Loading...
6A - Public hearing & consideration of a recommendation to the City Manager concerning the 2003-2008U CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 25, 2002 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: July 15, 2002) r1 LJ AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to the City Manager concerning the 2003-2008 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Peter Pollock, Planning Director Ruth McHeyser, Director of Long Range Planning Jean Gatza, Presenter Kate Bernhardt, Parks & Recreation Bill Boyes, Facilities and Asset Management Bob Harberg, Public Works, Utilities Susan Hartman, Library Annie Noble, Tributary Greenways Michael Sullivan, Open Space and Mountain Parks Stephany Westhusin, Transportation Molly Winter, Downtown Management Commission I. BACKGROUND ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM The City of Boulder's 2003-2008 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is a six-year plan for public physical improvements. The CIP provides a forecast of funds available for capital projects and identifies all planned capital improvement projects and their estimated costs over the six-year period. The first year's program in the CIP is adopted by the City Council as the Capital Budget, as a counterpart to the annual Operating Budget. Even though fiscal resources aze appropriated only in the first year of the CIP, the succeeding five years of the CIP are important in providing a longer-term plan for setting spending priorities, scheduling projects in a logical sequence, and coordinating and targeting capital improvement projects for all city departments. Capital improvement projects are defined as any major project requiring the expenditare of public funds (over and above operating expenditures) for the purchase, construction, or replacement of the physical assets of the community. This broad definition includes those projects that are bondable and includes new or expanded physical facilities • as well as the land acquisition and site improvements necessary for a project. The city Planning Department coordinates the process for preparing the annual CIP with other city • departments. The Planning Board evaluates and makes recommendations to the City Manager and City Counci] on the proposed CIP as part of the annual budget process. The role of the Planning Board is to: 1) evaluate CIP projects in the context of the long-term, "big picture" policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP); 2) make recommendations on the scope, priorities, and scheduling of C1P projects; 3) make recommendations on resolving policy issues raised by the proposed location and design of CIP projects; 4) make a determination of which CIP projects will be required to undergo a Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) review. The CIP is an essential implementation tool for carrying out the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan's policies of orderly and efficient provision of urban facilities and services. The Comprehensive Plan provides for the phased growth of the city with annexation to occur only when the full range of urban services is available. The Capital Improvements Program schedules projects that conect current facility deficiencies and that enhance the level of service for existing residents through facility expansions and updating. Each year the CIP is updated by adding a new sixth year of capital improvement projects. Adjustments • are made to costs and revenues forecasted the previous year. Changes may also be made to the year(s) in which a project is scheduled, reflecting changes in fiscal conditions and changes in overall funding priorities. New capital projects may be added or deleted based on new facility needs identified in updated or new city master plans, area plans, or studies. The Planning Board's review of the CIP includes the policies and plans of the BVCP, but also looks to subcommunity plans, area plans and departmental master plans. Within the general framework of the Comprehensive Plan, subcommunity plans and area plans provide more detailed planning for land use, urban design, neighborhood revitalization, and public facility needs. Most departments now have functional master plans for the provision of services and facilities, The master plans are devised consistent with the policy and implementation framework and the growth projections in the Comprehensive Plan. However, more specific policies, concepts, and service and facility schemes are provided in the master plans. System-wide priorities for scheduling and targeting capita] improvements are provided by many of the master plans. In the past few years there has been a city-wide effort to examine long-term resource needs for system maintenance and deficiency correction. This effort will continue in the future and will be reflected in future CIPs. Staff is working on an update to the Project Planning and Approval Process (PPAP) and Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) for capital projects. The PPAP was approved in 1992 and is the process for the planning, review and approval of capital improvements. The PPAP outlines the processes for master planning, CIP, project planning, design, and engineering and project • 2 construction. The CEAP was developed in the mid-1980's as a process for assessing the environmental • and social impacts of project alternatives. City projects that will require a CEAP are identified during the annual CIP and budget approval. Several issues have been raised over the past few years concerning the review of capital projects including: insufficient impact assessment of master plans and major projects prior to budgeting, review of projects relative to master plans and sustainability, and insufficient coordination between city and private projects. Proposed revisions include better master plan coordination and review of system-wide plans and earlier review of CEAPs by an interdepaRmental review team to better assess potential impacts of project alternatives. Staff is also revising the criteria for identifying projects that will require a CEAP review. Staff is anticipating that the proposed new process for CIP project review and approval will be brought to the Planning Board and City Council this fall for their review and comments. As many of the departmental master plans are planning updates, staff is working to develop a standazd outline for these plans that will include specific project and financial information. The link between master plans and capital projects has been somewhat unclear in the past in some cases. Staff envisions increased alternative analysis to take place in the master plans for capital project planning. II. PLANNING ISSUES FOR 2001 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS How has the anticipated sales tax shortfall affected the CIP? • The funds that have CIPs affected by sales tax are the parks & recreation 1995 ballot issue fund, open space fund and the transportation fund. The parks and recreation CIP focuses on preserving funding for renovation and refurbishment. Funding is reduced for new capital projects and propeRy acquisitions (e.g. reduced funding for Foothills Community Park development and neighborhood / pocket park development). The transportation CIP is designed to maintain the integrity of transportation prioritization from 2000. Reductions ara focused on enhancements to the existing infrastructure. The open space fund reductions include decreased funding for trail and trailhead construction, water and mineral rights acquisition. What effect will the drought have on Capital facilities? Are we planning for the impacts? The City of Boulder's current watering restrictions would benefit a multi-year drought by allowing additional water that is saved and stored this year to be used during the summar of 2003. This year's drought is very impactful, and while not over, will likely be viewed to be more than a 100-year drought (1% probability of happening in any year). While 2003 could be as extreme of a drought, the probability is small - yet still real. In the event that we are in a multi-year drought that requires, in 2003, even more restrictions than are in place today, some difficult choices will need to be made as to which outside landscaped sites to irrigate. We are currently not in a position to assess the overall impacts this drought will have on our entire park system. Parks and Recreation anticipates community discussions on this topic throughout the fall and • winter, as maintenance plans are prepared for next year. Staff is already discussing long term strategies that will create an overall system that is sustainable in a semi-arid climate, recognizing • that these changes will take place over a long period of time. New city landscaping projects are temporarily being delayed until more water is available to get plants started. Landscaping plans for any future projects now include water efficient subterranean drip watering systems not above ground sprinklers. Staff is also beginning to explore the potential for collecting gray water for irrigation or other re-use. The droughYs impacts on open space properties include decreased water available to agriculture operations of the lessees, decreased minimum streamflow, and general visual appearance of the parcels. There is little that can be done in the way of the CIP at this time to replenish lower water right allocations. Additionally, with lower sales tax growth rate projections/collections, the funding for water rights acquisition in the CIP has been decreased from $150,000 to only $50,000. Given the current drought, are there any capital improvement projects shown in the 2003- 2008 CIP that will help deliver more water to the citizens of Boulder? The City of Boulder has two water treatment plants that supply treated water to the citizens of Boulder, the Betasso Water Treatment Plant (Betasso Plant) and the Boulder Reservoir Vyater Treatment Plant (Reservoir Plant). The Betasso Plant, with a treatment capacity of approximately 40 million gallons a day, treats water from the city's upper Boulder Creek sources and supplies the city with treated water by gravity. It is the city's main treatment facility. The Reservoir Plant has a maximum treatment capacity of approximately 10.5 million gallons a day, but can consistently • operate more in the 8.0 million gallons a day range. The Reservoir Plant treats water from the Colorado-Big Thompson/Windy Gap project, which is diverted from the western slope. Water from the this plant needs to be pumped from the treatment plant to the City and primarily serves the eastern part of the City. Until the mid-1990's, the Reservoir Plant was utilized only in the summer to help meet summer water demands. However, since that time water demands in the city have grown sufficiently and this plant has run throughout the year. While the Betasso Plant has the capability of treating more water than the Reservoir Plant, the city does not own enough Boulder Creek water rights to continuously supply Betasso at a high capacity throughout the year. The water supply limitation for Betasso is even more severe this year due to lower than normal precipitation in that watershed. However, even under the current drought conditions, the supply of western slope water owned by the City exceeds the treatment capacity of the Reservoir Plant. Providing additional treatment capacity at the Reservoir Plant would improve the City's ability to supply water during a drought by allowing full access to all of the City's available water supplies. The 2003-2008 CII' includes proposed improvements to the Reservoir Plant in 2003 and 2005/2006 to help address water quality improvements, as well as increase the capacity of the facility from 8 million gallons a day to 16 million gallons a day. This would provide sufficient capacity at the Reservoir Plant to meet the full winter water demand of the entire City. It would also help meet the increased water demand in the summer. An expansion of treatment capacity at • 4 Reservoir Plant will help balance the city's available water supplies with the location of available • treatment capacity. The CIP also includes improvements to the pumping and piping infrastructure in 2003 in order to allow the Reservoir Plant to supply water to all of the water distribution zones in the City. What improvements are planned for the Scott Carpenter Pool? The maintenance planned for the Scott Carpenter Pool is being paid with operational funding. It includes replacement of a portion of the main drain piping, inspection of the drain piping not replaced and patching and painting of the pool shell. The work is expected to be done in August - September with the exception of painting, which is planned for April-May 2003. We expect that the repairs will reduce the amount of leakage to approximately 2000 - 3000 gallons per day. However, there is no way to know for sure how much the repairs will improve the leakage until the pool is filled. The Scott Carpenter pool is 40 years old and at the end of its services life. Planning for further improvements or a complete replacement of the pool should include a cost-benefit analysis for this facility and assessment of needs based on the city-wide aquatics system. How are growth related projects defined? Growth related excise taxes provide capital funding for the capital development fund, the transportation development fund and a portion of the permanent parks and recreation fund. • For capital projects funded from the capital development fund, growth related activifies fall into For parks and recreation, excise tax funding is used for projects that address deficiencies in the existing park system and recreation facility inventory based on the growth of the City population over the past 30 years (East Boulder Community Park improvements, Foothills Community Park improvements, neighborhood / pocket park development, parksite acquisition). two categories: 1. Growth impacts to existing facilities which require additions or interior modifications to city facilities. An example of this is the Pearl Street Mall Restrooms where the Capital Development Fund paid a portion of the cost to replace the restrooms. The additional restroom space is to accommodate new growth whereas the majority of the cost was paid from operational and Facility Renovation & Replacement funds that benefit the existing population. 2. Existing facilities are inadequate and new ones need to be constructed. An example of this is the construction of Fire Station #7 which was entirely funded by the Capital Development Fund. TranspoRation development fund projects are based on the criteria of being growth-related, located on the arterial system, and fund oversizing facilities precipitated by development, e.g., a new housing development will require deficient facilities to be upgraded for streets, bikeways, sidewalks, and transit. What is the status of the North Boulder Branch Library? • 5 The city and Jim Loftus, the developer of the North Boulder village (the development project adjacent to the City-owned parcel where the north branch library will be located) are working on a • proposed agreement for Council consideration regarding ways in which the developer and the City can cooperate on the development of these adjacent sites. The agreement proposes a public-private partnership for the branch library construction as well as for some other amenities on the City- owned parcel. It is anticipated that in November 2005 voters wil] be asked to approve funding for branch library operations and for some of the branch library construction. Therefore, the original goai of a 2004-2005 opening will be pushed back to 2006. Preliminary branch library planning activities have been completeci and included public surveys, neighborhood meetings, and service and programming discussions; a preliminary branch library program plan has been drafted. A draft site plan showing the location of the branch library facility and required parking has also been prepared. The Library Commission envisions this facility as both a neighborhood library and a community center for north Boulder residents. What is planned for the new fire training center? The new fire training center is not being funding with city funds. The funding is from County Issue IA, a temporary sales tax that runs for three years (2002-2004), to fund construction of fire training facilities in the County. Three facilities are contemplated: a primary training center in Boulder, a second facility in L,ongmont and a satellite facility in Nederland. Each City will provide land for these three projects. The County will own the building improvements. Through the Public Safety Tax, Public Works funds and Open Space & Mountain Parks, the City of ~ Boulder purchased approximately 100 acres of land at 63`d and Valmont. A portion of the land will be used by Public Works for a new wmposting facility. The ridgeline of the butte will remain open space. Approximately 35 acres will hold the Boulder area fire training center. Each city will act as the construction manager for the project in their jurisdiction. The City Fire Department and Facility and Asset Management Division are working together on the project. Actual building construction is planned to begin in 2003. What is the status of the 9`h and Canyon project? The project has gone through the technical document review and submitted for building permit in May. St. Julien is finalizing the financing for the hotel. The parking structure will be constructed in conjunction with the hotel. The urban renewal plan also requires a civic use on the site. The Village Arts Coalition and Collage Children's Museum gained Planning Board approval for a design on the southeast corner of the site. The Collage Museum has negotiated with the Boulder History Museum to take over their role in the civic use building pending the Museum's financial analysis. City Councii approved the History Museum as a qualified civic user. What concerns or issues were raised by the various advisory boards reviewing departmental CIPs? . Summary Minutes are attached for the Transportation, Parks and Recreation, Greenways Advisory • Committee and Water Resources Advisory Board's CIP reviews. See Attachment H. Transportation The Transportation Advisory Board (Tt1B) reviewed and recommended approval of the draft 2003-2008 Transportation Capital Improvements Program (CIP) at its June 10, 2002 meeting as submitted by staff. The Board's discussion included various clarifying questions for staff. Utilities The Water Resource Advisory Board (WRAB) reviewed and recommended approval of the draft 2003-2008 Utilities Capital Improvements Program (CIP) at its June 17, 2002 meeting. The WRAB recommended approval of the proposed Utilities Division 2003-2008 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) including the preliminary year 2002-2003 operating budget, monthly utility rates and p2ant investment fees. The Board's discussion included various clazifying questions but was approved as presented. Parks and Recreation The Parks and Recreation Advisory Boazd reviewed and recommended approval of the draft 2003-2008 Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Program (CII') at its May 20, 2002 meeting. There was general agreement to focus on maintenance and to consider acquisition when possible. The Board's discussion included various clarifying questions for staff. • Tributary Greenwa,~s The Greenways Advisory Committee reviewed the Greenways CIP and recommended approval at their June 5, 2002 meeting. There was a discussion of possible funding cuts. There was discussion regarding the habitat maintenance program and Che work that has been completed so far. The Open Space Board of Trustees reviewed the Greenways 2003-2008 CIP on May 22, 2002. They commented on the need for greenways projects to focus on habitat improvements and that the weed management and flood control goals will benefit open space. The Transportation Advisory Board and Water Resources Advisory Boards reviewed the Greenways CIP as information items. Open Space and Mountain Parks The Open Space Board of Trustees approved the 2003 CIP funding for their ongoing projects as part of a budget update at their June 12, 2002 meeting. What has changed in this CIP from previous years? Given the decrease in sales tax revenues, the capital improvements program includes changes in both funding ]evels and timing for projects as discussed above. This six-year capital plan has most of the same projects as have been identified in past years. Each year soma funding amounts change or the anticipated year of construction changes, in response to budget projections, cost sharing/savings opportunities and goal prioritization. Changes from last year's CIP are noted on the project summary . 7 sheets and the fund spreadsheets. III. IMPLEMENTATION OF 5UBCOMMUNITY AND AREA PLANS • How is the implementation of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) being addressed in the CIP? The development of the North Boulder Community Park, Fourmile Creek Improvements and several transportation projects are included in the CIP (see description by department below). Additionally, bicycle and pedestrian connections typically occur in north Boulder annually, but are not specifically called out in the CIP, as they are done opportunistically, or as part of a larger program (e.g., greenways, bikeway, or sidewalk improvement programs). The funding for the north Boulder branch library that has been approved in past years is still earmarked for these projects and will be available when the project is ready to be constructed. Transnortation Division: The following improvements recommended in the NBSP are listed in the CIP: street improvements for on-street bike lanes and sidewalks on Violet Avenue between Broadway and US36 (2004-2006), on-street bike lanes on Broadway between Iris and Norwood (2004-2005), undergrounding of utilities along Broadway between Norwood Avenue and Hawthorne Avenue, and bike lanes, pedestrian facilities and drainage facilities on Linden avenue from the western city limits to Broadway (2006-2008). Parks De~artment: The Foothills Community Park in north Boulder is proposed for continued funding for phase two construction (2003-2006). • Flood Control Utilitv: In accordance with the Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan, funding is proposed from 2003-2008 for property acquisition and limited flood mitigation improvements along Fourmile Canyon Creek. Tributarv Greenwa,~s: Various improvements to Fourmile Creek will involve environmental preservation, habitat restoration, water quality best ma~agement practices and off-street trail connections. How is the Civic Park Master Plan being implemented? Phase I of the Civic Park improvements have been completed. These improvements include the construction of Civic Plaza, and the reconstruction of 13th Street. Phase II improvements completed in 1999-2000 include gates at both ends of 13th Street, signage on the gateway elements and pedestrian lighting in the Civic Center Plaza. Construction on pedestrian lighting along 13th Street was completed in 2001. In view of major recent improvements to the 13th Street area of Civic Park, including the Tea House and improved bike path, an increase in Civic Park usage as monitored by the Parks Department, and the need to coordinate new capita] improvements throughout the entire Civic Center area, the Civic • 8 Center Task Force is updating and revising the 1992 Civic Park Master Plan. The firm of EDAW, Ina, • of Denver, has been hired to address specific design issues such as completion of the east end of the Civic Plaza, to address the design needs of the central area of the park between 13th Street and Broadway, coordinate the park design with a newly designed Boulder Creek Bridge on Broadway, and . the plaza area and ATM machine on the west side of the Municipal Building. The update to the Civic Center master plan project is being tied into a project by the City's Facilities Asset Management Division to conduct a building use assessment for the City offices in the Central campns area. A general parking study will be conducted through the Downtown Management Commission. Transplan, Inc. has been hired to determine how the proposed parking changes to the Civic Center Master Plan will be affected by the new development which is occurring in the azea near the Civic Center area. The Civic Center Task Farce reviews and recommends to the City Manager on implementation options, capital projects and funding, and management and maintenance coordination for the Civic Center azea. This group includes: city staff representing: Planning Department, City Managers Office, the General Improvement District (GID) Director, the Facility and Asset Management (FAM) Director, Tributary Greenways, the City Attorney's Office and the Pazks and Recreation Department. The 1995 parks and recreation sales tax issue contains $75,000 per year for a 20 year term to provide for physical improvements to Civic Park. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board determines the uses of these funds. For the years 1998 through 2003, $27,000 per year has and will go towards paying off the construction of the Teahouse, leaving $48,000 per year for other capital improvements. Future capital improvements will be based upon completion of the revised Civic Park Master Plan. • IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF MASTER PLANS Which Master Plans are currently being updated or are scheduled for update in the near future? Police Master Plan The Police Master Plan update is near completion. It is scheduled to be adopted by Planning Board and Ciry Council in the fall. Municiqal Airport Master Plan The current Airport Master Plan was adopted in 1994. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has approved funding for the master plan update in 2003. Depending on the duration of the public review and hearing process for the update, completion of the airport master plan is anticipated in 2004. TranspoRation Master Plan The Transportation Master Plan update is currently in progress. Phase I- plan assessment and policy focus direction concluded in March with TAB recommendation and Council approval of four areas for concentrated work: funding, multi-modal corridors, regional travel and transportation demand management (TDM). Phase II, policy refinement is underway. TMP adoption is anticipated in 2003. Parks and Recreation A needs assessment and user survey are currently underway. The update to the master plan will follow depending on the outcome of these studies. • 9 Comprehensive Drainage Utilitv Master Plan ~ Critical components of the plan include flood program, storm water quality program and drainage program. An initial draft was completed in late 2001. Completion is anticipated for 2002. Raw Water Master Plan This plan has not been updated since the original in 1989. The update process will begin this year. Wastewater Treatment and Wastewater Collection Master Plans Updates to these plans were initiated in early 2002. The anticipated completion for both is by the end of this year. Water Ouality Master Plan The Water Quality & Environmental Services (WQES) staff continue intemal work on the WQMP as well as beginning outreach to other utility work groups. Currently, WQES staff are evaluating appropriate city water quality trends as paR of development of master plan service trends. WQES is also soliciting feedback from utility coordinators on draft water quality goals. V. REVIEW AND COMMENTS FROM BOULDER COUNTY PLANNING Review of the draft 2003-2008 CIP by County Planning Staff will be done in July. Any recommendations will be forwarded to both Planning Board and Council. • VI. SELECTION OF PRO.TECTS FOR COMMUNITY AND E_NVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CEAP REVIEWI The projects that are proposed to be evaluated under Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) review are listed in Attachment E. CEAP reviews are prepared when projects are in the site location and facility design phase. The primary purpose of the CEAP is to encourage the consideration of the environment in planning and decision making and, ultimately, to arrive at actions that are environmentally compatible. The intent of the CEAP is to make project planning more efficient in considering issues in advance of implementation. CEAP findings are submitted by departments to their respective advisory board for review as part of CIP project approval. Council has the opportunity to call up projects for their review and approval. (For those departments that do not have an advisory board, Planning Board is responsible for reviewing CEAP findings as part of project approval.) The list of 2003 CEAP projects will be advertised in the Boulder Daily Camera on July 14, 2002 to allow public comment on which projects will require CEAP review. VII. SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS • 10 ~ Staff recommends that Planning Board approve the 2003-2008 Capital Improvements Program as submitted. Staff also recommends that: 1. Continued efforts should be made to assess drought related impacts and program those needs in future capital funding plans. 2. The list of CIP projects for Community and Environmental Assessment Process review should be approved as recommended by staff in Attachment E. Approved By: Peter Pollock Planning Director • ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A summarizes the highlights of the 2003-2008 CIP by fund. Attachment B provides the Planning Board CII' recommendations to Council for last year's CIP. Attachment C provides the CIP submissions by Department, including each fund / department overview and project status reports. Attachment D provides spreadsheets for the 2003-2008 CIP by fund. Attachment E is a list of projects recommended for a CEAP. Attachment F is a list of projects suggested for design review. Attachment G is spreadsheets of projects by subcommunity, Attachment H is the summary minutes from Transportation, Tributary Greenways, Parks and Recreation and Utilities CIP advisory board reviews. ~ 11