The URL can be used to link to this page

2006-2007 Annual Budget, Volume 2/ / / / / / / / / / ,\ q[\\ (/ i, /Y ////!1I I /)f// 47 A Jv' 0 o of Be9 2006-07 BUDGET City of Boulder, Colorado Volume II 2006-07 BUDGET DOCUMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET City of Boulder Mayor...................................................................................................Mark Ruzzin DeputyMayor......................................................................................Suzy Ageton Council Members...........................................................................Robin Bohannan Thomas E. Eldridge Crystal Gray Shaun McGrath Richard Polk Andy Schuitheiss Jack Stoakes CityManager...................................................................................Frank W. Bruno 2006-07 BUDGET DOCUMENT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM VOLUME II TABLE OF CONTENTS Pate OVERVIEW Backgroundon UnfundedCapital Highlightsof 2006-2011 CIP........................................................................................................................19 Planning Board Minutes (July 28, 2005) ......................................................................................................25 Listof 2006 CIP Graphicof 2006 Capital Budget...................................................................................................................33 SPECIFIC PROJECTS BY FUND CapitalDevelopment Fund ...........................................................................................................................37 Facility Renovation & Replacement Fund....................................................................................................41 GeneralFund - Trash CountyPublic Safety LotteryFund OpenSpace Parks & Recreation 1995 Ballot Issue Fund.................................................................................................67 Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund............................................................................................................73 TransportationDevelopment Fund ...............................................................................................................99 WaterUtility WastewaterUtility Fund ..................................................................................................................137 Stormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund...............................................................................145 OVERVIEW I. BACKGROUND ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM I The City of Boulder's 2006-2011 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 I 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 are appropriated only I 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 expenditure 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 I. and includes new or expanded physical facilities as well as the land acquisition and site improvements necessary for a project. I As stipulated by the City Charter, 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 Council on the proposed CIP as part of the annual budget process. The role of the Planning Board is to: Ii) 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 CIP 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 1 Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) review. Additionally, in recent years the Planning Board has identified which projects should have a separate design 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 I 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 correct current facility deficiencies to meet or enhance these levels of service standards through facility expansions and updating. Each year the CIP is updated by adding a new sixth year of capital improvement projects. I 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 I looks to subcommunity plans, area plans and departmental master plans. As defined in 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. Master plans are consistent with the policies and the growth projections in the Comprehensive Plan. They typically include level of service standards needed to meet BVCP goals and policies, more specific policies, and system -wide priorities for scheduling and targeting capital improvements. 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. For the 2006 budget process, the city has begun work on a business plan to help make decisions about funding priorities for the operating and capital budget. One role of the business plan is to provide a bridge between master plans and budgeting decisions and to provide a context for other decisions. The business plan focuses departments on clearly understanding the core mission of the city and of individual departments and having a fresh examination of these as the basis for making funding choices. Departments are asked to identify three levels of funding or funding plans: fiscally constrained, action and vision plans, similar to how this is done at the master plan level. To create these funding plans staff prioritizes programs and services into categories defined in a city-wide set of guiding principles. Staff identifies the levels of service currently provided in each functional area and whether it meets, exceeds or is below service standards and then prioritizes programs and services. This prioritization helps identify where growth or greater expenditure should occur as well as identify where cuts should occur, if required. For the capital budget, the new elements that have been added to the CIP information for the business plan, are a categorization of each proposed project as "essential", "desirable" or "discretionary" (described in more detail below). These are shown on the project summary sheets for each project. Also, additional information is provided regarding changes to operating costs incurred due to new capital facilities. II. PLANNING ISSUES FOR 2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS During the budget and CIP process, nine questions were identified that require more information than what is provided in the fund summaries or project descriptions. This analysis is intended to provide a city-wide overview of issues affecting the capital budgeting process. Answers to the following questions are listed below: 1. How are capital improvement projects prioritized, especially in terms of the city's business plan? 2. Which CIP projects will require other decision -making processes to occur prior to actual allocation of the funding? 3. Are there capital needs not shown in the CIP? 4. Is the provision of capital facilities keeping pace with demand or service standards at the level specified in departmental master plans? 5. What CIP projects are funded with growth -related excise tax revenue? 6. What is the status of the branch libraries? 7. How will the Parks and Recreation Master Plan update affect prioritization of capital projects? 8. How does the city coordinate capital projects with Xcel Energy? 9. What issues were raised by the advisory boards reviewing departmental CIPs? I 1. How are capital improvement projects prioritized, especially in terms of the city's business I plan? In general, capital projects are prioritized to first address essential services. For new projects, we I also attempt to be opportunistic whenever possible by partnering with outside funding sources and addressing many goals at the same time (multi -faceted projects that have components with many city departments). The business plan model definitions, summarized below, were used by all the departments to sort and organize departmental capital priorities as well as program priorities. . Essential services include programs, services or facilities essential to ensuring health and safety or that are legally mandated; on -going operation and maintenance of existing facilities or ' infrastructure; and investments contributing the most to achieving the core mission of the city or insuring the integrity of the most fundamental responsibilities of government. I. Desirable services include those that enhance programs or facilities in ways that advance desired community values, or enhance essential services or quality of life improvements. Also included would be funding for replacement of an existing facility andlor infrastructure; services I valued by the community and created by the legislative action of the City of Boulder City Council or to meet Council's budget policies; programs maintained as "seed corn" to provide a base for restoration in an economic recovery and essential programs that have been reduced, maintaining the elements of a program necessary in order to make future restoration possible . Discretionary services include those that serve limited purposes or specialized interests, are desired by the community but not required to provide or enhance an essential service or that people could obtain through other means, private or other governmental and non-profit agencies. As an example of this, the transportation CIP was prioritized by aligning the policies of the Transportation Master Plan into the budget guiding principles. The following priorities and I strategies were used to develop the Transportation budget: . Maintain Integrity of Transportation Prioritization, in order: maintenance and operations, multimodal system expansion, and enhancements without system performance benefit I. Achieve Sustainable Reductions Continue Efficiency Improvements I. Maintain Leveraged Funded Projects The essential, desirable, discretionary categories of funding are derived similarly and are described below with capital project (CIP) examples: I. Essential Services include Operation and maintenance of the existing system to maintain public safety. CIP examples include Broadway Concrete Reconstruction, Pedestrian Facilities Repair, Replacement, ADA and much of the 30th Street Bikelanes-Arapahoe to Pearl. The Yards I Master Plan Implementation also is included as it facilitates the ongoing maintenance and operations of transportation infrastructure. I Desirable Services include Expansion of the multimodal system - All modal system expansion has been slowed. The expansion of the multimodal system includes roadway, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit projects. CIP examples include most of 28 St Improvements, Bikeway and Pedestrian Facility Enhancements, and Tributary Greenways. At this point, if a citizen sees a project it is highly likely that it either has leveraged funds, is associated with a capital maintenance project, or both. The quality of life enhancement consists of improving system performance, providing more travel choices, connecting citizens to basic needs and activities, improved air quality, and increasing mobility. Discretionary Services include Mitigation Projects - CIP examples include things like noise walls and building new aesthetic treatments and Neighborhood Traffic Mitigation such as traffic circles, bulb outs, speed bumps, etc. This area of the budget does not expand the multimodal system or preserve the quality or integrity of the infrastructure and/or system. Until the economy recovers sufficiently, we will not be considering any new mitigation projects. 2. Which CIP projects will require other decision -making processes to occur prior to actual allocation of the funding? Many projects included in the 2006 CIP have completed a Community Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP), are in the process or will undergo a CEAP or other public review. Allocation for final funding of these projects is dependent on the outcome of the review process. Some of the high -profile projects with funding identified in 2006 or 2007 with pending decisions (either CEAP or other process) include: Recycle Row - Funding from trash tax revenues is proposed in the 2006 CIP for roadway and utility infrastructure cost in association with the annexation of 4 acres of the Brickyards site (63td & Butte Mill Road) for re -locating Eco-Cycle and the Center for Resource Conservation. This project is currently in the annexation process and will include site review prior to development. Annexation Related Water and Wastewater System Expansion - The Utilities Division is proposing to fund the extension of water and sewer mains in the streets of one or more Area II neighborhoods. The project will first involve a CEAP to explore neighborhood, community, and environmental issues associated with the main extension. If the CEAP is approved by the boards and Council, staff would begin the process of annexing the rights - of -way before final design and construction of the utility services. Annexation of the streets and provision of services will allow individuals or groups to voluntarily annex and hook up to city services and resolve health and environmental issues from existing well and septic systems. Property owners would reimburse the city for their portion of the cost of utility main extension upon annexation. Currently residents of Area II neighborhoods are served by water wells and individual sewage disposal systems which may pose a public health risk. The list of all projects recommended for a CEAP review is included below in Section VII. Specific approval of design and construction funding for minor projects (those that do not undergo a CEAP or have another decision -making public process) is done through the annual budget process with the budget process serving as the opportunity for public review and comment. For projects without another decision -making process identified, the budget approval for 2006 funding gives staff the 4 direction to proceed with the design and construction ofprojects in 2006 with no additional public process for purpose, need or funding although construction coordination and other site specific activities will be discussed with adjacent property owners if appropriate. 3. Are there capital needs not shown in the CIP? The capital improvements program is presented as the cost -constrained capital budget. Following this document is a list of unfunded projects. This information is provided to assist in the budget process and for the Planning Board and City Council to be fully informed about the possible range of capital needs in the city. Some of these needs are outlined in adopted master plans, some are not. Most of these items are associated with departments that are funded from the general fund and have no other funding source than the general fund. Capital improvements are not typically funded from the general fund. General fund department projects are funded from the capital development fund (generated from development excise tax revenues) or specially ear -marked funds for specific services (transportation, parks, open space, utilities). In the 2006 CIP, the Recycle Row project is proposed for funding from the General Fund, Trash Tax Revenues. Some of these needs will be reviewed and addressed in the near term during master plan update processes. At some future point the City Council may elect to engage a process to prioritize these needs and look comprehensively at the general fund budgets to possibly include funding for capital projects. I 4. Is the provision of capital facifities keeping pace with demand or service standards at the level specified in departmental master plans? The extent to which capital facilities are meeting adopted standards varies by department as outlined below. Transportation I The 2003 Transportation Master Plan contains a set of multimodal transportation investments that were intended to accomplish the plan's objectives. These objectives are: Continued progress toward no growth in long-term vehicle traffic; 1 . Reduction in single -occupant -vehicle travel to 25 percent of all trips; Continued reduction in mobile source emissions of air pollutants; and, I. No more than 20 percent of roadways congested (at Level of Service (LOS) F); Expand fiscally viable transportation alternatives for all Boulder residents and employees, including the elderly and those with disabilities; and Increase transportation alternatives commensurate with the rate of employee growth. Achieving these objectives depends on making investments to provide transportation options for I the population and employment expected in the future. Currently the plan is only approximately sixty percent funded. Consequently we are currently unable to support the full investment program in the plan. In the absence of additional funding or other mitigation strategy the city will be unable to maintain progress toward established plan objectives. Utilities The recently updated water and wastewater utility master plans provide direction for capital needs to meet the adopted service standards. These needs have been programmed in the CIP. For the Stormwater and Flood Management Utility, staff has reviewed this question as part of the recently adopted Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Utility Master Plan. The proposed utilities division 2005 budget and 2006-2011 CIP is consistent with recommendations from this adopted master plan. The master plan provides general direction concerning the appropriate allocation of funds for both capital and on -going operation and maintenance programs including 1) Flood Management, 2) Stormwater Drainage and 3) Stormwater Quality. Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) The capital plan is not keeping pace with the standards put forth in the Facilities & Asset Management (FAM) Master Plan. The FAM Master Plan specifies that 1% of the current replacement value (CRV) of facilities will be used for renovation and replacement of General Fund facilities. FAM's operational budgets for routine and major maintenance have been significantly reduced which may impact renovation and replacement schedules for non -essential facilities in the future. The FAM Master Plan Update addresses this issue and recommends an Action Plan to restore funding to provide industry standard service levels for all General Fund facilities by 2014. Library The provision and upkeep of capital facilities for the library has not kept pace with demand. The library, like other general fund departments, competes for the small amount of monies available through the Capital Development Fund (CDF). Routine library capital improvements such as building remodeling, facility upgrades and equipment and furnishing replacement projects may be found to be less critical than other city CDF projects and consequently, cannot be funded during the timeframe that best meets the library's service needs. New building projects usually rely on specific library tax ballot questions, which is appropriate. The library master plan update, scheduled for completion in 2006, will address this issue. Parks & Recreation The Parks and Recreation capital plan, as with other fund uses, has been negatively affected by declining sales tax revenues. A 1995 0.25% dedicated sales tax was approved to fund land acquisition, to construct new parks and recreation facilities, to renovate existing assets, and maintain the assets constructed and funded from its revenue stream. Since 1996 there has been good progress on building some new park and recreation assets and renovating others. Since experiencing the revenue decline, however, the amounts available for park development, renovation and new facilities has declined from prior levels. The department master plan currently in development will reassess the department revenue and expense projections and allocate resources to meet prioritized needs based on the city's business plan, community standards and goals. The plan is scheduled for 2006 adoption. A long range concern is that the temporary 0.25% sales tax source sunsets in 2015 and yet it contains a permanent maintenance element. With or without revenue declines, absent a new source of funds after 2015 to replace the 0.2 5% sales tax, the department's ability to adequately manage its assets will become constrained. 6 Open Space and Mountain Parks I The Visitor Master Plan adopted in April 2005 includes a system -wide trails assessment component and standards for particular services. Areas of priority include: sustainability of the existing trails system, management of undesignated trails, critical connections and unsafe road crossings. The I plan helps to prioritize these identified needs and proposes implementation options at three levels: Current Funding, Action Plan Funding and Identified Needs Funding. Additional funds totaling $250,000 have been requested to implement the plan at the Identified Needs funding level. Sources I of supplemental funds include increases in tax revenues, access to Lottery and GOCO funds, grants and donations. Volunteer participation is a component of many projects. Increasing visitation continues to impact the Open Space and Mountain Parks system and a year long visitation study I begun in June 2004 will provide updated information on numbers, densities, times and types of use, and destinations and origins of visits. I 5. What CIP projects are funded with growth -related excise tax revenue? 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. They I include: (see project summary sheets in this document under the tab "Specific Project by Fund" for specific project descriptions): Construction of bike lanes on 30th Street from Arapahoe to Pearl. I . Transportation improvements for cars, bikes and pedestrians on 63 Street from Lookout to the Diagonal. Transportation improvements for cars, bikes and pedestrians on 28th Street. . Funding for transportation improvements coordinated with new private development. Some funding from the permanent parks and recreation fund for improvements at the East I Boulder Community Park, Foothills Community Park, neighborhood pocket park development and parksite acquisition. Funding reserved for public plaza improvements and facility improvements. 6. What is the status of the branch libraries? North Branch Library I Preliminary branch library planning activities have been completed and included public surveys, neighborhood meetings, and a draft branch library program plan. The Library Commission envisions this facility being both a neighborhood library as well as serving as a community center I for north Boulder residents. The facility is expected to be located on the 3.2 acre city -owned parcel at Fourmile Canyon Creek and North Broadway. The operating budget as well as a portion of the construction budget is currently unfunded. Though the north branch library project is included in I the adopted 1995 Library Master Plan, immediate branch library planning activities have been put on hold until a larger service delivery analysis, currently underway as part of the 2005-2006 update to the Library Master Plan, is completed. Meadows Branch Library I Currently the library leases space from the Meadows Shopping Center owner. The lease ends August 2009 and it is unknown if a new lease will be offered or, if offered, if it will be acceptable. The Service Delivery component of the update to the Library Master Plan, currently underway, will include a discussion of an east branch library facility. 1 7 Gunbarrel Branch Library Residents in the Gunbarrel area have expressed a desire to have a nearby public library facility but as an estimated 80% of those residents live in the unincorporated county a Gunbarrel facility needs to be funded primarily by those non -city residents. Funding options include: (1) County (and city) participation in a Regional Library Authority, (2) including library funding as part of an annexation agreement, should Gunbarrel residents decide to annex into the city, or (3) a resident vote to form a general improvement district (special district) with approval of taxes to fund library services. Library Master Plan Update The Library Department began the master plan update process is expected to be completed by mid - 2006. Current and new branch library services will be explored in the update as part of a service delivery analysis. 7. How will the Parks and Recreation Master Plan update affect prioritization of capital projects? For the 2006 budget, the Business Plan model defmitions were used to sort and organize departmental capital priorities as well as program priorities. The master plan update includes a new needs survey, a series of open houses and special interest group meetings, and staff advice that will be used to update the 2002 Recreation Facilities Needs Analysis for use in prioritizing capital needs and programs or services. It will not affect prioritization for 2006, but is likely to somewhat affect prioritization in future years, depending on the outcome. 8. How does the city coordinate capital projects with Xcel Energy? City staff meets with Xcel representatives monthly regarding many on -going projects. For specific projects, project managers schedule specific utility coordination meetings with Xcel early in the design process. We also endeavor to inform Xcel about our longer term plans by providing them with copies of our CIP documents. Current projects include: 30th Street Bike Lanes: Arapahoe to Pearl 28th Street Valmont to Iris 9. What concerns or issues were raised by the advisory boards reviewing departmental CIPs? Questions and concerns raised by the boards are summarized below. Excerpts from the summary minutes regarding the CIP are included in the fund overviews in the "Specific Projects by Fund" section of this document. Transportation The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) reviewed the CIP at its May 9, 2005 and unanimously recommended approval of the draft 2006-2011 Transportation Capital Improvements Program (CIP) as submitted by staff at its June 13, 2005 meeting. Major discussion topics included the Pollard property purchase for the Boulder Transit Village; Xcel utility under grounding; and excise tax funding for the North Boulder Library. Utilities The Water Resource Advisory Board (WRAB) reviewed the draft 2006-20 1 1 Utilities Capital Improvements Program (CIP) at its May 16, 2005 and June 20, 2005 meetings. Members of the board raised concerns about insufficient funding set aside to cover potential Lakewood Pipeline expenses and a lack of information regarding the Boulder Feeder Canal Pipeline. The WRAB recommended approval (3-2) of the proposed Utilities Division 2006-20 11 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) with the condition that the Boulder Feeder Canal Pipeline item in 2009 required additional studies, including purpose and need, before the board would approve the construction funding of $20 million. Parks and Recreation The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed and recommended approval of the draft 2006- I 2011 Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Program (CIP) at its May 23, 2005 meeting. Questions focused on the elimination of funding for park acquisition and costs to develop new parks. The board stated that the department should continue to examine land acquisition I possibilities. They do not want to see land acquisition permanently eliminated from consideration. As potential land parcels become available, the department is encouraged to examine whether the land meets any critical needs. It was stressed that the department should strive to find a way to ' purchase land in the event that a critical parcel becomes available. The PRAB unanimously recommended approval of the 2006-2011 CIP. I Tributary Greenways The Greenways Advisory Committee reviewed the Greenways CIP and raised concerns about the habitat maintenance program. The GAC recommended approval of the CIP at their June 1, 2005 I meeting (5-1), including in the motion a stipulation that Greenways, Open Space and Parks work collaboratively to spend habitat maintenance funds on projects including but not limited to those on the I Open Space project list. Open Space and Mountain Parks The Open Space Board of Trustees unanimously approved the 2006-2011 Open Space Fund and Lottery Fund CIP at their June 22,2005 meeting with a stipulation regarding future Lottery Funds uses. 1 iii. IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBCOMMUNITY AND AREA PLANS The following questions provide an overview of capital projects related to adopted subcommunity and I area plans as well as information regarding capital projects in specific geographic areas of focus throughout the city. I1. How is the implementation of the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan (NBSP) being addressed in the CIP? 2. What future capital projects will be proposed associated with the Gunbarrel Community Center I Plan? 1. 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 Water I and Wastewater System Improvements for Githens Acres 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, I 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 1 9 for this project and will be available when the project is ready to be constructed. Parks Department: The Foothills Community Park in north Boulder is proposed for continued funding for phase two construction (2006, 2009-20 10). Stormwater and Flood Management Utility: In accordance with the Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan, funding is proposed from 2006-2011 for property acquisition and flood mitigation improvements along Fourmile Canyon Creek. Tributary Greenways: Improvements to Fourmile Creek (19th Street to Riverside, Riverside to 26th Street, and 26th Street to 28thStreet) will involve environmental preservation, habitat restoration, water quality best management practices and off-street trail connections (2006-2008). 2. What future capital projects will be proposed associated with the Gunbarrel Community Center Plan? Transportation staff are proposing bike, pedestrian and roadway improvements to 63rd St. from Lookout to the Diagonal as part of the 2006 CIP. In 2006, staff will also develop an implementation plan and schedule for the Gunbarrel Community Center Plan. Staff will coordinate with other city departments to identify and prioritize public improvements for the Gunbarrel Community Center and determine approximate costs and timing. Future capital improvements associated with the Gunbarrel Community Center Plan will include street and sidewalk improvements and bicycle and trail connections. Improvements in the long-term could also include potential library and park facilities if appropriate locations and new sources of funding are identified. IV. IMPLEMENTATION OF MASTER PLANS Which Master Plans are currently being updated or are scheduled for update in the near future? Updates in Progress Airport Master Plan - begun in late 2003, to be completed in 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan - anticipated completion 2006 Water Ouality Strategic Plan - begun in 2001, anticipated completion 2006 Arts and Cultural Master Plan - anticipated completion late 2005 Library last update in 1996, anticipated completion in second quarter 2006 Updates to begin in 2005 or 2006 Stormwater Management Plan (formerly Stormwater Collection System) anticipated to be completed in late 2006 Wastewater Treatment System - adopted in 1990 anticipated to be completed in 4th quarter 2005 after decision regarding biosolids composting is made Raw Water - last update in 1988, update anticipated to begin late 2005, completion early 2007 Fire - last update in 1996 anticipated to be completed in the 2nd quarter of 2006. 10 Recently Completed Updates I. Housing and Human Services 2005 Facilities and Asset Management 2005 Open Space and Mountain Parks Visitor Plan 2005 I. Comprehensive Flood and Stonnwater Utility Master Plan 2004 Transportation 2003 Police 2003 I. Wastewater Collection System 2002 Tributary Greenways 2002 Treated Water 2001 Strategic Technology 2001 V. REVIEW AND COMMENTS FROM BOULDER COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Review of the draft 2006-2011 CIP by county planning staff will be done in July. Any recommendations will be forwarded to both Planning Board and Council. VI. SELECTION OF PROJECTS FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS (CEAP REVIEW) The projects that are proposed to be evaluated under Community and Environmental Assessment Process (CEAP) review are listed in Section VII. CEAP reviews are prepared when projects are in the site location and facility design phase. The I primary purpose ofthe 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 fmdings as part of project approval.) VII. SELECTION OF PROJECTS FOR COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (CEAP) REVIEW The following capital improvement projects proposed for funding in the 2006-2011 CIP are recommended to complete a Community and Environmental Assessment. CEAP findings are submitted by departments to their respective advisory board for review as part I of CIP project approval, and 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 fmdings as part of project approval.) Many of these projects have either completed a CEAP or have been previously recommended to complete one. I . 11 Open Space and Mountain Parks Department Trail suitability evaluation in trail study areas is underway and will determine specific projects for funding in 2006 and thereafter. Appropriate public process and alternatives analysis will be determined as specific projects are identified. Parks and Recreation Department Recreation Center / Pool Improvements * East Boulder Community Park (for final phase*) Neighborhood Pocket Park Development * Public Works Department Facility and Asset Management Division Fire Training Center (County Funding) Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Division Wonderland Creek Flood Mitigation Elmer=s Two-mile Creek (CEAP Completed 2004) South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Improvements Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Improvements Transportation Division 28th Street (Pearl to Iris) Pedestrian Crossing Improvements (CEAP completed 2002) 28th Street (Baseline to Iris/Diagonal) (completedfor the south section: Arapahoe to Baseline 2001 and north section: Pearl to Iris/Diagonal 2002) Tributary Greenways Fourmile: 19th to Riverside, Riverside to 26th, and 26th to 28th Wonderland Creek Foothills to Diagonal Elmers Two Mile Creek - Valmont to Glenwood (CEAP Completed 2003) Wastewater Utility Division Annexation Related Water System Expansion - Githens Acres Biosolids Composting Biosolids Handling & Dewatering 75th Street Wastewater Treatment Plant / CPDES Improvements (CEAP Completed 2004) Water Utility Division Annexation Related Water System Expansion - Githens Acres Chenyvale Pump Station (CEAP Completed 2004) Iris Pump Station (CEAP Completed 2004) Lakewood Pipeline (CEAP Completed) *As the scope of work is defined the necessity of a CEAP or other public review will be determined 12 VIII. SELECTION OF PROJECTS FOR DESIGN REVIEW The purpose of the review is to scrutinize City projects for opportunities to provide higher quality improvements in the public realm - projects with a 'public face'. The projects listed here have I been identified as projects that should have some review and consideration about design issues and would not otherwise undergo a CEAP, or a CEAP may be required but he projects have specific design issues and should be reviewed by the Downtown Design Advisory Board (DDAB), the I Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB), Planning Board or staff. Design review of these projects should be coordinated between the primary city departments listed below and the planning department. Recommended for Design Review Not Recommended for Design Review PROJECTS THAT WILL HAVE EXTERIOR CHANGES Parks & Recreation East Boulder Community Park Yes* Foothills Community Park Yes* NeighborhoodlPocket Park Development Yes* General Fund Recycle Row Yes* PW/ Facilities & Asset Management New Britain Bldg. HVAC Replacement, 2nd Floor Rearrangement DDAB, Planning Staff Main Library Plaza Maintenance DDAB, Planning Staff Stazio Tinsile Canopy Fabric Replacement DDAB Mustard's Storefront & ADA Improvements DDAB review complete Construct / Purchase a General Storage Facility (at the City Yards) DDAB, Planning Staff, Planning Board Fire Station #6 Replacement DDAB, Planning Staff, Planning Board Public Plaza Space Yes* Construct Fire Training Center DDAB, Planning Staff, Planning Board PW/ Wastewater Utility Biosolids Composting CEAP PW/ Water Utility Chautauqua Storage Tank Rehabilitation Changes to roof only. Maxwell Storage Tank Rehabilitation Changes to roof only. Kohler Storage Tank Rehabilitation Changes to roof only. 13 Recommended for Design Review Not Recommended for Design Review PROJECTS THAT WILL HAVE EXTERIOR CHANGES Boulder Reservoir WTP Expansion/Improvements Depends on extent of exterior changes. Chenyvale Pump Station Depends on extent of exterior changes. Iris Pump Station Depends on extent of exterior changes. PROJECTS WITH POSSIBLE EXTERIOR CHANGES Parks & Recreation Recreation Center/Pool Improvements Depends on extent of exterior changes. Flatiron Golf Course Improvements Depends on extent of exterior changes. PW/ Facilities & Asset Management Municipal Facilities (miscellaneous projects not yet defmed) Depends on extent of exterior changes. *Review process may include staff, Planning Board or other relevant advisory board depending on the I specific project and magnitude of improvements. 14 - - -- - - - - - - -- - - Unfunded Capital Projects Fund Department Project Action / Year - Total Capital Total Current Possible Sources of Project In Notes VisIon Plan Estimate Costs Needed Operating Funding Funding (growth Master Costs related? DET funding Plan? Needed Include?) ____________- General Fund! ________ Fire ______________________ Wildtand Fire Cache _________ Action __________ ____________ $650,000 Partially growth related. y Capital Development Fund____________ ___________ ____________________ ________ Fire Fire Station 6 Replacement Action $2,350,000 fl The Fire Department is preparing to update General Fund _________ ___________________ ________ the Master Plan Fire Fire Apparatus Replacement Action $1,400,000 450,000 N General Fund Schedule ___________________ ________ General Fund Fire Radio System Upgrade $450,000 _______ N General Fund Fire New Administrative Offices $3,000,000 N ____________________________________ General Fund! Fire Fire Station 8 Land and Vision $2,700,000 Partially growth related. n Capital Construction Development Fund____________ _________ __________ - Fire Fire Station 8 Operating Vision General Fund Costs 900,000 n Economic City-wide 2006-2007 Vitality Conference/Convention to be to be Accommodations! General Fund Center determined determined restaurant tax increase n Library East Branch Library action 2006-2008 $2,500,000 No added New revenue source Includes land purchase; relocation dependent Replacement - Planning and costs. needed on if the existing Meadows lease is re - Construction Meadows negotiated or not Branch operating budget transfers to Library Fund new facility Library Existing Facilities - _________ action 2006-2009 ________ $550000 not applicable New revenue source Y Library Fund renovations and upgrades __________ needed Library Long -Term Archival Space - action 2008-2009 $1,500,000 $50,000 New revenue source Y Library Fund Carnegie ___________ __________ needed Library Library Computer action 2007-2009 $600,000 not applicable New revenue source Y Library Fund Update/Replacement ____________ __________ needed Library Addition to Main Library vision 2008-2011 $20,000,000 $800,000 New revenue source Y LibraryFund Library North Boulder Branch vision 2007-2010 ____________ $3,300,000 ___________ $400-$500K __________ needed; DET New revenue source Y $1.5 million of capital already appropriated; needed; DET implementation plans dependent on (1) outcome of Service Delivery analysis in the master plan update and (2) outcome of regional library service delivery decisions Library Fund Library Gunbarrel Branch Library vision unknown ____________ $4,000,000 ___________ $450,000 __________ _____________ Annexation agreement ________ Y Implementation plans dependent on outcome Library Fund ___________ or Regional library tax; of regional library service delivery decisions Unfunded Capital Projects Permanent 'Parks and Capital Replacement Action Plan3 $13000001 $5000001 In revision Parks and Recreation is updating its master Parks and 25 Recreation Program - system wide year-est.I to be year to plan, capital replacement analysis is underway Sales Tax determined replace for estimating maintenance deferments/backlog. Permanent Parks and Neighborhood, Pocket, and Action Plan3 $15,000,000 $2850001 $8000001 Y Parks and Recreation is updating its master Parks and 25 Recreation Community Park year est.Ito be year for plan; maintenance funding is from .25 sales Sales Tax Development - 57 acres to determined development tax fund; dedicated .25 Sales tax expires in develop when all land 2015 is developed Permanent Parks and Aquatics improvements Action Plan3 $2,000,000 plus to be $800,000 in Y Parks and Recreation is updating its master Parks and .25 Recreation determined 2011 ' plan. Sales Tax Parks and Recreation Valmont City Park Development - 114 acres to Vision Plan3 $80,000,000- est./to be $5000001 year - est.Ito none Y Valmont Park first phase is complete under .25 sales tax, no further funding is allocated to be developed determined be determined . Valmont City Park. Estimates based on approved concept plan. Parks and Valmont City Park egg farm Vision Plan3 $300,000 $5,000/year none Needed to accommodate ice rink partnership Recreation bulding removal and storage project with private non-profit organization. replacements Parks and Relocation and constwction Vision plan3 $4,000,000 $ 160,000/ none Valmont Park first phase is complete under Recreation of new Parks Operations year .25 sales tax, no further funding is allocated to Facility at Valmont City Park Valmont City Park. Estimates based on approved concept plan. Parks and City Park Site 26th and Violet Vision Plan3 No none Land reserve for future, undevelopable status; Recreation - 191 acres to develop (Area development no funding allocated at present time. Ill - Planning Reserve) anticipated at this_time Public Works/ Completion of all modal Action and $143 million New revenue source V Fully funded plan would complete all modal Transportation transportation systems as identified in the IMP - See Vision needed systems (Bike, Pedestrian, Transit and Auto) and support a preferred level of life cycle Below for Modal Breakdown maintenance__________________________ Public Works/ Replacement of Bridges over Unknown $287,000 General Fund N $ estimate was from 2000. Costs are likely to Transportation Boulder Creek be more than this original estimate. Not in any Master Plan. Project is part of CU / City ____________ ___________ ______________________ ________ agreement. Various Depot / Train Relocation 2007 >$1 000,000 50.000 General Fund N Not in any Masterplan because city does not (see note 2) _______ own Depot. NOTES: ________ _______________ ______ __________________ _________ 1. Cost estimates are very rough and should not be used for long range plannflurposes 2. Total Costs for the Depot/Train relocation are likely to be over 1 million. This estimate would be for city contribution. _____________ 3. P & R priorities will be confirmed upon completion of updated Master Plan I ___________________ ________ 4. OSMP - With the passage of the Visitor Mastor Plan in 2005 and the needs assessment that it required, OSMP CIP will be funded at the Identified needs level commencin 2006 and extending for the six years of the CIP. Unfunded Capital Projects Unfunded CIP from the Transportation Master Plan Estimated Unfunded CIP Mode Current Action Action Plan Vision Vision Plan Pedestrian 23000.000 32,000000 $9,000,000 43,000,000 $20,000,000 Bicycle 27,000,000 38,000,000 11,000,000 53,000,000 26,000,000 Transit 13,000,000 15,000,000 2,000,000 15.000,000 2,000,000 Roadway 37,000,000 45,000,000 8,000,000 61,000,000 24,000,000 TOM 6,000,000 47.000,000 41,000,000 62,000,000 56,000,000 Mitigation - 2.000.000 2,000,000 15,000,000 15,000,000 106,000,000 179,000,000 $73,000,000 249,000.000 $143,000,000 Constrained Plan. __________ HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BY FUND The 2006 Capital Improvements Program includes proposed funding of $25,797,700 for 57 projects. The entire six -year CIP includes proposed funding of$ 182,625,700 for 104 projects. The 2006 CIP budget constitutes 14% of the six -year projection. I GENERAL FUND The generalfundpays for newfacilities and additions or alterations to existingfacilities that are not related to city growth (i.e. level ofservice improvements and existing needs) as scheduled in various department 's Master Plans. The money for this fund comes from many different sources and is allocatedfor capitaiprojects that meet city goals and are not growth related The departments that I usually draw from the general fundfor CIP projects are: FAM, Fire, Police, and Library. The proposed 2006-2011 General Fund CIP is $400,000 less than 1% of the six -year projection. One project is scheduled for funding in 2006 for a total of $150,000. This proposed project constitutes less than 1% of the 2006 CIP. Highlighted Projects: I . The funding proposed for Recycle Row infrastructure associated with a four acre parcel to be annexed for the purpose of relocating Eco-Cycle. I There are various projects that may need to be prioritized for possible use of general funds in the future but are not scheduled in the 2006-20 11 CIP. The list of unfunded projects immediately follows the CIP background memo at the beginning of the overview section of this document. DEDICATED FUNDS CAGID BONDS 1 No capital projects using CAGID Bonds are proposed for funding in 2006-2011. CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT FUND (CDF) (Previously called the Development Excise Tax orDET) 1 Funding for CDF projects is from the assessment of Development Excise Taxes on new development. The proposed 2006-2011 Capital Development Fund (CDF) CIP is $1,100,000 less than 1% of the six -year projection. Two projects are scheduled for funding in 2006 for a total of $80,000. These proposed projects constitute less than 1% of the 2006 CIP. 1 19 Highlighted Projects: The Facilities & Asset Master Plan, accepted in 1998, identified the need for funding small facility projects related to growth at the discretion of the FAM Manager. $50,000 from the DET fund is proposed for miscellaneous facility DET Projects. Past uses of the money have included the remodel of the Uni-Hill Police Annex and the Municipal Building west plaza. No projects have been identified to date for the 2006 funding. FACILITY RENOVATION AND REPLACEMENT FUND Funding for Facility Renovation and Replacement Fund projects is from a contribution by the General Fund equal to 1% of the current replacement value of General Fund facilities andfrom restrictedfund departments as annual contributions to the fund. The proposed 2006-2011 Facility Renovation and Replacement Fund CIP is $3,190,000 -2% of the six -year projection. $520,000 is allocated in 2006 for three projects. These projects make up 2% of the 2006 CIP. Highlighted Projects: New Britain Building Major Maintenance - This building will need extensive upgrades in 2006. This project includes refurbishment of the two elevators, installation of a fire sprinkler system in the covered parking area, HVAC upgrades, and roof replacement. Fire Station Six Replacement - Fire Station #6 is located in Gunbarrel at 5145 N. 63rd Street. Funding is for a feasibility study and planning coordinated with the Fire Department Master Plan Update to determine if this project is to move forward. Potentially a new station could be provided by a private entity in exchange for a portion of the existing site and the existing building. Ownership of the old station will be transferred to the private entity after the new station is in operation. LOTTERY FUND The proposed 2006-2011 Lottery Fund CIP is $537,700 less than 1% of the six -year projection. One Open Space and Mountain Parks project is included in 2006 for $268,800, constituting less than 1% of the CIP for 2006. There are no parks and recreation capital projects planned with lottery funding. $150,000 of the Lottery Fund is allocated to the Greenways Program. Highlighted Projects: Historical Structures Stabilization and Pre-Histonc Site Protection. Many historic structures and trails on OSMP lands are in need of stabilization and restoration. Two large projects are presently scheduled for 2006: Improvements to trails, trailheads and other facilities in the Eldorado Mountain I Dowdy Draw Trail Study Area ($180,000) and improvements to Sanitas and Centennial Trailheads ($120,000). 20 OPEN SPACE FUND The proposed 2006-2011 Open Space Fund CIP is $24,900,000 - 16% of the six -year projection. These projects total $4,150,000 for 2006, constituting 14% of the CIP for 2006. I Highlighted Projects: The proposed Open Space 2006 CIP continues the funding during the period 2006-2011, for Acquisitions, Water Rights and Mineral Rights. These programs provide funding to purchase I land, water shares or mineral interests from private owners as they become available on the real estate market. Funding for Visitor Infrastructure ($450,000 per year) will implement recommendations in the OSMP Visitor Master Plan. I PARKS & RECREATION FUNDS Parks & Recreation Department funding comes from various sources including fees, development excise taxes, ballot issue bonds, lottery fund monies, etc. The various funds are spec(/Ic regarding allowed uses and many projects receive funding from more than one funding source. Capital projects are funded from the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund and the 1995 Ballot I Fund. Parks & Recreation projects for the six -year CIP have $8,272,000 proposed for funding, constituting 4% of the six -year CIP. Capital projects for 2006 have $1,140,900 proposed -4% of the 2006 CIP. Highlighted Projects: I. The CIP proposal for neighborhood/pocket park development would fund ongoing design and development of several existing undeveloped parksites per year. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board prioritizes parks to be developed based upon citizen need and staff input. The focus for 2006 funding is Sinton Park at 26th and Walnut. Parks sites to be prioritized over future years as funding allows include Sinton, Dakota Ridge, the Elks site, east side ofEben Fine park, Fortune, Hickory, Holiday Drive -In, Mesa Memorial, Violet, and the west side of the I Justice Center. Funding is proposed beginning in 2006 and extending at least to 2011 for further development of the East Boulder Community Park. Approximately 15 acres of the 53 acre park remains to be constructed. TRANSPORTATION FUND AND TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FUND Funding for city transportation projects comes from several different sources. The transportation Fund is primarily supported by the dedicated sales tax, Highway Users Tax, County Road and I Bridgefund, State Highway Maintenance andLandscape Funds and Transportation Equity Actfor the 2?' Century (TEA -2 1) I The proposed 2006-2011 Transportation Fund CIP is $26,511,000- 12% of the six -year projection. Projects proposed for funding in 2006 total of $3,123,000. These eight projects constitute 14% of the 2006 citywide CIP. I 21 Highlighted Projects: Continued funding is proposed (in both the Transportation Fund and the Transportation Development Fund) from 2006-20 11 for improvements to 28th Street, Baseline to Iris. Improvements to the southern section (Baseline to Arapahoe) are substantially complete. The focus for improvements in 2006 will be for the northern section (Pearl to Iris) and will include streetscape improvements, transit service and facility improvements, bike and pedestrian improvements and traffic efficiency improvements. Yards Master Plan Implementation - Funding in 2006 is for land acquisition of additional land near or adjacent to the existing city yards Municipal Service Center to replace. Funding in 2008 is for infrastructure construction. This project is also funded from the three utilities funds. Funding for growth related transportation projects come from the Transportation Excise Tax - Transportation Development Fund. The proposed 2006-2011 Transportation Development Fund CIP is $8,710,000 - 5% of the city-wide six -year projection. Three projects are scheduled for funding 1112006 for a total of $730,000. These projects constitute 3% of the 2006 citywide CIP. Highlighted Projects: 30th Street Bikelanes from Arapahoe to Pearl This project will complete an important on -street facility missing link by constructing on -street bike lanes on 30th Street between Pearl and Arapahoe. MUNICIPAL AIRPORT FUND The 2006-2011 Municipal Airport CIP is on hold pending the update of the 1994 Boulder Municipal Airport Master Plan. The Airport Master Plan update has begun and completion is anticipated for 2005. UTILITIES FUNDS Funding for the city Utilities capital improvement projects is derivedfrom general utilityfees and special external agency grants. The primary revenue sources are Plant Investment Fees (PIFs)from new customers, monthly water sales to customers, and hydroelectric sales to Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCO). Water sales are relatively stable and track the overall growth of the service area. STORM WATER AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILITY FUND The proposed 2006-2011 Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Fund CIP is $16,795,000 - 10% of the six -year projection. Eight projects are scheduled for Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Fund funding in 2006 for a total of $2,785,000. These projects make up 9% of the 2006 CIP. Highlighted Projects: Money is budgeted for flood mitigation along Fourmile Canyon Creek. The money will be used 22 for on -going study, property acquisition and limited construction projects until decisions are reached through the on -going flood mitigation planning process. The results of this planning process are anticipated to be available later this year. The study results will also include recommendations for Wonderland Creek, which is closely associated with Fourmile. . There has been significant progress in developing the South Boulder Creek Flood Mapping Study including updated climatology and hydrology research. The hydraulic floodplain I delineation and risk assessments needed to finalize the study are expected to be complete later this summer. The study results will be used to produce a new Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the South Boulder Creek floodplain. Following the outcome of the flood mapping study, which will define the flooding problem, a flood management and mitigation planning effort with direct public involvement will be conducted to determine the most suitable alternatives for addressing South Boulder Creek flooding. In anticipation of implementing potential mitigation I measures, an initial limited city funding element of $3.0 million has been included in the CIP for 2008. Additional funding that may be determined to be necessary for South Boulder Creek would require reprioritization of other capital improvement projects, higher rate increases or I both. I WASTE WATER UTILITY FUND The proposed 2006-2011 Wastewater Utility Fund CIP is $24,535,000 - 8% of the six -year projection. Six projects are scheduled for Wastewater Utility Fund funding in 2006 for a total of $2,125,000. These projects make up 13% of the 2006 CIP. Highlighted Projects: It is anticipated the City's 75th St. Wastewater Treatment Plant will be issued a revised discharge permit in 2008 by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. For this reason, money is allocated in 2009-2010 for additional treatment plant improvements. I. Construction funding for anticipated improvements to the biosolids handling and dewatering process and for an additional biosolids digester have been budgeted in 2006. Biosolids facilities are currently located at the WWTP and improvements to these I facilities will likely happen on -site since the city decided not to pursue biosolids composting at the Valmont Butte site and to maintain its Class B land application program an additional digester is needed to maintain compliance with CDPHE regulations. I WATER UTILITY FUND The proposed 2006-20 1 1 Water Utility Fund CIP is $66,775,000 - 41% of the six -year projection. Eleven projects are proposed for funding in 2006 for a total of$ 10,575,000. These projects make up 1 37% of the 2006 CIP. Highlighted Projects: Continued emphasis on the rehabilitation and improvement of the city=s existing water system I 23 infrastructure continues, especially in the area of the city=s deteriorated water distribution system. This is reflected in funding for the Corroded Waterline Rehabilitation project. Additional money has been budgeted for rehabilitation work at the Betasso and Boulder Reservoir WTPs. This work is necessary to rehabilitate aging equipment and treatment processes and to comply with federal Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. Continued work on repairs to the Barker water system, are needed. Repairs to this water system are necessary to assure safe and reliable water deliveries to the Betasso Water Treatment Plant. (WFP). I Funding has been allocated for the Boulder Feeder Canal beginning in 2009 for the construction of a pipeline from Carter Lake to the Boulder Reservoir. The city is currently participating in a feasibility study for the project. 24 1 Approved August 18. 2005 CITY OF BOULDER I PLANNING BOARD ACTION MINUTES July 28, 2005 Council Chambers Room, Municipal Building 1777 Broadway A permanent set of these minutes and a tape recording (maintained for a period of seven I years) are retained in Central Records (telephone: 303-441-3043). Minutes and streaming audio are also available on the web at: http:f/www.ci.boulder.co.uslplanninglplanningboardlagefldaS I BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Macon Cowles, Chair Simon Mole, Vice Chair arrived 5:45 p.m. I Elise Jones John Spitzer, Absent Phil Shull I Adrian Sopher Claire Levy, arrived 4:45 p.m. I STAFF PRESENT: Jerty Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Peter Pollock, Planning Director I Jean Gatza, Planner Kate Bernhart, Parks & Recreation Bill Boyes, Facilities and Asset Management I Jan Geden, Parks and Recreation Director Bob Harberg, Public Works, Utilities Kara Mertz, Environmental Affairs I Annie Noble, Tributary Greenways Mike Orosel, Open Space and Mountain Parks Jim Reasor, Parks and Recreation I Delani Wheeler, Open Space and Mountain Parks Stephany Westhusin, Transportation 1 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair, M. Cowles declared a quorum at 3:04 pm and the following business was conducted, 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION I None 4. DISCUSSION OF DISPOSITIONS, PLANNING BOARD CALL-UPS None 25 5. ACTION ITEMS A. Public Hearing and consideration of a recommendation to the City Manager concerning the 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Presenter: Jean Gatza On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Sopher (vote 4-0, C. Levy, S. Mole, J. Spitzer absent) Planning Board recommended city council approval of the transportation 2006-2011 CIP. On a motion by P. Shull, seconded by M. Cowies (vote 4-0, C. Levy, S. Mole, J. Spitzer absent) Planning Board recommended city council approval of the parks and recreation 2006-2011 CIP. It was the intention of the Planning Board that added emphasis should be placed on the banquet and meeting facilities at the golf course. On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by P. Shull (vote 4-0, C. Levy, S. Mole, J. Spitzer absent) Planning Board recommended city council approval of the open space and mountain parks 2006-2011 CIP. On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Sopher (vote 4-0, C. Levy, S. Mole, J. Spitzer absent) Planning Board recommended city council approval of the facilities and asset management 2006-2011 CIP. On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by P. Shull (vote 4-0, C. Levy, S. Mole, J. Spitzer absent) Planning Board recommended city council approval of the general fund 2006- 2011 CIP. On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by C. Jones (vote 4-0, C. Levy, S. Mole, J. Spitzer absent) Planning Board recommended city council approval of the greenways 2006-2011 CIP. On a motion by E. Jones, seconded by A. Sopher (vote 4-0, C. Levy, S. Mole, J. Spitzer absent) Planning Board recommended city council approval of the stormwater and flood management 2006-2011 CIP. On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by E. Jones (vote 5-0, C. Levy also voting, S. Mole, J. Spitzer absent) Planning Board recommended city council approval of the water 2006-20 11 CIP, per the recommendation of the WRAB, with the condition that the Boulder Feeder Canal pipeline item in 2009 require additional studies, including purpose and need, before the board would approve the construction funding of $20 million. On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by A. Sopher (vote 5-0, C. Levy also voting, S. Mole, J. Spitzer absent) Planning Board recommended city council approval of the wastewater 2006-2011 CIP. Regarding the list of projects proposed to be reviewed through the CEAP, the Planning Board fmds that the list is inclusive, but that it may be overly inclusive. The Board recommends that the relevant advisory board review the list carefully to determine that adequate value is added by the CEAP on a case by case basis. 26 Motion made by E. Jones, seconded by C. Levy, (5 to 0, S. Mole, J. Spitzer absent) Regarding the list of projects recommended for design review, the Planning Board approved the list with the acknowledgement that design review would not be necessary for projects that only involve internal improvements, and that the individual projects that are part of the Recycle Row concept should be looked at together to develop a coherent streetscape and attractive appearance. Motion made by M. Cowles, seconded by P. Shull, 5 to 0 (S. Mole abstained, J. Spitzer absent) Dinner Break: 1 B. Continuation of the June 14, 2005 consolidated public hearing on the Valmont Butte Proposals and the Community and Environmental Assessment Process I (CEAP) Report related to the proposed Fire Training Center and Biosolids Recycling Center with consideration of a final recommendation. The public hearing portion of this recommendation process has closed. Presenter: Peter Pollock On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by E. Jones (vote 6-0, J. Spitzer absent) Planning I Board recommended the city pursue an alternative site and possibly alternative approach to biosolids. I On a motion by M. Cowles, seconded by S. Mole (vote 6-0, j. Spitzer absent) Planning Board recommended pursuing an alternative site for fire training or an alternative site plan using the east end of the Valmont Butte site. On a motion by S. Mole, seconded by C. Levy (vote 6-0, J. Spitzer absent) Planning Board recommended a site layout (if the fire training center is pursued on the Valmont ' site) that permits, at some future time, a second use consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. ! The Board's action was based on its assumptions that there was not an urgent need to move to Class A biosolids composting at this time and that there are either better sites (at the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP or closer to the WWTP), or alternative approaches, such as private composting that would be just as effective. In making the motion to possibly consider a fire training center on the Valmont site, the ' Board favored moving it toward the east end of the site to better buffer the cemetery and protect Indian cultural resources, primarily the sweat lodge. The last motion opens up the possibility of a second public use of the site. The Board was interested in "passive" uses I that would not be disruptive of the cultural assets but that would maintain city involvement in the site, which was seen as a positive for protecting and even enhancing cultural resources. 1 6. MATTERS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING DIRECTOR, AND CITY ATTORNEY I I 27 7. DEBRIEF/AGENDA CHECK 8. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Board adjourned the meeting at 9:32 pm APPROVED BY Board Chair DATE 28 I 2006 Budget Capital Improvements Projects Capital Development Fund Miscellaneous Facility DET Projects Public Plaza Space County Public Safety Funds Construct Fire Training Center Facility Renovation & Replacement Fund Fire Station #6 Replacement Miscellaneous Facility Maintenance Projects New Britain Building Major Maintenance General Fund - Trash Tax Revenues Recycle Row Lottery Fund Historical Structures & Trails Stabilization & Restoration Open Space Fund Acquisition Program Mineral Rights Acquisition Visitor Infrastructure Water Rights Acquisition Parks & Recreation 1995 Ballot Neighborhood / Pocket Park Development .25 sales tax Recreation Center/Pool Improvements .25 Sales Tax Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund East Boulder Community Park PP&R Flatiron Golf Course Improvements PP&R Foothills Community Park- PP&R Stormwater & Flood Management Utffitv Fund Elmer's Two-mile Creek Fourmile Canyon Creek Preflood Acquisition South Boulder Creek Stormwater Quality Demonstration Transportation Related Stormwater Improvements Tributaiy Greenways Program $50,000 $30,000 $3,700,000 $50,000 $70,000 $400,000 $150,000 $268828 $3,400,000 $100,000 $450,000 $200,000 $100,033 $180,833 $700,000 $60,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 $385,000 $100,000 $50,000 $250,000 $150,000 29 2006 Budget Capital Improvements Projects Stormwater & Flood Mana2ement Utility Fund Wonderland Creek $100,000 Yards Master Plan Implementation - Stormwater $250,000 Transportation Development Fund 28th St (Baseline to Iris) II $380,000 30th Street Bike Lanes - Arapahoe to Pearl $300,000 Miscellaneous Development Coordination $50,000 Transportation Fund 28th St (Baseline to Iris) I $570,000 Bikeway Facilities - Enhancements $125,000 Broadway Concrete Reconstruction (Pine to Iris) $252,000 Pedestrian Facilities - Repair, Replacement, ADA $680,000 Pedestrian Facilities Enhancements - Missing Links, Crossing Treatments $75,000 Tributary Greenways $150,000 Undergrounding Cost Share Program I $100,000 Undergrounding Cost Share Program II $150,000 Yards Master Plan Implementation $1,021,000 Tributary Greenways Fourmile Canyon Creek - 19th to Riverside $100,000 Fourmile Canyon Creek - Riverside to 26th Street $95,000 Maintenance and Weed Control $100,000 Miscellaneous - Greenways Operating $105,000 Miscellaneous Restoration Projects $50,000 Wastewater Utility Fund Annexation Related Wastewater System Expansion $725,000 Sanitary Sewers $550,000 Sewer Manholes $100,000 WWTP Biosolids Digester $250,000 WWTP Biosolids Handling & Dewatering $250,000 Yards Master Plan Implementation - Wastewater $250,000 Water Utility Fund Annexation Related Water System Expansion $525,000 Barker Dam Outlet $200,000 Barker Gravity Pipeline $275,000 30 I 2006 Budget Capital Improvements Projects Water Utility Fund Barker Instream Flow Release $75,000 Betasso WTP $5,000,000 Boulder Feeder Canal $250,000 Distribution System Water Quality $150,000 Lakewood Pipeline $1,750,000 Water System Security $100,000 Waterline Replacement $1,750,000 Yards Master Plan Implementation - Water $500,000 I 31 Wastewater I 70/ 1 /0 Stormwater/ Flood Vianagement Utility no, /0 Affordable Housing .) /0 .25 Sales T 1 0/ I /0 Operating 85% 2006 FINAL BUDGET City of Boulder Uses (in $1,000s) Total = $200,100 Capital 15% 2006 CAPITAL BUDGET by Fund (in $1,000s) Total = $29,453 CDBG CAGID HOME Transportation 3% 1% CHAP 3% 10% 'rks & 3tion 0 )pen Space 14% Capital Development <1% Transportation Development 2% Lottery 1% Water Utility 36 I SPECIFIC PROJECTS BY FUND I I OVERVIEW I I AIRPORT FUND 2006 - 2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM The 2006-201 1 Airport Capital Improvement Program will be reviewed through the Boulder Municipal Airport Master Plan update process. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) assists with funding airport master plans. The FAA 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 update is anticipated in 2005. The current airport master plan was completed in October 1994. POLICY ISSUES None HIGHLIGHTS None FINANCING Primary funding for Airport Improvement Projects (AlP) is from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA usually provides approximately 90% with the remaining 10% finding from City of Boulder / State of Colorado matching dollars. The master plan update is estimated to cost $265,832. The FAA has approved $239,250 towards this effort. The Airport Fund and a State of Colorado Discretionary Aviation Grant each will contribute $13,291 in matching funds. RELATIONSHIP TO OPERATThIG BUDGET The airport operating budget pays for the maintenance of all airport improvements. 35 CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT FUND 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM I I OVERVIEW The 2006-2011 Capital Development Fund (CDF) Capital Improvements Program is $1,100,000. Two projects are scheduled in 2006 for a total of $80,000 and two in 2007 for $80,000. HIGHLIGHTS The 2006-2011 CIP projects reflect the City's participation in the creation of community plazas, and other municipal spaces / projects. The CIP primarily focuses on construction of a General Storage facility at the City Yards to be used for recycling building materials, wastes, computers, and furniture and for other city operational needs. FINANCING Funding for the CDF projects is derived from the assessment of excise taxes on new I development. The proposed CDF CIP and fund financials reflect the new excise tax rates and annual cost of living increases up to the maximum rate allowed by the ordinance. RELATIONSHIP TO OPERATING BUDGET I The relationship of the operating budget to the CIP primarily involves the operations and maintenance of these proposed improvements. Department and tenant operating budgets are to identify any on -going costs and corresponding funding. FAM typically calculates I these operational costs and advises departments accordingly. Major Maintenance and Facility Renovation & Replacement (FR&R) costs are applicable to any new, improved, or expanded General Fund facilities. These costs are each 1% of the current replacement I value (2% total) for these facilities. Major Maintenance costs are charged in conjunction with the project and are added to the FAM operating budget and FR&R charges are added to the FR&R budget when all debt on the facility is retired. Users of the General I Storage Facility will pay operational costs through a cost allocation process and should realize reduced overall costs for storage as compared to private facilities. 37 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Capital Development Fund 22 -Dec -05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected New Construction - Growth Related Facility / Additions Miscellaneous Facility DET Projects Public Plaza Space Construct / Purchase a General Storage Facility Total: Total for Capital Development Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 150,000 0 0 650,000 0 0 0 650,000 80,000 80,000 730,000 80,000 80,000 50,000 1,100,000 80,000 80,000 730,000 80,000 80,000 50,000 1,100,000 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Miscellaneous Facility DET Projects 511702 Department: I Funding Source Project Type: PW/ Facilities & Asset Management Subcommunity: System -wide Capital Development Fund BVCPArea: Isystem-wide New Construction - Growth Related Facility / Additions CEAP Required: INo CEAP Completed: I Project Description: Citys participation in accomplishing small projects and advance project planning less than $50,000 each, that are done in conjunction with other new construction or expansion projects related to growth. Project Justification: This project supports the Council goal of economic sustainability by extending the useful life of existing facilities. Relationship to Master Plans: The Facilities & Asset Master Plan, accepted in 1998, and the draft 2005 master plan update identify the need for funding small facility projects related to growth at the discretion of the FAM Manager. Public Process Status, issues: Any public process will be identified in conjunction with the overall project development. Project design will be reviewed by the Planning Department. Further design reviews will be conducted by the LPAB, DDAB, and/or Planning Board as appropriate. Relationship with Other Departments: This project will be coordinated with the affected departments. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000 Change from Prior Year: Ioiect continued theough 2011. I Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 I Description: Source of Funding: No additional operational costs will result from completing these projects. Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % J Desirable 100% Discretionary l________ Total 100% 39 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: PublicPlazaspace 511715 Department: Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Facilities & Asset Management Subcommunity: Isystem-wide Capital Development Fund BVCPArea: Isystem-wide New Construction - Growth Related Facility / Additions CEAP Required: [No CEAP Completed: Project Description: City's participation in the creation of small plazas, outdoor use areas and other municipal spaces. These are done in conjunction with new construction or expansion projects related to growth. If the funding is not used in a particular year, it is carried forward for future uses, There are no projects identified yet for funding in 2006. Project Justification: This project supports the Council goal of environmental sustainability by creating natural sites and hardscape areas for public enjoyment. Relationship to Master Plans: The Facilities & Asset Master Plan, accepted in 1998, and the draft 2005 master plan update identify the need for the creation of small plazas, pocket parks and other municipal spaces related to new development. These efforts will be coordinated with Parks & Recreation and will be approved by the FAM manager. Public Process Status, Issues: Any public process will be identified in conjunction with the overall project development. Project design will be reviewed by the Planning Department. Further design reviews will be conducted by the LPAB, DDAB, and/or Planning Board as appropriate. Relationship with Other Departments: This project will be coordinated with the Parks and Recreation Department. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $0 $150,000 Change from Prior Year: INone Annual On -going Operating Costs I I Description: Source of Funding: No additional operational costs will result from completing these projects. Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % Desirable %I__100% Discretionary I I Total%I 100% J I I 40 I FACILITY RENOVATION & REPLACEMENT FUND 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM I OVERVIEW I The 2006-2011 Facility Renovation & Replacement (FR&R) Fund Capital Improvements Program is $3,190,000. Three projects are scheduled in 2006 for a total of $520,000 and three projects in 2007 for $510,000. HIGHLIGHTS The 2006-2011 CIP projects reflect the City's participation in maintaining and updating existing facilities. Planned projects in 2006 and 2007 include extensive maintenance work for the New Britain Building including refurbishment of the elevator, HVAC and flat roof replacement, installation of HVAC controls, and interior rearrangement of portions of the 2" floor and miscellaneous renovation projects. FINANCING Funding for FR&R projects is derived from an annual contribution by the General Fund equal to 1% of the current replacement value (CRV) for General Fund facilities. Additional funding comes from user departments and from restricted fund departments as annual contributions to the flmd. This fund is managed as an internal service fund. RELATIONSHIP TO OPERATING BUDGET The relationship of the operating budget to the CIP primarily involves the operations and I maintenance of these proposed improvements. Department and tenant operating budgets are to identify any on -going costs and corresponding funding. FAM typically calculates these operational costs and advises departments accordingly. Major Maintenance and I Facility Renovation & Replacement (FR&R) costs are applicable to any new, improved, or expanded General Fund facilities. These costs are each 1% of the current replacement value (2% total) for these facilities. Major Maintenance costs are charged in conjunction I with the project and are added to the FAM operating budget and FR&R charges are added to the FR&R budget when all debt on the facility is retired. 41 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Facility Renovation & Replacement Fund Existing Facility - Enhancements I Upgrades New Britain Building Major Maintenance Mustard's Storefront & ADA Improvements BMOCA Elevator & ADA Improvements Total: Existing Facility - Rehab / Repair / Deficiency Correction Miscellaneous Facility Maintenance Projects Maintenance to Preserve the Chautauqua Trolley Stop and Stone Arbor Fire Station #3 Major Maintenance Main Libray Electrical System Maintenance Maintenance of Spruce Pool Locker Rooms Fire Station #4 Major Maintenance North Boulder Park Shelter Repair Stazio Tinsile Canopy Covering Replacement Tantra Park Shop Maintenance Maintenance of Scott Carpenter Pool Locker Rooms Maintenance of Boulder Reservoir Security House Total: New Construction - Not Growth Related Fire Station #6 Replacement Total: 22 -Dec -05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 400,000 416,000 0 0 0 0 816,000 0 0 28,000 0 0 0 28,000 0 0 0 122,000 0 0 122,000 400,000 416,000 28,000 122,000 0 0 966,000 70,000 56,000 58,000 60,000 63,000 65,000 372,000 0 38,000 0 0 0 0 38,000 0 0 397,000 0 0 0 397,000 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 134,000 0 0 0 134,000 0 0 0 25,000 120,000 0 145,000 0 0 0 116,000 0 0 116,000 0 0 0 132,000 0 0 132,000 0 0 0 113,000 0 0 113,000 0 0 0 0 359,00E) 0 359,000 0 0 0 0 0 47,000 47,000 70,000 94,000 789,000 446,000 542,000 112,000 2,053,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Facility Renovation & Replacement Fund 22 -Dec -05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Reconstruction RcconstructMainLibraryNorthplaza 0 0 0 121,000 0 0 121,000 Total: 0 0 0 121,000 0 0 121,000 Total for Facility Renovation & Replacement Fund 520,000 510,900 817,000 689,000 542,000 112,000 3,190,000 2006-2011 Capita' Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: New Britain Building Major Maintenance 5O1XXX Department: Funding Source Project Type: PWI Facilities & Asset Management Subcommunity: Icentra Boulder Facility Renovation & Replacement Fund BVCPArea: lArea I Existing Facility - Enhancements / Upgrades CEAP Required: Ijj CEAP Completed: Project Description: The New Britain Building, located at 1101 Arapahoe, will need extensive maintenance work beginning in 2006 and completing in 2007. This project includes refurbishment of the elevator, HVAC and flat roof replacements, installation of HVAC controls, and interior rearrangement of portions of the 2nd floor. Project Justification: This project supports the Council goals of environmental and economic sustainability by extending the useful life of the existing building and by implementing energy -saving improvements whenever possible. Proper waste management practices will be followed to reuse or recycle building materials to the maximum extent possible. Relationship to Master Plans: The Facilities & Asset Master Plan, accepted in 1998, and the master plan update in 2005 identifies the need to maintain the building. Public Process Status, Issues: Any public process will be identified in conjunction with the overall project development. Operating funds (FAM Ongoing and Major Maintenance, General Fund 010) will be used to pay for additional maintenance work completed in conjunction with this project. The first floor was renovated in 2000. Project design will be reviewed by the Planning Department. Further design reviews will be conducted by the DDAB and Planning Board as appropriate. Relationship with Other Departments: This project will be coordinated with the HR, HHS,IT, Public Works and Planning Departments. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $400000 $416,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $816,000 Change from Prior Year: INone Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: No additional operational costs are anticipated from completing this project. Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % Desirable I__100% Discretionary I________ Total I__100% 44 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number; jMiscellaneous Facility Maintenance Projects 501452 Department; I Funding Source Project Type; PW/ Facilities & Asset Management Subcommunity; System -wide Facility Renovation & Replacement Fund BVCPArea; System -wide Existing Facility Rehab / Repair / Deficiency Correction I CEAP Required; No CEAP Completed: Project Description; General Funds contribution to the Facility Renovation & Replacement Fund to finance public building I maintenance and replacements. This project addresses funding for building replacement and miscellaneous projects costing less than $50,000 each. Facility replacement and projects costing $50,000 or more will be individually listed in the CIP. Facility maintenance projects costing less than $50,000 will be managed by the I Facilities & Fleet Manager. Project Justification: This project supports the Council goals of environmental and economic sustainability by extending the useful life I of the existing building and by implementing energy -saving improvements whenever possible. Relationship to Master Plans: The Facilities & Asset Master Plan, accepted in 1998, and the master plan update in 2005 identifies the need to I maintain City facilities. Projects approved by the Facilities & Fleet Manager wilt be coordinated with other departments. Public Process Status, Issues; I Any project associated with these funds will be taken through the appropriate public process and CEAP review as part of the conceptual design. Project design will be reviewed by the Planning Department. Further design reviews will be conducted by the DDAB and Planning Board as appropriate. I Relationship with Other Departments: This project will be coordinated with the affected departments. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $70,000 $56,000 $58,000 $60,000 $63,000 $65,000 $372,000 Change from Prior Year: Project continued through 2011 I Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: No additional operational costs will result from completing these projects. Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % Desirable 100% Discretionary %I_______ Total I__100% 45 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Fire Station #6 Replacement 5O1XXX 101 Department: Funding Source Project Type: PW/ Facilities & Asset Management Subcommunity: IGunbarrel Facility Renovation & Replacement Fund BVCPArea: lArea II New Construction - Not Growth Related CEAP Required: [fo j CEAP Completed: I Project Description: Fire Station #6 is located in Gunbarrel at 5145 N. 63rd Street. Funding is for a feasibility study and planning coordinated with the Fire Department Master Plan Update to determine if this project is to move forward. Potentially a new station could be provided by a private entity in exchange for a portion of the existing site and the existing building. Ownership of the old station will be transferred to the private entity after the new station is in operation. Project Justification: The new station will be constructed to LEED standards at the silver cetrification level. Relationship to Master Plans: The Facilities & Asset Master Plan update in 2005 identifies the need to replace this facility. Public Process Status, issues: Feasibility of this project will be further explored in the coming months by the Fire Department. Any public process will be identified in conjunction with the overall project development. Project design will be reviewed by the Planning Department. Further design reviews will be conducted by the DDAB and Planning Board as appropriate. Relationship with Other Departments: This project will be coordinated with the Fire Department Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $50000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 Change from Prior Year: INone Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding: No additional ongoing costs are anticipated by completion of this project. Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % L Desirable %I__100% Discretionary I_______ Total%F__100% I 46 GENERAL FUND - TRASH TAX 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM OVERVIEW The 2006-20 1 1 General Fund Capital Improvements Program is $400,000. One project is scheduled to be funded by Trash Tax revenues in 2006-2008 for a total of $400,000. HIGHLIGHTS The 2006-2011 CIP project reflects the General Fund -Trash Tax contribution to "Recycle Row." This project is associated with annexation and development of the old Colorado Bnckyard parcel located at the SW corner of 63rd Street and Butte Mill Road. The 12 - acre Brickyard is being annexed by Western Disposal and ownership of 4 acres will be transferred to the city for re -locating Eco-Cycle and the Center for Resource Conservation. The CIP budget covers a proportional share of roadway and utility infrastructure costs; no direct costs are anticipated for property acquisition. FINANCING Recycle Row project funding began in 2003 as part of the operating budget from the City Managers Office -Environmental Affairs Trash Tax revenues. In 2005, a fund balance of $67,000 was approved as carryover in the first adjustment to base. In addition, 2005 Trash Tax revenues include a $150,000 operating budget appropriation for Recycle Row. The CIP budget runs from 2006 through 2008, for a total contribution from Trash Tax revenues of $617,000. Funding for an adjacent section of 63rd Street that adjoins Stazio Ball fields -North will also come from Parks and Recreation and was included in their 2004 CIP budget. RELATIONSHIP TO OPERATING BUDGET The relationship of the operating budget to the CIP primarily involves the staff time required to manage the property acquisition annexation negotiations and project management for infrastructure improvements. 47 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program General Fund - Trash Tax Revenues New Construction - Growth Related Facility / Additions Rcyv1e Row Total: Total for General Fund - Trash Tax Revenues 00 22 -Dec -05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 150,000 150,000 100,000 150,000 150,000 100,000 o 0 0 400,000 0 0 0 400,000 150,000 150,000 100,000 0 0 0 400,000 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: IRecycle Row f I I I 92 Department: (City Manager Subcornmunity: lEast Boulder Funding Source: (eneral Fund - Trash Tax Revenues BVCPArea: (Area II Project Type: fw Construction - Growth Related Facility I Additions I CEAP Required: (No I CEAP Completed: Project Description: Trash Tax -funded project associated with annexation and development of the old Colrado Brickyard parcel I located at the SW corner of 63rd Street and Butte Mill Road. The 12 -acre Brickyard is being annexed by Western Disposal and ownership of 4 acres will be transferred to the city for re -locating Eco-Cycle and the Center for Resource Conservation. CIP covers proportional share of roadway and utility infrastructure costs. Project funding began in 2004 as part of the operating budget from the Trash Tax. CIP runs from 2006 through 2008. I Funding will also come from Parks and recreation for an adjacent section of 63rd Street that adjoins Stazio Ballflelds-North. Project Justification: I Recycle Row contributes to Councils Environmental Goal focus area; helps re -locate Eco-Cycle from the city Municipal Service Center property, which in turn, will help maintain service standards for essential city services. Creates convenient access for public and businesses to trash and recycling service centers. I Relationship to Master Plans: Master Plan for Waste Reduction and Environmental Affairs' Master Plan in process. Public Process Status, issues: Planning Board and Council will review and approve the Annexation Agreement for the 4 acres for Eco-cycle relocation as well as the subdivision process and CEAP for . Annexation! subdivision will come before Council in 2005; CEAP will be initiated beginning in 2006 concurrent with infrastructure improvement designs. Relationship with Other Departments: Transportation Department will be providing project management, Public Works -Utilities will help coordinate utility improvements; Parks and Recreation Department will provide funding for adjacent roadway and utility improvements. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $150,000 $150,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $400000 Change from Prior Year: Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Priorltlzation of Servtces: Essential % j Desirable 100% Discretionary %(_______ Total %(__100% 49 COUNTY PUBLIC SAFETY FUND 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM I OVERVIEW The 2006-2011 County Public Safety Fund Capital Improvements Program is $3,700,000. One project is scheduled in 2006 for a total of $3,700,000. HIGHLIGHTS The 2006-20 1 1 CIP project reflects the city's support for public safety and environmental l sustainability. The planned project in 2006 is for the construction of a fire training center to replace the existing center located on Lee Hill Road. The new center is one of three approved for construction by Boulder County residents recognizing that the final site location will be part of a public process currently underway. FINANCING Funding for the fire training center will be provided by county sales tax revenues collected for this purpose and is not formally part of the city budget. RELATIONSHIP TO OPERATING BUDGET The relationship of the operating budget to the CIP primarily involves the operations and I maintenance of these proposed improvements. Department and tenant operating budgets are to identify any on -going costs and corresponding funding. FAM typically calculates these operational costs and advises departments accordingly. The County Fire Chief's ' Association will be responsible for all operational and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with the Fire Training Center. Facility users will be charged in proportion to their use of Center resources. I 51 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program County Public Safety Funds New Construction - Growth Related Facility / Additions Construct Fire Training Center Total: Total for County Public Safety Funds 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 3,700,000 0 0 0 0 3,700,000 0 0 0 0 3,700,000 0 0 0 0 22 -Dec -05 Total 0 3,700,000 0 3,700,000 0 3,700,000 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Construct Fire Training Center I I I I Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Facilities & Asset Management Subcommunity: System -wide County Public Safety Funds f BVCPArea: lArea Ill New Construction - Growth Related Facility / Additions CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: Project Description: This project constructs a new fire training center to replace the existing center located on Lee Hill Road. The new I center is one of three centers approved for construction by Boulder County residents. Funding for the project wilt be provided by County sales tax revenues collected for this purpose. Project Justification: I This project supports the Council goal of environmental sustainability by incorporating LEED - Silver construction standards. Relationship to Master Plans: The Fire Master Plan outlines the need to replace the existing facility. Public Process Status, Issues: There has been an extensive public process involved with CEAP development and review. This process I continues and issues/options are expected to be presented to Planning Board in Summer 2005 and to City Council in August 2005. Several site options are included in the CEAP. Design review will be conducted by the Planning Department, Design Review Committee and the Planning Board. Relationship with Other Departments: This project will be coordinated with the Fire Department and the Public Works Department. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding r $3,700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,700,000 Change from Prior Year: lAdded to CIP Annual On -going Operating Costs $50,000 Description: Source of Funding: User fees based on the city's anticipated pro -rated portion of use. Managed by the County Fire Chief's Association Fire Department Operating Funds Business Plan PrIorItlatIon of Services: Essential % 100% Desirable %1 I Discretionary %j_______ Total %__100% 53 LOTTERY FUND 1 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM OVERVIEW I The Lottery Fund CIP is based on the May 16, 2001 joint recommendation to City Council as requested from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Open Space Board of Trustees. POLICY ISSUES There are no policy issues related to the CIP this year. HIGHLIGHTS Projected annual revenues are $900,000 per year based on average collection for past years. Distribution of Lottery Funds: $304,000 Payment of debt service on Area III property approved by City Council $100,000 Department of Open Space for Mountain Park projects $150,000 Tributary Greenways projects The following numbers will vary depending on the Lottery Revenue amount per year: Remaining funds Split 50% to Parks and Recreation and 50% to Open Space for projects The proposed Greenways projects are identified in the multi -departmental CIP. Operating and maintenance requirements for Greenways are provided likewise by a variety .of agencies (City, State, and private). This funding is a vital element of Open Space and Mountain Parks' strategy to address ongoing and deferred maintenance in the Mountain Parks land area. I FINANCING Generally, the estimated revenues for each year are conservative figures to make certain that funds are available to complete the projects supported by them. I I PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: On May 23, 2005 the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program and voted unanimously to approve the staff recommendation for the CIP budget and to forward this recommendation to City Council. 1 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Lottery Fund 03 -Jan -06 On -Going Projects Historical Structures & Trails Stabilization & Restoration Total: Total for Lottery Fund 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 268,828 268,828 0 0 0 0 537,656 268,828 268,828 0 0 0 0 537,656 268,828 268,828 0 0 0 0 537,656 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Historical Structures & Trails Stabilization & Restoration 730000 f Department: I Funding Source Project Type: Open Space & Mountain Parks Subcommunity: ISystem-wide Lottery Fund BVCPArea: Isystem-wide On -Going Projects I CEAP Required: Ives CEAP Corn pteted: Project Description: Many historic structures and trails on OSMP lands are in need of stabilization and restoration. Two large projects I are presently scheduled for 2006: 1) Improvements to trails, trailheads, and other facilities in the Eldorado Mountain/Dowdy Draw Trail Study Area ($180,000) and 2) Improvements to Sanitas and Centennial Trailheads ($120,000). In addition, required studies and planning work will be done on several projects scheduled for completion in future years. Discussion highlights: The Eldorado Mountain/Dowdy Draw Trail Study Area will be I evaluated by Staff and go through a public process in 2005. Many of the recommendations for improvements will be implemented in 2006. Visitor safety has long been a concern at the Sanitas and Centennial Trailheads. Improvements to these trailheads will address these concerns. Project Justification: This project supports the Council's goal of environmental sustainability including historic preservation and resource protection. These Open Space & Mountain Parks lands add to the visual appeal of our community and improve our quality of life. Improvements to these structures increase visitor safety and enjoyment and help to reduce conflicts between visitors. Relationship to Master Plans: Restoration and stabilization of these historic facilities will meet the objectives of the Open Space & Mountain Parks Long Range Management Policies and the Visitor Master Plan. Public Process Status, issues: Project development will include consultation with appropriate Boards and public meetings. The main issues are to restore and preserve the historic, character -defining features of these facilities. Visitor safety and protection of rare biological resources are important components of these projects. Project will include appropriate public outreach for the level of work that is proposed and will be determined on a project specific basis. Relationship with Other Departments: The Open Space & Mountain Parks Department works cooperatively with other City Departments including Parks and Recreation and Planning. In addition, OSMP will continue to work with Boulder County Planning, other agencies and state and local programs to promote appropriate restoration of and access to historical structures. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2005 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $268,828 $268,828 $0 $0 $0 $0 $537,656 Change from Prior Year: Inone Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding Annual allocation from Colorado Lottery Fund Colorado Lottery Fund Business Plan Prioritizatiori of Services: Essential % 100% Desirable %1 I Discretionary %l j Total % L00% I 57 I OPEN SPACE FUND 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM OVERVIEW The proposed 2006 CIP for the Open Space & Mountain Parks Department continues funding in the same amount as last year for three Open Space capital projects. Mineral Rights Acquisition CIP and Water Rights Acquisition CIP continue at $100,000 and 200,000 respectively and the Acquisition Program CIP is $3,400,000. The Visitor Infrastructure CIP is increased starting in 2006 to $450,000. These uses of funds will be sustainable under the current Budget Office revenue projection of 2.00% for 2006. POLICY iSSUES None at this time. HIGHLiGHTS From January 1990 through April 2005, approximately 25,670 acres have been added to the Open Space system, bringing the total Open Space acreage acquired since 1967 to 42,970 acres. I Properties acquired since 2000, including lands in Jefferson County, have been purchased under the guidance of the Accelerated Acquisition Program and Acquisitions and Management Plan 2000-2006. Additionally, 6,555 acres were acquired via the 2001 merger of the Mountain Parks I Division of the Parks and Recreation Department with the Open Space/Real Estate Department. Staff anticipates acquiring an additional 7,360 acres under the Acquisitions and Management I Plan subject to availability of funds. Within the Land Acquisition program, additional acres of open space will be acquired, subject to available funding, within the BVCP Area HI as well as the expanded areas in the Northern I Tier and in Jefferson County as approved by the OSBT and City Council. Funding is provided from the projected restricted open space sales tax revenue. The project includes funding for survey, appraisal, professional fees and related acquisition and immediate management costs. Funding for the Visitor Infrastructure program has been increased by $200,000 annually for the 2006-20 1 1 CIP to meet the work plan identified in the OSMP Visitor Master Plan approved by Council in April 2005. This program provides funding for maintenance of existing trails and trailheads, new trails and trailhead construction on proposed and existing Open Space and Mountain Parks, construction of facilities that improve the visitor experience, e.g., safe road crossings, and to restore areas where visitor impacts are high. I The Water Rights Acquisition program provides funding to purchase additional water shares from private owners or others for use on Open Space for agricultural and environmental purposes, as water becomes available. Program funding includes water acquisitions in the Coal I Creek, South Boulder, Boulder and Lefihand Creek watersheds. Funding will also be used for professional, legal and engineering fees, and analysis and mapping necessary to manage and protect the water rights portfolio. Because of continuing wildlife and habitat concerns, the Open 1 Space and Mountain Parks Resource Conservation staff will continue to work with other City departments to assist in enhancing minimum stream flow where possible. The Minerals Rights Acquisition program provides funding to purchase underlying mineral interests from private owners, as they become available on the real estate market. Many of these interests in minerals, gas, oil and aggregates were severed from the lands before the properties were purchased by the City and could cause future management dilemmas. Funds would also provide funding for researching, mapping and analyzing potential acquisitions. The Historic Structures and Trails Stabilization and Restoration project uses lottery funds to identify, stabilize and renovate significant historic structures and trails and to protect pre -historic sites identified in cultural resource inventories. FINANCING Sufficient funds are available in the Open Space Fund to appropriate the 2006 CIP, A $20,000,000 series of bonds was issued March 2000 as the first phase under the $45,000,000 authorization approved by voters in November 1997. Additional series of bonds have been projected to be issued in future years. Dates and amounts will depend on a variety of factors, including future sales tax collections and funding needs for acquisitions. RELATIONSHIP TO OPERATING BUDGET The Open Space and Mountain Parks Visitor Master Plan was adopted in April 2005 and outlines a significant capital expenditure plan in order to address identified needs within the six year CIP schedule. This, together with the Open Space Long -Range Management Policies adopted in 1995, sets the management direction for the OSMP Department. These policy level plans, along with the area and resource management plans, provide the framework to prioritize and budget specific resource management actions to further the OSMP Department mission. Currently, OSMP staff is in the implementation phase of the goals, objectives and actions recommended in the Visitor Master Plan, the North Boulder Valley Area Management Plan, the South Boulder Creek Area Management Plan, the Plains Ecosystem Management Plan, and the Forest Ecosystem Management Plan. In the future, as the Accelerated Acquisition Program gets closer to the achievement of its programmatic goals with the purchase of any additional properties recommended by the Board and approved by the Council, and as the outstanding debt issues are paid off, there will be a shift of focus and funding from acquisition to management of the Open Space & Mountain Parks properties. 60 I ADVISORY BOARD ACTION The Open Space Board of Trustees reviewed the2006 CIP at their June 22, 2005 meeting. I Agenda Item 8 Consideration of Recommendations for the Preliminary 2006 Open Space and Mountain Parks Departmental Management and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Budgets Delani Wheeler clarified that the Lottery CIP for 2006 and 2007 is projected to be $268,000 annually and that the $417,000 BMPA debt service for the Area ifi Park Site will be completely paid off in 1 2008. I Allyn Feinberg moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve and recommend that the City Council approve the appropriation in 2006 of $22,622,893 from the Open Space, General, and Lottery Funds to cover the 2006 Open Space and Mountain Parks Department expenditures and transfers as I outlined in the June 22 memorandum and related attachments as amended with the corrected dates; and with the existing split of Lottery Funds to continue through 2007; and that the directors of Open Space and Parks and Recreation bring a proposal to the Open Space Board of Trustees for a reallocation of I Lottery Funds after 2007, such that: $150,000 would go to Greenways, $100,000 to Open Space for deferred maintenance, and a 50/50 split of the remaining funds, and bring a policy that these Lottery Funds be used on "plaque -able" projects. Bruce Bland seconded and the motion passed unanimously. I Allyn Feinberg moved that the Open Space Board of Trustees approve and recommend that Planning I Board and City Council approve the $4,150,000 from the Open Space Fund and $268,000 from the Lottery Fund for the proposed 2006 through 2011 CIP budgets as described in the memo of June 22, 2005. Kay Tauscher seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. I The Open Space Board of Trustees will be asked to approve the attached 2006-2011 CIP budget submittal at a future public hearing and Board meeting and will recommend it be approved by both the Planning Board and City Council. 61 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Open Space Fund 04 -Jan -06 On -Going Projects Acquisition Program Mineral Rights Acquisition Visitor Infrastructure Water Rights Acquisition Total: Total for Open Space Fund t.J 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 3,400,000 3,400,000 3,400,000 3,400,000 3,400,000 3,400,000 20,400,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,700,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 24,900,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 4,150,000 24,900,000 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Acquisition Program 720000 Department: IOpen Space & Mountain Parks Subcommunity: ISystem-wide Funding Source: Open Space Fund BVCPArea: System -wide Project Type: On -Going Projects I CEAP Required: IN0 j CEAP Completed: Project Description: This project is to acquire additional acres of open space, subject to available funding, within the BVCP Area Ill as I well as the expanded areas in the Northern Tier and in Jefferson County as approved by the OSBT and City Council. Funding is provided from the projected restricted Open Space sales tax revenue, The project includes funding for survey, appraisal, professional fees and related acquisition and immediate management costs. I Project Justification: Supports City Council Goals of environmental sustainability including environmental priorities of habitat preservation and water quality. The Open Space acquisitions program has made the City of Boulder a nationwide environmental leader and role model for other communities. The Open Space lands add to the visual appeal of I our community and the management practices after acquiring these properties insures that we continue to provide habitat preservation for wildlife, protect the quality of our waterways and provide for recreational opportunities for our citizens. Relationship to Master Plans: Funding for the acquisitions supports the Open Space Acquisitions and Management Plan as approved by the OSBT and City Council in September 1999. The conceptual acquisition area in Area Ill is annually coordinated and incorporated with the Boulder Valley Comp Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: Specific purchases are recommended by the OSBTand approved by City Council Relationship with Other Departments: The Open Space & Mountain Parks department works cooperatively with other City Departments, primarily Parks, Greenways, Transportation, Utilities and Planning. The department also works with and promotes inter- governmental cooperation with national, state and local conservation and Open Space programs, such as Boulder County Open Space, Louisville, Lafayette and Longmont, Colorado Open Space Alliance (COSA), GOOD, Colorado Dept of Natural Resources, CDOW and others including the Trust for Public Lands, The Conservation Fund and Nature Conservancy. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $3,400,000 $3,400,000 $3,400,000 $3,400,000 $3,400,000 $3,400,000 $20,400,000 Change from Prior Year: Inone Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: OSMP maintenance costs are primarily related to visitation and visitor infrastructure. Acquisition of land does not necessarily increase operating costs at a significant level. Open Space Fund Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % 100% Desirable I Discretionary I________ Total %__100% 63 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Mineral Rights Acquisition 935000 Department: Funding Source: Project Type: CEAP Required No CEAP Completed: Project DescrIption: This program provides funding to purchase underlying mineral interests from private owners or others as they become available on the real estate market. Many of these interests in minerals, gas, oil and aggregates were severed from the lands before properties were purchased by the City and could cause future management dilemmas. Funds would also provide for researching, mapping and analyzing potential acquisitions. Project Justification: Contributes to Council's key focus areas. Supports City Council Goals of environmental sustainability including environmental priorities of habitat preservation and water quality. The Open Space acquisitions program is one that has made the City of Boulder a nationwide environmental leader and role model for other communities. The Open Space lands add to the visual appeal of our community and the management practices after acquiring these properties ensures that we continue to provide habitat preservation for wildlife and protect the quality of our waterways. Relationship to Master Plans: Funding for the acquisitions supports the Open Space Acquisitions and Management Plan as approved by the OSBT and City Council in September 1999. Public Process Status, Issues: Annual funding is approved by both the OSBT and City Council. Relationship with Other Departments: The Open Space & Mountain Parks department works cooperatively with other City Departments, primarily Parks, Utilities and Transportation. The department also works with and promotes inter -governmental cooperation with national, state and local conservation and Open Space programs, such as Boulder County Open Space, Jefferson County Open Space, Louisville, Lafayette and Longmont, Colorado Open Space Alliance (COSA), GOCO, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, CDOW and others. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $600000 Change from Prior Year: Inone Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Included in annual appropriations for operations Open Space Fund BusIness Plan Prloritlzatlon of Services: Essential % 50% Desirable %I__50% Discretionary %I________ Total %I__100% 64 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Visitor Infrastructure 843000 Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: Open Space & Mountain Parks Subcommunity: [System -wide Open Space Fund BVCPArea: Area Ill On -Going Projects I CEAP Required: IYes J CEAP Completed: Project Description; This program was established to provide funding for maintenance on existing trails and trallheads, construction of I new trails and trailheads, construction of facilities that improve the visitor experience (e.g., safe road crossings) and restoration of areas where visitor impacts are high. The newly adopted Visitor Master Plan provides general goals and guidelines for visitation on Open Space and Mountain Parks and, thus, will help determine the specific I projects that are undertaken. Trail suitability evaluation in trail study areas is underway and will determine specific projects for funding in 2006 and thereafter. Appropriate public process and alternatives analysis will be determined as specific projects are identified. Project Justification: I Supports City Council Goals of environmental sustainability including environmental priorities of habitat preservation and water quality. The Open Space & Mountain Parks acquisitions program is one that has made the City of Boulder a nationwide environmental leader and role model for other communities. Open Space & I Mountain Parks lands add to the visual appeal of our communtiy and the management practices after acquiring these properties ensure that we continue to provide habitat preservation for wildlife and protect the quality of our waterways. Improvements to Visitor Infrastructure will assist in Council's goal to reconcile conflicts between I environmental and recreational communities. Relationship to Master Plans: Funding for visitor infrastructure supports the Visitor Master Plan that was adapted by OSBT and City Council in I 2005. Public Process Status, Issues: SpecifIc projects are approved by the OSBT through the public process. Projects whose scope requires a CEAP I are also approved by City Council under the CEAP call up provision. In addition, the public will have input in the development of trail location criteria and actual trail locations in trail study areas. Relationship with Other Departments: Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $2,700,000 Change from Prior Year: lAnnual funding increased from $250,000 to $450,000 per year Annual On -going Operating Costs $685,654 Description: Source of Funding: Operating costs associated with new capital projects has been increased to address 'identified need' scenario within the planning period. Open Space Fund I Business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential °,1__109j Desirable Discretionary %1 Total %l__100% 65 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Water Rights Acquisition 930000 Department: Iopen Space & Mountain Parks Subcommunity: System -wide Funding Source: Iopen Space Fund BVCPArea: lArea Ill Project Type: Ion -Going Projects CEAP Required: INo CEAP Completed: Project Description: This will provide funding to purchase additional water shares from private owners or others for use on Open Space for agricultural and environmental purposes as water becomes available. Program funding includes water acquisitions in the Coal Creek, South Boulder, Boulder and Lefthand Creek watersheds. Funding will also be used for professional fees, legal and engineering fees, analysis and mapping necessary to manage and protect the water rights portfolio. Because of our continuing wildlife and habitat concerns, the Open Space and Mountain Parks Resource Conservation staff will continue to work with other City departments to assist in enhancing minimum stream flow where possible. Project Justification: Contributes to Council's key focus areas. Supports City Council Goals of environmental sustainability including environmental priorities of habitat preservation and water quality. The Open Space acquisitions program is one that has made the City of Boulder a nationwide environmental leader and role model for other communities. The Open Space lands add to the visual appeal of our community and the management practices after acquiring these properties ensures that we continue to provide habitat preservation for wildlife and protect the quality of our waterways. Relationship to Master Plans Funding for the acquisitions supports the Open Space Acquisitions and Management Plan as approved by the OSBT and City Council in September 1999. Public Process Status, Issues: Annual funding is approved by both the OSBT and City Council. Relationship with Other Departments: The Open Space & Mountain Parks department works cooperatively with other City Departments, primarily Parks, Utilities and Transportation. The department also works with and promotes inter -governmental cooperation with national, state and local conservation and Open Space programs, such as Boulder County Open Space, Jefferson County Open Space, Louisville, Lafayette and Longmont, Colorado Open Space Alliance (COSA), GOCO, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, CDOW and others. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,200,000 Change from Prior Year: Inone Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: llncluded in annual appropriations for operations Source of Funding: lOpen Space Fund Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % (_50% Desirable %l 50%J Discretionary 0701 I I Total%I__100% 66 I PARKS AND RECREATION .25 CENT SALES TAX FUND FROM 1995 BALLOT ISSUE 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM I OVERVIEW The 1995 BaiJot Issue Fund revenues were pledged for" ... Payment for the principal, interest, I and premium, is any, on .... bonds; and then for development, operation, and maintenance of the land and improvements purchased or constructed with the proceeds of the bonds; renovation and refurbishment or replacement of four pools; renovation and replacement of recreation facilities; I playgrounds, mountain park trails, civic park complex; improvements to recreation centers and development of new recreation projects to be determined in the future through the Master Planning Process by the City Council; maintenance of the community park in north Boulder; I development of a mountain parks environmental education program; and for the renovation of city -owned historical and cultural facilities; with the remainder being dedicated for parks and recreation purposes..." (Ballot language) 1 The following is a summary of project and Operation and Maintenance finding (in 1995 dollars) that was identified in the ballot issue backup information: Bonded Projects Pocket Parks Acquisition up to 10 acres $4,900,000 I Neighborhood Park Acquisition. up to 16 acres $4,500,000 Large City Park Acquisition, Master site planning and some infrastructure development $18,000,000 Mountain Parks Acquisition $2,000,000 Renovation and Refurbishment of Existing Facilities I Recreation Facilities $178,000/yr Mountain Parks (Trails) $168,000/yr Civic Park Complex $75,000/yr Urban Parks (Irrigation Systems) $130,000/yr Pool Improvements $277,000/yr Development of Facilities and Programs Community Park in North Boulder (0 and M) $210,000/yr Development of New Neigh Park Sites (capital) $200,000/yr (0 and M) I $64,000/yr Dev of New Pocket Park Sites (capital) $1 20,000/yr (0 and M) $40,000/yr I Dev of Existing Neigh Park Sites (capital) $200,000/yr (OandM) $67,000/yr Improvements to Recreation Centers (capital) $15 0,000/yr I Mountain Parks Environmental Education $1 30,000/yr New Recreation Facilities (capital) $200,000/yr Historical and Cultural Facilities $50,000/yr 1 67 POLICY ISSUES There are no policy issues related to the CIP this year. HIGHLI GHTS For the purposes of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), staff has included only those projects that meet the CIP definition. Specific projects have been identified for the 1St year of the CIP, but have been left in more general "project categories" (such as the Neighborhood/Pocket Park Development, Recreation Center Improvements, and New Recreation Facilities projects) for the outlying years, where specific projects are unidentified at this time. For 2005 and future years, the three funds, (Lottery, Permanent Park and Recreation and the .25 cent Sales Tax) have been considered jointly to provide funding levels for CIP and non CIP projects. The following are the major CIP projects in the three funds: Foothills Community Park New Recreation Facilities Improvement! Development Neighborhood/Pocket Park Development Flatirons Golf Course Improvement Park Site Acquisition East Boulder Community Park Development Stazio Road and Infrastructure Development Major gains have been made in "taking care of what we have" and sustainability through major facility refurbishment and renovations. Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) is now fully funded for Ongoing and Major Maintenance for the majority of the structures/facilities in Parks and Recreation. Park and Recreation renovation and refurbishment needs, as well as equipment replacement, many of which are in the operating budget, are likewise more completely funded but will still require multiple years to complete backlog. FINANCING The revenues from the .25 cent Sales Tax are estimated based on Finance Department sales tax projections. RELATIONSHIP TO OPERATING BUDGET The Ballot Issue identified funding for the operating costs for the majority of the new park development projects. The operating costs for renovationlrefurbishment projects are expected to remain the same but increase annually for inflationary increases. 68 PARKS AND RECREATiON ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: On May 23, 2005, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program and voted unanimously to approve the staff recommendation for the CIP budget and to forward this recommendation to City Council. (See minutes in Permanent Parks Fund Overview). 69 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Parks & Recreation 1995 Ballot 04 -Jan -06 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Existing Facility - Enhancements / Upgrades Recreation Center/Pool Improvemcnts .25 Sales Tax Total: New Construction - Growth Related Facifity / Additions Neighborhood / Pocket Park Development .25 sales tax Total: Total for Parks & Recreation 1995 Ballot 180,833 143,038 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 623,871 180,833 143,038 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 623,871 100,033 97,025 347,025 347,025 347,025 550,000 1,788,133 100,033 97,025 347,025 347,025 347,025 550,000 1,788,133 280,866 240,063 447,025 447,025 447,025 550,000 2,412,004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Recreation Center/Pool Improvements .25 Sales Tax I I I 1 Department: I Funding Source Project Type: Parks & Recreation Subcommunity: System -wide Parks & Recreation 1995 Ballot BVCPArea: tArea I Existing Facility - Enhancements / Upgrades CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: Project Description: This funding is reserved for design, development and renovation of existing and new facilities and buildings such as pools, centers, and sports fields. Project Justification: Environmental Sustainability: Facility renovations will be designed and constructed to address environmental sustainability. Approaches to be considered in every project will include efficient use of energy and water, use of renewable energy sources, use of recycled products, recycling within the building operation plan, and long term durability. Economic Sustainability: Quality recreation facilities and programs contribute to the economic viability of the community. Relationship to Master Plans: The approved Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified the need to maintain and renovate facilities to meet current demands. Public Process Status, issues: As the scope of work is defined the necessity of a CEAP or other public review will be determined. Relationship with Other Departments: Parks and Recreation Staff works closely with Facility Asset Management staff on all building/facility improvements. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $180,833 $143,038 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $623,871 Change from Prior Year: I$100,000 funding/yr (2008-10) transferred from acquisition to Rec/Pool lmprov 1 Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding: Operating costs may increase when this project is completed. An estimate is not currently available.. .25 Sales Tax Fund & Recreation Activity Fund business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential % 25% Desirable %l__1 Discretionary I________ Total 100% 71 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Neighborhood I Pocket Park Development .25 sales tax I I I I Department: IParks & Recreation Subcommunity: Isystem-wide Funding Source: Parks & Recreation 1995 Ballot BVCPArea: lArea I Project Type: New Construction - Growth Related Facility I Additions CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: Project Description: This is for design and development of new and existing undeveloped park sites. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board prioritizes parks to be developed based upon citizen need and staff input. Sinton Park has been prioritized for design and development in the next few years. This funding will support development of other park sites in the future including Eben Fine Park and Elks Park. Project Justification: Environmental sustainability: Design, development, and maintenance of new park sites will address current city codes and environmental goals. Economic Sustainability: A quality parks and recreation system contributes to the economic viability of the community. Sites are needed to meet the commitments represented under the .25 cent 1995 sales tax and to meet currently adopted standards of 1 .5 acres of neighborhood and pocket park land per 1000 population. Relationship to Master Plans: The approved Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified the need to develop existing and newly acquired undeveloped park sites. Can we update based on Master Plan Public Process Status, Issues: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will review development plans for each proposed park site. As the scope of work is defined the Necessity of a CEAP or other public review will be determined. Relationship with Other Departments: Parks and Recreation staff work closely with Planning staff as required for property development. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $100,033 $97,025 $347,025 $347,025 $347,025 $550,000 $1,788,133 Change from Prior Year: Annual On -going Operating Costs $5,000 Description: Source of Funding: Cost is average per acre in 2005 costs. Operating costs will increase as projects are completed. General fund and .25 cent sales tax fund Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % 0% Desirable %l 100% I Discretionary %1 I Total%I__100% I 72 PERMANENT PARK AND RECREATION FUND 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM May 2005 OVERVIEW The Permanent Park and Recreation Fund consists of .9 mill levy of assessed valuation of all taxable property in the city, gifts and donations to the fund, proceeds of the sale of park or recreation property or equipment, and many other appropriations made by council such as the fee charged at the golf course to support that facility's renovation or development needs. The fund also includes revenues from a portion of a development excise tax assessed on each new residential unit constructed or annexed to the city except for those units that are designated as permanently affordable. The City Charter requires the "...Fund shall not be used for any purpose other than the acquisition of park land or the permanent improvement of park and recreation facilities." (Charter Sec 161) Funds are used for CIP projects and renovations (operating budget) of existing facilities for items based on the $50,000 CIP definition. POLICY ISSUES There are no policy issues related to the CIP this year. HIGHLIGHTS I The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is structured to address the recommendations of the approved Parks and Recreation Master Plan. For the purposes of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), staff has included only projects which meet the CIP defmition. Non project I specific fund accumulations, where no actual project is being proposed in a given year (such as the Art in the Park project) have been removed from the CIP. For 2005 and future years, these three funds (Lottery, Permanent Park and Recreation and the .25 cent Sales Tax) have been considered jointly to provide funding levels for CIP and non CIP projects. The following are the major CIP projects in the three funds: Foothills Community Park I New Recreation Facilities Improvement/Development Neighborhood/Pocket Park Development Flatirons Golf Course Improvement I East Boulder Community Park Development Stazio Road and Infrastructure Development *park Site Acquisition 1 Major gains have been made in "taking care of what we have" and sustainability through major facility refurbishment and renovations. Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) funding for On- going and Major Maintenance has consistently increased even though the city has been impacted 1 73 by economic factors such as declining sales tax collections. Parks and Recreation renovation and refurbishment needs, as well as equipment replacement, many of which are in the operating budget, are funded but will still require multiple years to complete the backlog. FINANCING Generally, the estimated revenues for each year are conservative figures to make certain that funds are available to complete the projects supported by them. RELATIONSHIP TO OPERATING BUDGET This Permanent Parks operating budget pays for all capital renovation and refurbishment projects and capital overhead costs. PUBLIC PROCESS AND ADVISORY BOARD REVIEW On May 23, 2005, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) reviewed the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program and voted to approve the staff recommendation for the 2006 CIP Budget. The PRAB also approved all expenditures from the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund and agreed to send the recommendation to City Council. For the 2006 CIP budget, funds previously dedicated for land acquisition in 2008 - 2010 were allocated to Recreation Facility Improvements. The change was incorporated because funding for Recreation Facility Improvements is insufficient and the department has acquired land in excess of the 1996 Master Plan recommendations. The total amount reallocated to Recreation Facility Improvements is $300,000. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) approved the 2006 Capital Improvement Program without any funding reserved for land acquisition. PRAB was not completely comfortable with this decision and stressed their preference that the budget should retain a line item to minimally reflect land acquisition opportunities. PRAB stated that the department should continue to examine land acquisition possibilities. The PRAB does not want to see land acquisition permanently eliminated from consideration. As potential land parcels become available, the department was encouraged to examine whether the land meets any critical needs. It was stressed that the department should strive to find a way to purchase land in the event that a critical parcel becomes available. May 23, 2005 PRAB Minutes Public hearinc and consideration of a motion to approve the 2006 Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Jim Reasor and Kate Bernhardt presented the 2006 CIP. 74 Reasor said that sales tax revenue continue to decrease, which has significantly impacted the department's funding for future projects. Lottery funds and the permanent parks and recreation fund (general fund) are more stable, but are smaller funding sources. Bernhardt said that after most of the property was purchased with the .25 sales tax 1 dollars, Council members were concerned with allocating a portion of the CIP for land acquisition. The $100,000 CIP for purchasing new lands has been deliberately removed from this budget, but it can be reinstated during the next budget cycle or at anytime in the future. I The department purchased more land than was originally anticipated; therefore emphasis in recent years has been on finding funds for development and maintenance of the newly acquired park lands. $ Sanford asked if the $760,000 projected capital overhead expenditures is for each of the projects that are listed. Reasor said that it is primarily staff expenses tied to each project. Sanford asked what the historical funds are used for. Reasor said they are usedfor multiple projects; Harbeck House, Chautauqua, the locomotive in Central Park and Columbia Cemeteiy. I Sanford asked what the department's commitment is to Chautauqua. Hawthorne said that the Chautauqua Association leases the landfrom the city with a 20 year lease that was last renewed in 1998. The city owns several of the historic buildings I (Auditorium, Dining Hall) and the department partners with the Association in maintaining them. I Sanford said that when and if the department begins to consider buying new land remember that one-third of the CIP is being utilized as debt service. Julian asked if there are specific projects tied to these flmds, such as neighborhood and pocket parks. Bernhardt said that the El/cs Park and refurbishments at Eben G. Fine Park have been identified as uses for renovation and refurbishment funds. O'Neill asked if the 2005-2006 budget numbers would have been reduced if the department had built the prairie dog barrier at Foothills Community Park. Reasor said that funds for the barrier would have come from the Foothills Community Park Phase Ii budget. The carryover from 2003-2004 is not shown in this budget. von Bleichert asked which line items are not eligible for carryover. Reasor said that the Facility and Asset Management line item is not eligible for carryover, which falls under renovation and refurbishment. von Bleichert asked what it costs per acre to develop a park. 1 75 Bernhardt said that in a larger park with a moderate amount of development, the cost per acre is approximately $210,000 - $270,000, depending on how much infrastructure is involved. Greenleaf Park cost $375,000 per acre. She estimates that Sinton Park will cost $300,000 - $500,000 per acre. von Bleichert said he would prefer that the land acquisition line remain in the budget, as it could actually help the department's case by showing that there are no funds available for purchasing lands. Ten years from now, PRAB members may not know that it was ever there. O'Neill said that she is concerned about land acquisition not being portrayed as an option on a permanent basis. She suggested listing the carry over dollars as pending projects. Public Hearing Sanford asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak about the budget. No one spoke. Sanford said that while acquiring land is still one of PRAB's goals, the issue is how to fund any future purchases. The PRAB would like to always be in a position to acquire appropriate pieces of land to support the Parks and Recreation program, provided it can be done without putting the department in financial straits, and that adequate funds are allocated for maintenance Geden said that staff will be creating an agenda item for the Planning Board, and acquisition of land will be included as a policy item. Julian asked how much land the department actually purchased, and if more lands are available to purchase. Bern hardi said that the goal behind the ballot issue was to purchase 126 acres and the department actually purchased 397 acres. von Bleichert said that the newest issue is other entities (such as Boulder County) wanting to sell some of their properties. O'Neill asked if there is a policy on redevelopment. Geden said that there is language in the new Master Plan about redevelopment. von Bleichert moved that the 2006-2007 Capital Improvement Program (CIP budget be accepted. O'Neill seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 76 June 27. 2005 PRAB Minutes I MATTERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS I von Bleichert said that the Greenways group met and approved their 2006-2011 Greenways CIP. Greenways staff were asked to look more closely and identify issues specific to spending carryover dollars, and an overall evaluation of the impacts of Greenways projects. von Bleichert asked why land acquisition is not listed as a line item in the CIP. I Reasor said that the directive he has received from planning staff has been to not include items with no budgeted amount. The CIP format has been restructured. Unfunded I projects are tracked by the city. Von Bleichert said that the PRAB specifically wanted it left in the budget so that it does I not get forgotten in future budgeting processes. Geden said that PRAB's position can be included in the CIP overview, stating that the PRAB is not comfortable with land acquisition being excluded in the budget. She said I that the department does not take any CIP policy issues to City Council for review, only the operating budget. O'Neill said that an overview could possibly portray a misconception that the PRAB is not interested in looking creatively at any future land acquisitions. She said she would be more comfortable making a statement that the PRAB would consider reallocating funds within the CIP if an appropriate opportunity arose. Geden said that land acquisition will be addressed in the 2006 CIP budget. Von Bleichert said that he is concerned that the department's land acquisition goals could I go away without City Council andlor future PRAB members being aware of the potential implications. Because the County is looking to sell properties, it should be noted that based on the current budget situation, there is not an acquisition budget this year. Funds are being reallocated to maintenance due to current needs. Geden said that she and Reasor will discuss the issue with planning staff to make sure that the PRAB's position gets communicated effectively. Blackburn, Julian and Brown agreed with O'Neill and von Bleichert. Von Bleichert said that it would be helpful to include information about how soon land could be purchased. I 1 77 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund Existing Facility - Enhancements I Upgrades Flatiron Golf Course Improvements PP&R Recreation Facility Improvement PP & R Total: New Construction - Growth Related Facility I Additions East Boulder Community Park PP&R Foothills Community Park- PP&R Total: 04 -Jan -06 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 360,000 0 0 0 0 0 800,000 800,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 860,000 1,160,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 500,000 300,000 3,600,000 100,000 0 0 500,000 500,000 0 1,100,000 800,000 700,000 700,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 300,000 4,700,000 00 _______- Total for Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund 860,000 760,000 760,000 1,260,000 1,060,000 1,160,000 5,860,000 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: [Flatiron Golf Course Improvements PP&R I I I I - Department: Funding Source: Project Type: CEAP Required No CEAP Completed: f Project Description: Funding will be used for future improvements to the golf course including, but not limited to, renovation of irrigation systems, greens, driving range, banquet, and pro shop facilities. Project Justification: Economic Sustainability: These improvements will increase service to the community at the Flatirons Golf Course which should result in additional revenues. Environmental Sustainability: New facility design will meet current city codes and environmental goals. Relationship to Master Plans: The Master Plan recommends maintaining and refurbishing our facilities to meet current recreation demands. Public Process Status, Issues: The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed options for renovation of the Flatirons Golf Course buildings at their May 2001 meeting. Relationship with Other Departments: Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $360,000 Change from Prior Year: Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: IChanges to operating and maintenance costs will vary depending on improvements. Source of Funding: Business Plan Prloritization of Services: Essential % [ 7 Desirable J Discretionary %Lb00% j Total 0/el__100% 79 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: East Boulder Community Park PP&R I I I 1 I Department: Funding Source: Project Type: CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: Project Description: Substantially complete site development of the East Boulder Community Park Site. Approximately 15 acres of the 53 acre park remains to be constructed. Project Justification: Environmental sustainability: Design, development and maintenance of the new park site will address city codes and environmental goals. Economic sustainability: Maintaining a quality park and recreation system contributes to the economic viability of our community. Relationship to Master Plans: The approved Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified a need to develop community park sites. This site is needed to help meet the currently adopted standard of 1.5 acres of community parks per 1000 poplulation. Public Process Status, Issues: The master plan for the community park site was approved in 1987. The site has been graded, roadway and other infastructure, community center, playground, soccer fields, court complex and parking installed. Additional public review will be provided prior to the next phase of development. Relationship with Other Departments: Parks and Recreation staff work closely with Planning staff as required for property development. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $700,000 $500,000 $300,000 $3,600,000 Change from Prior Year: Annual On -going Operating Costs $75,000 j Description: Source of Funding: Operating costs will increase when this project is completed. Amount stated is for 15 acres in 2005 dollars. General Fund, .25 sales tax fund Business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential % L I Desirable %[00% I Discretionary %________ Total%l 100% ] I 80 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number; Map Number: Foothills Community Park- PP&R I I 6 Department: IParks & Recreation Subcommunity: lNorth Boulder Funding Source: Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund BVCPArea: Project Type: New Construction - Growth Related Facility I Additions CEAP Required: IN0 1 CEAP Completed: Project DescrIption: Project funding began with site acquisition in 1985. The site totals 69 acres. Phase 1(44 acres) was completed in 2001. Phase hA (dog park and parking) was completed in 2004. Construction is proceeding in 2005/2006 for Phase IIB. Funding needs to be identified and accumulated to complete the park's Phase Ill Project Justification: Environmental Sustainability: Some of the environmentally sustainable projects within this 69 acre park include site irrigation from a ditch water source, provision for an organic community garden, restoration and preservation of native grasslands, use of recycled products, and enhancing water quality by controlled release, landscape contouring, and cleaning of storm drainage waters. Economic Sustainability: A quality parks and recreation system contributes to the economic viability of the community. Relationship to Master Plans: The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified a need for community parks. Project is needed to meet current acreage standard of 1.5 acres of community park land per 1000 population. Public Process Status, Issues: The Master Site Plan for Foothills Community Park went through an extensive public review process. This process included identifying issues within the Major Site Review process and completion of a CEAP, Public review of Phase II was provided during a May 2002 workshop and a November 2002 Community Open House. Phase I (44 acres) was completed in 2001. Phase IIA planning and development began in 2001. Relationship with Other Departments: Coordinated efforts with Housing Authority to purchase right of way and to construct Violet Street to serve both the community park and the Foothills Affordable Housing project. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $100,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 $0 $1,100,000 I Change from Prior Year: Inone Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding Operating costs will increase when this project is completed. An estimate is not currently available. .25 Sales Tax Fund Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential %________ Desirable %__100% Discretionary %________ Total %I__100% 81 I I I TRANSPORTATION FUND 2006 - 2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM OVERVIEW The 2006 Transportation Fund Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is $2,973,000. The CIP has been developed within the context of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The plan goals and priorities were used in allocating funds and prioritizing projects. I The TMP is underpinned by the concept of investing in our transportation infrastructure to maintain today's level of service (LOS). The goals/objectives are stated in terms of no increase in traffic congestion. The investment strategy is based on making significant improvements to I the pedestrian, bicycle and transit systems, and maintaining and making efficiency improvements to the roadway system. I I [1 I Transportation Fund 2006-2011 CIP - Modal Investment Breakout 2006 2006-2011 $ [_% $ % ModalPunctional Area Pedestrian 1,051,656 35% 7,088,740 28% Bicycle 360,783 12% 3,696,736 14% Transit 91;608 3% 2,839,295 11% Roadway 347,953 12% 8,413,229 33% Travel Demand Management (TDM)* 0 0% 0 0% Mitigation 0 0% 0 0% Other 1,121,000 38% 3,573,000 14% Total] 2,973,000 100% 25,611,000 100% *No: TDM programs are included in the operating budget. The TMP is based on implementing a balanced multimodal-based transportation system. The TMP advocates that we: adequately preserve the existing infrastructure; strive to increase safety; maximize the efficiency of our existing systems (J)edestrian, bicycle, transit, and roadway); and enhance mobility through investments in the completion of the alternative transportation system (pedestrian, bicycle, and transit) The 1'MP advocates that this multimodal-based investment strategy be focused in a system of six east -west and four north -south corridors that constitute the designated multimodal corridor grid. TMP priorities form the base for funding allocation. Investment on enhancements to the modal systems is focused in these 10 multimodal corridors. With limited resources, investments are focused on the highest priority corridors. 83 East-West North -South Iris Avenue Broadway Valmont Road 28th Street/U.S. 36 Pearl Street/Parkway Foothills Parkway Table Mesa Drive - South Boulder Road 55th Street Arapahoe Avenue Baseline Road POLICY ISSUES None FINANCING Funding for city transportation projects comes from several different sources. A dedicated sales tax, Highway Users Tax, County Road and Bridge funds, State Highway Maintenance and Landscape Funds and Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA -21) federal funds primarily support the Transportation Fund. 2006-2011 CapitaL Improvements Pro2ram The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) has been developed based on the policy guidance of the TMP with the identified multimodal corridor emphasis. In the 2005-20 10 Transportation Fund CIP, targeted short-term reductions occurred in 2006-2008 based on the exclusion of anticipated revenue generated from the redevelopment of Twenty-ninth Street. Revenue projections for Twenty-ninth Street are included in the 2006-2011 budget plan. Therefore, funding for the selected projects (including 28th Street and pedestrian repair and enhancements) has been restored. Expenses in the "Other" category have increased to reflect Transportation commitments in the city's contract with Pollard Motors to prepare the City Maintenance Yards frontage along Pearl Parkway for Pollard business relocation. The site preparation includes items such as power line relocation, site grading, and fencing in order for the Pollard's to relocate their business if they exercise their option to purchase the Yards frontage. Revenues associated with the future sale of this Yards frontage property are anticipated to offset these expenses. Transportation and Utilities will share in the acquisition costs of replacement land adjacent to the Municipal Service Center. Even without the Pollard option component of the Yards property, the Yards reconfiguration away from Pearl Parkway frontage and to the west is consistent with the Yards Master Plan. 84 HIGHLIGHTS 1 28th Street from Baseline Road to his Avenue is identified as the top priority corridor in the city's multi -modal grid. Implementation of the 28th Street Project continues to be the highest priority of the Capital Improvements Program. South segment (Hello Boulder) funding of $4.3M (includes $1.1M in TEA -21 funding) was programmed in 2002 and 2004. The public I input, design and approval process is complete for the north segment (Service City) with the middle segment (New Town) to follow; though there is development coordination funding identified for the 29th Street development. Funding for the north segment of $9.3M (includes I $3.8M in TEA -21 funding) was programmed starting in 2004. Beginning in 2006, funding reflecting growth related aspects of the project has been shifted to the Transportation Development Fund. Broadway Concrete Reconstruction (Pine to his) - Pavement structural deficiencies will be corrected and improvements to intersections, signals, lighting, transit facilities and sidewalics will be completed. The process and design will start in 2005 with project completion in 2008. This project is jointly funded by the city, CDOT and federal funds. Yards Master Plan Implementation - As part of the Yards Master Plan and the Pollard Motors' option to relocate to Pearl Parkway, Transportation will share with the Utilities Division the cost to purchase replacement land adjacent to the existing Municipal Service Center. Revenues associated with the disposal of the Foothills Park & Ride and Pearl Parkway frontage are anticipated to offset acquisition costs. I RELATIONSHIP TO OPERATING BUDGET The 2006 Transportation CIP is predicated on improving Boulder's infrastructure. Any operating project impacts are either absorbed within operating budgets or addressed through the annual 1 budgeting process. UNDERGROUNDING CREDIT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGR4M I As part of the franchise agreement with Xcel Energy (Xcel) (formerly Public Service Company of Colorado - PSCo), the City of Boulder receives an annual credit for work by Xcel to relocate underground or reconfigure Xcel lines. The amount of the annual credit is 1% of the preceding I calendar year=s electric revenue from customers within the City, which is approximately $600,000 per year. I The Undergrounding Credit Policy, approved by City Council in 1994, specifies that proposed undergrounding credit expenditures be reviewed annually by the Transportation Advisory Board during the CIP review process. Using the initial screening factors and prioritization factors I provided in the policy, staff has established the Undergrounding Credit CIP included in the 2006- 2011 Transportation CIP. 85 Where it is appropriate, staff is utilizing undergrounding credits in a collaborative manner to facilitate development of a more robust telecommunications infrastructure. This is accomplished by applying undergrounding credits to burial projects on specific routes that parallel those designated for telecommunications conduit and cable. The telecommunications facilities then share the same trench at a small additional cost. The undergrounding projects included in the CIP are generally consistent with the potential telecommunications needs. The Undergrounding Credit Policy requires that 25% of the credits be made available for non-CIP projects on a 50% match basis. Therefore, the Undergrounding Credit CIP includes $150,000 annually for the Undergrounding Cost Share Program. If program participants in a given year do not request all of the $150,000 available for the cost share program, the amount remaining returns to the overall credit balance. The current franchise expires in 2010. The current credit balance and program viability will be assessed in 2005 and any necessary changes will be implemented through the 2007 budget process. TRANSPORTATiON ADVISORY BOARD (TAB) ACTION City Council has charged the Board to: "review all city transportation environment assessments and capital improvements." In the context of the Capital Improvements Program, the Board is asked to provide a recommendation on the program to the Planning Board and City Council. The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) reviewed and made a recommendation on the 2006- 2011 Transportation Capital Improvements Program (CIP) at their June 13, 2005 meeting. In summary, the TAB recommended approval of the 2006-2011 Transportation Capital Improvements Program as submitted. Minutes from May 9, 2005 Agenda Item 4- Staff briefing and TAB input on the Proposed Year 2006-2011 Transportation Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - Part 11. Melody Agruso and Stephany Westhusin presented the budget discussion. Tracy Winfree reviewed several changes to the budget and Winfree, Agruso and Westhusin responded to questions supplied by the TAB about the budget. Questions covered: Categorization of projects as Transportation versus Transportation Development; Sale of city property; Trail connections and sidewalks in the "pool fund"; Modal investments within the Transportation fund; Funding for bike safety; Transference of CIP funds to Operations and Maintenance; and funding for real time transit information. 86 Minutes from June 13, 2005 Agenda Item 4 - Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation on the proposed Year 2006-2011 Transportation Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Melody Agruso and Mike Sweeney answered questions about their presentation last month. Tracy Winfree noted several changes made to the budget since the last presentation. Major discussion topics included the Pollard property purchase for the Boulder Transit Village; Xcel utility under grounding; and excise tax funding for the North Boulder Library. I Krista Nordback motioned to approve the 2006-2011 CIP. Mynah Conroy seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 In favor of the motion. 1 87 CITY OF BOULDER 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TIS 4NPflRTATION fliNi) 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 LApproved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Pedestrian System Pedestrian Facilities - Enhancements (missing links. crossing treatments) 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 Pedesthan Facilities - Repair. Replacement, ADA 680,000 680,000 680.000 680,000 680,000 680,000 Subtotal Pedestrian 755,000 755,000 755.000 755,000 755,000 755,000 Bicycle System Bikeway Facilities - Enhancements 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 Roadway System Broadway Concrete Reconstruction (Pine to Iris) 126,000 2,631,000 1,600,000 0 0 0 Multimodal 28th Street (Baseline to Iris) 570,000 570,000 570,000 470,000 470,000 470.000 Tributary Greenways 150,000 150,000 150,000 150.000 150,000 150,000 00 Transit Priority Operational Improvements (Arapahoe) 0 0 289,000 913,000 0 0 Subtotal Muitimodal 720,000 720,000 1,009,000 1,533.000 620,000 620,000 Other City Yards Frontage Site Preparation for Potential Pollard Relocation 0 300,000 0 0 125,000 1,100,000 Yards Master Plan Implementation 1,021,000 0 427.000 0 0 0 Undergrounding Cost Share Program 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Subtotal Other 1,121,000 400,000 527,000 100,000 225,000 1,200,000 Subtotal Transportation CIP 2,847,000 4,631,000 4,016,000 2,513,000 1,725,000 2,700,000 External Funding BroadwayConcretrRecnnstructicm(PinetoIriS) 126.000 5.851.000 0 (1 0 0 Trnnsit Priority Operational Improvements tArapahoe) 0 0 89.000 913.000 1) 0 Subtotal External Funding 126,000 5.851.000 289,000 913,000 0 0 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION FUND CIP 2,973,000 10,482,000 4,305,000 3,426,000 1,725,000 2,700,000 - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Modal Investment Breakout a. Pedestrian 1,051,656 1,874,656 1,186,456 991,990 991,990 991,990 b. Bicycle 360,783 1,183,783 668,983 859,596 311,796 311,796 c. Transit 91,608 914,608 573,208 1,150,357 54,757 54,757 d Roadway 347,953 6,108,953 1,349,353 324,056 141,456 141,456 e. Travel Demand Management ffDM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 fMitigation 0 0 0 0 0 0 g. Other 1,121,000 400,000 527,000 100,000 225,000 1,200,000 TOTAL TRANSPORTA11ON FUND CIP 2,973,000 10,482,000 4,305,000 3,426,000 1,725,000 2,700,000 Other Externally Funded Projects: Xcel Underirounelin,; Undergrounding Cost Share Program 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION CIP 3,123,000 10,632,000 4,455,000 3,576,000 1,875,000 2,850,000 00 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Pedestrian Facilities Enhancements - Missing Links, Crossing Treatmer 781002 Department: IPW/ Transportation f Subcommunity: IMultiple Subcommunities Funding Source: ITransportation Fund BVCPArea: lAreas I & II Project Type: [ö -Going Projects CEAP Required: jji CEAP Completed: Project Description: The Pedestrian Facilities program includes the installation of missing sidewalk links and pedestrian crossing/safety treatments. The list of identified missing sidewalk links has been prioritized for construction. Crossing treatment improvements are prioritized citywide and include median refuge islands, crosswalk lighting, flashing signs. neck -downs, signing, lighting and/or pedestrian signals. Project funding is ongoing. Project Justification: Repair, enhancement and completion of the pedestrian and bicycle systems work toward making the city more walkable and bikeable. Providing a usable and connected multi -modal transportation system addresses Council's environmental and transportation goals by creating viable and sustainable transportation options resulting in cleaner air, reduced congestion and lower VMT. Relationship to Master Plans: According to the Pedestrian Policy Plan of the Transportation Master Plan, an intermittent pedestrian system that strands pedestrians at the end of unfinished sidewalks or forces them into awkward traverses or hazardous street crossings discourages walking, In an effort to increase pedestrian activity and encourage walking as a major means of travel, a completed sidewalk system is necessary. Adding features to the pedestrian network such as missing sidewalks links and pedestrian crossing /safety improvements is consistent with the Transportation Master Plan Update. Public Process Status, Issues: TAB approved the Proposed Prioritized list of Missing Sidewalk Links on May 10, 2004. The Public Process for installing missing sidewalks links is on -going and may involve one or more locations per year. Staff works with neighborhoods and adjacent property owners on individual improvements. Relationship wIth Other Departments: Coordination with the Parks Department - City Forester is required and the utilities department if there are utility conflicts. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $450,000 Change from Prior Year: 12006-2008: Restored funding for inclusion of 29th St. revenue. I Annual On -going Operating Costs I Description: Source of Funding: Adjacent property owners are responsible for sidewalk maintenance by code. Crossing treatments have minimal maintenance requirements. Transportation Fund Operating Budget Business Plan Prlorltiiatiofl of Services: Essential % T Desirable °Iol__100% Discretionary %________ Total%I 100% I 90 I 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Pedestrian Facilities - Repair, Replacement, ADA ] 781773 Department: I Funding Source Project Type: PW/ Transportation Subcommunity: IMultiple Subcommunities Transportation Fund BVCPArea: lAreas I & II bn-Going Projects CEAP Required: INO CEAP Completed: Project Description: This ongoing program allows for repair, replacement and construction of existing and new sidewalks, and constructon of access ramps. Emphasis of this program is given to existing sidewalk repair. Sidewalk repair priorities have been established in the City of Boulder Sidewalk Repair Program and yearly funding is spent accordingly, In 2004, sidewalk repairs were completed in the Martin Acres neighborhood. In 2005, sidewalk repairs are planned to begin in the next identified area for the program that is bounded by Baseline and Arapahoe and Foothills and 55th/Meadow Glen Lane. Improvements will also start in a previously identified area that is bounded by the Diagonal and Valmont and by 28th and Foothills. Compliance with ADA is resulting in additional expenditures for access ramps and driveway modifications. Project funding is ongoing. Project Justification: Repair, enhancement and completion of the pedestrian and bicycle systems work toward making the city more walkable and bikeable. Providing a usable and connected multi -modal transportation system addresses Councils environmental and transportation goals by creating viable and sustainable transportation options resulting in cleaner air, reduced congestion and lower VMT. Relationship to Master Plans: This program is consistent with the Transportation Master Plan Update which places high priority on transportation system preservation and on providing improvements to pedestrian facilities. Public Process Status, Issues: A neighborhood meeting will be held in the spring for the identified repair area owners and individual notices are mailed out yearly to the adjacent property owners. Relationship with Other Departments: Coordination with the Parks Department - City Forester is required adjacent to street trees. Coordination with the city Utility Division regarding water meter location is also required. Miscellaneous concrete repairs (driveways, and curb and gutter) are coordinated with Transportation Maintenance. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $680000 $680,000 $680,000 $680,000 $680,000 $680,000 $4,080,000 Change from Prior Year: 12006-2008: Restored funding for inclusion of 29th St. revenue. I Annual On -going Operating Costs I I Description: Source of Funding: Adjacent property owners are generally responsible for sidewalk maint. This project does reduce some need to place temporary asphalt patches on sidewalks. Transportation Fund Operating Budget Business Plan Priorltization of Services: Essential % [100% Desirable I I Discretionary I________ Total 100% 91 2006-2011 Capita' Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Bikeway Facilities - Enhancements 781692 Department: IPW/ Transportation Funding Source: iransportation Fund Project Type: (ön-Going Projects CEAP Required: jo CEAP Completed Subcommunity: IMultiple Subcommunities BVCPArea: lAreas I & II Project Description: Bikeway facilities are included in most all transportation construction projects. This program provides additional funding for bikeway projects not specifically associated with other capital projects. The projects are prioritized and coordinated with the approved bikeway plan and represents an ongoing City program, Projects constructed will be consistent with the TMP Bicycle System Plan and are prioritized yearly. The 2006 project priorities will be established through public process occurring in 2005. Types of projects include providing missing links and enhanced crossings such as underpasses and overpasses, eg., Boulder CreeklBoulder Community Hospital © 48th St. bridge. Project funding is ongoing. Project Justification: j, Repair, enhancement and completion of the pedestrian and bicycle systems work toward making the city more walkable and bikeable. Providing a usable and connected multi -modal transportation system addresses Council's environmental and transportation goals by creating viable and sustainable transportation options resulting in cleaner air, reduced congestion and lower VMT. Relationship to Master Plans: Relates to the primary goal of the TMP update for completing the City's Bike System and increasing the mode share for bikes. Public Process Status, issues: _____ The Public Process for each project will vary. Some projects, depending on the complexity, may require a CEAP Relationship with Other Departments: This program is coordinated with the Greenways program. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $125,000 $750,000 Change from Prior Year: 12006-2008: Restored funding for inclusion of 29th St. revenue. I Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding: Annual ongoing maintenance costs. Increased maintenance costs are minimal. (Estimated maint cost for added path is $1 .1 6/1.1./year) Transportation Fund Operating Budget Business Plan Prioritiation of Services: Essential % [ I Desirable I__100% Discretionary %I________ Total%l__100% I 92 I 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Broadway Concrete Reconstruction (Pine to Iris) 1 I 781029 68 Department: PWI Transportation Subcommunity: Icentral Boulder Funding Source: Transportation Fund BVCPArea: tArea I Project Type: Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair I Deficiency Correction CEAP Required: INo I CEAP Completed: I Project Description: In 2005, the State of Colorado transferred ownership of Broadway (State Highway 7 -Canyon Blvd. north to U.S. 36) to the city of Boulder for $2.25M. This project wilt correct pavement structural deficiencies on Broadway from Pine to Iris and complete improvements to intersections, signals, lighting, transit facilities, sidewalks and storwater drainage. The process and design for this project will start in 2005. This project is jointly funded by the city, CDOT and federal funds. This project is a continuation of the Broadway reconstruction which has occurred from Regent to University and from University to Pine. Funding: 2006-2008: City $4.36M; CDOT $2.25M; Federal = $3.73M. Project funding for this section from Pine to Iris began in 2005 and will end in 2008. Project Justification: Intersection improvements, street reconstruction and street resurfacing provide a usable, efficient and safe street network for bikes, buses and motor vehicles. Providing a usable, connected and integrated multi -modal transportation system addresses Council's environmental and transportation goals by creating viable and sustainable transportation options. Relationship to Master Plans: This program is consistent with the Transportation Master Plan Update which places high priority on transportation system preservation. Public Process Status, Issues: . I.. L The design and process for this project will start in 2005. A CEAP will be required. Relationship with Other Departments: This project will be coordinated with the Utility Dept, Planning Dept, and the Parks Department. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $252,000 $8,482,000 $1,600,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,334,000 Change from Prior Year: Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: The annual operating costs will be reduced because the asphalt pavement will be replaced by concrete which requires less on -going maintenance. Transportation Fund Operating Budget Business Plan Priorltlzatlon of Services: Essential % 80% Desirable I 20% 1 Discretionary %I_______ Total %(__100% 93 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: 28th St (Baseline to Iris) I 781743 69 Department: Funding Source Project Type: PW/ Transportation Subcommunity: IMultiple Subcommunities Transportation Fund BVCPArea: lArea I Existing Facility - Enhancements I Upgrades CEAP Required: lYes CEAP Completed: 12001 - Baseline to Arapahoe / 2002 - Pearl to Iris Project Description: These improvements focus on the north and south sections of 28th Street, Baseline to Iris. Improvements have been and are being developed as part of the 28th Street Central Corridor Planning Study. The planning study and the CEAP for the southern section -Baseline to Arapahoe and the northern section -Pearl to Iris, are complete and have been approved by City Council. Recommended improvements include: Urban design, landscaping, streetscape improvements throughout the corridor; transit service and facility improvements including queue jumps, super stops and route modifications; bike and pedestrian facility improvements including constructing multi -use paths; adding raised crossing at free right turn lanes; traffic efficiency improvements including adding left turn lanes at various intersections and widening the Boulder Creek bridge. Funding for the northern and southern sections is included in this CIP and will be combined with federal funding and the Transportation Development Fund. Project funding began pre 1997 and will end post 2011. Project Justlhcation The Transportation Master Plan is based on implementing a balanced multimodal-based transportation system. Providing a usable, connected and integrated multi -modal transportation system addresses Council's environmental and transportation goals by creating viable and sustainable transportation options, cleaner air, reduced congestion and lower VMT. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the Transportation Master Plan and the plan's focus on Multimodal Corridors. Multimodal corridors are the major transportation facilities which accommodate auto, bus, bicycle and pedestrian travel. The design and project will address and balance the needs of these modes. 28th Street - Iris to Arapahoe is the highest ranked multimodal corridor and 28th Street - Arapahoe to Baseline is the 3rd highest ranked corridor. Public Process Status, Issues: The CEAP for the southern section - Baseline to Arapahoe and the northern section - Pearl to Iris- have been approved by City Council. The middle section planning and design - Arapahoe to Pearl, will be coordinated with the 29th St. redevelopment. Relationship with Other Departments: This project requires coordination with the Utility Division for utility upgrades, with RTD, CDOT, CU, Arts Commission, the Planning Department and the Real Estate Division. It will also be coordinated with adjacent developments. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $570,000 $570,000 $570,000 $470,000 $470,000 $470,000 $3,120,000 Change from Prior Year: 12006-2008: Restored funding for inclusion of 29th St. revenue; +$1 OOk-29th coord Annual On -going Operating Costs I Description: Source of Funding: Annual on -going maintenance costs. Increased maintenance costs are minimal. (Maint. cost increases $1.16/I .f.path/year, $1 .381s.f./year landscaping) Transportation Fund Operating Budget Business Plan Plioritlzatlon of Service Essential % T25°" J Desirable %I °"° I Discretionary %I________ Total I__100% 94 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Tributary Greenways 1 781630 j ______________ Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Transportation Subcommunity: Muttiple Subcommunities Transportation Fund BVCPArea: System -wide On -Going Projects I CEAP Required: No CEAP Completed: Project Description: The program is intended to improve and protect the many riparian corridors that pass through the city. Elements I of this work also advance a primary goal of the TMP by providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and encouraging the modal shift from automobiles to alternative modes of transportation. Improvements include pedestrian/bicycle paths, drainage and flood control structures, and preservation and enhancement of natural features. A portion of the capital funding for this program was shifted to needed maintenance of existing system beginning in 2002. See Greenways CIP/Budget section. Project funding is ongoing. Project Justification: I The Transportation Master Plan is based on implementing a balanced multimodal-based transportation system. Providing a usable, connected and integrated multi -modal transportation system addresses Council's environmental and transportation goals by creating viable and sustainable transportation options, cleaner air, reduced congestion and lower VMT. Relationship to Master Plans: These projects will advance a primary goal of the Transportation Master Plan as well as the current IMP update by providing pedestrian and bicycle facilities and encouraging the modal shift from automobiles to alternative modes of transportation Public Process Status, Issues: CEAP's are completed for all significant greenways projects and are reviewed by appropriate boards. See Greenway CIP for more detailed information. Relationship with Other Departments: The Greenways program requires coordinating with Transportation, Open Space, Flood Utility, Planning and Parks Department. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $900,000 Change from Prior Year: Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prloritlzation of Services: Essential % ( Desirable %_100% Discretionary I_______ Total %[__100% 95 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name; Project Number: Map Number: Yards Master Plan Implementation 781039 Department; Funding Source: Project Type; PWI Transportation Subcommunity; lEast Boulder Transportation Fund BVCPArea: lAreas I & II Existing Facility - Enhancements / Upgrades CEAP Required: CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project provides for the acquisition of additional land near or adjacent to the existing city yards Municipal Service Center. Project Justification Improvements to the City Yards are required to sustain transportation and utilities maintenance services for the city which are considered essential services provided by municipalities. Relationship to Master Plans: These acquisitions are consistent with the Yards Master Plan arid support achieving elements of the Transportation Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues; None required. Acquisition is solely for city maintenance activity. City council has already supported these acquisitions and no other public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments: Land acquisitions will be shared 50/50 between Transportation and Utilities. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $1,021,000 $0 $427,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,448,000 Change from Prior Year: INew Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % rfOo% I Desirable °IoI 1 Discretionary %I 1 Total%l__100% I 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Undergrounding Cost Share Program I 781013 Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Transportation Subcommunity: Isystem-wide Transportation Fund BVCPArea: System -wide On -Going Projects I CEAP Required: INo CEAP Completed: Project Description: This program was established as an internal accounting mechanism for funds received from participants in the I Undergrounding Cost Share Program II. Participants in the Undergrounding Cost Share Program pay the city cash for their share of undergrounding project costs. The city uses this cash to pay Qwest and Comcast undergrounding expenses because we do not have undergrounding credits with these utilities. This program is not a separate program. It facilitates the transaction processing function for the Undergrounding Cost Share ' Program II. It is budgeted as a revenue/expenditure offset and no transportation funds are obligated to this program. Project Justification: This program supports a long held city desire to bury overhead lines. Since 1970 through a franchise agreement with Xcel, the city has been funding undergrounding projects and generally has not allowed new overhead construction. Often, undergrounding is necessary to make room for transportation corridor improvements consistent with the TMP. - Relationship to Master Plans: Staff administers the utilization of undergrounding credits for Xcel Energy because of the historical link between TMP objectives and utility undergrounding. Public Process Status, Issues: If a citizens are interested, they contact Xcel who informs them of the city program and directs them to I Transportation. The current franchise agreement expires in 2010. The current credit balance and program viability will be assessed in 2005 and any necessary changes will be implemented through the 2007 budget process. I Relationship with Other Departments: Coordination with Utilities and Transportation Divisions. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $600,000 Change from Prior Year: Annual On -going Operating Costs I $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential % Desirable 100% Discretionary I_______ Total %[__100% 97 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: IUndergrounding Cost Share Program II Xcel 1 Department: IPW/ Transportation j Subcommunity: ISystem-wide Funding Source: (iansportation Fund BVCPArea: Isystem-wide Project Type: [Going Projects CEAP Required: INO CEAP Completed: Project Description "-''- This is a matching fund program per the Undergrounding Credit Policy approved by City Council in 1994. The Xcel Energy (Xcel) franchise agreement with the City of Boulder requires Xcel each year to make funding available in the amount of 1% (approximately $600k) of the preceding year's electric revenues within the city for the purpose of undergrounding or reconfiguring electric lines. The funding is provided in the form of "credits" for work, not cash. Approximately twenty-five percent of each year's undergrounding credit accrual ($1 50k) is set aside on a non -cumulative basis to be used as a 50% cost share for property owners willing to pay half the cost to bury existing utilities adjacent to their properties. This program allows property owners to utilize Xcel credits. Participants in the cost share program pay the city cash for their share of undergrounding project costs. The city uses this cash to pay Qwest and Comcast undergrounding expenses because we do not have undergrounding credits with these utilities. There are no transportation funds expended in this program. Project Justification: This program supports a long held city desire to bury overhead lines. Since 1970 through a franchise agreement with Xcel, the city has been funding undergrounding projects and generally has not allowed new overhead construction. Often, undergrounding is necessary to make room for transportation corridor improvements consistent with the TMP. Relationship to Master Plans: Staff administers the utilization of undergrounding credits for Xcel Energy because of the historical link between TMP objectives and utility undergrounding. Public Process Status, Issues: If a citizens are interested, they contact Xcel who informs them of the city program and directs them to Transportation. The current franchise agreement expires in 2010. The current credit balance and program viability will be assessed in 2005 and any necessary changes will be implemented through the 2007 budget process. Relationship with Other Departments: Coordination with Utilities and Transportation Divisions. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $900,000 Change from Prior Year: [ Annual On -going Operating Costs ° I Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan prlorltlzation of Services: Essential % [_I Desirable °IoI__100% Jr Discretionary %l_______ Total %l__100% 98 1 I I OVERVIEW TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FUND 2006 - 2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM The 2006 Transportation Development Fund (TDF) Capital Improvements Program is $730,000. The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) has been developed within the context of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP). The plan goals and priorities were used in allocating funds and prioritizing projects. Transportation Development Fund 2006-2011 CIP - Modal Investment Breakout 2006 2006-2011 $ % $ % Modal/Functional Area Pedestrian 228,471 31% 2,567,225 30% Bicycle 307,888 42% 3,954,930 45% Transit 44,272 6% 778,631 9% Roadway 149,369 21% 1,409,214 16% Travel Demand Management (TDM)* 0 0% 0 0% Mitigation 0 0% 0 0% Other 0 0% 0 0% Total 730,000 100% 8,710,000 100% *Note: TDM projects are included in the Transportation Fund. The City Transportation Development Excise Tax is based on the philosophy of assessing a fee on development to mitigate its' impacts on the street network. Rates are adjusted annually based on the CPI. POLICY ISSUES None I FINANCING Funding for city transportation development projects is from the Transportation Development Excise Tax. The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) comprises projects needed for new growth. The 2006-20 1 1CIP includes $2,978,000 in external funding as part of the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for the 3O" St. Bikelanes - Arapahoe to Pearl. A proposal to build a core and shell for a North Broadway Library was included in the 2003 budget process. It was to be funded partially through loans from excise tax funds. Although the proposal was put on bold, loan funding was to remain earmarked for this purpose. Rather than hold the amount in reserve, it was determined to plan projects based on all projected revenue. It 99 is the TDF's intent to fund the loan for construction of the North Broadway Libraty (approximately $200k) from collected Uptown Broadway DET's. The funding will come from fund balance. HIGHLIGHTS 30th St Bikelanes: Arapahoe to Pearl - During the development of the Bike System Plan as part of the Transportation Master Plan, constructing bikelanes on the stretch of 30th Street from Arapahoe to Pearl was identified as a high priority bike system need. Currently on -street bike lanes exist on 30th St. from the Diagonal Highway to Pearl and from Arapahoe to Baseline. This project will complete an important on - street facility missing link by constructing on -street bikelanes on 30th between Arapahoe to Pearl. Funding will be provided by the City (50%) and federal sources (50%). Design funding was moved from 2006 to 2005 to coordinate with the Twenty-ninth Street redevelopment. 28th Street - 28th Street from Baseline Road to his Avenue is identified as the top priority corridor in the city's multi -modal grid. Implementation of the 28th Street Project continues to be the highest priority of the Capital Improvements Program. South segment (Hello Boulder) funding of $4.3M (includes $1.1 M in TEA -2 1 funding) was programmed in 2002 and 2004. The public input, design and approval process is complete for the north segment (Service City) with the middle segment (New Town) to follow. Funding for the north segment of $9.3M (includes $3.8M in TEA -2l funding) was programmed starting in 2004. Beginning in 2005, funding reflecting growth related aspects of the project was shifted from the Transportation Fund to the Transportation Development Fund. TiP Local MatchlFasTracks Implementation - Opportunities to provide greater flexibility to implement FasTracks andlor provide for local match for federal funding were accomplished by shifting the Linden Avenue investment. The Linden Avenue project is intended to bring the street, previously a County road, up to local street standards by providing sidewalk and on -street bikelanes. Linden is not one of the TMP- identified multimodal corridors, does not leverage external funds, and is not a required investment in the short term. Based on these considerations funds were redirected to FasTrack implementation and TIP local match purposes. Specific project designation will be determined through the TIP and FasTracks optimization processes. 2005 Denver Regional Council of Governments Transportation Improvement Program The City of Boulder applied for funding for the maximum number of project submissions allowed, 6 projects. The city also worked with our regional partners to have them submit two projects of mutual interest; Boulder County for the Diagonal Highway/631d Multimodal Project and RTD for the development of the Transit Village Project. Two projects programmed for the 2006-2011 CIP require matching funds from the Transportation Development Fund. The Transportation Development Fund projects are: 100 30th Street Bikelanes: Arapahoe to Pearl will complete this missing link in the bike system. 631(1 St/Diagonal Highway will incorporate bike, pedestrian, transit and roadway - improvements on 63" St and the Diagonal Highway. The $717,000 is the City's share of the $4.3M project funded by city, county, state and federal funds. RELATIONSHIP TO OPERATING BUDGET The 2006 Transportation Development Fund CIP is predicated on supporting new growth. Any operating project impacts are either absorbed within operating budgets or addressed through the annual budgeting process. TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD (TAB) ACTION City Council has charged the Board to: "review all city transportation environment assessments I and capital improvements." In the context of the Capital Improvements Program, the Board is asked to provide a recommendation on the program to the Planning Board and City Council. I The Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) reviewed and made a recommendation on the 2006- 2011 Transportation Development Capital Improvements Program (CIP) at their June 13, 2005 meeting. In summary, the TAB recommended approval of the 2006-2011 Transportation I Development Capital Improvements Program as submitted. (See Transportation fund overview for minutes). 101 Bicycle System 30th Street Bikelanes: Arapahoe to Pearl CITY OF BOULDER 2006-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FUND 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 300,000 650,000 150,000 0 0 0 Multimodal Miscellaneous Development Coordination 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 28th Street (Valmont to Iris) 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 380,000 TIP Local Match fFasTracks Implementation 0 0 140,000 635,000 635,000 0 63rd Street/Diagonal Highway (City share) 0 642,000 0 0 0 0 Subtotal Multimodal 430,000 1,072,000 570,000 1,065,000 1,065,000 430,000 Subtotal Transportation Development CIP 730,000 1,722,000 720,000 1,065,000 1,065,000 430,000 terna1 Fundin 30th Street Bikelanes: Arapahoe to Pearl 0 2,978,000 0 0 0 0 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FUND CIP 730,000 4,700,000 720,000 1,065,000 1,065,000 430,000 Modal Investment Breakout a. Pedestrian 228,471 1,387,371 218,471 297,221 297,221 138,471 b. Bicycle 307,888 2,797,988 237,888 256,638 256,638 97,888 c. Transit 44,272 204,772 79,272 203,022 203,022 44,272 d. Roadway 149,369 309,869 184,369 308,119 308,119 149,369 e. Travel Demand Management (1DM) 0 0 0 0 0 0 f. Mitigation 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FUND CIP 730,000 4,700,000 720,000 1,065,000 1,065,000 430,000 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: 130th Street Bike Lanes - Arapahoe to Pearl 711020 66 Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Transportation Subcommunity: ICrossroads Transportation Development Fund BVCPArea: lArea I New Construction - Growth Related Facility / Additions I CEAP Required: f No CEAP Completed: Project Description: During the development of the Bike System Plan as part of the Transportation Master Plan, constructing bike I lanes on the stretch of 30th Street from Arapahoe to Pearl was identified as a high priority bike system need. Currently on -street bike lanes exist on 30th St. from the Diagonal to Pearl and from Arapahoe to Baseline. This project would complete an important on -street facility missing link by constructing on -street bike lanes on 30th St. I between Arapahoe and Pearl. Funding: 2005-2008: City = $1.1M; TEA -21 = $3.278M. Project funding began in 2005 and will end in 2008. This project is growth related due to impacts from the 29th St redevelopment and East CU campus. Project Justification: Repair, enhancement and completion of the pedestrian and bicycle systems work toward making the city more walkable and bikeable. Providing a usable and connected multi -modal transportation system addresses Council's environmental and transportation goals by creating viable and sustainable transportation options resulting in cleaner air, reduced congestion and lower VMT. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the Transportation Master Plan which gives high priority to completing City Bike facilities thus promoting bicycling and increasing bike mode share. This project is included in the Bike System Plan and is identified as a project within the 28th Street multimodal corridor. This corridor is the highest ranked corridor on the current Transportation Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: Public process and design anticipated in 2006. Construction anticipated in 2007. This project would not benefit from a CEAP (if the 29th Street portion is approved and constructed) given the adopted BVRC Connections Plan and a pending development review that encompasses a major part of the project (29th Street); any remaining issues would be addressed in design refinement (including working with property owners). Relationship with Other Departments: I If necessary, electrical utility undergounding in this stretch of 30th will be coordinated with Xcel. Construction will be coordinated with the 29th Street redevelopment and the Transit Village Area Plan. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $300,000 $3,628,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $4,078,000 Change from Prior Year: IMoved $300k from 2006 to 2005 for design coordination with 29th St. I Annual On -going Operating Costs I Description: Source of Funding: Annual ongoing maintenance costs. Increased maintenance costs are minimal. (Bikelane sweeping is approx. $. 87/If/year) Transportation Fund Operating Budget Business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential % 90% I I Desirable 0/cl__10% Discretionary I________ Total 100% 103 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Miscellaneous Development Coordination 711004 Department: Funding Source Project Type: PW/ Transportation Subcommunity: Multiple Subcomm unities Transportation Development Fund BVCPArea: lArea I On -Going Projects CEAP Required: CEAP Completed: Project Description: This CIP funding is intended to construct infrastructure improvements in coordination with or prompted by potential private development. Throughout the year situations arise where infrastructure improvements are required in the vicinity of a proposed development, should be made at the same time as the development and for which a developer can not be required to construct. Improvements that are typically included are bike and pedestrian, functional efficiency, safety, system preservation, and transit system improvements. Project funding is ongoing. This project is growth related because it addresses needs from new development. Project Justification: The Transportation Master Plan is based on implementing a balanced multimodal-based transportation system Providing a usable, connected and integrated multi -modal transportation system addresses Council's environmental and transportation goals by creating viable and sustainable transportation options, cleaner air, reduced congestion and lower VMT. Relationship to Master Plans: Major goals in the Transportation Master Plan update include system preservation, safety, bike, pedestrian and auto functional efficiency projects. Public Process Status, issuesi ! Projects generally require coordination with adjacent neighborhoods and property owners. Relationship with Other Departments: Close coordination with the Development Review work group and the Planning Department is required. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000 Change from Prior Year: Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding Annual ongoing maintenance costs. Additional maintenance costs from this work is very minor. Transportation Fund Operating Budget Business Plan Prioritlzation of Services: EssentiaI%L I Desirable%I_100% Discretionary%( I Total%I__100% 1 104 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: 128th St (Baseline to Iris) II 711019 69 Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Transportation Subcommunity: IMultiple Subcommunities Transportation Development Fund BVCPArea: lArea I Existing Facility - Enhancements / Upgrades I CEAP Required: EYes CEAP Completed: 12001 - Baseline to Arapahoe I 2002 - Pearl to Iris I Project Description: These improvements focus on the north and south sections of 28th Street, Baseline to Iris. Improvements have I been and are being developed as part of the 28th Street Central Corridor Planning Study. The planning study and the CEAP for the southern section -Baseline to Arapahoe and the northern section -Pearl to Iris, are complete and have been approved by City Council. Recommended improvements include: Urban design, landscaping, streetscape improvements throughout the corridor; transit service and facility improvements including queue I jumps, super stops and route modifications; bike and pedestrian facility improvements including constructing multi -use paths; adding raised crossing at free right turn lanes; traffic efficiency improvements including adding left turn lanes at various intersections and widening the Boulder Creek bridge. Funding for the northern and I southern sections is included in this CIP and will be combined with federal funding and the Transportation Fund. Project funding began pre 1997 and will end post 2011. Project Justification: ' The Transportation Master Plan is based on implementing a balanced multimodal-based transportation system. Providing a usable, connected and integrated multi -modal transportation system addresses Council's environmental and transportation goals by creating viable and sustainable transportation options, cleaner air, I reduced congestion and lower VMT. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the Transportation Master Plan and the plan's focus on Multimodal Corridors. I Multimodal corridors are the major transportation facilities which accommodate auto, bus, bicycle and pedestrian travel. The design and project will address and balance the needs of these modes. 28th Street - Iris to Arapahoe is the highest ranked multimodal corridor and 28th Street - Arapahoe to Baseline is the 3rd highest ranked corridor. Public Process Status, Issues: The CEAP for the southem section - Baseline to Arapahoe and the northern section - Pearl to Iris- have been approved by City Council. The middle section planning and design - Arapahoe to Pearl, will be coordinated with the 29th St. redevelopment. Relationship with Other Departments: This project requires coordination with the Utility Division for utility upgrades, with RTD, CDOT, CU, Arts Commission, the Planning Department and the Real Estate Division. It will also be coordinated with adjacent developments. capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $380,000 $380,000 $380,000 $380,000 $380,000 $380,000 $2,280,000 Change from Prior Year: Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding: Annual on -going maintenance costs. Increased maintenance costs are minimal. (Maint. cost increases $1. 16/l.f.path/year, $1 .38/s.f/year landscaping) Transportation Fund Operating Budget Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % [25 Desirable I Discretionary t J Total 100% 1 105 GREEN WAYS 2006 - 2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM I OVERVIEW The 2006 Greenways Capital Improvements Program (CIP) budget is $450,000. The Greenways I CIP has been developed within the context of and is consistent with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the major drainageway plans and the Greenways Master Plan. The city of Boulder Greenways System is comprised of a series of corridors along riparian areas including Boulder Creek and six designated tributaries, which provide an opportunity to integrate I multiple objectives, including habitat protection, water quality enhancement, storm drainage and floodplain management, alternative transportation routes for pedestrians and bicyclists, recreation and cultural resources. In order to maximize the overlap of objectives and to I coordinate projects along the Greenways, identification of projects for the 2006-20 11 Greenways CIP was done as a team effort, combining input from Flood Utilities, Transportation, Parks and Recreation, Water Quality and Environmental Services, Environmental Affairs, Planning and 1 Open Space and Mountain Parks. Transportation and flood utility projects were identified from the Transportation Master Plan, I and the major drainageway plans, and intra-departmental meetings to determine project priorities and timing. Private development activities were also evaluated. Many of the Greenways projects shown in the ClIP are being designed and constructed in coordination with major flood I or transportation improvements. The Greenways funding associated with these projects focuses on habitat restoration, water quality improvements and trail connections. In addition to leveraging funding with the Transportation and Flood Utilities budgets, funding for Greenways projects is also available through the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and Federal Transportation funds. I In addition to specific project funding for habitat restoration, $100,000 has been dedicated to habitat maintenance each year, with an additional $50,000 designated for miscellaneous habitat restoration projects Maintenance of the Greenways system was reviewed as part of the I Greenways Master Plan update process. Funding for habitat maintenance was first allocated in the 2002-2007 Greenways CIP to address deficiencies identified in the Greenways Master Plan. POLICY ISSUES I All projects in the 2006-2011 CIP will go through the CEAP process, either as part of a bigger flood or transportation project or as a separate project as indicated on the project status reports. 1 107 HIGHLIGHTS Highlights of Greenways projects included in the 2006 CIP focus on the Fourmile Creek corridor from 19th to 26th Streets. These projects include a trail connection, habitat restoration and flood improvements. Similar improvements along Fourmile Creek between 26th and 28th Streets, through the Elks Park were included in 2007 and 2008. Phase I of the Elmer's Twomile Creek project has been funded in 2003 and 2004 through the Greenways CIP, in addition to Federal transportation funding. Funding for Phase II of this project is shown in the Greenways CIP starting in 2008. Improvements along Wonderland Creek are anticipated to occur starting in 2011. Flood improvements for all of these projects are being funded through the Flood Utility. FINANCING Greenways projects are funded from the Transportation Fund, Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Fund, and the Lottery Fund. Existing CIP expenditures are estimated at $450,000 per year for the next six years. Annual funding distribution for the Greenways Program for 2006-20 1 1 is as follows: Transportation - $150,000 Flood Utility - $150,000 Lottery Fund - $150,000 RELATIONSHIP TO OPERATING BUDGET The Greenways corridors are currently maintained by several work groups within the city, as well as outside organizations. Tasks are divided up by geographical location as well as by function. The responsibility of each work group is described below: Boulder County Parks and Open Space maintains the Boulder Creek path from the mouth of Boulder Canyon to Fourmile Canyon. The city's Parks and Recreation Department maintenance staff is responsible for maintenance of Greenways that traverse a city park, as well as the Boulder Creek Path from Eben Fine Park to 55th Street. The city's Street Maintenance is responsible for snow removal and general path maintenance (debris removal and sweeping) along all of the Greenways paths, except those portions of path maintained by the Parks Department. The city's Open Space and Mountain Parks Department is responsible for maintenance of natural, environmentally sensitive, or re -vegetated areas on open space land and easements. Currently this includes portions of Boulder Creek east of 38th Street and Arapahoe Avenue and portions of South Boulder Creek from KOA Lake to Marshall Road. Flood Utility Maintenance is responsible for maintaining the flood carrying capacity of all of the Greenways channels, which primarily involves removing tree limbs and downed trees from obstructing the flow in the channels, removal of channel sediment, and bank stabilization. 108 Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) performs maintenance on sections of Boulder Creek and all tributaries included in the Greenways Program. City Forestry, University of Colorado (CU), ditch companies, and Xcel Energy are also involved in maintenance along the Greenways. ADVISORY BOARD ACTION Agenda Item 2 - Public hearing and GAC recommendation on the Greenways 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Annie Noble presented the budget and provided a brief background of the program. Noble explained how the lottery funds are assigned to Greenways projects. Noble also explained the carryover of $976,922 from 2004 and 2005. The total carryover plus budget for 2006 is i $1,426,922. U Noble addressed questions raised in an email from the Open Space Department regarding I fimding for the habitat maintenance program that has not been spent. The Open Space Department provided a list of projects that would be appropriate for habitat maintenance funding to support. GAC questions covered the following topics: Leveraging of funds; I. The habitat maintenance budget; Success of the habitat maintenance program; Reallocating habitat maintenance funds; I. The method for reviewing projects; The Founnile Canyon Creek project; The plusses and minuses of creating Greenways trails on every creek in town; 1 . Focusing on habitat destruction with Flood Control and Greenways projects; . The flood control component of Greenways projects; The Skunk Creek underpass on 27th Way; and . Meeting to discuss spending more of the habitat maintenance budget. I Allvn Feinber moved that the Greenways Advisory Committee approve the 2006-2011 CIP and that Greenways, Open Space and Parks work collaboratively to spend habitat maintenance funds on projects including but not limited to those on the Open Space project list. Simon Mole seconded the motion. The vote was 5-1 in favor of the motion. Susan Iott voted against the motion because she thought that the wording dealing with spending I habitat maintenance funds was different from the concerns raised about efforts to mitigate habitat destruction. Iott wanted to include an amendment that encouraged the staff to continue seeking nonstructural alternatives to avoid habitat loss and degradation in riparian areas. I 109 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Tributary Greenways 04Jan06 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected New Construction - Growth Related Facility / Additions Fourmile Canyon Creek - 19th to Riverside Fourmile Canyon Creek - Riverside to 26th Street Total: New Construction - Not Growth Related Miscellaneous Restoration Projects Founnile Canyon Creek - 26th to 28th Elxners Two Mile Creek -. Valmont to (ilenwood Wonderland Creek Foothills to Diagonal Total: On -Going Projects Maintenance and Weed Control Miscellaneous - Greenways Operating Total: 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 95,000 0 0 0 0 0 95,000 195,000 0 0 0 0 0 195,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300,000 0 195,000 5,000 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 190,000 195,000 195,000 120,000 700,000 0 0 0 0 0 75.000 75,000 50,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 1,275,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 105,000 630,000 205,000 205,000 205,000 205,000 205,000 205,000 1,230,000 Total for Tributary Greenways 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 2,700,000 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Fourmile Canyon Creek - 19th to Riverside I I 83 Department: I Funding Source Project Type: PW/ Tributary Greenways Subcommunity: INorth Boulder Tributary Greenways BVCPArea: lArea I New Construction - Growth Related Facility / Additions CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: Project Description: This project includes a trail connection, improvements to the creek, environmental resoration, and water quality best management practices along Fourmile Canyon Creek between 19th street and Riverside in conjunction with work being done by the flood utilities division and the property owner. Project Justification: This project supports the Council goal of transportation by improving the off street trail system, and supports economy and environmental sustairiability. Relationship to Master Plans: This proejct is listed in the Greenways Master Plan and the Transportation Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: The CEAP for this project will be reviewed by the Water Resources Advisory Board as part of the Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Management Plan, with the Greenways Advisory Committee review as an information item. Costs of major flood impovements are not included as part of the Greenways CIP. Relationship with Other Departments: All work along the Greenways is coordinated through the Greenways staff group that includes representatives from the Open Space Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Environmental Affairs, Planning Department and Transportation and Utilities Divisions. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Change from Prior Year: Inone Annual On -going Operating Costs $1,000 Description: Imaintenance costs $1.16/lineal foot of path/year Source of Funding: [bikeways, flood maintenance, Greenways habitat Business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential 0101 I Desirable 100% Discretionary %_______ Total %J__100% 111 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Fourmile Canyon Creek - Riverside to 26th Street I I 82 Department: Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Tributary Greenways Subcommunity: INorth Boulder Tributary Greenways BVCPArea: lArea I ew Construction - Growth Related Facility I Additions CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: Project Description: This project includes improvements to the creek, environmental resortation, and water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) along Fourmile Canyon Creek between Riverside and 26th St. A trail connection is being proposed from riverside to Topaz, which will require an amendment to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan. This project will be done in conjunction with work being done by the Flood Utilities Division. Project Justffication: This project supports the Council goal of environmental sustainabily by enhancing the stream corridor. Relationship to Ma5ter Plans: This proejct is listed in the Greenways Master Plan and the Transportation Master Plan and the Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Management Plan except for the addition of the trail connection. Public Process Status, Issues: The CEAP for this project will be the water resource advisory board as part of the Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Management Plan, with the Greenways Advisory Committee review as an information item. Costs of major flood improvements are not included as part of the Greenways CIP. An amendment to the North Boulder Subcommunity Plan will be required for the trail connection. Relationship with Other Departments: All work along the Greenways is coordinated through the Greenways staff group that includes representatives from the Open Space Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Environmental Affairs, Planning Department and Transportation and Utilities Divisions. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $95,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,000 Change from Prior Year: Inone Annual On -going Operating Costs $1,000 Description: Imaintenance costs $1 .16/lineal foot of path/year Source of Funding: bikeways, flood maintenance, Greenways habitat Business Plan Prioritlzatlon of Services: Essential % Desirable I__100% Discretionary %l J Total °'I 100% ] 112 2006-2011 CaptaI Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Miscellaneous Restoration Projects I I I I I Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: PWI Tributary Greenways Subcommunity: Isystem-wide Tributary Greenways BVCPArea: Isystem-wide New Construction - Not Growth Related CEAP Required: INo CEAP Completed: Project Description: Miscellaneous habitat resoration projects in conjunction with Parks and Open Space departments. Greenways staff is currently working with Open Space and Parks staff to identify restoration projects. A list of proposed joint Open Space and Greenways projects was provided by Allyn Feinberg, OSBT representative to the Greenways Advisory Committee. Staff is currently working towards implementing these projects. Project JustificatIon: Maintenance of the Greenways habitat supports the Council goal of environmental sustainability. Relationship to Master Plans: Habitat resoration projects are listed in the Greenways Master Plan Update. Public Process Status, Issues: Projects will be coordinated with Parks and Open Space Relationship with Other Departments: Resoration Projects are developed with input from the City's Open Space Department, the Parks Department, Boulder County and the Environmental Affairs program. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000 I Change from Prior Year: Inone Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 I I Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential % Desirable %__100% Discretionary %l_______ Total %l__100% 113 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Maintenance and Weed Control I I I I I Department: Funding Source: Project Type: PWI Tributary Greenways Subcommunity: Isystem-wide Tributary Greenways BVCPArea: System -wide On -Going Projects CEAP Required: INO CEAP Completed: ___________________________________________________________I Project Description: Proposed enhancements to maintenance practices along the Greenways will include weed control and maintaining the stream corridor for habitat. Specific tasks include retaining a summer crew, purchase of equipment, control and removal of noxious weeds, and planting of natives to discourage re-establishment of weeds. Project Justification: Maintenance of the Greenways for habitat supports the Council goal of environmental sustainability. Relationship to Master Plans: Maintenance and weed control are important components of the Greenways Master Plan update. Public Process Status, Issues: Weed control efforts will begin by concentrating on lands owned and managed by the City. Relationship with Other Departments: The weed control plan for Greenways will be developed with input from the Open Space Department, the Parks Department, and Boulder County. Initial weed control efforts will be performed on City owned properties, therefore the projects will be coordinated with the managing department. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $600,000 Change from Prior Year: Inone Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding: This funding provides annual operating costs for maintaining the Greenways habitat. Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % I Desirable % 100% ] Discretionary %j I Total%I__100% 1 114 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Miscellaneous - Greenways Operating I I I I I Departme nt: I Funding Source: Project Type: PWI Tributary Greenways Subcommunity: Isystem-wide Tributary Greenways BVCPArea: System -wide On -Going Projects CEAP Required: INO CEAP Completed: Project Description: General administration of the program including salaries, as well as small capital projects including rest areas and signage; Miscellaneous trail connections and improvements. Project Justification: These funds are required for the continuation of the Greenways Program. Relationship to Master Plans: Improvements made would follow the recommendations of the Greenways Master Plan. Public Process Status, issues: Any improvement that would have an impact on the public or an adjacent property owner would involve public input. Relationship with Other Departments: All work along the Greenways is coordinated through the Greenways staff group that includes representatives from the Open Space Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Environmental Affairs, Planning Department and Transportation and Utilities Divisions. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $105,000 $630,000 1 Change from Prior Year: U Annual On -going Operating Costs I 1 I Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Priorltization of Services: Essential 0/ Desirable 100% J Discretionary %l 1 Total %l__100% 115 SUMMARY OF THE 2006-2011 UTILITIES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 1 December 1, 2005 OVERVIEW The overall program and ftinding priorities are reflected in the staging and timing of projects over the 6 year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) time period. The following primary factors were considered in determining the overall program and funding priorities: Water and Wastewater Utilities 1. Reliability of water and wastewater collection, delivery and treatment I 2. Water quality and other environmental regulations 3. Worker health and safety 4. Opportunity to collaborate with other city projects, i.e., transportation I 5. Potential for operation and maintenance cost savings 6. Accommodating new growth and development Stormwater and Flood Management Utility 1. Property damage or safety hazard mitigation ' 2. Water quality and other environmental regulations 3. Worker health and safety 4. Opportunity to collaborate with other city projects, i.e., transportation IS. Potential for operation and maintenance cost savings 6. Accommodating new growth and development I No effort has been made in developing the CIP to target improvements in a certain geographic area. POLICY ISSUES There are no policy issues related to the CIP this year. HIGHLIGHTS Highlights of the proposed CIP are as follows: Multi -fund Projects 1 1. Money has been budgeted in 2006 for possible expansion of the city's water and wastewater system in Area II neighborhoods. It is anticipated the existing County rights - of way would be annexed to the City and used for the installation of the water and sewer 1 117 mains. Residents would be able to connect to the City's water system after paying the appropriate fees. Currently residents of Area H neighborhoods are served by water wells and individual sewage disposal systems which may pose a public health risk. 2. Money has been budgeted under the heading "Yards Master Plan Implementation". This will require the acquisition of property adjacent to the existing City Yards site. This project is being coordinated with the City's Transportation Division. Water Utility Projects 1. Continued emphasis on the rehabilitation and improvement of the City's existing water system infrastructure continues, especially in the area of the City's deteriorated water distribution system. This is reflected in the significant funding for the Waterline Replacement project and several other rehabilitation projects. 2. Continued work on repairs to the Barker water system, acquired by the City from Xcel Energy in 2001. Repairs to this water system are necessary to assure safe and reliable water deliveries to the Betasso Water Treatment Plant (WTP). 3. Additional money has been allocated for capital improvement to the Betasso and Boulder Reservoir WTPs. This work is necessary to rehabilitate aging equipment and treatment processes and to comply with federal Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. Work at the Boulder Reservoir WTP (and Boulder Reservoir Intake and Pumping, Iris Pump Station, Cherryvale Pump Station) currently scheduled in 2009, was prompted by staff review of the City's water delivery system in light of recent drought conditions. It is anticipated that water from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) Colorado Big -Thompson Project will play an increasingly important role in the City's overall water system deliveries. This water is treated and delivered through these facilities. 4. Additional money has been allocated for the Boulder Feeder Canal project in 2009 for the possibility of constructing of a pipeline from Carter Lake to Boulder Reservoir. Whereas water conveyed by the Feeder Canal is subject to water quality concerns, water conveyed by a pipeline would be protected from contaminants. The City has an opportunity to collaborate on this project with the Town of Erie and the Lefthand Water District. The City is currently participating in a feasibility study initiated by the NCWCD. More information will be available in early 2006. Wastewater Utility 1. It is anticipated the City's 75th Wastewater Treatment Plant will be issued a revised discharge permit in 2008 by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. For this reason, money is allocated in 2009-2010 for additional treatment plant improvements. 2. Funding for the project "Biosolids Composting" has been deleted from the proposed CIP since the city does not plan to proceed with this project. Existing funding will be used for 118 on -going expenses related to the Valmont Butte site. 1 3. The "Biosolids Handling and Dewatering" project includes capacity expansion to handle the anticipated increased solids production from the WWTP liquid stream improvements I as well as those stemming from 2025 flows and waste loading projections. As a result, biosolids facilities will need to be expanded and improved. Biosolids facilities are currently located at the WWTP and improvements to these facilities will likely happen on -site since the city decided not to pursue biosolids composting at the Valmont Butte site. I 4. Funding for a project called "Biosolids Digester" has been added to the proposed CIP since the city plans to maintain its Class B land application program and will need an additional digester to maintain compliance with CDPHE regulations. Stormwater and Flood Management Utility I1. Money is budgeted for flood mitigation work along Fourmile Canyon Creek. This money will be used for on -going study, property acquisition and limited construction projects until decisions are reached through the on -going flood mitigation planning I process. It is anticipated the results of this planning process will be available later this year. The study results will also include recommendations for Wonderland Creek, which is closely associated with Fourmile. Significant funding is also budgeted for Elmer's ' Two-mile Creek improvements. All projects are being closely coordinated with the City's Greenways Program and Transportation Division. I 2. There has been significant progress in developing the South Boulder Creek Flood Mapping Study including updated climatology and hydrology research. This information has been submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for review. The I hydraulic floodplain delineation and risk assessments needed to fmalize the study are expected to be completed later this summer. The study results will be used to produce a new Flood Insurance Rate Map for the South Boulder Creek floodplain. Following the outcome of the flood mapping study, which will define the flooding problem, a flood management and mitigation planning effort with direct public involvement will be I conducted to determine the most suitable alternatives for addressing South Boulder Creek flooding. In anticipation of implementing flood mitigation measures, $3.0 million has been allocated in 2008. Additional funding that may be determined to be necessary for South Boulder Creek would require reprioritization of other capital improvement projects, higher rate increases, or both. 1 MASTER PLANNING I Master Planning is an element of the decision making process for proposed CIP projects. Historically, these master plans focused on service area growth and its impact on related utility - infrastructure needs. At this point in time, growth is not as important an issue as the need to rehabilitate and address deficiencies in the existing infrastructure. Identification of these issues 1 119 occurs on an on -going basis and is documented in the Utilities Division Annual Reports as well as on -going studies and reports. Master plan summaries are provided in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and were recently updated. At this point in time existing master plans provide an adequate basis from which to formulate the CIP in conjunction with other information. The Treated Water Master Plan was updated in 2000 and Wastewater Collection System Master Plan in 2003. An update to the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan will be completed in 2006. The Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan was updated in 2004. The relationship of each CIP project to the master plans and studies is presented in the detailed project descriptions. It may be necessary to revise current master plans depending on the extent of changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan including land use designations. For this reason, anticipated projects in the years 2007-2011 are preliminary and are based on the judgement of Utilities Division staff. FINANCING Each of the City's utility funds is established as a separate enterprise fund designed to finance and account for each utility's facilities and services. Funding for the Utilities capital improvement program is derived primarily from monthly utility fees. In addition to the monthly utility fees, significant revenue sources include Plant Investment Fees (PIFs), from new development or redevelopment and hydroelectric sales to Xcel Energy. Sales from monthly utility fees are relatively stable from year to year and reflect the overall growth of the service area and yearly weather fluctuations. Other revenue sources include reimbursements from the Urban Drainage & Flood Control District (for stormwater/ flood management projects), state and federal grants, and revolving loans from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (none anticipated at this time). These revenues are project specific and are highly variable depending on the external agency's funding situation and priorities. Currently, the following projects are anticipated to qualify for such revenues: Stormwater and Flood Management - Elmer's Two-mile Creek Stormwater and Flood Management - Preflood Acquisition Other possible sources of revenue are fees collected through special assessment districts and assessments levied as part of annexation agreements. These types of funding mechanisms are anticipated for the Water and Wastewater System Expansion projects. If the above mentioned funds are insufficient, projects will be funded by issuing revenue bonds with the debt service financed by general utility charges. For the years 2006-2011, it is anticipated that new bonds will be issued for the following projects: 120 I Water - Betasso WTP (2010) . Water - Boulder Reservoir WTP (2009) Water - Barker Reservoir Dam Outlet (2009) I. Water - Boulder Feeder Canal Pipeline (2009) Wastewater - WWTP Improvements (2010) Wastewater - Biosolids Digester (2007) . Stormwater and Flood Management - South Boulder Creek (2008) Staff will complete the evaluation of the proposed CIP on rates in conjunction with the development of the 2006 operating budget. Rate increases are currently projected as follows: Water Utility: 2006 -3 percent I . Wastewater Utility: 2006 - 20 percent Stormwater and Flood 2006 -3 percent Management Utility: PUBLIC PROCESS AND ADVISORY BOARD ACTION The preliminary CIP was discussed at the Water Resource Advisory Board (WRAB) on May 16, I 2005. At the June 20,2005 WRAB meeting, there was a public hearing and discussion regarding the I Proposed Utilities (Water, Wastewater and Storrnwater/ Flood Management) 2006-2011 Capital Improvement Program. One member of the public spoke during the public hearing as follows: I Oliver Brousse, 4450 Ruby St., Boulder, asked about the proposed project for structural improvements on Four Mile Creek. Brousse wanted to know what the long term plans are especially given that there is $500K per year budgeted for the project. Bob Harberg responded to Brousse's question. Harberg presented the CIP for Water, Wastewater and Storm and Flood Management. Harberg I said that the staff was requesting a recommendation about the budget to pass along to the Planning Board and then to the City Council. Harberg pointed out several changes in the CIP, I especially a change to the water fund that addressed the Lakewood Pipeline litigation. The board discussed whether their recommendation on the budget would cover 2006 only or would cover projects in the budgeting window of 2006-2011. Ned Williams said that the vote should reflect the time frame through 2011. Bart Miller moved to recommend approval for the 2006-2011 budget as presented. Jim Knopf seconded the motion. Several WRAB members had concerns about some budget items: 1 121 Robin Byers said she felt there is insufficient funding set aside to cover potential Lakewood Pipeline expenses; Ken Wilson said that he didn't' support a $20M set aside in 2009 for a Boulder Feeder Canal pipeline because it hadn't been justified yet. The other board members agreed with Wilson; Ken Wilson said he felt there was a lack of detailed information about operating expenses. Robin Byers agreed with Wilson; and Robin Byers said that the 3% water rate increase is not justified. The motion was withdrawn. Bart Miller moved to recommend approval of the CIP with the condition that the Boulder Feeder Canal pipeline item in 2009 required additional studies, including purpose and need, before the board would approve the construction funding of $20 million. Jim Knopf seconded the motion. The vote was 3-2 in favor of the motion. Robin Byers and Ken Wilson voted against the motion for the reasons stated above. 122 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Water Utility Fund Existing Facility - Enhancements / Upgrades Yards Master Plan Implementation - Water Sunshine Transmission Pipe Pearl Street HydroIPRV Station Instrcam Flow Structures and Gaging Total: Existing Facility - Rehab / Repair I Deficiency Correction Barker Dam Outlet Barker Gravity Pipeline Barker Instream Flow Release Betasso WTP Boulder Feeder Canal Distribution System Water Quality Lakewood Pipeline Water System Security Waterline Replacement Albion Dam Chautauqua Storage Tank Kohler Storage Tank Maxwell Storage Tank Zone 2 Transmission Facilities Zone 3 Transmission Facilities Betasso to Orodell Tranmission Pipe Betasso Storage Tank Lakcwood Reservoir Dam Total: 22 -Dec -05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 500,000 0 225,000 0 0 0 725,000 0 0 0 200,000 ltOO,000 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 500,000 0 225,000 200,000 1,000,000 50,000 1,975,000 200,000 100,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 4,300,000 275,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 1,275,000 75,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 0 0 475,000 5,000,000 0 0 500,000 5,000,000 0 10,500,000 250,000 500,000 500,000 20,000,000 0 0 21,250,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 1,750,000 250,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 2,300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000 1,750,000 2.500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 14,250,000 0 25,000 100,000 0 0 0 125,000 0 200,000 500,000 0 0 0 700,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 50,000 200,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 250,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 250.000 250,000 9,550,000 5,625,000 5,550,000 26,600,000 8,300,000 3,000,000 58,625,000 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Water Utility Fund New Construction - Growth Related Facility / Additions Boulder Reservoir WTP Chenyvale Pump Station his Pump Station Boulder Reservoir Intake and Pumping Improvements Total: New Construction - Not Growth Related Annexation Related Water System Expansion Total: Total for Water Utility Fund 22 -Dec -05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected O 0 400,000 3,000,000 0 500,000 3,900,000 0 0 50,000 500,000 0 0 550,000 0 0 100,000 1,000,000 0 0 1,100,000 O 0 0 100,000 0 0 100,000 0 0 550,000 4,600,000 0 500,000 5,650,000 525,000 0 0 0 0 0 525,000 525,000 0 0 0 0 0 525,000 10,575,000 5,625,000 6,325,000 31,400,000 9,300,000 3,550,000 66,775,000 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Yards Master Plan Implementation - Water I I I I I Department: IPW/ Water Utility Subcommunity: lEast Boulder Funding Source: Iwater Utility Fund BVCPArea: lArea I Project Type: Existing Facility - Enhancements / Upgrades CEAP Required: INO CEAP Completed: INA Project DescrIption: This project will provide funds for the acquisition of additional land adjacent to the existing City Yards. Project Justification: Improvements to the City Yards are required to sustain transporation and utilities maintenance services for the City. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Yards Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues:._____ No additional public process is anticipated Relationship with Other Departments: Transportation Wastewater, Stormwater, FAM Capital Funding Plan I 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $500,000 $0 $225,000 $0 $0 $0 $725,000 1 Change from Prior Year: INeW project Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential % L00% Desirable I Discretionary I I Total%l__100% 126 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Barker Dam Outiet ] 411109 Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: FW/ Water Utility Subcommunity: IOutside Planning Area water Utility Fund BVCPArea: Ioutside Planning Area Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair / Deficiency Correction I CEAP Required: INO ( CEAP Completed: INA Project Description I This project will provide funds for repairs to the outlet works of the existing Barker Dam. Project Justification: Rehabilitation of the city's water system is required to assure the safe and reliable delivery of water to the community. The facility us approaching 100 years of age and is need of repair of deterioration due to weather and other environmental factors. Relationship to Master Plans: I This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Raw Water Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: I No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments: None Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $200,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $4,300,000 Change from Prior Year: IProiect construction funding delayed until 2009 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % 100% Desirable I Discretionary L________ Total %__100% 127 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number; Barker Gravity Pipeline 411106 Department: Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Water Utility Subcommunity: Ioutside Planning Area Water Utility Fund BVCPArea: lOutside Planning Area Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair I Deficiency Correction CEAP Required: [No CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project will provides funds for repairs to the existing Barker gravity pipeline. Project Justification: Rehabilitation of the city's water system is required to assure the safe and reliable delivery of water to the community. The facility us approaching 100 years of age and is need of repair of deterioration due to weather and other environmental factors. Relationship to Master Plans: ___. This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Raw Water Master Plan. Public Process Status, 4' No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments; None Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $275,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,275,000 Change from Prior Year: Iconstructjon funding extended through 2007, funding reduced in 2006 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prloritization of Services: Essential % [ 100% Desirable %I I Discretionary I________ Total%I__100% 1 128 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Barker Instream Flow Release ( I I I Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Water Utility (Subcommunity: Ioutside Planning Area Water Utility Fund BVCPArea: (Outside Planning Area Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair / Deficiency Correction CEAP Required: (No CEAP Completed: (NA Project Description: This project will provide funds for the construction of facilities to release water below Barker Dam for in -stream flow. Project Justification: Rehabilitation of the city's water system is required to assure the safe and reliable delivery of water to the community. The facility us approaching 100 years of age and is need of repair of deterioration due to weather and other environmental factors. Continued In -stream flow releases are required as part of an agreement with the Colorado Water Conservation Division. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is not specifically identified in the raw water master plan but would provide funds for the release of water to Middle Boulder Creek to maintain instream flows. This goal is described in BVCP policy 4.23, minimum flow program. This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code. Public Process Status, Issues: No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments: None CapItal Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $75,000 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $475,000 Change from Prior Year: (Construction funding delayed until 2009 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential %(_100% Desirable % I Discretionary%(_______ Total 100% 129 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: IBetassoWTP 411947 1 1 49 I Department: Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Water Utility Subcommunity: Ioutside Planning Area Water Utility Fund BVCPArea: Ioutside Planning Area Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair / Deficiency Correction CEAP Required: 1io CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project will provides funds for rehabilitations and improvements to the Betasso WTP. Project Justification: Rehabilitation and improvement of the citys water system is required to assure the safe and reliable delivery of water to the community. This project is also required to meet new Federal and State regulations. The Betasso WTP is the city's primary water treatment facility and has deteriorated during its operation of over 40 years. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Treated Water Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: _______________________ No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments - __J None Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 PlannedFunding $5,000,000 $0 $0 $500,000 $5,000,000 $0 $10,500,000 Change from Prior Year: Funding added in 2009/2010 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % 100% Desirable %_______ Discretionary l_______ Total%I__100% 1 130 1 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Boulder Feeder Canal 411546 50 Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: PWI Water Utility Subcommunity: Ioutside Planning Area Water Utility Fund BVCPArea: IOutslde Planning Area Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair I Deficiency Correction CEAP Required: INo CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project will provide funds for the protection of water quality protection in the Boulder Feeder Canal. Near term improvements include best management practices for water quality as identifed in a recent report. Longer term improvements include a pipeline from Carter Lake to Boulder Reservoir. --------------------------- Project Justification: Rehabilitation of the city's water system is required to assure the safe and reliable delivery of water to the community. The Boulder Feeder Canal delivers water to Boulder Reservoir from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy Districts (NCWCD) Carter Lake. The city is currently participating in a NCWCD feasibility study of the pipeline along with the City of Broomfield and the Left hand Water District. More information regarding the pipeline will be available late in 2005.This project is required to protect the quality of the city's raw water resources Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Treated Water Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: NCWCD will have to apply to Boulder County for a 1041 review for constructing the pipeline. No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments: Open Space and Mountain Parks Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $250,000 $500,000 $500,000 $20,000,000 $0 $0 $21,250,000 Change from Prior Year: Funding added in 2007-2009 for design and construction of pipe from Carter Lake Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 I Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential %[ I Desirable o,oI__100% Discretionary °1l________ Total%I__100% 131 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Distribution System Water Quality 411425 Department: PW/ Water Utility Subcommunity: Isystem-wide Funding Source: Water Utility Fund BVCPArea: Isystem-wide Project Type: Existing Facility - Rehab / Repair I Deficiency Correction CEAP Required: INo CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project provides funds for water quality improvements to the distribution system. Project Justification: Rehabilitation of the citys water system is required to assure the safe and reliable delivery of water to the community. The project will provide funds for better hydraulic and water quality modeling of the city's water distribution system as welt as improvements to the system that will assure compliance with Federal and State regulations. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Treated Water Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments: None Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $900,000 Change from Prior Year: Funding added in 2011 Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritizatlon of ServIces Essential % 100% Desirable I Discretionary I I Total%I__100% 1 132 1 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: tLakewood Pipeline 411780 Department: J Funding Source Project Type: DW/ Water Utility Subcommunity: Ioutside Planning Area Nater Utility Fund BVCPArea: lOutside Planning Area Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair / Deficiency Correction I CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: jYes I Project Description: This project will provide funds for on -going testing and restoration associated with the Lakewood Pipeline. I I I I Project Justification: Issues related to the reconstruction of the Lakewod Pipeline requires on -going inspection of the pipe to assure its serviceability. There is also the need to monitor and supplement restoration of the pipeline corridor in accordance with United States Forest Service and Boulder County requirements. Money is budgeted in 2006 to fund the anticipated costs of litigation with Barnard Construction. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Raw Water Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments: None Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $1,750,000 $250,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $2,300,000 Change from Prior Year: Funding increased in 2006-2007 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential %l__100%_J Desirable 0/cl_______ Discretionary 0/cl I Total %f__100% 133 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Water System Security I I 1 I I Department: Funding Source: Project Type: WJ Water Utility Subcommunity: System -wide Nater Utility Fund BVCPArea: System -wide Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair I Deficiency Correction CEAP Required: No CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project will provide funds for water system security upgrades. Project Justification: Portions of the water system may be vulnerable and require security upgrades. Relationship to Master Plans: These projects are necessary to continue to meet state and federal regulations regarding water system security that have changed based on recent events. Public Process Status, Issues: ._._; No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments: - None Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $600,000 Change from Prior Year: Funding added in 2011 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential °'1_100% Desirable Dlscretlonary%I I Total%I__100% 1 I I I 134 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Waterline Replacement 411389 Department: PWI Water Utility Subcommunity: System -wide I Funding Source: Water Utility Fund BVCPArea: Isystem-wide Project Type: Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair I Deficiency Correction I CEAP Required: INo CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project provides funds for the reconstruction of waterlines that are part of the City's water distribution system. Project Justification: Rehabilitation of the city's water system is required to assure the safe and reliable delivery of water to the I community. Many of the city's existing waterlines are corroded and must be replaced. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the I Treated Water Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: No additional public process is anticipated. I Relationship with Other Transportation Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $1,750,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $14,250,000 Change from Prior Year: Funding added in 2011. Funding reduced in 2006. Annual On -going Operating Costs I Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prlorltizatlon of Services: Essential % 100% Desirable Discretionary ! I Total%I__100% 135 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Annexation Related Water System Expansion I I I I 52 Department: PW/ Water Utility Subcommunity: System -wide Funding Source: Water Utility Fund BVCPArea: lArea Ii Project Type: New Construction - Not Growth Related CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: INO Project Description: This project provides funding for the installation of water mains in one or more Area II neighborhoods. It is anticipated the existing County rights -of way would be annexed to the City and used for the installation of the sewer mains. Residents would be able to connect to the City's wastewater system after paying the appropriate fees. Project Justification: Currently residents of Area II neighborhoods are served by water wells and individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) which may pose a public health risk, Installation of water mains will provide safe water to this neighborhood. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Treated Water Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: It is anticipated the CEAP for this project will be initiated in 2005. Relationship with Other Departments: Planning and Transportation Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $525,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $525,000 Change from Prior Year: Funding added in 2006 Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prloritlzation of Services: Essential % _______J Desirable %__100% Discretionary %l I Total%I__100% 136 - - -- - .- - - - _ - - - - - - 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Wastewater Utility Fund Existing Facility - Enhancements I Upgrades Yards Master Plan Implementation - Wastewater Total: Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair! Deficiency Correction Sanitaiy Sewers Sewer Manholes WWTP Headworks WWFP Solids Contact WWTP Secondaiy Clariflers Marshall Landfill WWTP Pumps Total: New Construction - Growth Related Facility I Additions WWTP Biosolids Digester Total: New Construction - Not Growth Related Annexation Related Wastewater System Expansion WWTP/CPDES Liquid Stream Total: 22 -Dec -05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 250,000 0 110,000 0 0 0 360,000 250,000 0 110,000 0 0 0 360,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 750,000 750,000 3,700,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100.000 100,000 600,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 O 0 0 150,000 0 0 150,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 650,000 850,000 650,000 800,000 950,000 950,000 4,850,000 250,000 9,000,000 250,000 9,000,000 725,000 0 0 100,000 725,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 8,000,000 0 1,000,000 8,000,000 o 9,250,000 0 9,250,000 0 725,000 0 9,100,000 0 9,825,000 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Wastewater Utility Fund Reconstruction WVTFP Biosolids Handling & Dewatering Total: Total for Wastewater Utility Fund 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 22 -Dec -05 Total 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 2,125,000 9,950,000 760,000 1,800,000 8,950,000 950,000 24,535,000 - - -- -. - - - -- - - - - - - 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Yards Master Plan Implementation - Wastewater I I I I I Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: I I I I I I I I I I I U U I PW/ Wastewater Utility Subcommunity: lEast Boulder Wastewater Utility Fund BVCPArea: lArea I Existing Facility - Enhancements I Upgrades CEAP Required: No CEAP Completed: Project Description: This project will provide funds for the acquisition of additional land near adjacent to the existing City Yards. Project Justification: Improvements to the City Yards are required to sustain transporation and utilities maintnenance services for the City. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Yards Master Plan. Public Process Status, No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments __J - Transportation, Water and Storrnwater, FAM Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $250,000 $0 $110,000 $0 $0 $0 $360,000 Change from Prior Year: INew project Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prloritlzatlon of Services: Essential % 100% Desirable % I Discretionary %I I Total%I__100% U 139 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: [itary Sewers 421002 j _____________ Department: PWI Wastewater Utility Subcommunity: ISystem_wide Funding Source: Wastewater Utility Fund BVCPArea: System -wide Project Type: Existing Facility - Rehab / Repair I Deficiency Correction CEAP Required: INO CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project provides for the rehabilitation and improvement to the existing collector sewer piping of the City's wastewater collection system. Project Justification: Rehabilitation and improvement of the city's wastewater system is required to assure that wastewater is collected and conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goats of the wastewater utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and th Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments: None Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 $750,000 $750,000 $3,700,000 Change from Prior Year: 1Aded funding in 2011 Annual On -going Operating Costs Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prloritization of Services: Essential % L0% I Desirable I I Discretionary %j I Total%I 100% j 140 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: ISewer Manholes j 421454 Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: W/ Wastewater Utility Subcommunity: Isystem-wide Nastewater Utility Fund BVCPArea: Isystem-wide Existing Facility - Rehab I Repair / Deficiency Correction I CEAP Required: INO CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project provides for the rehabilitation and improvement to the existing collector sewer piping of the City's I wastewater manholes. ProjectJustlfication: Rehabilitation and improvement of the citys wastewater system is required to assure that wastewater is collected and conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the wastewater utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and th Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Public Process Status, Issues: I No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments: None Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $100000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $600,000 Change from Prior Year: lAdded funding in 2011 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % 100%7 Desirable I Discretionary °IoI_______ Total 100% 141 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: WWTP Biosolids Digester I I I I I Department: Funding Source: Project Type: PWI Wastewater Utility Subcommunity: lArea Ill Wastewater Utility Fund BVCPArea: lArea Ill New Construction - Growth Related Facility I Additions CEAP Required: Ives CEAP Completed: INo 1 Project Description: This project funds the construction of a third biosolids digester at the 75th St. WWTP. Project Justification: In 2003, the city's 75th St. Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was issued a new discharge permit by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) requiring improved ammonia removal. Although improved ammonia removal is driving the need for these improvements, state regulations also require that the improvements include capacity expansion to handle the anticipated 2025 flows and waste loading. As a result, biosolids facilities will need to be expanded and improved. Biosolids facilities are currently located at the WWTP and improvements to these facilities will likely happen on -site since the city decided not to pursue biosolids composting at the Valmont Butte site. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the wastewater utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code Public Process Status, Issues: This process will be initiated in 2006. Relationship with Other Departments: None Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $250,000 $9,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $9,250,000 Change from Prior Year: Funding increased in 2006 for a more extensive public input process and design Annual On -going Operating Costs I $110,000 Description: O&M costs are anticipated to begin mid year 2007 Source of Funding: Wastewater Utility Fund Business Plan Prioritization or Services: Essential 1_100% Desirable %) I Discretionary%_______ Total %l__100% U 142 I 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Annexation Related Wastewater System Expansion I I I I Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: PWI Wastewater Utility Subcommunity: Isystem-wide Wastewater Utility Fund BVCPArea: lArea II New Construction - Not Growth Related CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: INO Project Description: This project provides funding for the installation of sewer mains in one or more Area II neighborhoods. It is anticipated the existing County rights -of way would be annexed to the City and used for the installation of the sewer mains. Residents would be able to connect to the Citys wastewater system after paying the appropriate fees. Project Justification: Currently residents of Area II neigborhoods are served by water wells and individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) which may pose a public health risk. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the wastewater utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code, the BVCP and the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. Public Process Status, issues: It is anticipated the CEAP for this project will begin in 2005. Relationship with Other Departments: Planning and Transportation Capital Funding Plan 2006 . 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $725,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $725,000 Change from Prior Year: Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Priorltizatlon of Services: ; Essential % Desirable %1_100% Discretionary %I_______ Total %l__100% 143 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: IWWTP Biosolids Handling & Dewatering 421670 31 Department: Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Wastewater Utility Subcommunity: lArea Ill Wastewater Utility Fund BVCPArea: lArea Ill Reconstruction CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: JNo Project Description: This project funds the construction of biosolids handling and dewatering improvements at the 75th St. WWTP. It is anticipated these improvements will include new centrifuges and biosolids cake storage facilities. Project Justification: In 2003, the city's 75th St. Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) was issued a new discharge permit by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) requiring improved ammonia removal. Although improved ammonia removal is driving the need for these improvements, state regulations also require that the improvements include capacity expansion to handle the anticipated 2025 flows and waste loading. As a result, biosolids facilities will need to be expanded and improved. Biosolids facilities are currently located at the WWTP and improvements to these facilities will likely happen on -site since the city decided not to pursue biosolids composting at the Valmont Butte site. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the wastewater utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Wastewater Treatment Facilities Master Plan. Public Ptocess Status, A CEAP will be completed for the project. Relationship with Other Dupartmests Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 Change from Prior Year: Funding increased in 2006 for a more extensive public input process and design Annual On -going Operating Costs $188,000 Description: Source of Funding O&M costs are anticipated to begin mid year 2007 Wastewater Utility Business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential % [ 100% Desirable %l I Discretionary %J I Total%0% I I 44 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Stormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund Existing Facility - Enhancements I Upgrades Elmer's Two-mile Creek Founiiile Canyon Creek South Boulder Creek Stoimwater Quality Demonstration Transportation Related Stormwater Improvements Tributaiy Greenways Program Wonderland Creek Yards Master Plan Implementation - Stormwater Boulder Creek Flood Study and Mitigation Mapleton I -Jill I)rainage Upper Goose Creek Drainage Total: New Construction - Not Growth Related Preflood Acquisition Total: 22 -Dec -05 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total Approved Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected 1,000,000 250,000 250,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000.000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000 100,000 100,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 3,200,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 300.000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,500,000 150.000 150,001) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 100,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,350,000 250,000 0 110,000 0 0 0 360,000 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 2,400,000 1,650,000 4,560,000 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,900,000 13,910,000 385,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,885,000 385,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,885,000 Total for Stormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund 2,785,000 2,150,000 5,060,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,400,000 16,795,000 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Elmer's Two-mile Creek 431332 f 11 Department: PW/ Stormwater and Flood Manage J Subcommunity: ICrossroads Funding Source: Stormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund BVCPArea: Project Type: Existing Facility - Enhancements / Upgrades CEAP Required: (Yes CEAP Completed: (Yes Project Description: This project will fund flood mitigation improvements along Elmer's Two-mile Creek from the Boulder White Rocks Ditch to Glenwood in cooperation with the Greenways Program and the Transportation Division. Project funding began in 2005. Project Justification: This project will eliminate substantial developed property from the 100 -year floodplain and create a greenway corridor connecting the existing Goose Creek greenway to the existing Elmer's Two-mile Creek greenway at Glenwood. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is recommended by the Greenways Master Plan and is consistent with the goals of the stormwater and flood management utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan adopted in 2004. Public Process Status, issues: The CEAP for this project was completed in 2004. Relationship with Other Departments: This project relates to the City's Greenways Program and the City's Transportation Division. Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $1,000,000 $250,000 $250,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,000,000 Change from Prior Year: IAcded funding in 2011 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % I Desirable %(__100% Discretionary %j I Total%j__100% I 146 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: (Fourmile Canyon Creek 431729 16 Department: IPW! Stormwater and Flood Manage I Subcommunity: lNorth Boulder I Funding Source: Stormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund BVCPArea: (System -wide Project Type: Existing Facility -Enhancements! Upgrades CEAP Required: (Yes CEAP Completed: INO Project Description: This project will provide funds for property acquisition and limited flood mitigation improvements along Fourmile Canyon Creek. Greenways projects will be coordinated with this effort. Project Justification: This project will eliminate substantial developed property from the 100 -year floodplain and create a greenway corridor connecting the existing Goose Creek greenway to the existing Elmer's Two-mile Creek greenway at Glenwood. Relationship to Master Plans: This project was recommended by the Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Study, the Greenways Master Plan and is consistent with the goals of the stormwater and flood management utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan adopted in 2004. Public Process Status, issues: In the fall of 2000, City Council provided direction regarding the Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan based on city staff and independent review panel recommendations. A draft Phase B (preliminary design) plan was delivered by the consultant Love & Associates in September 2001. Further independent review panel comments suggested that an additional alternative be considered prior to developing a final design plan. The additional alternative involves investigating flood -proofing of existing structures under the current conditions (without containment of spill flows). Boyle Engineering completed the Wonderland Creek Flood Mitigation Draft Report in 2001 based on the assumption that spill flows will be contained in Fourmile Canyon Creek. Therefore, that report is also affected by the additional alternative. I The city and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) are currently working with the consultant Love & Associates on the additional alternative, as well as a re -mapping study to identify the limits of the floodplain in the Wonderland Creek basin under current conditions. The consultants are updating both the Fourmile Canyon and Wonderland Creek flood maps using new 1 foot contour interval topographic information. This new mapping will provide the best available information for flood mitigation planning. City staff will analyze the results of the floodplain mapping and additional alternative analysis to determine if a I new recommendation should be prepared or if the previous recommendation is still the best approach. The city will host a public meeting to present the new flood plain maps, explain the results of the additional alternative and to solicit input prior to presenting the information to the Water Resource Advisory Board and City Council in 2005. I Once current conditions floodplain maps are completed and reviewed the maps will be submitted to FEMA for their review and adoption. Current scheduling includes submittal to FEMA in 2005. Relationship with Other Departments: This project relates to the City's Greenways Program and Transportation Program Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $3,000,000 Change from Prior Year: lAdded funding in 2011 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 1 47 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: South Boulder Creek 431202 15 Department: Stormwater and Flood Manage Subcommunity: IMultiple Subcommunities I Funding Source: jstormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund BVCPArea: Isystem-wide Project Type: sting Facility - Enhancements / Upgrades CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: INo Project Description: This project will provide funds for on -going studies and possible flood mitigation work along South Boulder Creek. Project Justification This project will identify and mitigate flood hazards in the South Boulder Creek floodplain. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the stormwater and flood management utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan adopted in 2004. Public Process Status, Issues: Evaluation of South Boulder Creek flood issues and associated public process is on -going. Relationship with Other Departments: .. ..... None I Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $100,000 $100,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,200,000 Change from Prior Year: Iconstwction funding delayed until 2008. Annual On -going Operating Costs $ I Description: I Source of Funding: I Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential I I Desirable %J_100% Discretionary%j_______ Total I 100% 1 I 149 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Stormwater Quality Demonstration I T I I I Department: Funding Source: Project Type: PWI Stormwater and Flood Manage Subcommunity: Isystem-wide Stormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund BVCPArea: System -wide Existing Facility - Enhancements I Upgrades CEAP Required: INO CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project will fund stormwater quality demonstration projects. Project Justification: This project will improve water quality in Boulder Creek and its tributaries. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the stormwater and flood management utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan adopted in 2004. Public Process Status, Issues: No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments: None Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $300,000 Change from Prior Year: lAdded funding in 2011 Annual On -going Operating Costs I Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % J Desirable I__100% Discretionary %l_______ Total I__100% 150 2006-2011 Capitat Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Transportation Related Stormwater Improvements I I I Department: IPW/ Stormwater and Flood Manage Subcommunity: ISystem-wide Funding Source: Stormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund BVCPArea: System -wide Project Type: Existing Facility - Enhancements I Upgrades CEAP Required: INo CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project will fund the reconstruction of existing storm sewers, the construction of new storm sewers and water quality improvements as part of on -going Transportation improvement projects Project Justification: This project will provide for stormwater drainage facilities along Boulder's roadways. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the stormwater and flood management utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan adopted in 2004. Public Process Status, Issues: No additional public process is anticipated. RelationshIp wIth Other bópartments: Coordination with the City's Transportation Division Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,500,000 Change from Prior Year: lAdded funding in 2011 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritizatlon of ServIces: Essential % Desirable %l__100% Discretionary %l________ Total I__100% 151 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Tributary Greenways Program j ( 431630 7 Department: Funding Source Project Type: PW/ Stormwater and Flood Manage Subcommunity: Isystem-wide Stormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund BVCPArea: Isystem-wide Existing Facility - Enhancements I Upgrades CEAP Required: jNo CEAP Completed: LA Project Description: The Greenway Program will create a comprehensive greenway corridor system along several drainages. These corridors will serve as storm drainage and flood channels, bicycle and pedestrian transportation systems, open space and wildlife corridors, and recreational areas. This project represents the Utilities Division contribution to the program. Project Justification: This project will create greenway corridors along the city's major drainageways. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the stormwater and flood management utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan adopted in 2004. Public Process Status, Issuos: No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments This project relates to the Greenways Program Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $900,000 Change from Prior Year: lAdded funding in 2011 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % [ Desirable °Io!__100% Discretionary %j I Total%I__100% I 152 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: IVonderLand Creek I I I I 12 Department: I Funding Source: Project Type: PW/ Stormwater and Flood Manage Subcommunity: f Multiple Subcommunities Stormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund BVCPArea: lAreas I & II Existing Facility - Enhancements I Upgrades I CEAP Required: IYes CEAP Completed: INO Project Description: This project will fund flood mitigation improvements along Wonderland Creek between Foothills Parkway and I 28th St. Project Justification: This project will eliminate substantial developed property from the 100 -year floodplain and create a greenway I corridor connecting the existing Goose Creek greenway to the existing Elmer's Two-mile Creek greenway at Glenwood. Relationship to Master Plans: I This project was recommended by the Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Study, the Greenways Master Plan and is consistent with the goals of the stormwater and flood management utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan adopted in 2004. I Public Process Status, Issues: In the fall of 2000, City Council provided direction regarding the Fourmile Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan based on city staff and independent review panel recommendations. A draft Phase B (preliminary design) plan I was delivered by the consultant Love & Associates in September 2001. Further independent review panel comments suggested that an additional alternative be considered prior to developing a final design plan. The additional alternative involves investigating flood -proofing of existing structures under the current conditions (without containment of spill flows). Boyle Engineering completed the Wonderland Creek Flood Mitigation Draft I Report in 2001 based on the assumption that spill flows will be contained in Fourmile Canyon Creek. Therefore, that report is also affected by the additional alternative. I The city and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) are currently working with the consultant Love & Associates on the additional alternative, as well as a re -mapping study to identify the limits of the floodplain in the Wonderland Creek basin under current conditions. The consultants are updating both the Fourmile Canyon and Wonderland Creek flood maps using new 1 foot contour interval topographic information. This new mapping will provide the best available information for flood mitigation planning. City staff will analyze the results of the floodplain mapping and additional alternative analysis to determine if a I new recommendation should be prepared or if the previous recommendation is still the best approach. The city will host a public meeting to present the new flood plain maps, explain the results of the additional alternative and to solicit input prior to presenting the information to the Water Resource Advisory Board and City Council in 2005. I Once current conditions floodplain maps are completed and reviewed the maps will be submitted to FEMA for their review and adoption. Current scheduling includes submittal to FEMA in 2005. Relationship with Other Departments: This project relates to the City's Greenways Program and Tranportation Program Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $100,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,350,000 Change from Prior Year: lAdded funding in 2011 Annual On -going Operating Costs I 153 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritization of Services: Essential % Desirable 100% J Discretionary %_______ Total 100% 154 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: Yards Master Plan Implementation - Stormwater I I I I I Department: PWI Stormwater and Flood Manage Subcommunity: [ystem-wide - Funding Source: Stormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund BVCPArea: Isystem-wide Project Type: Existing Facility - Enhancements I Upgrades CEAP Required: No CEAP Completed: Project Description: This project will provide funds for the acquisition of additional land near adjacent to the existing City Yards. Project Justification: Improvements to the City Yards are required to sustain transporation and utilities maintnenance services for the City. RelatIonship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the water utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Yards Master Plan. Public Process Status, issues: No additional public process is anticipated. Relationship with Other Departments: Transporation, Water and Wastewater, FAM Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $250,000 $0 $110,000 $0 $0 $0 $360,000 Change from PrIor Year: INew project Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential %[_100% Desirable Discretionary °Ioj I Total%I__100% 155 2006-2011 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report Project Name: Project Number: Map Number: [Preflood Acquisition 431622 Department: Funding Source Project Type: PW/ Stormwater and Flood Manage Subcommunity: System -wide Stormwater & Flood Management Utility Fund BVCPArea: Isystem-wide New Construction - Not Growth Related CEAP Required: INo CEAP Completed: INA Project Description: This project provides funds for the purchase of properties located in the flood plain and high hazard regulatory areas. Properties have been identified and prioritized along each of the city's major drainageways. Property owners have been contacted regarding the city's interest. The majority of properties in the high hazard flood zone are along Boulder Creek, Goose Creek and Fourmile Canyon Creek. Project Justification - This project will remove property from the high hazard floodplain. Relationship to Master Plans: This project is consistent with the goals of the stormwater and flood management utility as articulated in the Boulder Revise Code and the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan adopted in 2004. Public Process Status, Issues: RelatIonship with Other Departments: None Capital Funding Plan 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Planned Funding $385,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $2,885,000 Change from Prior Year: lAdded funding in 2011 Annual On -going Operating Costs $0 I Description: Source of Funding: Business Plan Prioritizatlon of Services: Essential % Desirable I__100% Discretionary 1 I Total%[__100% 1 156