A Guide to Prioritizing Municipal Infrastructure Investments
Every year, municipalities face a familiar challenge: a long list of projects, not nearly enough funding, and the pressure to decide what gets done now—and what gets deferred again. Paved roads, aging lift stations, deteriorating public buildings, and overloaded water mains all make their case for attention. Add to that the voices of residents, regulatory deadlines, and safety concerns, and the process quickly becomes overwhelming. So how do you cut through the noise?
That’s where a project prioritization framework comes in. At its core, this is a tool to help municipalities make objective, data-informed decisions about which infrastructure investments to tackle first. Instead of relying on emotion, politics, or whoever is loudest at the council table, municipalities can use a standardized scoring tool that ranks projects based on consistent, transparent criteria.
Why Prioritization Matters
Without a structured approach to prioritization, it’s easy for municipalities to lose focus. Projects get stuck in “year three” of the five-year capital plan for five years. Road maintenance budgets get slashed to build new recreation facilities. And critical assets are left to deteriorate until failure becomes the only trigger for action. It’s a cycle we see all too often: reactive decision-making rather than proactive planning.
The root of this problem isn’t a lack of care or effort. It’s the result of conflicting priorities, limited data, and an inability to see all the moving pieces at once. Municipalities, especially small ones, can feel like they’re navigating with a fogged-up windshield. But with the right framework in place, it becomes possible to set a clear course—even in complex and uncertain conditions.
Building a Simple but Effective Scoring Tool
We recommend a scoring framework that asks a series of targeted, weighted questions about each project. These questions cover key themes like:
- Community safety and regulatory requirements
- Protection of existing or future infrastructure assets
- Environmental impact or risk mitigation
- Financial return, funding leverage, or cost avoidance
- Alignment with service levels and program needs
Each question offers a consistent set of responses (e.g., “Yes, it addresses a severe and immediate health hazard” vs. “No, it addresses a minor or non-immediate hazard”), which are scored A, B, or C depending on the significance of the issue. Multiply these ratings by a weighting agreed upon by council or leadership, and you generate a clear, comparative score for each project.
This process removes personal bias and emotion from the decision-making process. Instead, it places the focus on the true value and urgency of the project.
Here are a few example questions a municipality might include in their scoring tool:
- Does the project address a demonstrated health or safety risk?
- Will it prevent imminent structural failure of a critical asset?
- Does it help the municipality meet legislated service levels?
- Will it improve environmental outcomes or reduce regulatory risk?
- Does it align with community expectations and stated strategic priorities?
- Is it necessary to maintain current service delivery?
A Real-World Example: Prioritizing Road Surface Renewal
Let’s take a realistic example: A small rural municipality has five paved roads in poor condition. All five have reached or exceeded their expected life span. Each road has its advocates. But the municipality only has enough funding to resurface two of them in the current budget cycle.
Using a scoring tool, the roads are evaluated across 20 questions, covering categories like:
- Safety: Are there known hazards (potholes, edge drop-offs, poor visibility)?
- Asset Protection: Is the base layer still sound, or is further deterioration likely to drive up future costs?
- LOS Impacts: Does the road serve a critical public service (e.g., school route, fire response, key commercial corridor)?
- Environmental Risk: Is poor drainage leading to erosion or runoff issues?
- Funding Opportunity: Are there external matching funds available for a specific segment?
After scoring, one road clearly emerges as a top priority. Another scores very closely, while a third road—originally assumed to be a top candidate—scores much lower, primarily because it serves only a small residential loop and shows no evidence of safety or environmental risk.
Instead of debating opinions, council is able to see the numbers, understand the reasoning, and support the outcome. That’s what prioritization tools are meant to do: simplify complexity and create clarity.
Visualizing the Framework: Apples to Apples
One simple way to help council and staff interpret scores is by building a comparison matrix. Here’s what it might look like:
| Project Name | Safety | Asset Protection | Environmental Risk | Cost Savings | Strategic Alignment | Total Score |
| Road A | A | B | C | A | A | 4.2 |
| Road B | B | A | B | B | A | 3.9 |
| Road C | C | B | C | C | B | 2.6 |
This kind of visual summary helps municipalities compare projects apples to apples, especially when project types vary widely (e.g., water system upgrades vs. fire hall expansion).
Councils Should Set the Criteria
Scoring tools don’t replace council decision-making—they enhance it. Council should be involved early in the process to define what matters most. Should safety weigh more heavily than environmental outcomes? Does cost savings matter more than aesthetics? These are value-based decisions that reflect the priorities of the community, and it’s up to elected officials to guide that weighting.
Once the scoring tool is in place, it becomes much easier for administration to bring forward projects and for council to evaluate them with consistency.
Community Voices Still Matter
This process doesn’t ignore stakeholders. In fact, it helps ensure their voices are heard more clearly. Many of the prioritization questions (particularly those related to service levels, accessibility, and satisfaction) rely on stakeholder feedback to be answered accurately. And when residents ask, “Why was this project chosen over that one?”—municipal leaders now have a defensible, transparent process to point to.
Final Thoughts and Your Call to Action
Every municipality struggles with competing priorities. But a good prioritization framework can turn that struggle into strategy. Whether you’re deciding which road to fix, which asset to replace, or where to invest limited dollars, a consistent, scoring-based approach can bring clarity and alignment to complex decisions.
You don’t need feel stuck with a portfolio of projects on your desk. You just need a structured conversation, a commitment to objectivity, and the discipline to apply it consistently.
What’s your municipality’s biggest challenge when it comes to prioritizing projects? Let’s start the conversation.
Reach out to me:
- Phone: 204-384-7754
- Email: chad@buhlinam.ca
- LinkedIn: Chad Buhlin
Together, we can help municipalities make smarter, clearer, and more confident infrastructure decisions.