Loading...
5A - 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' ~