Following the precedent set by the Seattle Section of ASCE, the Colorado review teams for each infrastructure sector assigned letter grades based on consideration of three general evaluation criteria: (1) condition and performance indices, (2) need versus capacity, and (3) funding versus need. Each review team had the flexibility to define specific criteria within these guidelines that was best suited to evaluating their infrastructure sector. The intent was to be able to compare grades between systems, while recognizing that the characteristics and quality of available data would be highly variable and a certain amount of subjective, but expert judgment was necessary. |  |
| Grade | Condition Index | Condition Description |
|---|---|---|
| A | 85-100 | Excellent: No noticeable defects. Some aging or wear may be visible. |
| B | 70-84 | Good: Only minor deterioration or defects are evident. |
| C | 40-69 | Fair: Some deterioration or defects are evident, but function is not significantly affected. |
| D | 10-39 | Poor: Serious deterioration in at least some portion of the structure. Function is inadequate. |
| F | 0-9 | Failed: No longer functional. General failure or complete failure of a major structural component. |
Need versus Capacity. For most infrastructure categories, this criterion relates to the demand on the systems, such as volume or use, versus what the systems are designed to accommodate. This is a critical evaluation criterion for Colorado because of our state’s steadily increasing population and growth of communities. Some sectors were able to use a grading system based on the estimated percentage of demand that is currently met, or percentage of demand that is anticipated will be met in the future for the 2010 grade. A grading scale in 10-percent increments was suggested as a guideline, as follows: A = systems that can support 100% of demand, B = systems that can support more than 90% of demand but less than 100%, C = systems that can support between 80 and 90% of demand, and so on.
Funding versus Need. The third criterion for evaluating each infrastructure system reflects the status of funding that is dedicated to maintaining, replacing, and improving existing infrastructure, and to building new infrastructure that is needed to keep up with growth. Infrastructure systems need funding that is dedicated, indexed, steady, and long-term. Dedicated funds such as user fees should be used only for the infrastructure systems for which these funds are raised. Indexing means that the funds need to increase as the use of the system increases. User fees and percentage taxes are examples of indexed funding. Maintenance and construction costs also need to be considered in the evaluation of funding. Steady funding provides for maintenance that extends the life of infrastructure. Long-term, multi-year funding plans should account for growth estimates so that projects can be designed and constructed in anticipation of needs, and not simply in reaction to inadequate capacity or problems caused by poor maintenance.