HomeMy WebLinkAbout5A - Public hearing and consideration of a motion to approve the 2008 Parks & Recreation Capital ExpCITY OF BOULDER
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 21, 2007
AGENDA TITLE: Public heazing and Consideration of a Motion to Approve the 2008
Pazks and Recreation Capital Expenditure Budget and Capital
Im rovement Pro am (CIP)
PRESENTERS: Jan Geden, CPRP, Director of Pazks and Recreation
Alice Guthrie, Parks and Planning Superintendent
Abbie Novak, Business and Finance Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this agenda item is for the department to communicate its proposed 2008 Capital
Expenditure Budget, specifically Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. The Pazks and
RecreaUon Advisory Boazd (PRAB) will have an opportunity to approve the budget as it relates
to the Permanent Pazks and Recreation Fund. PRAB input is essential throughout the 2008
capital budget process. Staff has considered the PRAB's comments on the proposed 2008
expenditures from the April business meeting and is providing its formal recommendation of the
CIP Budget and Permanent Pazks and Recreation Budget. The department CIP Budget will then
be submitted to the Planning Boazd and City Council for their review and respective approvals.
As a result of the new citywide business plan format for budgeting, the 2008-2013 proposed
capital expenditure budget has been revamped from the previous version. New projects and .
funding projections have been identified for 2008. Beginning in 2008, renovation and
refurbishment projects exceeding $50,000 wili be listed individually in the CIP. The proposed
CIP budget reflects standazd increases in the Permanent Parks and Recreation and Lottery Funds,
and an increase to the .25 Cent Sales Tas Fund resulting from increased 2006 sales taac revenues
of 7.10% from the previous yeaz and improved sales tax projections for 2007-2012.
IMPACTS
FiscaL• $7,200,000
PUBLIC FEEDBACK
No public feedback has been received to date. The public will have the opportunity to comment
during the Planning Board's CIP review in June and City Council's discussion and review of the
2008 recommended budget.
BACKGROUND
The department's Capital Expenditure Budget consists of CIP projects and renovation,
refurbishment, and major maintenance projects.
CIP projects are defined as any major project with a cost greater than $50,000 for purchase or
construction, or major replacement of the physical assets of the community. CIP projects are
AGENDA ITEM # V A ; PAGE 1
potentially subject to a Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) review that
evaluates any potential environmental, tr~c, or social impacts to Boulder residents,
neighborhoods and businesses. These projects are budgeted within the framework ofthe city of
Boulder's CIP Budget.
Renovation, refurbishment, and major maintenance projects consist of restoring and/or
enhancing the service life of existing capitai assets, either through refurbishment or replacement.
These projects aze budgeted within the city of Boulder Operating Budget. Although these items
technically are capitai expenditures, they aze budgeted differently than new CIP projects and aze
included here for context.
CIP Funding
The department is aligning its capital budget with the master pian recommendations. The plan
was approved in December 2006 and the department has begun to adjust operational strategies
accordingly. Because city economic, environmental and social trends have changed since the
1996 master plan, the departmenYs capital budget aims to reflect a revamped commitment to
ongoing service standazds as they apply to contemporary needs in the city's pazks and recreation
sites and facilities. The budget projection focuses on the work azeas below.
Urban Pazk Renovation and Refurbishment
• Refurbishment of older pazk irrigation systems to improve efficiency of water use and to
reduce maintenance requirements
• Refiubishment of outdated playgrounds to improve function and to address safety and
accessibility requirements
• Repair and upgrade to walkways and parking azeas
• Refurbishment of pazk shelters and restrooms
Recreation Facility Renovation and Refizrbishment
• Recreation facility improvement projects
• Public Safety and Health enhancements
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility improvements
Maintenance
• Removal of state listed noxious weeds from department owned and managed lands and
inventory plants and animals for management and budgetary decision making
• Wildlife management on department owned and managed lands
• Refurbishment and grant matching funds for projects at the Columbia Cemetery,
Chautauqua Pazk area, BMOCA, Hazbeck House and Locomotive #30
Capital Budget Expenditure Funding (Attachments A and B)
The revenue sources for the capital budget aze from the following funds:
•.25 Cent Sales T~ Fund (Fund 118)
• Permanent Pazks and Recreation Fund (Fund 230)
• Lottery Fund (Fund 111)
AGENDA ITEM # V A ; PAGE 2
.25 Cent Sales Ta7c Fund (Fund 1181
The source of the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund comes from a dedicated sales tax that was approved
by voters in 1995. The fund is utilized for the payment of principal, interest, and premium if
any, on bonds, and then for development, operation, and maintenance of the land and
improvements purchased and constructed with the proceeds of the bonds, for renovation and
refurbishment or replacement of park and recreation facilities.
The PRAB's role regarding the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund is to provide feedback to the department
on its planned uses of these funds.
Permanent Pazks and Recreation Fund (Fund 230)
The source of the Permanent Pazks and Recreation Fund comes from the 0.9 mill levy of
assessed valuation of all taxable property in the city, gifts and donations, proceeds of sale of park
property or equipment, any appropriations from City Council, revenues from a one time
development excise fee assessed on each new residential unit constructed in or annexed to the
city with the exception of affordable housing units. The fund is utilized for the acquisition of
pazk land or permanent improvement of park and recreation facilities.
Per city charter, the PRAB's role is to approve expenditures from the fund.
Lotterv Fundin~ (Fund 1111
The source of the Lottery Funding comes from the Colorado State Lottery. By State of Colorado
statute, the city of Boulder receives revenues from the Lottery's Conservation Trust Fund on a
per capita basis. The monies aze to be used for land acquisitions, equipment purchases, facility
development, naturallands maintenance, pazk maintenance, and renovation or restoration of
local facilities. In the 2008 capital expenditure budget, the funds aze allocated to Habitat
Restoration, CIP and Debt Service.
The Lottery Fund budget is based on the May 16, 2001 PRAB and Open Space Boazd of
Trustees (OSBT) joint recommendation to City CounciL The distribution is as follows:
$304,000 Payment of debt service on Area III property
$100,000 Department of Open Space for Mountain Pazk Projects
$150,000 Tributary Greenways
The remaining funds are split 50 percent to the Parks and Recreation Department and 50 percent
to the Open Space and Mountain Pazks (OSMP) Department. The current fund sharing
agreement with the OSMP Department expires in 2008. A new Lottery Fund agreement will
need to be formalized with Open Space/Mountain Pazks and Tributary Greenways during 2008.
The department received $370,000 from the OSMP Department's Lottery Funds in 2007. The
department anticipates $390,000 in Lottery Funding from OSMP in 2008. The additional
funding will be utilized for park capital and renovation expenditures .
The PRAB's role regazding Lottery Funding is to provide feedback to the departrnent on its
planned uses of these funds.
AGENDA ITEM # V A ; PAGE 3
2008 CIP Projects by Major Category (Attachmeats C and D)
Per the discussion at the April business meeting, staff adjusted its planned CIP projects and
budget. Revisions are noted in bo[d and italic. The department is preparing for the following
capital projects in 2008:
Planning
• Dakota Ridge Pocket Pazk (3 acres): Will begln park master plan in 2007 and develop in
20~8. Lottery funding from the OSMP transfer has 6een identifced to comp[ete park
development in 2008.
• East Boulder Community Pazk (15 acres): Effort was deferred from 2007; currently in
pazk master planning phase for 2008
• Foothills Community Park (9.5 acres): Currently in pazk master planning for Phase III of
the pazk
• Violet Neighborhood Pazk (7.2 acres): Pazk Planning is coordinating efforts with
Greenways and Utilities departrnents as neighboring private development occurs
Development and Renovation
• Iris Center Pazking Lot resurfacing
• Harlow Platts: plans include pier replacement at Viele Lake, irrigation system renovation,
sidewalk and exercise course renovation
• Wonderland Lake Pazk: plans include removal and replacement of hard-surface foot
paths
• Boulder Reservoir: plans include entry way improvements, ADA-accessible playground
construction and signage, marina, office, concession, walkway and shelter enhancements,
and coordination as the Fire Training Center is developed.
• Flatirons Golf Course: funding is reserved for facility improvements and maintenance
and amemty enhancement
• Recreation Facility Improvements funding is reserved for design, development, and
renovation of existing and new recreation facilities and buildings, outdoor pools and
sports fields
• Unanticipated Opportunities: funding is reserved, but not limited to, land acquisition,
facility acquisition, capital renovation or development, city contribution towazds potential
partnership agreements, and energy efficiency projects
Future Funding Issues
The recently accepted department master plan provided a list of priority items to complete if
additional funding is obtained. As staff reseazches and proposes new financial sustainability
strategies, they will be brought to the PRAB for considerarion. Also, as development priorities
aze shifted, staff will adjust the CIP accordingly, in consultation with the PRAB.
. As new parks aze developed and current parks aze expanded, additional maintenance
funding will be required to manage these azeas and facilities. Staff will estimate
maintenance needs and provide a recommendation to the PRAB on how the funding
might be obtained or prioritized.
It will be critical to identify and secure a reliable and permanent funding source for pazks and
AGENDA ITEM # V A ; PAGE 4
recreation maintenance prior to the expiration of the .25 Cent Sales Tax in 2015.
Follow-Up from April PRAB Business Meeting
At its April meeting, the PRAB asked for the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund (Fund 118) Ballot
language, pazk planning process, and clazification on why funding for V almont City Pazk was
not identified in the 2008 CIP. Staff is providing the following information.
.25 Cent Sa1es Tax Fund (Fund 118)
Staff has included Ballot Issue 201 language and background notes (Attachment E) for
clazification. This attachment provides an explanation of the commitrnents made to the
community with the passage of the ballot initiative, including the departmenY s annual
prioritization of land acquisition, renovation and refurbishment of existing facilities,
development of facilities and programs, and funding allocation for historic and cultural facilities.
Pazk Planning Process
In order to understand the tasks and timeline associated with pazk development, staff has
included the city's Project Planning and Approval Process for CIP Projects (Attachment F). The
department is working to align projects within the priorities of the approved master plan. Once
funding is identified and appropriated with the CIP Coordination Committee, project planning
begins. The Average Project Timeline for a Sma11 Playground Renovation (Attachment G) is
included to provide an example of the development process for a single amenity at a pazk site.
Note that task durations may vary, but even with a small renovation, the process is anticipated to
last 49 weeks.
Valmont Citv Pazk
The land for the pazk was purchased from funds provided by the 1995 ballot initiative. When the
ballot initiative was proposed, staff indicated that funds would be available to purchase land, but
not to develop the park. Please refer to Attachment C for the specific language. A concept plan
for Valmont City Pazk was adopted in 1998, and some additional planning and initial
development was completed. As site plans were developed, it was appazent that outside funding
would be necessazy in order for major facilities to be constructed.
The 1995 ballot initiative (Fund 118) specified development of some pocket and neighborhood
parks, not Valmont City Park. Therefore, staff has been prioritizing completion of those types of
pazks with monies from Fund 118 in developing the CIP. In the recently adopted master plan,
completion of the roadway in Valmont City Park and necessary infrastructure was included in
the Action Plan, which would require significant new funding. Completion of the pazk is listed
in the Vision Plan.
During the recent Pazks and Recreation Master Plan process, City Council asked staff to update
the Valmont City Park concept plan. The updated plan will include cost estimates for the
approved plan and facilities. PRAB and City Council could request that staff prioritize
development of some or all of Valmont City Pazk in future CIP budgets. At this time, funds for
that development would come from the Permanent Pazks and Recreation Fund (Attachment A),
until all the requirements of the 1995 ballot initiative aze met.
AGENDA ITEM # V A ; PAGE 5
The newly developed Recreation Facility Partnership Process will provide an opportunity to
identify opportunities to partner with community groups for some development at the pazk. It is
possible that some pazk development could occur through partnerships.
It should also be noted that some funding for park maintenance at Valmont City Park was
included in the 1995 ballot initiative. As facilities aze built at the pazk, additional maintenance
funds will be required and should be included in any cost estimates in order to present a
complete scope of funding needs for the pazk.
QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD
• Does the PRAB have any questions regarding the deparirnent's 2008 Capital
Improvement Program budget?
• Does the PRAB approve the expenditures from the Permanent Parks and Recreation
Fund?
• Does the Boazd support the proposed 2008 CIP budget?
NEXT STEPS
PRAB is asked to approve the expenditures from the Permanent Pazks and Recreation Fund and
to support a motion to recommend approval of the deparhnent's capital expenditure budget.
Attachments:
A: Capital Expenditure Budget by Fund (pie chart)
B: Capital Expenditure Budget by Fund (spreadsheet)
C: Capital Expenditure Budget by Major Category (pie chart)
D: Capital Expenditure Budget by Major Category (spreadsheet)
E: Ballot Issue 201 language and background notes
F: Project Planning and Approval Process for CIP Projects
G: The Average Project Timeline for a Small Playground Renovation
AGENDA ITEM # V A ; PAGE 6
Attachment A
Parks and Recreation Department
2007 - 2013
Capital Budget by Fund
$3,767,000 , 7%
$14,846,699
W~ ~,~~~,~JO , 64%
C~ Lottery Fund_ ^.25 Sales Tax Fund ^ Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund ]
AGENDA ITEM #~ V~, PAGE 7~
Attachment B
City of Boulder ~~
Parks and Recreation
-- - - - -- -
-- - - i --
_ _ __ CapiWl Expenditure Budget by Fund
2007 - 2013 - - -- - ~
-- --- -
------- ~- ~ ~- - - -- -
Lotterv Fund 2007 2008 I 2009 2070 ~011 ~ 2012 2013
- - -
Capital Operating Expenditures - ~ -~ ~ ~
Renovation and Refurbishments 323,000 ' 545,000 475,000 475,000 ! 475,000 475,000 475,000
Capital Improvemenl Projects_ ~ 50,000 ~ ~
Debt Service 304 000 ~ ~ ~n nnp - _ _ _ -
-- - - - -- --
.25 Sales Tax Fund
Capital Operating Expenditures
Renovation and Refurbishments
-- -- - ---- - -----
Capital Improvement Projects
- - -
Debt Service
-- ----- -
-
_ __ _ _
Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund - , ~
r -
677,000 -
2007 I
359,000 '
980,0001 _
-- ------~
493,000 1
---- --
2,429,000 e
T
_ 4,261,000 4
2007
Capital Operating Expenditures 380,000
Renovation and Refurbishments 577,000
Capital Improvement Projects 1,070,000 1
Debt Service
-- - _ - i
-
~
_ 2,027,000 ~; 1
Total 200~
Capital Operatin~ Ezpenditures 739,000
Renovation and Refurbishments 1,880,000 1
Capital Improvement Projects 1,613,000 'a
Debt Service j 2,733,000 e
Total 6,965,000 i
---- -T -- --- - -- - ------- ------
~0 '~, 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000
~i -
~ 2009
~~ 381,000
2010
392,000
1
2011
404,000 - ---
2012
__414,000 - ----- -
r 2013
~ 414,000
0~ 323,000 572,000 593,000
I 615,000 762,000
0 1,318,000
0 2,385,000
1,240,000
2,386,000 I
1,000,000
I
2,387,000 , -- -----
1,240,000
--
2,402,000
1,280,000
2,402,000
0 4,407,000
~
4,590,000 4,384,000 4,671,000 4,858,000
~_ _
~ 2009-~ 2010 I
2077 _ _ _ ___
2012
~ _ _
2013
~0 , 404 000 ~ 416,030 ' 428,061 441,0 454,516
~----
~0: 490,000
-- -
-- --
490,000 515,000 ~
-
540,000; --- --
575,000
-
~0 ' 1,460,000 --- -
1,360,000 , 1,260,000
I
--
-
- -
1,060,000, 1,100,000
-
-
~
- - -
-
-
---- •
~
-- - - -- -- ------
i0 2,354,000 2,266,030 2,203,061 2,041,093 2,129,516 i
- -- -
2009 -
2010 - ----- -
2011 2012 --
2013
i0 785,000 808,030 832,06~__ 855,093 868,516_
i0
i0 1,288,000
2,778,000 1,537,000
2,600,000 1,583,000
2,260,000 ' 1,630,000
2,300,000 1,812,000
2,380,000
~
i0 2,385,000 ~ 2,386.000 2.387.000 2.402.000 2.402.000
AOENDA ITEM #~ V.~ , pq(~ ~"
Attachment C
Parks and Recreation Department
2007 - 2013
Capital Budget by Major Category
$5,648,699 , 11 °/a
$17,286,000 , 3E
$11,210,000 , 22%
$16,298,000 , 32%
^ Capital Operating Expenditures ^ Renovation and Refurbishments ^ Capital Improvement Projects ^ Debt Service
AGENOA ITEM # ~ V-~ , PAGE ~ ~
Attachment D
City of B~
Parks and Recreat
------- - - - -- -- Capital Expenditure Bud~
- -
2007Thro~
-- ----- - - ---- -
- --- -- -
-- _. _
- -
- - - - ---- ---- 2007 200t
--
-
- -- _ _ - - _-- ~ - - - -
- Actual Buda
Renovation and Refurbishments (Fund #) '
~
Habitat Restoration R& R(111) 123,201 232
Tributary Greenways (111) ~ 150,000 j 150
Art in the Park (111, 230) ~ 27,000 27
~
Urban Parks R& R(111, 118, 230) ~ 62
594
Civic Center Complex (118) _
' 75,0001 75
CouR Refurbishment (118) 60,000 I 60
Facility and Asset Management (118) 428,576 ' 441
Historical and Cultural (118) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _50,000 _ 50
-~--
2010 ,
27,000 r- --- 27,000 --- 27,000 27,OOOr-- 27
27,000 562,_ 0~~ 'I_ _ 594,000 602,OOOf 620
- -~- -- - ----- -- - -
Sfte Fumiture (230) __ i _ 20,00~ _ 20,000_ ~ 20,000 ~ _ 20,000 ~ 20,000 ~ 20,000 __ 20,000
- - ~ - -- - -- -
RSR Subtotal 1,880,451 1,542,000 1,288,000 1,537,000 1,583,000 ~~ 1,630,000 1,8t2,444
P - P - ~ - ----
Dakota Ridge Neigh/Pock_et Park (3 acres) (111, 118) __ 400 0_00 __
CElks Ne hbo h od Park 7 9 acres 118 ~ ~ I ~ 800,0~ 1 000,000~ 1,200,000
. . -- _ _ --- ~ ~ -~ 200 000
. -~. -- - ~ - ~ ( - ~ - -- - ---- - ~ --
Hickory Pocket Park (.7 acre) (118) _ 200,000 ,
Holiday Pocket Park (1.1 acres) (118) 150,000 ' - - ~--- ' -`---- -
~ Lighting Ordinance Compliance Stu_d_y (118)_ 50,000_'__ __ _ - ~ 330,000
- -~--- --=- ----- -- -
Mesa Memorial Pocket Park (1.7 acres) (118) i ~~
_ ~- 350,000~ 200,000 i
Recreation Facility Improvements (118) _ _ ~ 143,000 250,000 150,000 150 000 700 000 100 000 350 000
~ Violet Neighborhood Park (7 2 acres) (118) 100,000 800,000
_ __ _ _ __ + ~__ __ _ _ _ 700,000
Ins_Center Parking (118, 230) ____ _ _ _ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _
- - --- - ~ ~--~ - -~--- --a - --
~ Harlow Platts Park 118 230 I ~ 135 000~ ~- ~~-~ ~- -
---- ~ ~ - - - - -- --- ' ~--- --- --- --- -'
__ W_onderland Lake Park 118, 230 _ i_ 228,000 __
---- - - - - - .
--- ~- ----- ---- -
500 000
Foothills Communit Park 9.5 acres 116, 230 __ 125,000 ~ 350,000 '-- 500,00_0
__ ____ ` 200,000~ 500,000
I Unanfici ated O o umties 118 0 250 000 0 2 0 000
Y ( _ ) ( ) ~_ _ ~ 200,000~ 100,000~
p pp rl (__ _ 23 ) , 250,0 0 ~ 0,
~ BoulderReservoir(230) ~ 120,000 220,000 250,000 150,000 10,000~ 50,000 50,000
East Boulder Comm (nity_Park_(15 acres) (230)_ ~_j00,000 - 500,000 650,000 __ 500,0~_ 300,000~ -
i Flatuon Golf Course 230) ___ 150,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 50,000 _ 50,000~ 50,000
-
~`--- ------ - - - -
CIP Subtotal 1,613,000 ~ 2,305,000 2,778,000 2,600,000 2,260,000 2,300,000 2,380,000
-~ ~ -
ICapital Overhead Expenditures ~ 738 830 _ 762,000 I 785,00~ 808,000 832 000~855 000 I 868,516
--- ------ - ----~ - - ~ -~ -- I -~- ---I - - - - --
'DebtService 2,733,296 2,591,000 2 385,000 2 386,000 2,387,000 2 402,000~ 2,402,000.
' -~
Grand Totai ' 6,965,577 ~, 7,200,000 '~ 7,236,000 ~ 7,331,000 ~ 7,062,000 7,187,000 7,462,9601
AGENDA ITEM # ~ V ~ , PAGE ! ~
Attachment E
/ ~
995
y Clerk
br Fiva
I. YOu
~ voN
unled.
n ihis
~i w ~ ~
BALLOT ISSUE 201
;28,400,00o BONDIN~ AUTHORITY AND 0,25%
SALES TAX lNCREASE FOR PARK LAND AC-
OUISITION FOR PMSSIVE AND ACTIVE REG
REATIONA~ USES, AND PARK AND
RECREATIONqI DEVELOPMENT, RENOVA-
TION, AND REPUfi815HMENT
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT AE INCfi8A6ED BY
SYD,400,000 WITH A MAXINUM qEPAYMENT COST OF
559,019,211 AkD IN CONNECTION THEAEWITN
SHALL CITY OF ~OULOER 7AXES BE INCViEASED
BYS5,800,000 ANNUAILY'(IN THE FIR9T YEAR):
(A~ IN THE CASE aF ~EBT,
(i BY TIiE IS9UANCE'ANO PAYMENT OF 90NOS OF
THE CITY NOT TO EXCrEED TNE PFINCIPAL AMOUNT
dF 529,4G0.000, WIIH NO MOiiE 7HAN THE PfiINCI-
PAL AMOUNT OF s11,400,C00 TO 9E $PENT FOR TNE
PURP08E OF PUqCHASE ~F UP lD TEN ACqE5 OF
POCKET PAAK 6fTE5, )1P TO 61XTEEN ACq~S OF
NEIGHBORN00~ PARK S1TE9, UP TO THREE HUN~
DFiED AND FIF1Y ACA66 OF MOUN7AfN PARK ADDI-
TION6, AND NO MORE THAN 7HE PpINClPAL AMOUNT
OF $tB,000,000 TO BE SpENi FOR THE PURCFUSE
AND PLANNINO ANO PAqT1Al' DEVELOPMENT OF p
CITKWI6E PARK 61iE OR SITES TO7ALINa ATL~AST
100 ACAES, NO LE9S TMAN TbY.OF WHICH 191.ITHIN
TxE C~TY pq AqEAti oF T}iE BOULDEA VALLEY COM-
pfiEHENSIVE PUN; ANO
(2) AT A NET EFFECTIVE ~NTEAEST RATE NOT TO
EXCEED BN. P8R ANNUM ANO MATURING NOT LATER
THAN JANUARY t, 2n76; AND
(3) SUCH BONOS TO BE 199UEti, ~ATED, ANO 50LD
AT SUCH 71ME OR TIMBS AND IN SlJCH MANNEF AND
7o CONTqIN BUCH TERMS, NOT INCON91S7EMT
NEREWITH, AS THE CITY CAUNCIL MAY ~ETERMINE;
AND ~
(4) SUCN BONDS 70 BE PAYABLE FROM 7HE CIT1"6
SALE9 AND U9E TqX~ AND ADDITIONALLY S~CURED
flY A PLEDOE OF TNH~ FULL fA1TH AN~~ CAE~IT OF
THE CiTY; ANO ~
(b) WHIGH AUTHORIZATI~N 9HALL INCLUOE AUTHOFI-
TJ~7~oN TO REFUND 9UCH BONDS WITI~UT ApD4
TIONAI VOTER APPROVAL SUAJECT ONLY TD THE
IfMITA170NS 5ET FORTH HEREIN;
{9~ IN 7HE CASH OF TAXE9. '
~ ~ ~~ ~
Novemb~
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTlQN
Ciry ot Boulder, Colorado, Navembe~ 7, 19s5
.~~- '~°'~"`""`a cny clor~
91~LL07IBSUE 2uf camlmad
(1~ BY RAISiNG TNE EXISTING CaENEPAL fiALE5 ANd
U3E 7AX HY.267.. FA04 286% Ta 9.t1Y.. EFFECTIVE
JANUARY t, 1999 AND ENDINO JANUAflY 1, 2016: ANO
(2) IN THE EVEN7 SUCH TAX REVENUES qRE INSUF-
F1~~ENT TO PAY DEBT BEAYICE ON THE eONDS DE~
SCA1BE- ABOVE. 8Y RAISING Ap VJ~LOREM
PROPERTY TAXES WITHOtIT LIMITATION AB TO flATE
Op AAIOl1NT, AND UP To iFIE FULL IAAXI~IUM RE•
PAY-AE~JT C08T OF S59,OtB,2i1; AND
(9) BY PLEDGINa 3UCH SALE5 AND USE TAX FDR
THE PAYMENT OP THE PqINGIPAL. INTEREST, AND
•PREMIUM, IF ANY, ON THE BON~S, ANp TkEN fOR:
DEVELOPMENT, OP• pp~ ~ y~sUpE +
ERATION, AND MAIN- ~~~ ~ ~9URE +
TENANCE 6F THE
LANO AN~ IAIPROVFMENT8 PURCHASED OR CON•
3TRUC7ED WITH TNE'PROCEEDS OF TNE BOND9;
RENOVATION AND REFUR9ISHMENT OR REPLACE•
MENT OP FOUR POOLS: RENOVATtON aNp REPUCE•
MENY OF RECREATION FAGLITIE9, PLAYOROUN~S,
MOUNTAi~t PqpK'AAIL3, ANO 7NE CIVIC PARK COM•
PIEX; IMPROYF:~lENT6 TO AECRBATION CENTERB
ANO DEVELOpMENT OF NEW fiECREATION PRO-
JECT6 TO BE pETERMINE0IN THE FUTURE THROUGN
THE MASTER PUNNING PROCESS BYTHE CITY COUIJ~
CIL; NAINTENANC~ OP THE COMMUNIN PABK SITB
IN NOqTH BOULDER~ OEVELOPMENT OF A MOUNTAIN
PARIGS ENVIqONMENTAt EDUCATION PROGfUM; AND
FOR RENOVqTION OF.CITY-0WNED HI6TOAICAL AN~
CULTIJRA~ FACfLITIES; WITH THE REMAINDEA BEING
DEDICATED FOR PAIiKS AND RECREqT10N PURPOSES;
AND IN CONNECTION THHqEWITH
3NALL THE FULL PR~CE6D6 OF SUCk TAXES AT
SUCH RAtE9 AND ANY EARNINGS THEpEFROM
BE COLLECTED ANO SPENTWITH~UTUMITATION
OR CONDITlON, AND WITHOUT LIMITiNO THE COL•
LEGTION OR SPEN~ING OF ANY OTHEA AE4E-
NUE3 OR FUN~S BY THE CITY OF BOIJLDER,
UNDER ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 af 7HE COLO•
RADO GON6JITUTION OR ANY 07HER LAW?
AGENDA 1TEM #~ VR , PAGE I 1
.,,~ w .. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ., ~
~
N ove m b~
BALLOT 15SUE 201
$29,4oo,oua 90NDINti AtfTHOFtITY ANO 025~
SALES 7AX INCREASE FOfl PARK LANO AG
OUISITION FOF PA591VE ANO ACTIVE REC-
REATIONA~ U9E5, AND PARK AND
RECREA710NAL DEVELOPMENT, HENOYA-
TION, AND R~FUflBISHMENT
SHALL CITY OF BOULDER DEBT BE INCREASED BY
S2o,400,000 WITH p MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST DF
$59,~19.211 AN9 IN CONNECTIDN THEAEWITN
SHALL CITY OF BOUL~ER TAXES BE INCREASED
BY SS,B0~,o00 ANNUA~~Y' (lN THE F1R5T YEARJ:
(A) IN THE CASE OF ~EHT,
(1~ BYTHE ISSUANCE'ANO PAYMENT OP BONOS OF
THE Clfll~T70 EXCEED THE PqINCIPALAMOUNi
OF 529,100.000, WISN NO MORE 7HAN THE PRINCI-
PAL AMOUNT oF gn,aao,ooo 1D eE 9PEM FOR 7ME
PUAP08E OF PURCHASE OF UP TO TEN ACAE3 OP
PocKET pAqK SiTES, ~JP TO SIXTEEN aCqES OF
NEIGHflaRH0a0 PARK S1TE8, UP TQ THREE HUN•
DRED AND FIF1Y ACA65 OF MOUNTAIN PARK ADDI-
TION&, AND NO MORE T~IAN ?HE PfiINClPALAMOUNT
OF;tA,000,000 TO BE SPEN7 FoR THE PUACHASE
AND PLANNINO AND PAqTiAL' ~EVELOPMENT OF A
GITkWIDE PARK S1TE OR SITES TOtAL1N0 AT LEAST
100 ACRES, NO LE9S 7fiAN 7bY.OP WNICH 15 W{THfN
TNE CITYOR AREAttoF TNE BOULDER VALLEY COM-
pREHENSIVE PLAN; ANO
(2~ AT A NET EFFECTIVE INTEREST qATE NOT TO
FJCCEED 8~6 PER ANNUM ANO MqTURIN~ N0T LATEF
THAN JANUAHY 1, 2076; AND
(3) SUCH BONDS TO BE ISSUE~, DATED, ANp 90LD
AT 5UCH TIME OR TiMES ANO IN StlGH MANNER AND
To CoNTAIN SUCIi TERMS, NOS INCON6ISSENT
HEftEWITH, AS TNE G1TY CAUNCIL MAY OETERMINE;
AND •
(4) SUCH BONDS TO BE PAYAOLE FROM TNE CITI^S
SALE3 AND U9E TAXi AND AD~ITIONALLY S~CUpED
BY A PLED~6 OF THE FULI FAITH AN0 CAEDIT OF
7HE CiTY; ANO ~
(5) WF{ICH AUTNORIZAT{aN 9NALLINCLUDEAUTHORI-
ZATION 1V REFUNO SUCH BONDS WITHOUT ADDI•
TIONAL V~TER At'PRQYAI SUAJEGT ONLY TO 7HE
UMITATtONS SET FORTH HEREIN;
(B) 1N 7kE CASE OF TAXES.
C(ty ol8oulder, Calondo, Navomber 7, 1995
..~~ ~" "~7 °.~°-"'~> slry clor~
BALLDT 16SUE IoY ~eqHmud
(1 BY RAI3ING THE BXIBTING GENEAAI 6ALE& ANQ
U~E TAX 8Y.26X. FROM 296% Tn 9.11Y.. EfFECTNE
JANUARY 1. 1999 AND ENDINO JANUAAY 1, 2018; ANO
(2) IN THE EVENT SUCH TAX qEVENUES ARE (N6UF•
FiCfENT TO PAY D@HS SEFtV1CE ON THE HOND3 DE-
SCA18Ep ABOYE. BY RAlSINa AD VAL6R@M
PROPERiYT0.%fiS WITHOUTUMITATIOH A670 qATE
OA AMOUNT, ANO UP i0 7HE FULL MAXIMUM RF•
PAYMENT C03T OF 55~,010,211; AND
~3) 8Y PLEDGINa SUCN SALES AND USE 7AX FOR
THE PAYMENT OF 7NE PRINCIPAl, INTEREST, qND
•PREMIUM.IF ANY, ON THE BDN~S, AND THEN fOR:
DEVELOPMENT, oP• Foe TMe AE~supE +
ERATION, ANO MAfN• AOAIN6T TME A~A9URE +
TENANCE OF THE
LANp ANO IMPROVEMENTS PURCHA6ED oq GON-
3TqUC7ED WITN THE'PFOCEEDS OF THE BOND9;
RENOVATION AND REFUq9ISHMENT OR REPLACE•
MENT OF FOUR POOL9: qENOVA170N ANO REPIACE
MEN7 OF pECREA710N FACILITIES, PLAYOROUNDS,
MOUNTAIN PARK TMILS, AN6 THE C1YIC PARK COM-
PL£X; IMPROVEMENTS TO RECREATWN CENTER6
ANO DEVEIQPMENT OF NEW EiECREATION PRO-
JECT5 TO BEDETERMINE~INTHEFUTUqETMAbuGN
THE MA5TER PIANNINO PROCESS BYTHE CIiY COUN•
qL; MAINTENANCE OF THE COMMUNITY PARK 51'f~
IN NORTH BOUL~EP; OEVELOPMENT Of A MOUNTAIN
PARI~ ENYtRONMEN1Al EDUCATION PADGRAM; AND
fOR RE~YATION OF •CVT(-0WNED H~STORICAL AN~
CUITURA~ FACILITlES; W~TFI THE REMAINDER BE1NG
DEDIGATEDFORPAFt16AND AECREATION PURPOSES,
ANp IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
3HAlL THE FUII PpOCEEDB OF SuCH TAXES AT
SUCH RAtES AND ANY EARNINGS TkEHEF~tOM
HE COLLECTED ANb SPENT WITHOUT LIMITATION
OF CONDITiON, ANDWITHOUT LIMI7tN0 THE COt•
LEGTION OR SPENOING OF ANY OTHEVi AEVE-
NUES aR fUNOS 8Y THE GITY OP 80ULOER,
UNDER ARTlCLE X, SECTION 20 OF 7HE COlO•
HADO CON6TITUTION OR ANY QTHER LAW?
AcErroAr~M ~~ v/1 , Qac~ 1~
PARKS AND RECREATION
SALES TAX AND BONDING INFORMATtON
BACKGROUNDNOTES
August 9, 1995
Tier One: Acquisition
Neighborhood Parks
• $4.5 M wiil be bonded for the acquisition of up to 16 acres of neighborhood parlcs.
• The need for additional parks is widely distributed throughout the City.
• Due to speciiic site constraints, not all of the park sites wili me=t the minimum size
standard of five acres. If the siz= of the site falls trelow three deveiopable acres, certain
functions such as open grass pia~elds cannot be ac~omodated, plac;ng the park within
the pocket park category.
• ~This projection is based on the need to acquir= parks to meet needs in existing residentiai
areas which are presentfy underserved. Funding for acauisition of parks in areas of ne~.v
residential growth is expected to come from developme~t fe=s.
• In the event that the Department is able to acquire land via dedication or at a lesser cos,
than projected, any unallocated funds ~roill be applied tc~,vard additionai neighborhood or
pocket park acquisition, with an zmphasis on arzas of higher densirj.
The benefits of providing additional nei5hborhood parks and playgrounds include:
• Me=ting citiz_n desires fer a higher level or pzrk servic~ to neighborhoods. Public
testimony during the IP° process and the North Boulder Su6community Planning process
indicated s:rong support for additional, more accessi6le neighborhood parks, playgrounds
and recreationai facilities.
• Mitigation of the impacts of residential and cornmercial growth and increased densities.
Parks support the livability of afrordable, higher density housing and areas of mixed usa
dev=lopment. Parks help to define neighborhocd identity and contibute to building
community connections and community charec;er.
• Support for neic,hborhood self-sufficiency. Citizens have expressed the desire to access
more day-tc-day services within walkable and bika~le distances.
• Reduced pressure on the Mountain Parks and Open Spaca systems. 6oth ara
experiencing substantial growth in visitation resulting in signiricant overusz of sensitive
areas with degradation of 6oth ecological hea~th and visitor zxperience. The increased
availabiiity of neighborhood parks and recreational4aciliti=s is expected to hefp mitigate
some of this demand.
• Reducing vehicle miles traveled. More people will be abie to access a neighborhood par}c
and playground on foot or by bicycle, thereby reducing auto tra~c and parking
congestion. Neighoorhood parks are scaled to primarily serve the immediate
neighborhood, without drawing users from long dis;ancas away.
Whi(e the current and proposed standards call for 1S park acres per 1000 oopulation, this is
intended to be used as only an approximate basis of comparison, and is not intended to sat a
desired upper limit. This standard takes into account the additional availahility of school facilities
and other public and private recreation2l resourc=s in the community. Neighborhood parks are
designed to me~t ne~ds that cannot be met by Open Space, a large City ~ark site or ¢ocket
parks, and the availability of these other resources to residents dces not imply that a
neigh6orhood park site is unnecessary. The prior'tization criteria uszd to se!ect higher priority
AGENDA ITEM #~ VA , PAGE 3~
areas for park site acquisition incfuded the followin9 criterion intended to address issues of
neighborhood ne°d, including density: "Within the service radius is there a high perczr,tage of
• chiidren or seniors and/or a high percentage of attached housing units and/or a iower than
median income?"
While develcped areas of the city may never have the number of park acres as areas of new
residential growth, staff supports the acquisition of neighborhood parks in less densely developed
areas in order to prevent similar deficiencies from occuring there in the future. If land is not
acquired in advance of development it often cannot be acquired at aii. Residenls in fower density
neighborhoods may have less need for parkland to serve as density relief but they stili need
parks and playgrounds which provide opportunities for social interadion and group play, and
which serve as a commun+ty Focal point.
Pocket Parks
• 34.9 M wiil be bonded for acquisition of up to ten acr=s of pocket parks, primarily
targeting higher density neighborhoods in the Centrei and Crossroads subcommunities,
with additional sites in the South and Southeast subcommunilies.
• Pocket parks provide mitigation in areas of deficiency where a fuli-size neighborhood park
cannot be acquired. Based on the proposed standards, there are approximately ten
areas presenify underserved and lacking vacant land opportunities for a larger park.
• Pocket parks, under the proposed definition, can range `rom a half-acre or less up to ?.9
acres in size, but will generally fall at the lower er.d of this ranqe An averag= of one-acre
p=r site was usad in these projections. While sma4ler pocke! parks cannot me=? needs
for open grass play areas for team sports, they do provide neighborhood gathering places
and can usuaily accomodate a childrzn's play area. Parks betwesn thrze and five acres
in size would genereliy be viewed as substandard size neighborhood parks.
fn addition to acquisition of additional pocket park sites, the proposed Master Pfan standards ca{i
for other measures to provide improved servic=s in areas where standard parks cannot b=
' developed, including higher levels of programming, uses of indcor spaces, terreces, rooftops and
urba~ plazas and designs which permit more infense use and effective capacity, and the
development of cooperative agreements with the BVSD, the University of Colorado, churches,
and child care centers to help increase the accessibi(ity of park services.
While the acquisition of pocket parks in areas of dericiency is the preferred compensatory
measure proposed in the ?RMP, pocket parks under three acras in size wili not provide the
necessary space for a~;ive pla~elds. This is one r7esd that no number of additional smalier
parks wiil be able to me=t for residents in some d=veioped neighborhoods. Pocket parks can
incorporate children's piay areas, benches, pirnic tables and other amentities which provide
more passive and social opportunities.
City Park
• S18 M to be bonded for acquisition of a minimum of 100 acres for a site or sites for a City
Park, and S200,000 per year for infras,ructure maintenanc~.
• No less than 75°1o of the land wouid be acquired in Areas I or ii.
The requirement for a large parcel City Park is driven by the need to provide additional acr:age
to meet the curtznt standard for community parR acreage and by the need for a location which is
appropriate for fhe placement of active recr>ational facilities to meet current and futur= demand.
There ar2 very few remaining parcels which would be appropriate for this purposa. While there
AGENDA ITEM # V~ , PAGE~
are numerous arguments in favor of clustering facilities in one location, inctuding cost
effectiveness, it wouid be possible to brzak out some of the proposed facilities from others.
Mountain Parks
• S2 M to acquire up to 350 acres to the west of the Mountain Parks and 524,000 per year
for maintenance of the added iands.
The proposed amount would be used to purchasa land to preserve critical wildlife migration
corridors between the Mountain Parks and other public lands to the west. City staff will wcrk
closely with the County to determine if there are altemate means of preserving these lands from
development. Whatever funds may not be required for this purpose will be designated for other
land purchasas which will coniribute to the integrity of the Mountain Parks sysiem. Funding is
also included for maintenance needs of the acquirzd lands. See Attachment X of this agenda
item memo far further discussion.
Tier Twa: Renovation and Refurbishment - Existinq Facilities
• 53.4 M is ne~ded for improvements to the indoor pools at NERC and SBRC and for
refurbishment needs of the outdoor pools, inciuding repiacement of the water slides.
Bonds will not be issued for this purposz, thus saving on intzrest payments. SZi7,000 in
funds will accrue and be disbursed on an annual oasis. The outdoor pools and the indoer
pools at N6RC and SBRC are heavily used by a 6road soectrum of the public.
• 5178,000 annually for anticipated lifz cycle replacement neac~ in the recreational
facilitiies, basad on the findings and prioritization in the Facilities Maintenance Plan.
• 51.5 M in total funding is needed for refurbishments in the urban park system, focusing or
playground refurbishment needs which could not be funded through existing sources.
$130,000 annuaily will accrue and be spent for this purpose.
• 375,000 per year for on-going needs in the intensely uszd Civic Park area, for which no
additional funding has been provided.
Due to competing demands for services to the community, the Department has never had the
capacity to put aside su~cient funds for anticipated life cycle repiacement ne=ds for equipment
and facilities, inciuding sidewaik and parking lot repairs, irrigation system replacement, upgrading
of landscape designs, updating and expansion of piaygrounds, swimming pooi refurbishment,
and facility remodeling. As a resuit, many parks, piaygrounds ard recreation facilities are
beginning to show their age: safery concerns begin to surFace; facifities lose some patronage;
s2op-gap repairs become increasingly expensive. A significart porion of recreation and
piayground equipment currently in use is weli beyond its expected lifespan. Existing funding
sources will not be sufficient to address all the outstanding needs. The ability of the Department
to take care of its existing asset base is critical to maintaining credibility with the citizens.
Mountain Parks
• 5168,000 annually to address refurbishment and reconstruction projects in the Mountain
Parks, including traii rehabilitation, redesi5n of poor treil alignments, consVuction of new
traiis, and closure and revegetation of sccial traiis.
Funding for resource management has besn consistently inadequate to kesp up with the needs,
due to increasing visitation and more ac:ive uszs in the Mountain Parks. The 19°2 bond issue
funding for capital reconstruction w'I terminaie at the end of 1545, and while funds have bean
AGENDA ITEM # VA , Pq~E ~5
identified for this purpose in the 1996 CIP as a stop-gap measure, there is insu~cient on-going
funding to continue these efforts at the needed levels. it is es;imated that it will require ten to
fifteen years of investment to catctr-up with the nesds.
Tier Three: Develooment of Facilities and Proarams
• 5210,000 per year is required to maintain the development investment in the ccmmunity
park site in North Boulder. It is the DepaRmenYs polic~ to make sure that newly acquired
and developed park sites will have adequate funding on an on-going basis. During the
first two years of the proposed sales tax increase, these funds wiN be used to cover the
cost of bond issuance and electio~ costs, and will aiso be dedicated for the completion of
the remaining field at Pleasantview.
• 52.4 M total is needed for development of new neighborhood park sites, with annual
revenues of 5200,000; 51.5 M for pocket park deveiopment, with annual revenues of
5120,OOO;and 52.4 M for development of existing neighborhood park sites, with S200,000
in annual revenues. Funding wili be directed toward development of those sites of most
interest to the community. Distributing the development procass over time, as sites are
acquired, makes sense from the perspective af worklaad and monetary resourc=s. Not
paying the costs of bonding for this funding effectively increases the revenues availabte
for this purpose
• Associated fundi~g for maintenance of developed sites is included, as justified above in
the discussion of the Community Park Site in NoRh Boulder.
• 52 M for improvements to the NBRC and SBRC to enable these centers to receive a
much ne=ded facelift which is necessary to respond to concems of the many users of
these facilities and to maintain some parity with the attractions of the EBCC. 5150,000
per year will accrue for this purpose.
• $2.25 M in funding for new active recreational facilities will be required as active park
sites are acquired and in order to meet the needs identified in the proposed PRMP. The
specific facilities to be funded will be drawn from the priorities listed in the PRMP, based
on an annual update and assessment in conjunction with the preparetion of the CiP and
annual budget. ~200,000 per year wiil accrue for the provision of these facifities.
• Funding of 5130,000 per year is included to address needs for an expanded
environmentai education progrem in the Mountain Parks, which was identified as a high
priority in the proposed PRMP. This program would help to prevent damage 6y reaching
people with the information they need to become more effective stewards of the land by
leaming how to enjoy a visit while protecting the natural resources.
The proposed PRMP documents and prioritizes the need for funding the development of existing
undeveloped patk sites and new playgrounds, as wei{ as recreation `aci{ities such as p{ay fields
and indoor gymnasiums. With the acquisition of new park sites, additional development funding
wili be required. Funding for development has never kept pace with even the limit=d funding for
acquisition. Without some revenue earmarkzd for facility development, park sites acquired
through a new bond issue could remain undeveloped for many years.
Park sites left undeveloped for extended periods of time often come to be viewed as private open
space by the immediate neighbors, which engenders r>sistanc= when park development is
proposed. In other cases, undeveloped park s+tes are viewed as a breach of trust, given the
discrepancy between the stated purpose of the land acquisition and the failure to provided
expected and needed facilities.
~ar~M # ~ ~q , PAGE J ~
in each case where funding for acquistion or development of additionai park iand has been
proposed, the associated maintenance has been buiit into the sales tax increase. Historicaily, "
the pepartment has attempted to stretch existing resources to cover the increase in maintenance
responsibilities; the limits of this approach have been reached. Any further additions to the paric
system must have corresponding increases in the capacity to care for the sites.
Tier Four. Historic and CuRurai Facitities
• $50,000 per year is allocated for this purpose and wiil be used to leverage additional
grent funding for maintenance, renovation and refurbishment of these facilities. There is
no exisiting funding sourc~ for this purpose. These facilities include Colum6ia Cemetary,
Harbeck House, Chautauqua Auditorium, Dining Hall and Caretakers Cottage, and the
Boulder AR Center.
Notes (4/12/95):
The tertn "tier" is used to categorize a group of similar needs and does not imply a levei
of priority.
In Tier Two: Renovation and Refurbishment, the capital need projected is baszd on
ne=~= identified for a ten year period. At the end of that time, needs wouid be reevaluated and
projec;ed for the remaining ten years.
~AffEM#~ VA ,PAGE ~7
PARKS AND RECREATION
AOVISORY BOARD
SALES TAX AND BONDING
RECOMMENDATION
~
~
~
~
CAPITAL Needed Annuall A
TIERS
Ongoing
CAPITAL y nnual Sales
Annual
NEED
Annual Bonded for Bondin~ at
fi°/ Yield Tax Rate
, Required Required
1 Acc uisition
A
C
Q Pockel Park Siles $ - $ 4,900,000 ~ 4,900,000 $ 424,163 y 424,183 0.021
U
I Nel~hborhnod Park Siles $ - $ q,500,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 389,537 $ 389,537 0.019
S
1
T
I Cily Parks - Area II
Ordinance # 5740 $ 200,000 $ 18,OOp,000
• $ 18,000,000 y 1,558,150
3 1,758,150
0.087
O
N Mountai~~ Parks $ 20
000 $ 2
0OO
ODO
, ,
, $ 2,000,000 $ 173,128 $ 193,128 0.010
2 Renovatio~~ 8 ReturUishment
of Existing Facililies
&
R
. RecreaUo~ Faclli(Ies 3 178,000
. , Pool Improvements $ 3,400,000 $ 277,000 $ -
. Urban Parks $ 1,500,000 $ 130,OOO $ - $ - ~ 828
000 0
041
. Mountain Parks (Tia~ls) $ 168,000 , .
. Civic Park Complex $ 75,000
I~
a
~
Im
CR,
REVISED 8/4/95
PARKS AND RECREATION
ADVISORY BOARD
SALES TAX AND BONDING
RECOMMENDATION
TIERS Ongoing
Annual
~ Davelopmenl o( Facilities
& Proc~rams
D Community Park (norlh sile) • $ 210,000
E
V Developmenl of New $ 64,000
E Neic~hborhood park siles
L Developmenl of New Pockel $ 40,000
0 park siles
P Developmenl ot Exislinp $ 67,000
M Nefghborhood park sites
E Improvemenis to _
N Recrealfon Cenlers
T
& Cullural Facililies
H
&
C
C!
CAPITAL
NEED Annual
Hondad I~or BoCno4ing at I R q'ui ed I Required
a
2,
1,
a zto,ooo I o.o~o
TOTAL b 44,850,000 "'~ ~~`~
$ 29,400,~00
jP' This amounl is not needed unlil 1998. II will be used to cover the -$75,000 bondinc~ issuance cosis, $12,000 elecllon cosl, and for lhe development
~ ol Ilie last play{ng field al Ilia Pleasanl View Fle~d slte.
~ '
~
ID
D
m REVISED 8/4/95
(~
Attachment F
Projed Planning and Approval Process
Table 1: The Project Planning and Approval Process for CIP Projects
1. Departmental Master Planning
a. Masler plan coattlination and assessment by Master Plan Coordination Committee.
6. Review and recommendaUon by depaAmental advisory board and Planning Board
c. City Council review and acceptance of master plan.
2. CIP: Budget Appropriation for Project Planning
a. PresentaUon of qP projects in the annual project shanng meeting with projeat managers.
b. Review of lhe CIP project list by lhe director-level CIP Coordination Commiftee.
c Review of CIP projed list by interdeparlmantal CEAP Review Grouo to identify projects requiring a CEAP, review projects for
consistency with master plans, and to recommend further review processes as needed.
d. Review and recommendation to Cily Council by departmental advisory board and Planning Board
e. C'~ty Council review and adoption of CIP with the budget.
3. Project Planning and Design
ProJeots tbat require Concept and Site Plan Review All other projects that require CEAPs (see page 29):
(see page 27):
a. Review of CEAP checklist by CEAP Review Grouo. (The
a. DR1 reviews Concept Plan (Concept Review). wmmittee could recommend technical document review by
b Planning Board reviews and commenGs on concept plan. DRC).
c. Concept plan forwarded to Cily Council wilh call-up option b. Advisory Boarcl review and approval of the Flnal CEAP and
d. DRC Review of Site Plan (Site Review). lhe preferted project altemative.
e. Wetland permit applications submitted (concurrent with c Ciry Council call-up option.
site review).
f Planning Board review and approval of site plan.
g. City Council call-up option.
4. ProJect Engineering and Final Design
Projects that require Technical Document Review: All other projects:
a. Review of final design and engineering plans lhrough
Technical Documenl review DRC a. Vanancas to Uie Design and Construclion StandarUS are
b. Variances to the Design and Construction Standards are documented by the project manager; raviewed end
documanled by lhe project manager; reviewed and approvad by lhe Public Works Director for Development
approved by the Public Works director where applica6le. and SuppoA Servicas where applicable.
c. Wetland and floodplain permits are applied for if 6 Wetland and floodplain permits are applied for if required.
applicab~e (concurrenl with site review if applicable).
5. Final Permitting
Projeats that require building, flood, stormwater discharge or rightof-way permits:
a. Permit review and issuance by P&DS.
6. Project Construction and Management
Projects that require building permits: Projects that require wedand permits and mitigaGon
moniWring:
a. BuiWing inspection by P&DS as required.
b. Right-0f-way inspection as required. y, Annual wetland monitonng and reportirg as required
AGENDA ITEM #~ Vq , PAGE a-~
Attachment G
AGENOA ITEM #~ v~, PAGE a' ~