
• Geographic Location / Service Area
CIP Prioritization process Page 2 of 9
Step 3: Scoring Using the CIP Prioritization Matrix
Projects are scored using the matrix below and the Worksheet in Appendix B. Each criterion is scored on a 0–5 scale and multiplied by its assigned weight.
Step 4: Scoring Review & Calibration
• Scores are initially assigned by staff subject-matter experts • Cross-departmental review ensures consistency
• Outliers or tied scores are reviewed and adjusted if justified
Step 5: Draft CIP Ranking & Financial Constraint
Projects are ranked by total score and then evaluated against:
• Available funding by fund type
• Debt capacity and cash flow
• Staffing and delivery capacity
Lower-ranked projects may advance if they are fully grant-funded or time-sensitive.
Step 6: Policy Review & Council Consideration
City Council may:
• Adjust rankings based on policy direction
• Group projects into tiers (Tier 1: Fund Now, Tier 2: Fund if Available, Tier 3: Unfunded) • Direct staff to return with alternatives or phasing options Any deviations from the scoring results should be documented for transparency.
Step 7: Annual Update & Continuous Improvement
• Scores are refreshed annually as conditions, costs, or regulations change • Completed or cancelled projects are removed
• Criteria and weights are reviewed every 2–3 years
CIP Prioritization Matrix
This adjusted weighting reflects Cupertino priorities including climate resilience, safety, and fiscal responsibility, while preserving core safety and compliance requirements.
Table 1: CIP Prioritization Matrix Scoring Guidance
Category Weight Description Scoring Guidance
(0–5)
1. Health & Safety 30%
Improves public safety,
emergency response, and safety
for all transportation users
0 = No safety impact;
5 = Critical safety risk
if not addressed
2. Regulatory / Legal
Mandate 15%
Required to meet federal, state,
or local regulations, permits, or
legal agreements
0 = Not required; 5 =
Legally mandated
with deadlines or
penalties
CIP Prioritization process Page 3 of 9
3. Asset Condition &
Infrastructure Risk 15%
Addresses failing or near-end-
of-life physical or digital
infrastructure
0 = Good condition; 5
= Failure imminent or
service disruption
likely
4. Climate Resilience
& Sustainability 5%
Reduces greenhouse gas
emissions, improves energy
efficiency, or enhances resilience
to heat, drought, flooding, or
power outages
0 = No climate
benefit; 5 =
Significant emissions
reduction and
resilience benefit
5. Strategic Alignment 10%
Advances City Council goals,
General Plan, Climate Action
Plan, or adopted Master Plans
0 = No alignment; 5 =
Explicitly identified
priority project
6. Community Benefit
& Equity 5%
Improves access, quality of life,
or services, including benefits to
underserved populations
0 = Minimal benefit; 5
= Broad and
equitable community
benefit
7. Financial Leverage
& Cost Effectiveness 15%
Maximizes grants, partnerships,
lifecycle savings, or operational
efficiencies
0 = No leverage; 5 =
Majority funded
externally or major
long-term savings
8. Project Readiness &
Deliverability 5%
Level of design, environmental
clearance, and ability to deliver
within the CIP window
0 = Concept only; 5 =
Shovel-ready
CIP Prioritization process Page 4 of 9
Appendix A - Scoring Descriptions
Refer to the descriptions below to ensure consistent scoring. Scores should be evidence-based and documented in the worksheet notes.
1. Health and Safety (Weight: 30)
Focus: Risk to public or staff if the project is delayed. • 0 – No identifiable safety benefit
• 1 – Minor safety improvement; low risk
• 2 – Addresses isolated or infrequent safety concerns • 3 – Reduces known safety issues; moderate risk exposure • 4 – Addresses serious safety hazards or near-miss history • 5 – Critical safety risk; high likelihood of injury or emergency response failure if not addressed
2. Regulatory / Legal Mandate (Weight: 15)
Focus: Compliance with laws, permits, or binding agreements. • 0 – No regulatory or legal requirement
• 1 – Indirectly supports compliance
• 2 – Anticipated future regulation
• 3 – Required to maintain compliance; no immediate deadline • 4 – Required with a defined deadline or enforcement risk • 5 – Legally mandated with penalties, consent decree, or active enforcement
3. Asset Condition & Infrastructure Risk (Weight: 15)
Focus: Current condition and likelihood of failure.
• 0 – Asset in good condition; no issues
• 1 – Minor wear; routine maintenance sufficient
• 2 – Moderate deterioration
• 3 – Poor condition; increasing maintenance or service impacts • 4 – Near end-of-life; high risk of failure
• 5 – Failure imminent or already occurring
4. Climate Resilience & Sustainability (Weight: 5)
Focus: Climate action, resilience, and long-term environmental performance. • 0 – No climate or sustainability benefit
• 1 – Minor efficiency improvement
• 2 – Small emissions reduction or resilience improvement • 3 – Meaningful sustainability benefit aligned with Climate Action Plan • 4 – Significant emissions reduction and/or resilience improvement • 5 – Transformational climate or resilience benefit; flagship sustainability project
CIP Prioritization process Page 5 of 9
5. Strategic Alignment (Weight: 10)
Focus: Consistency with adopted City priorities and policy direction. • 0 – No alignment with adopted plans or Council goals • 1 – Indirect or minimal alignment
• 2 – Supports one minor objective or policy
• 3 – Directly advances one major Council goal or adopted plan • 4 – Advances multiple adopted goals, plans, or initiatives • 5 – Explicitly identified or prioritized in adopted plans or formal Council direction
6. Community Benefit & Equity (Weight: 5)
Focus: Breadth and fairness of benefits.
• 0 – Minimal or internal benefit only
• 1 – Limited benefit to a small group
• 2 – Localized benefit to one neighborhood or user group • 3 – Noticeable benefit to a significant portion of the community • 4 – Broad community benefit with improved access or quality of life • 5 – Citywide benefit and/or directly addresses equity or underserved populations
7. Financial Leverage & Cost Effectiveness (Weight: 15) Focus: Maximizing value of City funds.
• 0 – No cost savings or outside funding
• 1 – Minor operational efficiencies
• 2 – Some lifecycle cost avoidance
• 3 – Moderate cost savings or partial grant funding
• 4 – Significant outside funding or strong lifecycle savings • 5 – Majority funded by grants/partners or substantial long-term savings
8. Project Readiness & Deliverability (Weight: 5)
Focus: Ability to deliver within the CIP timeframe.
• 0 – Concept only; no scope definition
• 1 – Preliminary idea; major unknowns
• 2 – Scope defined; early feasibility work
• 3 – Preliminary design or environmental review underway • 4 – Design substantially complete; permits in progress • 5 – Shovel-ready; environmental clearance and design complete
CIP Prioritization process Page 6 of 9
Appendix B – Project Information and Scoring Worksheet
Red text signifies areas that require information from the applicant[s].
PROJECT TITLE page 1
Proposed FY26-27 City Funding
$ 110,000
Total Funding $ 970,000
City Funding FY26-27 $ 110,000
External Funding $ 0
Remaining Funds (Feb 202 6) $ 191,990
Funding Source Capital Reserve/GF
Approved [Master] Plan 2015 ADA Transition Plan
Project Category Facilities, Parks, Streets
and Infrastructure,
Transportation, OR
Sustainability
Project Type Design and Construction
Origin of Request Public Works
FY Initiated FY 2015-16
Project Description
Insert project description here (75 words or less).
Project Justification
Insert project justification here. (Include references to Master Plan, General Plan, or other Strategic Plans).
Prioritization (score 1 to 5. See prioritization matrix notes)
Health & Safety 1 Provide substantiation notes for each category
Regulatory / Legal Mandate 0
Asset Condition & Infrastructure Risk 3
Climate Resilience & Sustainability 1
Strategic Alignment 4
Community Benefit & Equity 3
Financial Leverage & Cost
Effectiveness
3 Project Readiness 3
CIP Prioritization process Page 7 of 9
PROJECT TITLE page 2
Operating Budget Impacts
Describe how this project impacts operational costs including maintenance contracts, processes, materials, and staffing requirements. Provide any costs and/or estimates available.
Funding Information
Note any external funding available. If external funding is a good possibility in the future, that can also be noted.
External Funding
FY 26-27 FY 27-28 FY 28-29 FY 29-30 FY 30 -31
Grants $ 0
Other External Sources $ 0
Expenditure Schedule/5-year Plan Information
Annual Expenditures (GL#) FY 25-26
Actual
FY 26-27
Projected
FY 27-28
Projected
FY 28-29
Projected
FY 29-30
Projected
FY 30-31
Projected
T.B.D. N.A. $ 100,000 $ 110,000 $ 115,000 $ 120,000 $ 125,000
Projected Schedule/5-year Plan Information
This is an ongoing program, funded annually, to improve accessibility at all public facilities throughout the City.
Item/Phase Timeline for Completion Notes
Project Initiation July 2026
Consultant Procurement Ongoing
Planning/Pre -Design Ongoing
Design Ongoing
Permitting & Environmental Clearance Ongoing
Construction Bid Ongoing
Contract Award and Contracting Ongoing
Construction Ongoing
Post -Construction/Close -out Ongoing
Project Location
Address
(Add any information or graphic that you
can share)
Appendix B – Project Information and Scoring Worksheet
CIP Prioritization process Page 8 of 9
APPENDIX C
PRIORITIZATION MATRIX TEMPLATE - FY 26-27 CIP PROJECTS
CIP Prioritization process Page 9 of 9
APPENDIX C
PRIORITIZATION MATRIX TEMPLATE - FY 26-27 CIP PROJECTS
(Page 2)