Local Government Finance: Capital Facilities Planning and Debt Administration by Alan Walter Steiss

PROGRAMMING CAPITAL FACILITIES

A growing body of evidence indicates that the deterioration of the urban infrastructure is a very serious problem of national scope. Articles in the popular press, research sponsored by various federal agencies, and a series of congressional hearings have contributed to increased national concern and debate as to the status of water and sewer systems, health and educational facilities, streets, bridges, and so forth in our cities and towns. What was once viewed as a New York City problems (everyone is familiar with the near defaults that have plagued "the Big Apple" since the sixties), is not recognized to be a much more widespread problem.

Improving Local Practices

Current research suggests that local practices for allocating limited public resources to capital improvement needs are lacking in several dimensions. Decisions often are based on inadequate information or on traditional engineering standards. While such standards are helpful, they simply are not sufficiently comprehensive to provide needed information on trade off options for capital improvement proposals. Highly subjective assessments often are used with little systematic information on infrastructure conditions, proposal impacts, financing options, or the analysis of repair and replacement options. Local discussions about the selection of priorities among competing projects often are intensely political debates. And all too often, in the absence of sound information and analysis, the "squeaky wheel" approach to decision-making prevails.

Some efforts have been mounted in recent years to improve capital budgeting procedures in local governments. These efforts, have focused primarily on discussions of administrative procedures, organization of the process, and overall financial issues. Analytical procedures for the selection of capital improvement process, for the most part, have not been adequately addressed. Five tasks--described in the following sections--cover the specific elements of the capital facilities planning process. In these tasks, a major concern must be to balance the desirability of advanced, sometimes sophisticated, analytical tools with the technical limitations and political considerations of the local government environment.

Task 1: Estimation of Current Infrastructure Conditions

The need for corrective action should be based on an assessment of major components of the local infrastructure--monitored over time and compared to benchmark data where possible. Priorities among capital projects can be more readily determined once the conditions of individual segments of the infrastructure are clearly identified. Specific analysis of repair and replacement alternatives can be undertaken when information on the condition of the infrastructure is combined with cost accounting data on maintenance spending.

Application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) techniques can be of considerable assistance in maintaining an inventory of infrastructure conditions. Once the data are loaded into the GIS, periodic updates and analyses can be accomplished with relative ease.

Appropriate condition measures and assessment procedures should be identified for each of the basic systems: streets, bridges, transit vehicles, water and sewer networks, and so forth. Three categories of indicators should be considered:

(1) Engineering-type assessments such as measures of water pipe capacity loss, bridge condition ratings, etc.;

(2) Performance measures such as number of sewer line stoppages, frequency of bus breakdowns; service calls for water line repairs, etc.; and

(3) Service impact indicators such as numbers of citizen complaints and losses arising from system failures (e.g., water main breaks, basement flooding incidents from sewer back-ups).

Appropriate indicators should be drawn from a variety of sources, including engineering practices and federal and state rating schemes. A small group of indicators for each system should be selected which offer valid measures of conditions and for which reliable information can be obtained over time. The selection will be facilitated by seeking the advice of professional groups and by examining the experience of other local governments that have implemented such assessment procedures. Efforts should be made to identify assessment systems that are reliable (e.g., that minimize dependence on judgments which may differ among surveyors) and yet at the same time, are practical (e.g., that minimize extensive data gathering or use of expensive equipment in the assessment process). The selected indicators and assessment techniques must be tested under appropriate conditions for selected projects in each infrastructure area.

Where possible, benchmarks should be established for the selected performance measures, such as system failures and breakdown rates, and standardized definitions should be prepared for each indicator. For example, information on frequency of bus road calls may be limited to include only road calls attributable to mechanical failures, rather than more minor maintenance repairs. This information, in conjunction with rules of thumb developed by practitioners, should provide measures of the mean and range of performance levels against which the performance of the local infrastructure can be compared and evaluated.

Special attention must be given to the cost-saving trade-offs of collecting data for condition assessments. In some cases, new procedures will be warranted. In others, existing information can be utilized. Often the computerization of data will be required. A low and a higher cost option should be identified for all data collection approaches.

The productS of this task should be descriptionS of appropriate condition indicators and procedures for obtaining information on a regular (e.g., annual) basis. Estimates should be made of the data collection costs and of the reliability/validity of the procedures.

Task 2: Replacement Analysis

In practice, the condition indicators identified in Task 1 will point out problems in the infrastructure, suggest the current extent of these problems, and indicate likely candidate projects for improvements. This type of analysis, however, will not indicate whether a facility should be repaired or replaced, nor will it identify the associated costs and service level impacts of choosing either option.

The purpose of replacement analysis is to make an assessment of the trade-offs among four options: (1) replace the facility or equipment; (2) rehabilitate or under take a major overhaul; (3) continue to provide current maintenance with emergency repairs as required; or (4) cut back maintenance spending and defer repairs. The fourth option may be the least expensive in the short-run, but usually is the most costly in the long term.

Replacement analysis provides local governments with information on the likely costs, impacts on service levels, and risks of the choices involved. Typical issues include:

o Should certain streets be resurfaced or seal-coated now or should spending be deferred at the risk of more costly reconstruction in the future?

o Should a deteriorated bridge deck continue to be repaired, receive extensive rehabilitation, or be entirely replaced?

o Should a program of sewer line repairs be continued, pipes replaced, or existing infiltration and inflow into sewers be accepted, with consequent backups and basement flooding incidents?

o Should a break in the city's water supply system be repaired or should the main be replaced?

o Should buses that are breaking down considerably more frequently than the industry standard be replaced, be given major overhauls, or continue to receive regular maintenance and repair?

While each of these questions involves its own technical considerations and special factors, the appropriate type of analysis is quite similar.

Ideally, depreciation curves should be developed for different components of the infrastructure. Such curves show the rate of deterioration as a function of such factors as age, original construction material, climate, intensity of use, and the like. Unfortunately, while some general guidelines concerning useful service durations do exist, these typically do not relate to individual segments of the local infrastructure.

In this task, procedures must be formulated for replacement analysis that seems feasible and appropriate for local governments. The technical literature from the related fields of engineering economy, capital budgeting, cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis should be examined. Much of the work in these fields has focused on private sector choices. Work in the private sector has the simplifying advantage that the outputs of investments, as well as the costs, can be expressed adequately in dollar terms.

But the public sector also has to consider nonmonetary impacts, such as water quality, transportation delays, number of sewer stoppages and backups, and the like. Infrastructure maintenance issues can be discussed in these circumstances primarily in terms of dollars. Even in these cases, however, it will generally be necessary to undertake a brief analysis of service-level impacts to ascertain that these are not reduced by an otherwise economically preferable option.

Equipment replacement models, using methods of operations research, generally aim at minimizing future net costs by estimating the time for replacement. Optimal replacement occurs when operating and maintenance costs (plus loss of resale value) exceed the cost (annualized) of replacement plus the operating and maintenance cost of the new equipment. In short, the cost of maintaining the existing equipment for another year is compared to the cost of buying new equipment and operating it for the same period.

Application of the techniques of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis should be considered. In cost-benefit analysis, nonmonetary products are translated into monetary terms by imputing dollar values to outputs (such as travel time saved, lives or injuries avoided, the value of recreation time, etc.). Cost-benefit analysis has been popular in the examination of transportation alternatives and in the assessment of water resource projects. The problems of how to meaningfully impute dollar values to service-level impacts and secondarily, how to handle distributional effects, are likely to limit the utility of cost-benefit analysis at the local level. In cost-effectiveness analysis, outputs are expressed in different units, with the results presented in the form of trade-offs rather than cost-benefit ratios.

The technical literature and existing efforts related to replacement analysis by local, state, and federal governments should be examined. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency requires analyses of the economic trade-offs between sewer rehabilitation and treatment plant expansion as part of the grant application process. There is a scattering of related studies by local governments.

In addition to the basic principles of the various forms of economic analysis, the detailed procedures should include:

o Estimation of costs. Maintenance records, engineering estimates, and bids are major sources of information. However, local govern-ments often have difficulty in using such information to project costs of various alternatives. Procedures for the explicit consideration of full costs, i.e., operating and maintenance costs, as well as investment costs, should be developed when feasible. The use of statistical cost analysis techniques should be explored to make better estimates of future costs.

o Discount rates. Discounting is important in considering the time stream of expenditures and benefits (and opportunity costs). Appropriate discount rates for local analyses, however, often are unclear. Often these measures, if stated in monetary terms, will represent dollar imputations rather than actual dollar outlays.

o Distributional effects. Procedures should be developed to examine the distributional effects of investment choices within a locality. Distributional consequence are of considerable concern to public officials and, of course, to the public. The numbers of citizens affected, as well as their location and demographic, economic and social characteristics, should be considered. Condition indicators often can be disaggregated by neighborhoods, districts, etc.

Task 3: Consideration of Risk and Uncertainty

The risk and uncertainty are key elements in choosing among investment alternatives. The following procedures should be considered in making such choices:

o Sensitivity analysis assesses the relative magnitude of changes in costs and output indicators if key elements in the replacement analysis have different values than those considered most likely.

o Contingency analysis permits the construction of alternative future scenarios (e.g., a substantial buildup in traffic on a road segment or bridge) and an examination of the effects of each scenario for each maintenance or replacement option.

o Probabilities can be applied to uncertain events so that an "expected value" and/or a distribution of likely total costs and outcomes can be generated for each alternative.

o The discount rate can include an uncertainty factor to reduce net benefits computed in future years.

o Qualitative statements should be made about the relative amount of uncertainty and risk involved in each alternative.

Judgments are made by "experts" as to the uncertainty of various elements in the analysis. These magnitudes of uncertainty, in turn, are used to estimate the effect of the uncertainties on the major evaluation criteria (the cost and service level effects). The latter information indicates the risk involved in making any particular choice. Risk analysis involves modeling situations to provide estimates of the probability of major consequences of certain governmental actions.

It is important to assess how these various approaches can be applied to the problems of maintaining the local infrastructure. More sophisticated and resource-demanding techniques will likely be applicable only to major investment decisions. Procedures should be developed for making the trade-offs in local investment decisions more explicit.

Task 4: Consideration of Financing Options

In most communities, financing constraints ultimately play a major role in most capital outlay decisions. In considering, financing options in each infrastructure area:

o Sources of capital funds should be clearly delineated;

o Availability of specific matching grants to help to subsidize any further capital expenditures should be identified;

o Steps that could be taken to finance further capital outlays should be outlined, if local authorities find this desirable; and

o Ramifications of pursuing these options should be assessed in terms of their relative costs and service level impacts (e.g., state funded projects frequently require higher construction standards, and thus higher costs, than locally funded projects).

General procedures for financing alternatives must be integrated into the initial assessment of capital projects. Little attempt has been made at the local level to integrate financial option analysis into individual project selection, however.

The availability of federal and state aid programs, for example, influences both the feasibility and net cost of local improvement projects. Federal grants may provide a significant boost to local capital spending, but they also can affect local objectives, particularly for infrastructure repair and rehabilitation. Historically, federal programs for capital projects have been biased towards new construction.

Understandably, local governments wish to leverage their resources. However, providing the local match for such projects can divert funds from vital maintenance-related investments that receive no external assistance. For example, local governments may find their efforts to meet local sewer system needs for pipe rehabilitation and repair frus-trated by the realities of federal funding. Although eligible for federal grants, in practice these projects are far down the federal and state priority lists. Thus, local governments frequently are faced with the option of constructing a new interceptor sewer that requires a maximum of 25 percent local funds, or funding sewer line replacement projects that typically require 100 percent local financing.

Capital facilities can be financed in a number of ways--on a pay-as-you-go basis, from reserve funds, through short- or long-term borrowing, and so forth. These financing methods must be evaluated in terms of the fiscal policies of the community and in light of the particular capital facility needs. These methods for financing capital facilities are discussed in further detail in a subsequent chapter.

Task 5: Ranking Capital Project Requests

In all likelihood, for any given budget period, the overall cost of the proposed capital projects will exceed the available financial resources. Therefore, decisions regarding capital project requests should be based measurable and defendable criteria which establish priorities among needs. Information derived from the previous tasks (infrastructure condition assessments, repair and replacement cost options, service impacts, risk considerations, and financing alternatives) can provide a basis for priority ratings. Such procedures should seek to combine criteria to provide an overall summary score, without losing the backup information on each individual criterion for each proposal. Economic costs and benefits often can be quantified in such priority systems. With few exceptions, however, social benefits and costs have yet to reach this level of quantification. Various "political factors" seldom are included among such criteria but are brought to bear on the final rankings.

Systems for assigning priorities can be divided into two approaches: (1) those that stress intangible values, and (2) those that seek to quantify various criteria to develop a numerical scoring system. Each of these approaches has its merits and its shortcomings, and to the extent possible, elements from each should be incorporated into a sound priority classification system.

Under an intangible approach, preference is given to projects that contribute to "the protection of life, health, and public safety." A second important consideration assigns priority to projects designed to meet current deficiencies in existing facilities, based on some standard of service. While deficiency criteria often are expressed in rather general terms, it may be possible to establish some quantifiable measures based on these general statements. These criteria can then be applied to determine the essential level of service and the harm arising from a deficiency of service. It often is difficult, however, to develop measures that are comparable across functions lines (e.g., parks versus schools).

Priority consideration also might be given to projects designed to conserve or maintain some existing properties, investment, or resources, or those that demonstrate some substantial economic or social benefit to the community. Established facilities may depend on new projects to realize their full potential, and therefore, such projects also might be given a high priority, as would projects that are self-supporting or self-liquidating. Special consideration may also be given to projects for which substantial state or federal subsidies are available. Finally, special consideration would be given to emergency situations.

A six-way breakdown of priorities is shown in Exhibit 1, along with criteria for assigning capital projects to each of these categories. An examination of the suggested criteria will reveal several areas in which more measurable indices could be developed.

Adapted from Alan Walter Steiss, Local Government Finance: Capital Facilities Planning and Debt Administration (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1978), p. 38

Most cities require a description or justification of each project as part of the departmental submissions. Often these statements are so general, however, that the process of comparing and selecting among competing projects becomes very subjective. For these evaluation criteria to be useful, information should be provided on each of the relevant factors.

In recent years, a number of governments have begin to identify a set of ranking criteria against which each capital improvement proposal is rated. Numerical weights are assigned to each criterion and used as multipliers to calculate an overall summary score for each proposal. The resulting summary scores are then used to rank the proposals. The criteria usually are a mixture of economic, political, social impact, and distributional considerations. Criteria sometime overlap and sometime include process criteria (such as "conformance with the comprehensive plan"), as well as outcome criteria.

Under a numerical priority system, the criterion judged to be most important or most significant is given the highest score (frequently based on units of ten or some multiple of ten). All other factors are then ranked in relation to this score. Thus, "protection of life and maintenance of public health" may be ranked as the most important criterion and given a score of 100. "Conservation of resources" may be judged to be nearly as important and thereby, given a score of 90. On the other hand, "aesthetic and cultural values" may be ranked relatively low, scoring only 20 points. These categories often are further divided into a number of subcategories and scores accumulated for any given period. It should be evident that any effort to develop such an "objective" approach must be based, to a large degree, on subjective judgments.

While priority systems should have some degree of flexibility, they must be stable enough to offer substantial justification for the scheduling of projects and the allocation of funds within the capital improvements program. The priority system--whether developed on a more subjective, intangible basis or on a numerical system--must be tailored to the par-ticular goals and objectives of the individual jurisdiction. One locality may be interested primarily in furthering industrial growth and develop-ment. Another may have tourism and the development of the recreational industry as a basic objective. A third may place primary emphasis on the preservation of a well-maintained residential atmosphere. In the final analysis, the planners and administrators must exercise their best professional judgment in working with the various operating agencies in assigning priorities. At the same time, it must be recognized that in government, ". . . the actual choice and establishment of final priorities are still accompanied by the political process of compromise, a give-and-take between all groups concerned." [2]

Ranking procedures are not intended to make decision making on capital improvement proposals "automatic." They are not a substitute for judgment and consideration of the political environment. Rather, they provide more substantive information--in effect, making explicit issues and trade-offs that are always present but often hidden.

Evaluation Criteria

Hatry, Millar, and Evans have suggested eleven criteria for the evaluation of capital projects. [1] Most cities require a description or justification of each project as part of the departmental submissions. Often these statements are so general, however, that the process of comparing and selecting among competing projects becomes very subjective. For these evaluation criteria to be useful, information should be provided on each of the relevant factors.

Fiscal Impacts. In addition to data on the expected costs of each capital project, information should also be provided on the operating and maintenance (O&M) costs of the proposed project. Often capital projects, particularly those involving the rehabilitation of existing facilities, are intended to reduce future O&M costs. Therefore, estimates of such reductions may be an important factor in justifying those projects. Explicit consideration of both initial costs of development (site acquisition and preparation, construction, and capital equipment acquisition) and subsequent costs of operation, maintenance, and repair of the capital facility is sometimes referred to as life-cycle costing.

Other fiscal impact considerations include:

o Changes in revenue. Capital projects may generate new revenues (for example, when charges are levied for public services) or may result in a reduction in revenues (for example, when private land is taken off the tax roll for a capital project site).

o Impact on energy requirements. Estimated changes in energy requirements (increases or decreases) should be included as part of a project's O&M cost impact.

o Legal liability. Estimates should be made of any potential cost liabilities of undertaking (or not undertaking) a capital project, such as for flood damage resulting from the diversion of a natural stream.

Health and Safety Effects. Project justifications should include an assessment of health-and safety-related effects, such as anticipated reduction in traffic accidents, elimination of health hazards arising from sewer problems or poor water quality, long-term health hazard effects of asbestos in public buildings. Data should be provided on the estimated number of persons affected and the severity of the effect. These data should indicate anticipated improvements in such conditions if the proposed project is implemented.

Economic Effects. Information on the economic effects of proposed projects should included the likely impact of the project on (1) property values, (2) the tax base, (3) employment opportunities, (4) personal income, (5) business income, and (6) the stabilization or revitalization of declining neighborhoods. These impacts may be more evident in capital projects proposed in response to community growth and expansion. However, projects aimed at maintaining or upgrading the existing infrastruc-ture may also have significant economic effects.

Quality of Life and Service. Both beneficial and adverse effects on the quality of life--environmental, aesthetic, and social--should be considered. Though perhaps not resulting in major health problems, the potential for noise, air, or water pollution should be taken into account. Increased travel times and other inconveniences to the public should also be evaluated. Some projects may involve lengthy disruptions of service and inconvenience to users during construction. Repair or reconstruction of bridges, streets, or water and sewer lines may involve rerouting of traffic, temporary interruptions of service, or even relocation of households. Estimates should be provided as to the duration and severity of such disruptions and the number of persons likely to be affected.

Distributional Effects. Capital projects vary with respect to the number of citizens affected, and inevitably, projects affect various sectors of the community differently. Depending on the particular type of project, estimates should be provided by the proposing agency or central staff as to the number of persons likely to be affected. Where appropriate, these data should be broken down by age groups, economic status, neighborhoods or districts, residential or commercial areas, handicapped persons, and so forth.

Project Feasibility. Projects should be evaluated for any special problems that may arise in implementation (for example, the need for permits or other authorization), including legal issues. The compatibility and compliance of the project with the capital facilities plan should be assessed. If the project is a continuation of previous improvements, the impact on prior investments should be identified. And finally, the degree of public support for or opposition to the project should be evaluated, and any special interest groups involved should be identified. Efforts should be made to explore the availability of needed staff, the time required to obtain federal or state approvals, the time required to ensure the necessary citizen support, and lead times for architectural and engineering plans, construction bidding, material acquisition, and the like.

Implications of Project Deferral. The impact of deferring the project should be examined in terms of each of the previous criteria. What will be the added costs? What and who will be disbenefited, and how? Is intergovernmental assistance more or less likely to be available in the future? What are the trends in the bond market? Deferring projects is especially tempting for public officials when the locality is financially hard-pressed in the current fiscal year. Before the decision to defer is made, however, local officials should obtain an estimate of the possible effects of such a decision, such as higher future costs and the extent of inconvenience or harm to the citizens of the community.

Risk and Uncertainty. All capital projects involve some risk and uncertainty. Uncertainty can arise, for example, from cost estimates (especially in projects involving new technologies or procedures) and in the quality of service (because of uncertainties about the durability and reliability of new materials). There are always risks in the bond market. When such risks and uncertainties are substantial, the consequences should be included in the overall project evaluation.

Interjurisdictional Relations. Special coordinating activities may be required if a proposed project has significant adverse or beneficial effects on other jurisdictions or agencies that serve the same area. Examples include water supply projects where the source (reservoir or aquafer) is outside the municipality or a landfill project in one jurisdiction that may handle waste disposal for other jurisdictions.

Advantages Accruing from Other Proposals. The relationship between capital projects should be identified, particularly if the initiation of one project will affect the costs or benefits of another project. An obvious example is improvements to water mains that can be undertaken at less cost if coordinated with street improvements in the same area. If two or more projects can be undertaken together at a lower cost than if done separately, the combined effort may rate a higher priority.

Capital Improvements Program

When all proposed projects have been examined and analyzed, a composite capital improvements program should be prepared for review by and adoption by the chief executive and legislative body. A capital improvements program (CIP), usually spanning a five to six year period, represents the more immediate and more detailed portions of the long-range capital facilities plan. Governments have found with experience that six years is a convenient period for the detail programming of capital expenditures, permitting sufficient lead time for the design and other preliminary work.required by such projects. Projects included in the CIP should be arrayed according to their priority ranking.

When adopted, the CIP should be made available in report form to civic groups and interested citizens in addition to being distributed to the operating departments. The capital program report should cover three main topics:

(1) Explanation of the various considerations and policies brought to bear on the development of priorities, that is, legal requirements, magnitude of projected capital needs, the fiscal resources of the jurisdiction, and so forth.

(2) A listing of the major projects now under construction or for which funds have been appropriated.

(3) A detailed description of the capital improvements program and budget for (a) the next fiscal year; and (b) the following five years, with a listing of projects by agency and by priority.

The detailed description of each project should include a brief statement as to its general purpose and reason for its inclusion in the CIP. Capital costs, operating costs, the source of funds, the method of financing, and the financing schedule should be set forth in the report for each project.

Even after legislative action has been taken in adopting the CIP, funds must still be made available. Therefore, after a capital budget has been adopted, another opportunity for review occurs at the time appro-priations are made, or in the case of an issuance of general obligation bonds, at the time the referendum is placed before the voters. Of course, even after appropriations are made, changes and adjustments are still possible prior to construction or acquisition. If the original project requests are based upon a sound planning foundation, however, the need for such changes should be minimal.

Capital Costs and Debt Burden

The annual cost of any improvement program is determined by the planning, scheduling, and methods of financing, together with the projected operating costs. To be most effective, the programming of capital improvements should undertake to level off annual costs and to avoid erratic fluctuations. Annual costs, when measured against tax resources and available subsidies, determine the tax burden generated by the capital improvements program.

The definition of debt is key to calculating the debt burden of a jurisdiction. Direct net debt is defined as gross debt less all revenue bonds, other self-supporting debt, and cash flow notes. Overall net debt is the sum of direct net debt and the proportionate share of the debt of other overlapping government units (e.g., county, school district, special purpose district). The overall net debt represents the total burden imposed on a given property base by all local jurisdictions empower to incur debt.

Per capita debt is a measure of the proportionate amount of debt borne by each resident, determined by dividing tthe amount of outstanding debt (either direct net debt or overall net debt) by the population of the jurisdictions. If the growth of long-term debt is proportionate to the increased demands of a growing resident population, then debt ratios will not change significantly. When long-term debt increases faster than the rate of population growth, however, debt levels may reach or exceed the residents' ability to pay.

The debt to property value ratio measures the burden of debt on a locality's ad valorem (property) tax base. This ratio provides an indication of the burden that debt places upon all property owners within the jurisdiction. The property tax base serves as a proxy for local wealth, and therefore, to some degree, reflects the capacity to provide public services.

Each of these ratios presumes that the debt burden is distributed equitably among the population and across the total real property wealth of the community. When the tax burden is not borne equally by all the major taxpaying segments of the community, however, the capacity of the jursidiction of afford additional debt may be adversely affected. This situation occurs when a significant portion of the property tax base falls on nonresidential taxpayers, such as rental property and business and industry.

The overall debt burden is determined by the total capital costs, together with the schedule and financing methods When the tax or debt burden becomes too great for public resources, it may be necessary to reduce the level of improvements scheduled until their costs fit to these resources.

Standards of service must also have a degree of "built-in" flexibility; to be meaningful, they must represent actual performance or benefits. As new operational techniques are introduced or as new demands arise, it is important that such standards be flexible enough to permit adjustments to meet changing conditions.

Endnotes

[1] Harry P. Hatry, Annie P. Millar, and James H. Evans, "Guide to Setting Priorities for Capital Investments," Guides to Managing Urban Capital, Volume 5 (Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press, 1984).

[2] William B. Rogers, "Fiscal Planning and Capital Budgeting," Planning 1954 (Chicago, Ill.: American Society of Planning Officials, 1954), p. 96. Exhibit 1 General Criteria for Capital Facilities Priority System

Return to Course Description