Loading...
Parks & Recreation - Study Session - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) City of Boulder Parks and Recreation Advisory Board CIP Study Session (immediately following the PRAB meeting) February 23, 2009 1777 Conference Room City of Boulder Municipal Building Capital Improvement Program PRAB Study Session February 23, 2009 Agenda • Current Economic Situation • Guiding Principles • CIP Terminology • Next Steps • Additional Information 1 Reduction and Efficiency Decision-Making • Tier One: Internal operational efficiencies that would likely have minimal impact to the community • Tier Two: Eliminate or defer projects or programming that is not mission-focused; community groups will be impacted if city development, enhancement or programming is not continued • Tier Three: Eliminate city facilities that are leased to private and non-profit business partners and provide meeting places for civic groups; tenants and civic groups would be displaced and have to find alternate facilities Operational and capital efflclencles are being Identifledl P&R Master Plan Investment Priorities 'I-ake care of existing assets 2:' Develop highest priority park sites a. Invest in revenue-producing facilities a. Increase maintenance funding 5. Broaden access to programs and services that meet changing demographics s. Complete remaining gaps in park system z. Adapt to changing needs s. Implement vision plans and enhance our system 3 Playground Renovation - Salberg - IF i r •~J ~ `v ••~~~..`~j~', ~ I elf Major Maintenance Categories • Renovation and Refurbishment (R&R) • Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) 5 P&R Capital Funding • Capital monies are allocated from the following funds: - Lottery Fund (111) - .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund (118) - Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund (230) • Funds are restricted regarding allowable uses • Sources contributing to funding for the department's capital projects and major maintenance include: - fees - development excise taxes - property taxes - ballot sales taxes - lottery fund monies P&R Capital Funding (by Fund) Funa 230: {2,118,000, 42% Fund 118: 32,558,4dO, SOY =und 117: 5396.822.8!6 7 Additional Information. (Attachments • City Manager's Budget Stabilization Strategies for 2009 and Beyond cy,~~oe, • City Manager's Revenue Update c,~2sros, • P&R Investment Priorities • 2009 - 2014 P&R CIP • CIP Project Definitions 9 Additional Information (Attachments) • City Manager's Budget Stabilization Strategies for 2009 and Beyond c2~,~,os, • City Manager's Revenue Update c,~23~09, - • P&R Investment Priorities • 2009 - 2014 P&R CIP •CIP Project Definitions 1 i Attachment A i Novak, Abbie From: Brautigam, Jane Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:31 PM ' To: SPIRIT Subject: 2009 Budget Update , Attachments: BudStabMemo2170~. (2).pdf Dear Colleagues, As a follow up to the January 20 budget update, I wanted to provide you with the status of the 2009 budget picture and budget stabilization; strategies. Following the January 15 meeting with department directors, budget analysts and finance staff, each Department was required to identify potential reduction plaris:rio later•than January 30. Thanks to the efforts of Directors, budget analysts and staff across the organization, over 100 proposals were.submitted. I am gr~tefiil to the effort of all in bringing forward viable options for consideration. - - • 2008 Sales/ Use Tax Receipt Update - Before addressing the budget stabilization strategies, it is important to provide you with the most recent 2008 Sales and Use Tax revenue figures through December, Unfortunately, the economic downturn is impacting our sales tax collections. Based on preliminary 2008 year-to-date figures, collections through the month of December increased 0.20% from 2007 figures, rather than the 3.8% amount projected. As a result, the budget reduction strategies for 2009 and beyond become even more important. . Budget Stabilization Strate In my most recent communication, I indicated that recommendations for a stabilization plan would be presented to the City Council in late February,. In anticipation of that presentation, the attached memo will be included in the February 17 Council Agenda packet. The memo outlines budget reduction strategies on which Council will be updated during the meeting of February 17-. While the general concepts of the'strategies are outlined below, I encourage you to review the memo. Based on the Departmental submissions and work of the City Manager Budget Team, Budget Stabilization Strategies have been developed to help guide the organization in three phases: February through May 2009; June through December 2009 and Fiscal Year 2010; and Fiscal Year 2010 and beyond. The recommended budget reduction strategy for 2009 will . identify acid implement $3.6 million in reductions to the sales tax supported funds by March 2009. Thereafter, revenue trends will be monitored and an additional $1.8 million (or beyond) in reductions will be implemented, if needed, in May 2009. Since economic conditions and projections indicate that volatility will continue into and through Fiscal Year 2010, a longer range budget stabilization strategy for,Fiscal.Year 2010 is being developed. Due to the impact of $uch stabilization strategies, a participatory process among citizens, staff and key stakeholders may be required. The respective strategies are summarized below: Strate Time Period General Conce is Two -Five February -May 2009 ¦ .Position freezes `2-5 month Targeted. one-time operating expenditure savings strategy' ~ Use of one-time revenues from other-sources that are exceeding projections ¦ Reduction of General Fund Transfers to other funds , ¦ Efficiency reallocations and savings or revenue eneration Six -Twelve June -December 2009 Focus on core essential services " `b-12 month Fiscal Year 2010 Identification of initial "narrow and deep" Strate reductions of s ecific ro ams/services 1 ¦ Continue to implement measures that maximize ' organizational efficiency • ¦ ...Outsource/:restructure provision.of services ¦ Continue implementation of BRCI recommendations regarding new revenues ¦ Implement BRCII recommendations ¦ Potential modifications:to employee compensation/benefits•. , ¦ Examination of further reductions or elimination of General Fund transfers for non-essential ' services in other funds resulting in potential programs/service cuts (e.g. Open Space, HHS, Parks and Recreation, GAGID, etc.) • Refinance ci~ bonds to reduce interest rates Twelve Plus Fiscal Year 2010 and ¦ 'Focus on provision of core essential services '12 month + beyond Narrow and Deep reductions -look at strategy' reductions in service hours, facilities, specialized programs or services that can be provided by private sector • Continue implementation of BRCI recommendations regarding new revenue sources ¦ Continue to implement BRCII recommendations ¦ Outsource/ restructure services • Implement measures that maximize organizational efficiencies ¦ Consider the conversion of revenue bonds to general obligation bonds thereby reducing interest costs rc uires voter a royal During the economic downturn in 2001-2003, the organizat.on attempted to absorb the significant budget reductions across the board without significant impact on programs and services. A's we learned, across the board cuts do not distinguish (a) essential from desirable or discretionary services; or (b) the impact of proportional cuts on programs of ' different scales. As a result, while the '2-5 Strategy' utilizes short term measures to allow time to evaluate impacts and enable participation by residents and key stakeholders, the short term budget strategies for 2009 are not recommended on a permanent 6r long term basis. ' Currently, the '2-5 Month Strategy' does not include narrow and deep reductions that would affect programs and services. Tlie '6-12 Month Strategy' and ' 12 Month + Strategy', however, will focus on narrow and deep reductions which correspondingly may affect employees. As we move forward iri scoping out these strategies, communication will be a vital- component of the process. It is important to remember that until a plan is firmly in place, everything remains • conceptual. It is our intention to ensure that such narrow an~j deep reductions will be communicated internally before publicly presented for consideration. In addition, every effort will be made to fill vacancies internally and reallocate resources to minimize losses and maximize' service levels. A component of the strategies for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2009 involves leaving many positions unfilled as they become vacant. In my most recent communication, I indicated that a new job requisition process would be implemented without a mandatory hiring freeze. While the new job requisition process remains in place, the latest sales/ use tax revenue figures requires more conservative measures, including the decision that a hiring freeze for all non-essential positions is appropriate at this time. The City Manager's Office will continue to work with the Human Resource Department and Department Directors to identify those positions deemed 'essential' for hiring purposes. It is important to acknowledge that temporary vacancies may result in shif3ing of essential work to other positions. . ' 2 There is no question that the next several months will be challenging. The short term measures will likely affect current and future service levels that impact staff, the community and the City Council, while the long term strategies may redef ne the delivery of services and programs. During these times, it is important that we continue to support each other and encourage innovation and creativity. By doing so, we strengthen ourselves and the organization in our abilities to successfully manage through difficult and changing times. As we navigate through these challenging times, l remain inspired by the commitment of Boulder's staff to each other, the organization's core values and the community. I am fortunate to be a part of such a talented team of professionals and remain grateful for the hard work and investment you have made and continue to make in the City of Boulder! Please take the time to review the memo and discuss any questions, concerns and ideas with your individual supervisor and/ or Director. Your input and ideas remain a valuable component of this fluid planning process. I will continue to keep you updated as the process moves forward. Regards, Jane Jane S. Brautigam City Manager ATTACHIVIENT. 3 • - ~ - ' CITY-OF BOULDER CITY COUNCIL' AGENDA'TTEM • ~ ~ MEETING DATE: February 17, 2009 - ; AGENDA TITLE: Budget Stabilization Strategies for2009 and beyond PRESENTER/S:' Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager - - Stephanie A. Grainger, Deputy City f~lanager Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager ' .Bob Eichem,, Director of Finance - . EXECUTIVE SUMIVIA.RY: . .During the 2008 budget process, total sales/ use tax revenues were projected to increas, a 3.8% over 20.07 collections. Due to the national. economic downturn that started in mid-2008, sales and - use tax revenues in 2008 were revised downwazd and were. expected to range between 2% to 2.5% below projections. The pxeliminary 2008 year end unaudited sales and use tax revenue figures, received this week, indicate that actual collections in Boulder fe113.6% below projections. (see Attachment A). The 2008 revenue reduction will carry over to 2009 resulting in the - _ . _ _ _ approved2009 budget starting approximately 4% below the sales and use tax revenue projection _ v made in April of 2008. Based on the volatile economic conditions on the national, state and local levels; it is anticipated that 2009 total sales and use tax revenue collections will be at least an additional 2% less than projected fora 2009 total of at least 6%. Due to the accelerating deterioration of the economy in the past two months these projected declines are considered structural in nature and not one time aberrations of the city's revenue stream. As,a result, ongoing costs in future budgets must be reduced by an equal amount to maintain the required balance between revenues and expenditures. The potential total impact of sales tax decline for all city sales tax funds is summarized below: FUND 2009 2% 4% 6% 2009 Action Pro'ection Plan* :General Fund/ 50,900,000 1,020,000 2,040,000 3,060,000 1,197,000 .15 %/.25% Trans ortation 15,800,000 315,000 630.000 945 000 - 0 en S ace 23,300,000 465,000 930,000 1,395,000 - TOTAL , 90,000,000 1,800,000 3,600,000 5,400,000 6,597 000 * Implementation of Action Plan items will require additional reductions of the remaining fiscally constrained budget except for those items previously implemented on January, 1, 2009 as directed by City Cocmcil(including funding for the Economic Vitality program and Urban Designer position). In oxder to address this potential shortfall, a budget stabilization strategy -summarized in the chart below - is proposed for 2009. It is important to note that the budget stabilization numbers PAGE 1 presented in this memo are based on the total impacts to all city salestax-supported funds, including the General Fund; .15 Cent Sales Tax (for •varidits programs/services), .25 Cent Sales Tax (Parks and Recreation); Open Space and Transportation. Based on the impact of sales tax revenues not meeting projections, the recommended budget stabilization strategy totals $5.4 million citywide in 2009. The strategy includes an initial identification and implementation of $3.6 million in reductions by•March 2009 and a subsequent $1.8 million in reductions in May 2009.if needed based on revenue trends at that~time. The short term budget strategies for 2009 are ~t recommended on a permanent or long-term basis. These aze not the "narrow and deep" reductions that are needed for the ongoing and long-term financial sustainability of the city. However, because the city needs to move quickly.to reduce $3.6 million, these are the initial reductions and "bridges" that will lead to longer-term solutions.. While the initial focus will remain on addressing Fiscal Year 2009 revenues short-fall, the ' economic conditions and projections indicate the volatility will continue into and through Fiscal Year 2010 and beyond: In its January 2008 report, the Blue Ribbon Commission Phase I (BRCI ) identified a $90 million dollar funding gap by 2030 (the gap which is now projected to be $75 million based on the de-Brucing of city property tax) in the city's ability to eontiuue to provide the same services and programs it currently provides as expenditures are projected to exceed revenue. As a result, a long term budget stabilization strategy for Fiscal Yeaz 2010 and beyond is being developed to guide the 2010 budget process. ]potential stabilization strategies may require a participatory process among residents and key stakeholders. The respective strategies are outlined in the summary chart provided on the next page: . , . ~ PAGE 2 _ . ~ - - Budget Stabilization. Strategies Summary Strate Time Period , G,eneral.Conce is ~ , Two -Five February -May 2009 Position freezes , `2=5 month - ~ ~ ~ Targeted one time operating expenditure savings strategy' ~ Use of one-time revenues from other sources - that.are exceeding projections•.~ . • Reduction of General k'und Transfers to other funds • Efficiency,reallocations and savings or revenue eneration: Sia -Twelve June -December 2009 Focus on core essential services `6=12 month Fiscal: Year 2010 Identification of initial "narrow and deep" strategy' ;reductions of specific programs/services ¦ Continue to,implementmeasures that maximize organizational efficiency - ¦ Outsource/ restructure provision of services • Continue implementation of BRCI , recommendations regarding new revenues _ ~ • Implement BRCII recommendations - Poteutial~modificationsto employee compensation benefits , Examination of further reductions or elimination of General Fund transfers for non-essential services. in other funds resulting in potential . - programs/service cuts (e.g. Open Space, HHS, . Parks and Recreation; CAGID; etc:) Refinance ci bonds to reduce interest rates Twelve Plus Fiscal Year 2010 and - Focus on provision of core essential services .'12 month + beyond - Narrow and Deep. reductions -look at strategy' reductions in service hours, facilities, specialized • - programs or services that can be provided by private sector ¦ Continue implementation of BRCI recommendations regarding new revenue sources ¦ Continue to implement BRCII recommendations ¦ Outsource/ restructure services - ¦ Continue to implement measures that maximize - organizational efficiencies ¦ Consider the conversion of revenue. bonds to general obligation,bonds thereby reducing . • interest costs (requires voter approval) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While council input regarding the proposed immediate and longer-term.strategies is important at this time, no formal council action is required regarding the $3.6 million dollar stabilization plan. Where appropriate; staff may reconvene the Council Budget Action Plan Committee intermittently for purposes of soliciting.feedback as the process and strategies further develops. Staff will return to Council in April with an update on revenue PAGE 3 projections, confirnnation of the `2-5 month strategy' and to start the discussion on the `6-12 month' and 2010 budget process stabilization strategies. . COMMiJNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS: . • . Economic:~The implementation of budget strategies will have economic impacts ;on the business and residential communities: Appropriate stabilization strategies are essential to • ensuring a diverse and sustainable economy that supports the needs of the community. The t;it~'s business plan will be utilized as a means to informing long range strategies while sustaiiiiiig basic city services.' • Environii~ental: The budget stabilization strategies could offer opportunities to enhance intergovernin~ntalzelati9nships and foster support to share,services in Girder to achieve cozrinion erivironnierital goals. ~ r. ' • ~ Social: The implementation of budget strategies in the short and lon$ term would have impacts on the various sectors of the community utilizing services and programs: Due to this inspect; a participatory component of the process that includes staff, key stakeYtoiders, arid, residents is-important. OTHER IlVIPACTS: ' F`iscal:~Tlie budget stabilisation strategies would have fiscal impacts in the reduction and reallocation of funding iri certain program and services areas. No identified stabilization strategy would~require theallocation of new funding. • Staff time: The development-and implementation of stabilization strategies will have an impact on the work plan. and may require adjustment of various work plans, including the City Council work plan. ANALYSIS: I:n an effort to address the impacf of the economy and revenue strearri on expenditures; the City lvlanager has developed, with lier:executive xrianagement team, budget stabilization strategies. An important component of the reeominended budget strategies was the development of guiding principles to assist the organization and City Council in its delibexation process. While the complete listing of guiding principles is attached (Attachment B), a summary of the principles is provided below: ~ • GuidingPrinciples• ~ 1) Balance fiiriding needs to achieve long-zarige city goals while sustaining basic city services; 2) 1Vlaintairi essential services at reasonable service delivery levels before expanding and/or enhancing services; 3) Ensure compliance with legal rtiandates; 4) Achieve narrow and deep sustainable reductions; . 5) ' For the"first $3.6 million needed immediately, focus primazily on one-time temporary reductionsto "bridge" the peri6d until permanent and sustainable reductions can be implemented later in 2009 or through the 2010 budget; 6) Budget reduction schedule should provide time to monitor and evaluate revenues, reflect expenditure reduction "tiers" or phases and support notice to impacted employees; ~ ~ Pursue continuous maximization of organi~ational-eff~ciericy opportunities; S) Continue to invest in key capital projects to leverage funding arid-rnaintairi safety~of infrastructure and facilities; PAGE 4 9) Revise organizational policies to maximize cost efficiency and pursue the examination of , additional policies and practices; and _ ' - 10) Implement recommendations of.the Blue Ribbon Commission-Phase L , . Lessons Learned ' Between 2001 and 2003, the Boulder economy experienced a dramatic.;decline resulting in a 17% . drop iri sales and use tax revenue. In response, significant budget reductions were implemented between 2002 and 2005 totaling $132 million.or;approximately 15% o,f:,the 2004 general fund ' budget. A:t the time, the organization's prunary goal was to absorb Xhe maj ority of reductions • without`significazrtly impacting programs and/ or services. ,As detailed below and learned throizgh.that process, the use of a strategy that ~rpplies across the board cuts have more unintended than intended consequences and aze not sustainable.. . Budget Stabilization Strategies In order to implement appropriate strategies for effective outcomes, long range strategies must allow for participation by staff and key stakeholders including affected residents, boards, commissions and bazgaining unit representatives. This participatory process will allow key stakeholders to identify values and priorities in manner that guides the strategy implementation 'process as well as bolstering their individual and collective willingness to shaze the risks of reductions. The public process will be designed to engage all levels of the organization and • community, drawing on their collective ideas, needs and preferences, in a manner to help the city . manager narrow and prioritize the proposed reductions.' In the near term, these strategies have been developed with an eye towards allowing the city to • manage through.this economic. crisis. Most importantly, however, these strategies aze intended to _ - - • • ~ ensure an organization that can, successfully perform an fixture economic crisis and.in `normal'-- - - - - conditions. It is important to note. that each strategy includes measures that will affect current and future service levels. While the degree of impact on service levels is not completely known at this time, these measures will impact current and future service levels for staff, residents and the council. Thus far, the council's current aggressive work plan has been able to accommodate additions without significant, tradeoffs. Based on the budget stabilization strategies implemented, staff may need to return to the council with an amended work plan which ,identifies the impact of the stabilization measures. Many of the proposed strategies were identified in the Blue Ribbon Commission I report seek additional revenue sources and address revenue derived from expiring sales taxes including: • consider the city as one entity; • absent 4% revenue growth, tradeoffs az?d reductions must occur annually; • -.use efficiency studies to ensure good management of tax dollazs; . . • reduce the number.of restricted funds; and • eliminate general fund subsidies of restricted funds for desirable or discretionary programs when general' fund essentials are not adequately funded. _ Two -Five Strategy (1'~ 2-5 months) Due to the impact of economic conditions on sales and use tax revenue, a tofal of $3,6 million in reductions must beidentified for immediate. implementation within tYie first two to three months of 2009. In the event economic conditions warrant, tip: to an additional$1.8 million (or beyond) • PAGE 5 in reductions must be identified for iinpleinentation inMay 2009. In order to provide the time necessary to formulate and implement sustainable; long term solutions, the `2-5 Strategy' primarily involves one time, temporary measures. As temporary reductions to `bridge' the period . until permanent reductions can be implemented in Fiscal Year 2010,~it is important to note that these strategies aze not recommended on a permanent or long term basis. . ~ • . The `2-5 Strategy'• currently includes the following general concepts:. • ~ Position freezes; Certain positions that aze currently vacant would remain unfilled for the remainder of tht fiscal year (estimated onetime savings of approximately $900,000). • Targeted operating expenditure saving's such a's (a) reduction iri •printing board and cominission~food and limiting training (estimated savings of approximately $150,000); and (b) reduction in public notice advertising (estimated savings of approximately $150,000); • Use of revenues that are exceeding projections from other sources such as pazkirig~services estimated at approximately $295,000 (utilizing revenue realized beyond that projected) and other zevenue opportunities ($100,000); • Examination of the reduction of General Fund Transfers that currently fund ntin-essential • services fo othex funds such as Open•Space, CAGTD, Housing axzd Human Services (estimates are being developed); • Cozitiriue ~to implement efficiency reallocations and savings; acid • • • Identification of reductions in the amount of $630,000 in Transportation and~$930,000 in Open Space expenditures. Six - Twelve Strategy (next 6-12 months) .As Teamed through the 2002-2005 economic downturn, fiscal sustainability is best achieved through `narrow and deep' reductions rather than across the board reductions. As identified by ICMA in its white paper entitled `Navigating the Fiscal Crisis: Tested Strategies for Local Leaders", across the board reductions generally do"not distinguish (a) essential from desirable and discretionary services; or (b) the impact of proportional reductions on programs and services of different scales and scope. •As a result, the `6-12 Strategy' involves the implementation of narrow and deep reducrions to and efficiencies wit~iin services and prog~'ams. For example, a narrow and deep reduction could include the elimination of a program or reduction in services/ operating hours as well as the performance of certain services/ programs on a less frequent basis. While most concepts under this strategy would be targeted for implementatioh in Fiscal Yeaz . 2010, those which'make good business sense and can be properly vetted may be implemented during Fiscal Year 2009. The `6-12 Strategy' cuxrently includes the following general concepts: . • Focus on core essential services at appropriate levels while reducing or eliminating discretionary and/ or desirable services; • Continue to identify and implement measures. that maximize organizational efficiency; • Outsource and/ or restructure provision of services/ programs where appropriate; • Continue implementation of Blue Ribbon Commission Phase I recommendations regarding revenues; • Implement BRCII recommendations; . • Review employee.compensation/benefits such as medical coverage; merit ranges; longevity; and co-pays for Wellness and Eco Pass; • Reduction. or elimination of General Fund transfers to other funds; and • • Refinance city bonds to reduce interest rates. PAGE 6 i . Twelve Pius Strategy (as part of the 2010 budget and beyond) , The current economic crisis -the deepest and most severe the country has suffered in the past fifty years -will .have permanent impacts on the way government conducts business into the future. In order~to ensure the city's ability to continue to adapt to such economic constraints - as well as addressing the revenue! expenditure gap identified by BRCI -the city must develop strategies for 2010 and beyond. As a result, the `Twelve Plus Strategy' will focus on long term • measures intended to bolster the city's fiscal sustainability. General concepts currently under consideration within this strategy include but are not limited to: • Continuous focus on the provision of core essential services at appropriate levels while ' further reducing or eliminating discretionary and/ or desirable services or the most essential ox core services; ~ ~ • ' • • Qutsource and/ or restructure provision of services where appropriate; , • Consider reduction of services hours, reduction of multiple facilities, or services and programs that can be equivalently provided by the private sector. • Continue to maxitn,'ze organizational efficiencies; • Continue implementation of Blue Ribbon Commission Phase I recommendations regazding • revenues; • Continue to implement recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Commission Phase II ;and ' • Consider the conversion of revenue bonds to general obligation bonds thezeby reducing interest costs (requires voter approval). NEXT STEPS: ~ • - - - . During the next few weeks, staff will continue to review over one hundred budget stabilization p p y p e city manager will work with department directors to_ ro owls subrrutted b de artments and th further analyze and prioritize these pxoposals..Thereafter, initial specific proposals for . consideration and implementation within the `~6-12 and beyond strategies' will be brought to City Council alonig with a public process for involvement by and input from the community and appropriate stakeholders. Staff realizes that City Council will most likely want to give preliminary feedback on some of the proposed strategies before staff brings these forward for public review. It is anticipated that more specific proposals and corresponding timeframes will . be presented to the council in April. Approved By: Sane S. Bxautigam; City Manager ATTACI-IIVIENTS: A. 2008 Sales and Use Tax Update B. Budget Stabilization Guiding Principles PAGE 7 - . ATTACHMENT A - 2008-Sales and Use Tax Below are the sales and use tax numbers through December'31, 2008. The column that is headed Change in Comparable Collections is the one to key on. Unfortunately, the total for the year came in evenaower than;the revised projection. For the year we ~had;driginally projected an increase in sales and Lse tax for 2008 of 3:8%. By December this had been revised downward to an increase of 1.3% to 1.8%. . For the year we ended up with an actual increase of .23°~ or 3.579° below the original projection. It is expected that the reductions made by the departments in 2008 plus the increases in other revenues-in the general fund will offset the revenue shortfall. !f there~were to be a shortfall due to an unforeseen audit adjustment, it would be cgvered.bythe use of fund balance. - Based on these numbers, the decision to immediately find ways to reduce budgeis by the equivalent of the carryover 2% plus,an additional 2°'° appear to be on target. In~addition, the decision to loolcfor the next 2% (total of 69'0) also appears to be correct. Due to the major decline in auto use tax, construction use tax, and~the potential.for a decline in business use tax (in 2009) reduced spending becomes even more important for 2009. Althougk~ there has not been a determination regarding appropriation of the de-bruced property tax, the non-appropriation of.these monies can provide an additional buffer ii~ it is needed and if approved by council. ~ ~ i - . 'illECEMBI;R YTD Actual: ==d.'~, ' + - r~- ~ v: . ~ cfu"a ActaaC `Change ~n _ ' ~ ~ ' 3$'ange iu g~hange'in 3Cottlparable ~ % of • '~r Total Net Sales/Use Tax Receipts by Taa Category t 2007 ~ ~ 200 r Dollars - ~Percenta a collections ` 'Total ' Sales.Tax 72,997,334 - 70,170,Q45 -2,827,289 -3.87% (Io 82.97% Business Use Tax 8,063,221 8,566,746 503,525. 6.24% ~~t'~~ 10.13% Construction Use Tax 4,821,520 4,048,982 -772,537. -16:02% ~~?cr~; 4.79% Motor vehicle 2,299,1.54 1,897,298 -401,857~~ -17:48% '2.24% Refunds ~ -9'1,001 -112,123 -21;122 23.21% `0.13% Total Sales and Use Taz - 88,090,228 84,570,947 -3,519,281 -4,00% ' 100.00% II ~i ,i - ~ ~ , • n ATTACHMENT B . ' Budget Reduction Principles ' ' (draft February 6, 2009) 1) Balance funding needs to' achieve long-range city goals while sustsixing basic city services a) Informed by business plan, identified critical deficiencies, master plgns 2) Maintain essential services at reasonable service delivery levels before expanding and/or . enhancing services. ~ ~ ~ . 3) Ensure compliance with legal mandates a) .25 cent sales tax park development commitments b) Open Space acquisitions 4) Achieve narrow and deep sustainable reductions . a) consider impacts on community b) provide time for public involvement-and feedback on prpp.osals ' . 5) For 2009, focus primarily on one-time temporary reductions to "bridge" the period,until permanent and sustainable reductions can be implemented later in 2009. or thought the 2010 budget. ~ ~ - 6) Reduction schedule provides time to monitor and evaluate revenues, reflects expenditure reduction "tiers" or phases and supports notice to impacted employees. 7) Pursue improving organizational efficiency opportunities, a) Restructure or eliminate specific vacant positions and partner on key staff positions, which support citywide objectives. b) Continue program/service assessments and audits and the reallocation of funding to '•provide for an organization that is effective.and efficient. c) Examine benefits and costs for: i) centralized and decentralized service deliviry options, ii) the consolidation of related services, and d) alternative service providers (outsourcing/partnering) . . 8) Continue to invest in key capital projects to leverage funding and maintain safety of infrastivcture and facilities. 9) Revise organizational policies to maximize cost efficiency (e.g., cost allocation) and pursue the. examination of additional policies and practices: a) compensation philosophy ' b) cost recovery targets for city services c) travel/training ~ . 10) Further implement recommendations of the Elue Ribbon Commission a) excise taxes and impact fees b} restricted funds/ eazmazking c) GF subsidies for non-essential services . Attachment B Revenue Update January 23, 2009 2008 General Fund: • Original projections for 2008 were total revenues would be up by 3.8% over 2007 actual; this is excluding revenues designated for specific purposes (e.g., trash tax, grants, food tax) and interfund transfers (e.g., cost allocation). • Currently, these total revenues for the general fund are now estimatefl to be over 2007 by approximately 3.4%. • Sales and use tax projections will range from 2% to 2.5% below projections. • December sales and use tax collections will not be known until approximately February 13. • The general fund total revenue will fall approximately $800,000 short and this has been covered by the reduction in spending that were put in place in 2008. Sales tax shortfalls in open space and transportation result in reduced expenditures by 2% to 2.5% also for 2008. 2009 Headwinds • Wall Street.Journal: The U.S. economy is deteriorating more rapidly than expected just weeks ago. Indication the recession will be deeper and longer than projected. • Debt pay down by individuals: US households paid down debt for the first time since the central bank started collecting this information in 1952. • Auto sales down so auto use tax down. Worst year since 1992 (Bloomberg 01/02/09) • Credit market still lacks normal liquidity (auto and construction loans or higher rates if available at all): o Credit cards: rates being increased. Credit lines being reduced. Colorado is 5~' in the U.S. in credit card debt. o Home equity loans have become harder to obtain. ' o Business loans challenging to obtain if available • Store-over-store retail sales nationwide expected to drop 2.3% and foot traffic dropped by 16% in November and December. Tailwinds • Commodity prices have declined. Reduces the price of fuel and bids on projects are coming in lower. • Federal labs and Colorado University in Boulder. • Slow growth,in our community has helped keep values more stable, thus not overbuilt, and we should not see the valuation declines other cities, counties, school districts will see. Nationally, GDP started declining in July of 2008. The most optimistic of economists feel it will improve in July of 2009. Many are saying it will go into 2010. Impact of Sales Tax Decline on Funds S/U Fund (s) 2009 2% 4% 6% * Action Pro'ection Plan GF/.15%/.25% $50,900,000 $1,020,000 $2,040,000 $3,060,000 $1;197,000 Trans ortation $15,800,000 $ 315,000 630,000 $ 945,000 - O en S ace 23 300 000 465 000 930 000 1 395 000 - Total $9,0,000,000 $1,800,000 $3,600,000 $5,400,000 $6,597,000 *lmplementation of the Action Plan items will require additional reductions of the remaining fiscally constrained budget. Additional Buffers in the General Fund for 2009: Approved budget $82,902,000 Item Total Percent of Bud et De-bruceci ro ert tax $ 900,000 1.08% General Fund Onl TOTAL SALES/USE TAX YTD Percent Change from Previous Year 2007 Actual 2008 Actual 2008 Proj ~ 2.00 1o.ss°io 10.00% - - - 7.72% o ~ o _7_.45 /o 8.00 /0 7.26% .15° 6.11°h 6.85% 7.16% T.14°k ~ 5.00% - 8---0410- - 5.51% - 6.84% - - - 4.50°/ 0 5.50% 5.63% o 4.00% - 5.21 /0 4.39 /o _ 8.76% e 2.75%2.26% 2.21% 3.8 % .54 /o -1 2.00% - - - - - 1.23°k 0.00% , Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec RETAIL SALES TAX YTD Percent Change from Previous Year -x-2007 Acti,al ~ 2008 Actual 2008 Proj 12.oo°io ~ 1 osa°io s.as°i° 10.00% ^.1~''.'.;, 8.54°k 8.42% 9.30% 9.48% 9.59% 8.00% - - - 8.38% . 6.15% 7.71% 6.00% - - - - s.o1°io 4.2% a.oo°i° I 3.56% 3.48% 2.00% - - - 2.30°k 2.29% 2.43% 2.40% ° -0.1 1.84% 2.01 1.88% 1.39% 0.00% ~ i r - i i i ~ Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jufy Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec -2.00% - Investment Priorities _ The department's investment priorities have been guided by the community, PRAB, and City Council, They indicate how the master plan goals are linked to each funding plan. The department's investment priorities are based on the city's business plan, the Core Services Business Model, and an analysis of the department's financial situation (see Appendix E, The Six Parks and Recreation Funds). r : Note: There are master plan recommendations at all landing levels for these investment priorities: ~ Priority t: Take care of existing assets. (Goals 1, 5) (See page 9 for Master Plan Goals) - Rationale: Provide for the ongoing renovation of park and recreation facilities, assets, and equipment. Ensure the health and safety of com- T - _ - munity members using parks and recreation facilities. Sustain the department's facilities, operations, and programs at higher service levels. Priority 2: Develop highest priority park sites. (Goals 3, 6) Rationale: Achieve park service standards for Boulder's under-served neighborhoods. Junior Loliers at Flatirons Golr Priority 3: Invest in revenue-producing facilities. (Goals 2, 4, 5, 6) Course. Rationale: Increase fiscal stability by retaining and expanding the department's customer base, strengthening Boulder's economy, and encouraging tourism. Target revenues toward enhanced maintenance. Priority 4: Increase maintenance funding. (Goals t, 2, S, 6) Rationale: Enhance resources to improve park, forestry, natural lands, and multi-pucpose and ballfield maintenance to meet higher standards and community expectations. Priority 5: Broaden access to programs and services to meet changing demographics. (Goals 1, 5, 6) Rationale: Increase outreach and reduced-rate opportunities to ensure programs and services are provided to limited-English-speaking resi- pia ra` dents, at-risk youth, seniors, people with disabilities, and other under-served populations. Priority 6: Complete remaining gaps in park system. (Goals 3, 6) Rationale: Strive to meet or exceed park service standards by developing al[ remaining pocket, neighborhood, and community park sites. Priority 7: Adapt to changing needs. (Goals 2, 4, S, 6) ~ Rationale: Recognize the critical importance of providing for future community needs, and secure funds to meet unidentified but anticipated ~ K opportunities. - s Priority 8: Implement vision plans and enhance our system. (Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) Enjoying one of the indoor pools. Rationale: Become a leader in providing high-quality parks and recreation services and facilities. LEGENp Assumes basic levels of service that can be accomplished within fiscally-constrained funding. Requires funding beyond existing levels. a Requires significant new funding sources. >v t'~ 32 ~_`t f B alder 2006 Par4 rare L ec Investment Priorities for Recreation Facility Development °"`i (such as Recreation Centers, Boulder Reservoir, Flatirons Golf Course, Pleasant View Fields, and sate/life ballfields) Using the framework of the department's investment priorities, the priorities for investing in existing facilities and developing new facilities are as follows: Fiscally Constrained Plan Some needed improvements can be accomplished within the fiscally constrained funding level. Multi-purpose program space at Iris Center and spray amenity at Spruce Poo! ...,E 's~~ Action Plan ~ Leverage existing infrastructure and resources by enhancing existing facilities. , Priority 1. tnvest in revenue•producing facilities. Open gym at a recreation center Rationale: Increase the department's financial sustainability and customer satisfaction. Boulder Reservoir and flatirons Golf Course 1 Priority 2. tnvest in substandard facilities. Rationale: Bring specific facilities into line with other department assets to improve their function, customer satisfaction, and revenue a \y,~ production. Multi-purpose practice fields and South Boulder Recreation Center ~.y~,t', Vision Plan Build ne~v facilities to meet community needs and enhance revenues. Priority 3. Invest in other existing facilities. , .t Rationale: Provide new amenities and improve customer satisfaction and revenue production (the following are not in priority order). ~ North Boulder Recreation Center, fast Boulder Community Center, Pottery tab, Pleasant u<ew Fields, Spruce Pool, Scott Carpenter Pool, - Skatepark Gymnastics at the North Boulder Priority 4. Invest in facilities with a demonstrated need and community support. Recreation Center Projects should be self-sustaining with leveraged dollars invested, such as public-private partnerships. Land should be available and ~ _ suitable for use without displacing other identified community needs. ~ 11 ttn Priority 5. Invest in potential netiv facilities. The value of proposed facilities must be demonstrated to the community. Projects should be self-sustaining with leveraged dollars ? w invested, such as public-private partnerships. Land should be available and suitable for use without displacing other identified ~ ~ r~ ~ community needs. _ ~ ~ A new recreation facility can move to Action Level Funding if the following criteria can be met: _ 1. Little or no funding is required from the department for capital improvements. 2. There is an operations and maintenance agreement. 3. Major infrastructure is in place before facility development (such as the new road in Valmont City Park that will open the park to ~f ~ recreation facility development). 4. The facility is compatible with an updated park site master plan. A Swiss-ball class Y o [Lec alto 33 ou er f : ~ Investment Priorities for Park Development - - r., • r Using the framework of the departments investment priorities (see page 32) and the prioritization process for park development (see - Appendix the priorities for investing in existing parks and playgrounds and in developing new parks are as follows: ;r ~ ti - j ~ { • Fiscally Constrained Plan i~ - Some needed improvements at existing parks and playgrounds can be accomplished within the fiscally constrained funding level_ ` ~ 1 ~ Upgrade one playground and one irrigation system annually, beginning with Salberg and Keewaydin in 2007. Build four new pocket l Y parks, beginning wish Holiday in 2007 and then Dakota Ridge, Mesa Memorial, and Hickory. Update community and city park master ~ plans to prepare for future development. Action Plan The popular playground at North ~~fake significant enhancements to some existing parks and accelerate park development. Boulder Park. Priority 1. Invest in community parks and some well-used neighborhood parks. Rationale: Invest in parks that get a significant amount of community use. Foothills and East Boulder Community Park improvements; new restrooms and picnic shelters at North Boulder Park and Martin Park. ' ' j,~; Priority 2. Invest in new parks and continue investments in existing parks. • Rationale: Bring specific facilities into line with other department assets and fill in the gaps in neighborhood parks. New neighborhood park at Elks; new restrooms and shelters at Scott Carpenter and Harlow Platts; permanent dog parks; Valmont City - ~ Park access road. ~J - ~ Vision Plan ~e; Build new facilities to meet community needs. Priority 3. Invest in new facilities, including unanticipated opportunities. Rationale: Provide signifcant new facilities. , _ ' Valmont City Park,- pocket park in Gunbarre! retail core; pocket park and plaza ;n the Transit Village; interpretive trail system; begin pJan- Wing for Area ltt. A yoga class participant. uld 2006 Par an 3~ C ~ e r, Attachment D PERMANENT PARKS & RECREATION FUND AND 1995 BALLOT FUND (.25 CENT SALES TAX) 2009 - 2014 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMS OVERVIEW The 2009 Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund and 1995 Ballot Fund~(.25 Cent Sales Tax) Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is $3,368,000. The Parks and Recreation Department's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has been developed to meet the vision and goals of the 2006 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The first goal of the master plan includes maintaining parks and recreation facilities. The department has pri~aritized CIP projects based on health and safety concerns, ADA compliance and replacement of existing equipment and infrastructure necessary to ensure ongoing operations. The master plan outlines criteria to prioritize park development including community need, identifying underserved areas and evaluating opportunities and consideration of constraints relative to constructing undeveloped park land. The criteria are flexible allowing the department to respond to changing community needs. New park needs will be identified through. area plans as land use and zoning changes may allow for higher density housing in areas such as.'the Transit Village area where residential uses were not originally anticipated. Staff evaluates park development prioritization annually as part of tha; CIP budget process. The development of new recreation facilities wa;; identified in the master plan action and vision plans. The development of Valmont City Park (Phase I) was a high priority for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) during its discussion and approval of the CIP budget. Funding from the sale of the Kentucky and Papini properties to the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department will be allocated to fund a significant portion of the project. Additionally, the renovation and enhancement of aging recreational facilities at the Boulder Reservoir and the Flatirons Golf Course were identified as a priority because of the financial reliance on revenue generated at these facilities. POLICY ISSUES The PRAB and iie~artmental staff believe that it is crucial to identify park maintenance funding for projects constructed by the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund. As a capital improvement fund, the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund cannot be utilized to fund ongoing operations and maintenance functions. The General Fund is intended to provide maintenance funding for projects built with monies from the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund. The department receives General Fund monies; however, at this time the amount is not sufficient to cover maintenance for newly developed parks. The availability of maintenance funding is ,one of the criteria for prioritizing park development and the department is open to partnerships for park maintenance. HIGHLIGHTS For 2009 and future years, four funds (Lottery, Permanent Park and Recreation, .15 Cent Sales Tax and the .25-Cent Sales Tax) have been considered jointly to provide funding for the 157 '~T~ V department's capital projects. Major renovation and refiubishmen~ projects (over $50,000) are identified individually in the CIP. In some cases, funds aze being allocated for projects that will be started once the appropriate ,amount of monies has been accumulated. The #'ollowing are the major CIP projects planned in all funds: 2009 CIP Funding Boulder Reservoir Improvements (including Master Planning) Flatirons Golf Course Improvements . Iris Center Remodel Lighting Ordinarace~Implementation Mesa Memorial Pocket Park Park East Neighborhood Park Renovation Playground and Irrigation System Renovation - Pleasant View Fields Irrigation Replacement Recreation Facilities and Pool Improvements Thunderbird. Lake Improvements Valmont City Pazk (Phase I) Wonderland Lake Park (sidewalk repair) - 2010 to 2014 CIP Funding Boulder Reservoir~Improvements _ East Boulder Community Pazk Elks Neighborhood Park Flatirons Golf Course Improvements, Foothills Community Park (Phase III) Lighting Ordinance Implementation North Boulder Recreation Center Weight Room Remodel Playground and Irrigation System Renovation Recreation Facilities and Pool Improvements Stazio Fields Irrigation Replacement Valmont City Park (Phase I) Unanticipated Opportunities For the purposes of the CIP, staffhas included only projects that meet the C1P definition. Non- project specific fund accumulations, where no actual project is being proposed in a given year, such as an Art in the Park project, have not been included in the CIP. The department has continued to prioritize taking care of the existing system through the capital refurbishment and renovation program. Although these projects do not technically meet the CIP definition, capital funds are planned to be expended to meet ongoing and unanticipated needs including replacing and renovating park and recreation infrastructure, such as playgrounds and shelters; upgrading irrigation systems; and maintaining or replacing gymnasium floors, docks and walkways. The department has allocated Facilities and Asset Management (FAM) funding for on-going and major maintenance from its .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund. Park and recreation facility renovation and refurbishment funding has been dedicated to help the department address the backlog of deferred maintenance, replacing aging infrastructure and resolving safety and 158 0 environmental issues. For 2009, the budget for capital renovation projects acid the FAM portion of the .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund totals $924,000. FINANCING The revenues from the .25 Cent Sales Tax are estimated based on citywide sales tax projections. The .25 Cent Sales Tax revenues were pledged, for, " Payment for the principal, interest, and premium, if 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 ~refurbishmerit or replacement of four.pools; renovation and replacement of recreation facilities; 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; development of a mountain parks environmental education program; and for the renovation of city-owned Historical a`i'id cultural facilities; with the remainder being dedicated for parks and recreation purposes..." (.25 Cent Sales Tax ballot language) The Permanent Park and Recreation Fund consists of a .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. 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 that 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 capital renovations of existing facilities for items based on the $50,000 CIP project definition. RELATIONSIiIP TO OPERATING BUDGET The .25 Cent Sales Tax ballot language specified that funding for the operating costs for new park development could be allocated from the sales tax fund. The operating costs for renovation and refurbishment projects are expected to remain stable but are increased annually for inflation; however, material costs are increasing at an unknown rate. Any increased operating and maintenance budget impacts from new park development or facility renovations are either absorbed within the current operating budget or recommended for increased .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund allocations addressed through the city's business plan and budget process. As a capital improvement fund, the Permanent Parks and Recreation Fund cannot be utilized to fund ongoing operations and maintenance functions. Additional monies from the city's general fund or other sources are needed to fund operations and maintenance of new facilities developed with Permanent Parks and Recreation funding. BUSINESS PLAN The departrnent's investment strategy aligns with the city's business plan and the department's master plan. CIP projects are categorized as essential and desirable based on the following parameters: 159 e 1) Essential projects are provided to ensure general health and safety maintenance, facility repair and ADA requirements (accessibility and inclusion). 2) Desirable projects are provided to expand the system to meet ballot measure commitments, to sustain the community's parks and recreation assets and to achieve or maintain industry standards. PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) discussed staff's recorrtmended CIP at its Apri128 business meeting. The PRAB agreed that development of Phase One of Valmont City Park was a priority. In an effort to be fiscally responsible, DRAB deferred fiinding for East Boulder Community Park and Violet neighborhood park in order to maintain healthy fund balances. After the master plan for East Boulder Community Park is revised, the PRAB will reconsider the project priority and allocate funding accordingly. The PRAB also reviewed the defen:ed maintenance needs for the parks and recreation system and expressed concern about the level of funding available, as it is insufficient. The;PRAB reviewed and recommended approval of the draft 2009-2014 Parks and Recreation Capital Improvements Program (CIP) at its May 19, 2008 business meeting. _ 160 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund ~ z9..lut-oa 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 ?A14 Total Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected F.~risting FacWty -Enhancements /Upgrades Flatirons Golf Course hnptovemeats PPBtR ~ 400,000 250,000 250,000 425,000 425,000 50,000 1,800.000 Cightiog Ordinance implementation IS0,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 1,050,000 RecrcationFaci6tyimprovemeotPP&J2 0 0 1,100,000 0 0 0 1,100,000 Total: 550,000 350,000 1,450,000 525,000 525,000 550,000 3,950,000 kxisting Facility -Rehab /Repair /Deficiency Correction Boulder Reservoir Improvements 100,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 400,000 Wonderland Lake Park 228,000 0 0 0 0 0 228,000 Total: 328,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 628,000 rn New Construction -Growth Related Fatdiity /Additions Valmont City Pazt: (Phase A 770,000 770,000 770,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 3,060,000 East Bouider Community Pads 0 500,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 t,550,000 Foothills Community Paris- PPBIt 0 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 Total: 770,000 1,270,000 1,120,000 600,000 600,000 750,000 5,110,000 On.Going Projects Unanticipated Opportunities - PP&R 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 100;000 ~ 300;000 Total: 0 0 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 300,000 Study or Analysis Boulder Reservoir Master Plan 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund a9-rte-os 2009 2020 2011 2012 2013 2014 Tote! Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total: 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 Total for Permanent Parks & Recreation Ftmd 1,748,000 1,720,000 2,620,000 1,275,000 1,275,000 1,450,000 10,088,000 rn N :7 ,F 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program Parks & Recreation 1995 Ballot 29-Jun-o8 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected F~ldsting Facility -Enhancements /Upgrades his Center Remodel !50,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 Playground and Park lrrigadon System Replacement 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,400,000 Recreation Facility Improvements 100.000 100,000 0 100.000 100,000 100,000 500,000 North Boulder Recreation Center Weightroam Remodel 0 400,000 0 0 0 0 400,000 Total: 650,000 900,000 400,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,450,000 Fadsting Facility -Rehab /Repair /Deficiency Correction Pleasant View Iaigation Replacement 215,000 0 0 0 0 0 215,000 7truuderbird lake Watac.Management~ 200,000.. 0 0 0 0 0, ..200.000, . w Stazio Irrigation Reptaceaunt 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 Total:. 415,000•. 150,000. 0 0 0 0 565,000: , New Construction • Growth Related Facility /Additions Vabnont City Park (Pt?ase t) .25 coat 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,Ot10 Total: 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 900,000 New Construction -Not Growth Related ~ ~ - ~ _ Mesa Memorial Pocket Park ' 405,000 0 0 0 0 0 405,000 Elks Neighborhood Park 0 0 500,000 500,000 700,000 700.000 2,400.000 To+~: 405,000 , : 0 soo,ooo. -soo,ooo ~00,0~0. ~oo,ooo,. , 2,sos,ooo ~ . Total far Parks;&;Recreation1995 Ballot 1,620,000 1,200;000 1,050,000 1,150,000 1,350,000- .1,350,000 7,720,000 s/2s/2°°e Business Plan Budget Submission Fiscally Canstrafned Ptan 2008 Permanent Parks & Recreaticrt.Fund Essential oeslrabte olacrenonary,. _ Total Pr%ct TypeMame Protect it Funding % Funding % Fund/na % Fundlno % Existing Facility - Enhancemerrts /Upgrades Flatirons Golf Course Improvements PP&R $0 $300,000 75% $100,000 25°k $400,000 100°~ Ughting Ordinance Implementation $150 000 100% $0 $0 $150 000 loo°,6 Existing Facility -Rehab /Repair / Deftclency Correction Boulder Reservoir Improvements $0 $75,000 75°,b $25,000 25°k $100,000 100% Wonderland Lake Park $57,000 25% $171,000 75% $0 $228,000 100% i~iew Constructtan -Growth Related Facility / Addklons Valmont City Park (Phase I) $0 $385 000 50% $385 000 50% $770 000 10096 Study or Analysis Boulder Reservoir Master Plan $100 000 100% $0 $0 $100 000 100% .P Total for PennanoM Parks ~ Recreation Fund: -;5307,000 1ti~6 1881,000 63X =610.000 2896 i1,T48,000 100% sl2sl20oa Business Plan Budget Submission Fiscally Constrained Plan z~ Parks & Recreatl0n 1995 Ballot Essential Desirable Discretionary Total Pr%at Type/Name Pr%ct t Funding 96 Funding % Funding % Funding % Existing Facllfty -Enhancements /Upgrades ~ - Iris Center Remodel ~ $37;500 25% $112,500 75% $0 $150,000' i00°~: Playground and Park Irrigation System~Replacement $100,000 25% $300,000 ~ 75% $0 $400,000 10096' Recreation Fadlity Improvements $50,000 50% x50,000 50% $0 $100,000. 100°k Exlating Facility -Rehab /Repair / Deficiency Correction Pleasant View irrigation Replaceinlirit ~ " ~ $0 $215,000 100% $0 $215,000 100°~ Thunderbird take Water Managertient ° $p $200 000 100% $0 $200 000 100% New Construction -Growth Related Facility / /Wditlons Valmont City Petk (Phase q .25 cent $0 $75 000 50% $75 000 50% $150000 100°,6 Nsdv Construction • Niot Growth Related - . ~ Mesa blemorla? Pocket'Park ~ - ~ _ $0 $405 000 100% $0 $405 000 t00°.6 Total for Parks & Recreation 1985 Ballot: S187;500 12•~ 51,357,500 84% ~ 575,000 b°k 51,620,000 100°6 . City of Boulder Captial Improvement Projects,, 2009 - 2014 Parks & Recreation - ;~;Ba11kCe'~rl~ai f•~ .y ~ + i ~ - `ao'oca sf Q -r ~ Jay Rd 'fa^ '3 +r-~ °»'=~a' ~,,~y~iSE~'F1'r~a~Xt~@~661'~t~. '~i'i Ara ahoe Rd. ~ ~%j= rJ r.;v ~ t~~t I S Boulder R .~j ~~t; x~ i i ~'J~ ~ f~~~ Ji~r~ ' . t- SY !s.-. Legend Yssr of ProJed ~2o~a2o~a .zoos - zoiazo~a ~ zoos ~zo~a2o~a 166 ' 1 , 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program Project~~$tatus Report , Boulder Reservoir Improvements - ~ - g , Deparbnent: Pa , rtes 8~ Recreation ~ ' - Subcommunlty: Area III Funding source: Permanent Parks ~ Recreation Fund ~ ~ - evcparea: Area 111 Pivject 7vPe: - Existing Facility -Rehab/Repair /Deficiency Correction ~ . CEAP Required: ?~Jp - CEAP Completed:.. Funding will.be used to address deferred,capital needs and. major capital improvements and/or facility renovations at the Boulder Reservoir. Specific projecfs~will likely. include entry way improvements.from 5tst Street, gatehouse renovations, slgnage improvements, marina, main office, concession'and resUoom renovations, docks and walkways replacement. Environmental Sustainability: , Faclity,renovations will be designed and constructed;to address environmental sustainability. Approaches toy 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 operationplan, and long term durability. Economic Sustainability: Quality recreation facilities and programs contribute to`"the economic viability of-the, community. ,Social Sustainatiility: Quality recreation facilities contribute to and enhance~our'qualityof-life and allow the department to engage a broader range of the community. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified the need to maintain and renovate facilities, as well ~as invest in facilities and programs that~offer ~pportiinities to increase revenues:~Additionally, the Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifed the need fo:develop management plans.for all developed outdoor. recreation facil~les; including financial management;-operations; event management; hardscaPe_s, turf management and water f~'~e~L!iC~" . As the scope of work is defined, the necessity of a CEAP or other public review'will.kie determined. . Parks and Recreation will coordinate and collaborate with Utilities, Fire, Planning, Police, Open Space, FAIV_t, Transportation and~any other identified departmental stakeholders-will be involved in project discussions. . Capital Fund(rie P.len 2p09. 2010 2011 2012.. 2013 ..201,4 . , Planned Funding . . .$100,000 $100,000 _ ..$50,000 $50,000 $50,00 $50,000 $400,000 Change from Prior Year: Annual On-going Operating Costs - Description: An, estimate is not available at this time- As specific projects are identified,operating costs will be uantified Source of Funding: Recreation Activity Fund ' Essential % ~ Desirable % 75% Discretionary % 25% Total % 100% 167 2009-2014 Capital,_Improvements Program Project Stafus Report Boulder Reservoir Master Plan ~ - 146 Department: Partcs 8~ Recreation sutxommunky: Area III Fundingsource: permanent Parks$~Recreation Fund - - BvCPArea: Area III Project Type: Study or Analysis - ' CEAP Requin3d: NO CEAP Completed: - . A Master Plan for the Boulder Reservoir`will be developed to'establlsh the management strategy for all city=' managed lands, outdoor activities and developed outdoor recreatlori facilities, Including'financial'management, operations, event management, hardscai3es; turf management and natural resources (land, wildlife and water resources). . Environmental sustainabil'ity. Development of a master plan will provide for improved water quality, wildlife habitat,, energy and water conservation and sustainable uses of the area. ~ Economic Sustainability: The master plan will identify additional opportunities for the area to contribute'to the economic viability of the community: Social Sustainability: The area is a popular gathering place. more many segments of the community. ' The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifed the need to develop management plans for all developed outdoor recreation facilities, including financial management, operations, event management, hardscapes; turf management and water resources. As the plan Is developed, a'publlc process wilt be conducted to get:community input regarding the future operations and uses of the reservoir. Appropriate boards will be involved, Include the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, Open Space Board of Trustees and Water Resources Advisory Board. County and state agencies. will also be t<onsulted as necessary. The department will coordinate all planning and resultant operational changes with Utilities, Fire, Planning, Police, Open Space and Mountain Parks, Transportation and FAM. ' Capital Funding Plpn ' 2009 2010 2011 .2012. 2013 2014 Planned Funding $100,000 $0 $0. $0 $0 $0 $100,000 Change from Pr1o~ Year: new project Annual On~going Operating Costs. Description: WIII tie determined through the planning process. Source of Funding: Fund 230 ; Essential % 100% Desirable Discretionary Total % 100% l68 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program . Project Status Report East•Boulder -Community. Park.PP&R 4. ' Departrnent: _ parks & Recreation ~ subcommunltY Southeast Boulder'' Fundtng source: permanent Parks & Recreation Fund svcPa~' Area I Project Type: New Construction -Growth Related Facility /Additions c~aP Requtrea: Yes c~P comptetea: To complete the development of the East Boulder Community Park Site. Approximately 15 acres of the 53 acre, park remain to be,constnicted. The current site development plan.focuses on the development of additional rriulti- use.fjelds, an identlfed deficiency.within l3oulder, by the Parks and Recrea n Department and the Boultle~ do Valley School District. , . Environmental sustainability: Design, development, and maintenance of new park sites will meet current city: ; codes,'strjve to meet environmental goals and utilize best management practices. Economic Sustainability: A quality parks and recreation system contributes to the economic viability of the community. Soctal Sustainability. Park sites are community gathering places. Development of this park"will meet the standard of 1.5 acres of park per 1000 pgpulation. ~ - , The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified a need to develop community park sites. This siteis needed to' meet the standard of 1.5 acres of community parks per 1000 poplulation. The master site plan for the'corrimuriity park site was approved in 1'987. The site has been graded, roadway and other infastructure, community center, playground, soccer' fields, court'corriplez and parking installed. Due to the length of lime since.tkte.master site plan was developed, extensive public review will, be provided prior to;the next phase,of.developmerit,.,Ariew site plan wil! ensure communityneeds are addressed.and will include opportunities for public discussion and dialogue. As the scope of work is defined the necessity of~a CEAP or other public review will be determined. A development proposal has been submitted for the adjoining private property. P&R staff is involvedm.tlte~ review; anticapfing potential impacts to-tithe park, as well as opportunities for efficiencies in infrastructure development.. _ Parks,and Recreation staff work closely with Planning and Transportation staff as required for:pr•operty development: ' Capital Funding Plan . , 2009. , ~ 2010 . 2011 20.12 2013 2014 Planned Funding $0 , $500;000 $350,000 $350;000 ' ~ $350,000' ~ $1;550,000 Change from Prior Year: Annual On-going Operating Costs $75,000 Description: Operating costs will increase when this project is completed. Amount stated is for 15 acres in 2005 dollars. Source of Funding: General Fund Essential % ~ Desirable % 100% Discretionary Tota1 % 100% 169 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program Project. Status Report. Elks Neighborhood Park _ ~ 8 Department. Parks Recreation suhcommuroty: North Boulder Funding Source: ~ Parks Recreation 1995 Ballot ~ svcPArea: Area I Project Type: New Construction -Not Growth Related - , CEAP Required: NO CEAP Completed: The Elks neighborhood parts site is a 7.9 acre parcel located at 3995 28th. Streit. The Elks park site design will involve extensive public review and dialogue with the community. Elks park will provide parkservices to an existing underserved a"tea and tias been prioritized for design, and development to comply with ballot requirements of the .25 Cent Sales~Tax. Significant flood and drainage worts"must be accomplished prior to park development. Parks and Recreation staff is working with Utilities and Tributary Greenways to coordinate the departments respective projects. Environmental sustainability-. Design, development, and maintenance of new park sites will comply with cun'ent city codes, strive to meet environmental goals, and employ best management practices. Economic Sustainability: A quality parks and recreation system contributes to the economic viability of the community. Development of park sites are required to meet the commitments represented under the 1995 .25-Cent Sales Tax. Social Sustalnability. Parks are community gathering places. Completion of Elks park.wlll-meet the' standard of 1.5.acres of neighborhood park land per 1000 population, as well as the park standard of a 1/2 mile walking distance to a neighborhood park. The .Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified the need to develop existing and newly acquired undeveloped park sites to meet und,erserued neighborhoods and park service standards. The Utilities and Tributary Greenways projects along Fourmile Creek will require a CEAP, which will include the Elks park site. The department will work with Utilities and Tributary Greenways to ensure that all site work is coordinated appropriately. The Utilities and Tributary Greenways work must be completed before Parks and Recreation can begin park development: - ' Capital Funding Ptan 2008 2010' ~ 2011 2017- 2013 2014 Planned Funding $0 ~ $0 $500,000 - $500,000 $700,000 $700,000 $2,400,000 Change from Prior Year: - ~ . Mnuaf Ongoing Operating Cost's $48,000 Description: Park maintenance of turf, horticulture, structures and hardscape features Source of Funding: .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund Essential % ~ 25% ' Dealrable % 75% Discretionary Total % 100% 170 i 2009=2t~14 Capital~lmProvements Prograni Project Status Report Flatirons Golf Course Improvements PP&R - S ' Ofpartment: Parks 8 Recreation subcommunlty: Southeast Boulder, FundtnS Source: Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund avcParea:'_ Area. I . ~ " Project Type: Existing Facility-Enhancements./ Upgrades CFJ1P Required: NO . CEAP Completed: Funding will'be used for future improvements to the~golf ciiurse including, but not limited to; replacement of irrigation systems, :cart paths,:tees,greens, other golf course land improvements, driving range; event center, and pro shop facilities. The depaitmentseeRs to fetain current'revenue streams and enhance departmental sustainability by enhancing the amenities at Flatirons Golf Course. In additfon'to the departiiient's Master Plari, a business plan for Flatirons Golf Course will be developed to~evaluate the feasibility of the capital renovation costs . and potential increased revenue streams. The business plan and renovation work will involve all city stakeholders, including Transportation, Planning, Finance and the City Manager's, Office, to ensure: a common shared,•vision of Flatirons Golf Course. As specific projects are identified, staff will show projects on an individual . basis. within the CIP process. Environmental Sustainability: Facility rerovatioiis will be designed and'constructed to address envirorimerital sustainatiility. -Approaches to be_ considered in every project will include effcient u'se of energy and water, use of renewable energy sources, use of recycled products; recycling within the tiuiiding operation plan, and long term durability: Economic Sustainability. Quality recreatioh facilities and programs contribute to the economic viabiliXy of the community., These. improvements will increase service to the community at the Flatirons Golf Course which should result in additional revenues. Social Sustalnabllity:. Quality recreation facilities contribute to and,enhance our quality of life and allow the department to engage a broader range of the community. The Parks and Recreation M. aster Plan kientified the need to maintain and renovate facilities,. as well as invest in facilities, and programs thatoffer opportunities to increase. revenues.. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board reviewed options for'renovation of the Flatirons Golf Course buildings at their May 2001 meeting. As the scope of work is defined, the public review process will-be determined. Parks and Recreation will coord'inafe'witfi Planning, Transportation, CMO, FAM and any other identified departmental stakeholder ~ ' • ~ - Capital Fundlne Plan. - 2008 2010- ' 201'1 2012 2013 2014 Plannetl Funding $400,000 $250,000 $250,000 $425,000 $425,000:. $50,000 $1,800,000. Change from Prior Year: ~ ~ ' Mnual.On-going_Opera>ting Costs Description: Changes to operating and maintenance costs will vary depending on improvements. Source of Funding: Recreation Activity Fund ' Essential % ~ Desirable % 75% Discretionary % 25% Totai 100%' 171 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program , Project Status Report Foothills Community Park- PP&R' ' 6 ~epartrnent: • Parks & Recreation subcommunlty: North Boulder Funtltng source: Permanent Parks 8~ Recr@ation Fund - evCPArea: ~ Area I Project Type: New Construction -Growth Related Facility /Additions. CEAP Required: No CEAP Completed: Project funding began with the site acquisition in 1985. The Foothills Community Park site totals 69 acres. Phase I.(44 acres).was completed iri 2001., Phase IIA.(temporary-dog park and parking) was completed in 2004. Phase IIB (playground,. shelters, restrooms, turf areas) was completed, In summer.2006: PFiase.IlA B~,B development totaled eight acres. Phase'lll construction is currently plahned for active recreational facilities, including tennis, basketball and handball courts, however a site planning process will be tndeiteken before development proceeds. ' Environmental Sus{ainability: 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 recyGed products, and enhancing water quality by controlled release, landscape contouring, .and cleaning of storm drainage waters. EGonornic Sustainatiility: A quality parks and recreation system contributes to the economic viability of the community. Social Sustainability: Park sites are community gathering places. ~ Development of this park will meet the standard of 1:.5 acr'e's of park per 1000 population. 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. 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. ,Phase IIB development began in 2005. Prior to Phase II construction, the site' plan-will be reviewed by the community and changes made as needed. Coorciinafed efforts with Housing Authority to purchase right of way and to construct Violet Street to serve both the community park acid the Foothills Affordable Housing project. Capital Funding Plan . ~ • 2009 ~ - 2010 2011 2012. 2013 2014_ Planned Funding $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 Change from Prior Year. Annual On-going Operating Costs $20,000 Description: Park maintenance of turf, horticulture, structures and hardscape features Source of Funding: .25 Sales Tax Fund, General Fund Essential % Desirable % 100% Discretionary Total % 100% 172 i 2009-2014 Capital, Irrtprovements Program Project Status Report (pis :Center iZemodef _ 147,' , Department: Parks & Recreation.:. ~ Subcommuntty: , Central Boulder Funding source::. Parks & Recreation 1995 Ballot svcPArea: Area l~ ' Protect Type: Existing Facility -Enhancements /Upgrades LEAP Required: ?Jo . CEAP Camplated; Project to reconfigure the first`floor of the building to create additional.space for administrative staff-arid include energy. efficiericy retrofits.. Environmental sustainability: Renovation and repair of department facilities will meet current city codes, reduce water and energy use and utilize best management practices. Recycled aricllor sust~fnably produced materials will be used..when;feasitile. ~ Economic Sustainability: Reriovations will reduce energy consumption, The Parks and Recreation master plan identified the need to maintain facilities. The renovations will~tiave minimal impact on the public and the department will provide'information to the public so as not to disrupt'services: Efforts have.been coordinated withthe citys Facilities and Asset MafiagemenY (FAM)`arid OFJ~ staff. ` " Capital Funding Plan ' 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Planned Funding $150,000 $0 '~'$0 $0 $0 $150,000 Change. from. Prior Year. New project Annuat On~oirig OQerating Costs Description: t3uilding'maihteriance, energy and water utility costs : ' Source of Funding: General Fund and .25 CenfSalesfiax Fund Essential % 25% DBsirable~% 75% ~ .Discretionary%~ Total % ,100%,,.: , • 173 200$-2014 Capital ,Improvements Program ` Project' Status R®port::,~ Lighting Ordinance_Implerrientation ~ - Department: Parks•& Recreation subcommuntty: System-wide funding source: Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund BvcParea: System-wide Project Type: Existing Facility _ Enhancements /Upgrades - • - CEAP Required: Np - CEAP Completed: - - Based on • the evaluation of the 2007/2008 Lighting, Ordinance Compliance Study, the department willimplement lighting retrofits in accordance with •the city's lighting ordinance and to maximize energy efficiency.' The department is accumulating funding in anticipation of replacement and retrofitting lighting fixtures: Criteria for determining~the schedule for.replacement will include-cost, energy savingsand safety:. ; ~ , Envirorimental•sustainability' Retrofitting lighting fxtures will~meefcurrent city codes and reduce energy use. ' Economic Sustainability: A quality parks and recreation system contributes to the economic'vialiility`of the commu'nlty. Energy savings are anticipatedfrom this project. Social Sustainability: Park sites are community gathering places. The_appto•ved master. plan identifies. tl'ie need to develop;..meintain, and renovate-facilities to meet community demands. Additionally, the lightning will contribute to the safety of the community as well as reduce energy _ demands. City, lighting ordinance compliance is required by 2017. No,pubjic prgcess is anticipated: The public will be notified on a project by project basis. The deparmenf will coordinate with Planning, FAM, OEA, CAO, as needed or required: • - Capkal Funding Plan 2009 2010 2011 2012. - 2013. ~ 2014 ' ' Planned Funding $150,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $1,050,000 _ Change from PHor Year: implementation of lighting compliance study Annual On-going Operating Costs° Description: Unknown, but will include energy costs and annual maintenance Source of Funding: General Fund and .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund Essential % 100% Desirable Discretionary Total % 100% 174 1 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report .x.,. - - wlesa: Memorial Pooket Park ~ ~ _ 3' _ . . f~partment:.. Parks & R@CreatlOtl . ~uticommunf _ South Boulder Fundtng.source: Parks.& Recreation '1995 Ballot . ` 'sycPArea: Areal , Protect Type: New Construction -Not Growth Belated ~ . CEAP Required: NO CLAP Cgmpleted: ~ The Mesa Memorial, pocket.park•site~consists of a 1,:7 acre parcel located at Table tiAesa~and Yale. Mesa Memorial fias been identified for development'in 2009 in order to meet commitments from. the 1995 ballot . measure and because Table Mesa Road functions as a barrier to community access. Ttie pocket park site design.will involve an extensive public review process to determine community np_ e'ds: .Park design and . development is. anticipated to occur In 200.9. - . Environmental'siistainability: 'Design, 'development, and maintenance of new park sites will meet current city codes, strive to meet environmental goals and utilize. best management practices. Economic Sustainability A quality p'ark's antl recreation system contributes to the economic viability of the community. Development of some park sites fulfills the commitments made under the 1995.25 Cent Sales, Tax. Social $ustainability. Park sites are community gathering places. Deyelopment,of this parEc will meet t}ie standard of 1.5 acres of pocket park per 1000 population, and"be within the walking distance standard of 1/4 mile distance'to the park. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified.the need to develop existing and newly acquired undeveloped park sites to meet underserved neighborhoods and. park service. standards. ~ As tte scope of work is.defined, the specific publicreview process will be determined. The park design process will nclude'public`involvement (specifically from the neighborhood) to get community input'1`nto the designof the park. . Parks aril Recreation will coordinate with Planning and Transportation as necessary. _ ~ :a Capital Funding Ptan ' 2009;. ; 2010.. 2011•:. 2012 2013. 2014.. Planned.Funding $40~5,OOp - - ~ $0 $0 $0, $0 $0 $405,Q00 Change from Prior Year: ~ • Mnual On-going Operating Costs $15,000 Descript[ott: ~ Park maintenance of turf, horticulture, structures and hardscape features Source of Funding: .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund Essential % ~ Desirable % 100% Discretionary Total % 100% 175 2009-2014 Capital Impro~ements.Program, Project Status Report North Boulder Recreation Center Weiglitroom Remodel - - 141 , ~ •uo ri. - ~rtmer~ -Parks & Recreation } sut>community. Central Boulder Funding source: Parks' 8~ Recreation.1995.Bailot ~ evcPArea: Area I . Pioiect Type: Existing Facility -Enhancements /Upgrades , CEAP Required: NO CEAP Completed: The community demand for.the.weight room at the North Boulder Recreation Center exceeds the capacity. - Funding will be used for expansion of the weight room. This-project includes evaluating ttie current~facility and determining the most Diable option for expansion. Environmental Sustainability: Renovations will be designed and constn~cted 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, and long term sustainability. As part of the North Boulder Recreation Center, tiie expansion will also maintain the. LEED standard. Economic Sustainability: Quality recreation facilities contribute to the economic viability of the community. The current weight room, is not large.enough to attract new customers or retain current customers. Social Sustainability: Quality recreation facilities and programs contribute to and enhance our quality oflife-and allow the department to engage a broader range of the community, Current customers are frustrated with the lack of adequate facilities and the expansion would help retain them 'and create a more posftive experience for our customers. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified the need to maintain and renovate facilities as well as invest in facilities.that offer oppottunities.to increas~'revenues: , . _ As the scope of work is defined, the necessity of any public process will be determined. Parks and Recreation staff will coordinate with FAM, Public Works/Utilities, Planning and any other identified departmental stakeholder as necessary - ' - Capttsl Funding Plan 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Planned Funding $0. - $400.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000.. Change from Prior Year. New project - Mnual On-going Operat(ng Cpsts Description: Annual equipment service and repair, typical building maintenance Source of Funding: Recreation Activity Fund Essential % 25% Desirable % 75% Discretionary Total % 100% l76 2009-2014 Capital Improvements P~ograrn Project Status Report Playground and Parie.lrrigation System: Replacement,.. • Departrnent: Parks & Recreation Su6community: System,=wide _ Funding Source: Parks 8~ Recreation 1995. Ballot _ _ BvcPArea: System=wide Protect Type.: Existing Facility -Enhancements /Upgrades CEAP Required: No CEAP Completed: - . Upon completion of the master plan, the department committed to renovating'one playground and one irrigation system per,year: Formerly, the department identified the prolects and funded their' from the Urban Parks R&R budget. As part of the effort to provide •clearer information on large projects, the department is including these annual projects iri the CIP. The specific playground and-park irrigation system that will be renovated will tie _ decided on an_ annual. basis and,communicated t`o the PRAB. This allows the department to rrieke the decision based on the moot up-to-date iriforrnation. Projects are necessary to'cor'np(y with goals and commitments identified in the department's master plan. Criteria include safety aril code compliance, age~of ttie equipment, location, in the city, and opportunities for efficiencies, collaboration or partnerships with other departments or the surrounding neighborhood.. EnvironmentaCs'ustainability`. Renovation of playgrounds and irrigation systems will meet current city safety standards, strive to meet environmental`goals and utilize best management practices. Recycled and/or sustainably produced materials will be used when feasible. Water and energy conservation best practices will be implemented. Economic Sustainakiility. A quality parks and recreation system contributes to the economic viability of the community: These park renovations are necessary to ensure the safety of the users; as •well as to meet expressed community demands. Social Sustainability: Park sites are community gathering places. The Parks end Recreation master plan identifed the needto maintain parks, as wel! as eccelerafe the 'park renovation and refurbishment schedule. In addition, the department committed to renovating one playground and one irrigalion system per year. ~ , The department will, conduct:`outreach to ttie neighborhood on the needs and design of;the playground. Typically, two public meetings are conducted - an initial one to gather suggestions and a follow-up meeting to review design . options. The project is posted on the department's website and regular updates are posted. A email group may also be_c~,e,.ated;to update interested.community members. . , , Parks and. Recreation will-coordinate with Planning, Utilities, Water Conservation and Transportation as . necessary. . Capital Funding Plan . , 2009 2010 2011- 2012. 2013 2014 Planned Funding $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000' $400,000 ~ $400,000 $2,400,000 . , Chang® from Prior Year: - - . Mnual On=going; Operating Costs $3,000. ~ . Description: Inspection and repair of equipment, graffiti removal, safety inspection, playground surface maintenance Source of Funding: General Fund and .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund Essential % 25% Desirable % 75% Discretionary Total % 100% 177 2009-2014 Capital Improvements .Program Project .Status •Report Pleasant View Irrigation"Replacement : ~ - 142` • Department: Parks &-Recreation - sut,community: Palo Park...... Funding source: Parks & Recreatiop 1995:Ballot ~ L3vcPArBa: Area I _ . Protect TYPe~ Existing Facility =Rehab /Repair/ Deficiency Correction ~ - CEAP Required: (`Jp CEAP Completed: - - - - The'irrigation systems at ihe.sports fields have`been'an_alyzed'and the department has identified a need`tii replace the irrigation system at Pleasant View Fields in 2009 and.Stazio in 2010. The current systems do not allow for proper coverage of.~he turf and is inefficient fo'r irrigation needs. The-original system includes valves that are no bri9er manufactured,.leaving it virtually impossible to repair. Anew computerized'clock, lncludirig a weather station, has been installed and will tie compatible.with-the new irrigation system and will improve water consumption efficiency. System replacement will ensure that operations can conUriue, water budgets will be -met and current revenue streams are maintained or increased. - Environmental Sustainability: Irrigation system replacements will tie designed to address environmental • • sustairtability. These projects will result in long-term efficient. use of energy and water. Economic Sustainability:,-Quality recreation facilities:and programs 'contribute to the economic viability of the community. These irrigation:rePlacements will help increase the quality of the sports, playing fields, which will allow the department to increase the numtier'of events of the sports fields. ' Social Sustainability:.Quality recreation facilities contribute to and enhance our quality of.life. Irrigation - replacement.will increase the quality of the playing surface and allow'the departrrient to engage a broader range ' of the community. - . _ . The Parks~and Recreation Master Plan identified the need to maintainand renovate facilities, as well as investin ' facilities that offer-opportunities to increase revenues. - As the scope of work is defined, the necessity of any public process will be determined. Parks and Recreation staff will coordinate with Public Works, Water Conservation and any other identified departmental`stakeholders. Capital Funding Plan - 2009 - 2071.0 2011 2012 2013 2014 Planned.Funding $215,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $215,000 Chan-ge tTrotn Prior Year:. New project - - • : , Annual On-going Operating Costs - ~ , ,Description: • • - Inspection and repair'of irrigation system - ~ - ~ ~ ' Source of, Funding: .15 Cent Sales Tax Fund, Recreation Activity Fund Essential % ~ Desirable % 100%,. Discretionary'%~ Total % 100% • - 178 i . 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program Project Staius Report Recreation Facility~lmprovements - Departrnern: Parks & Recreation subcommuntty: System-wide ` Funaing source: parks & Recreation 1995 Ballot BvcParoe: Area 1 ' pro)act Type: Existing Facility -Enhancements /Upgrades . " ~ : . c~ Required: Yes cEAe completed: _ This funding, is. reserved, for design, development and renovation of `existing-recreation facilities aril buil.dirigs, including outdoor pools, recreation cer?ters, arid sports fields. Environmental Sustainability: Facility renovatioris will tie designed, and coristri,cted to address environmehtal sustainability. Approaches to be considered in every project will include efficient use of eneri3y 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., Social Sustainability:~~Quality recreation facilities contribute to and enhance our'quality'of life ' and allow the department to engage a broader range of the community. , ~ ' The Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified the need'to maintain and rerfovate facilities, as well a's invest in facilities and programs that offer opportunities to increase'~everiiies. As the'scope of work is defined the necessity of'a CEAP or other putillc review process will tie determined: Parks and Recreation Staff works closely with Facility Asset Management staff on all building and facility improvements. Capital Fundlr?g,Plan 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Planned Funding $900;U00,. $100;000 ~ $0 $100,000,$100,000,.. $100,000 $500,000 Change from Prior Year: ~ ~ ~ . Mnual On=going Operat(ng Costs Description: Operating costs may increase when this project is completed. An estimate is not ' can-enU available.: Source of Funding: Recreation Activity Fund Essential % 50% Desirable °k 50% Discretionary Total 100%` 279 2009-2014. Capital Improvements Program. , Project $xatus Report ' - Recreation Facility ImprovemeritPP~R:~~ - ' Departrreent Parks &~Recreation - subcommunity: System-wide Funding source: Permanent Parks & Recreation Fund avepnn3a: Area•.I _ Protect Type:- Existing Facility -Enhancements /Upgrades - - c~ Reyuirea: No - - cEAP completed: ~ _ . . Funding is, tieing accumulafed for the~deslgn; development and renovation of existing and new'recreaton~ facilities. These facilities may include pools, recreation centers, sports fields, and other recreation facilities. At this point, a specific project has not been finalized, but itis anticipated ttiaf Scott Carpenter Pool will receive a major capital renovation: 'fhe, updated Parks and Recreation master plan and-the Parks and Recreation: Advisory, Board will provide.future guidance in project selection. Asspecifc projects and funding-are identified staff will show, projects on an individual basis within. the CIP process... Environmental. Sustainability. Facility renovations will be designed and constructed to address environmental sustainability. ~App'roachesto be considered in'every projectwiU 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. Social Sustafnability: Quality reoreatlon.facillties contribute to and enhance our quality of life and allow the department to engage a broader range of the community. . The Parks ;and RecreaUon.Master Plan identified the need.to rhalntain and renovate facilities, as well as invest in facilities and programs that offer opportunities to increase revenues. As the scope of work is defined the necessity of a CEAP or other public review will be determined. Parks and Recreation staff.works..closely.with Faci(ity`Asset Management staff on all building and facility - • improvements. • ~r. • Capital Funding'Ptpn - - 2009 2010 - 2011 2012 2013 2014 Planned Funding ..$0 $0 $1100:000 - $0 - $0 $0 $1,100,000• Change from Prior Year: - ~ • Annual On-going Operating Costs - ~ . Description: Annual operating costs to be determined as specific projects are identified Source of Funding: Recreation Activity Fund Essential % 25% Desirable % 75% Discretionary Total % 100% 180 i 2009=2014 Capitat'Improvernia"nts Program Project Status Report Stazio Irrigation Replacement 143 Department: Parks i~ Recreation sudcommunity: East Boulder ~ • Funding source: Parks & Recreation 1995 Ballot ~ evCPArea: - Area II • ' Pro)ectType: Existing Facility -Rehab /Repair/ Deficiency Correction ` CEAP Required: Np , . CEAP Completed: _ The irrigation systems at the sports fields have been analyzed arid'ttie department has iderit~ed a need-to replace the irrigation system at Stazio Fields in 2010. The current systems. do notallow #or proper coverage of the turf and are inefficient for irrigation needs. The original-system- includes Fiat"es that are no longef manufactured; leaving it~virtiially impossit5le to repair.-Anew computerized clock, including a weather station; has been installed and will be compatible with the new irrigation system and will improve~wafer consumption efficiency. System replacement will enure that operations can.congnue,,water budgets will be met and current revenue streams are maintained or increased: . Environrr?enfal Sustainability: Irrigation system replacements will 6e designed to address environments( sustainability. These projects will~re§ult in long=term efficient use of energyarid~water. Economic Sustainability: Quality recreation facilities and programs contribute to the economic viability of the community. These irrigation replacements will help increase the quality of the sports playing fields, which will . allow the department to increase.the number of, events at the.sports fields. Social Sustainability: Quality recreation facilities contribute to and enhance our:qualitjr of life.. Irrigation ' replacement will increase the quality of the playing surface and allow the department to engage a broader range of the community. The Parks and.Recreation Master Plan identified the need tq maintain-and renovate`facilities, as well as_invest In facili~es that offer`opportunities to increase:revenues. As tti~ scope of_work is defned, the necessity of.ariy public process vinll be determined. , Parks end Recrei3tlanstaff.will coordinate with Public WorkslUtilities, Water_Conservation and any other identified departi•nental stakefiolders.. . _ ~ • ° Capital Funding,Pla~r - 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Planned Funding - $0.. $150,000 $0 - $0 $0 ~ . ~ $0 $150,000 . Change fronn Prior Year: New project - Arirual~On~oing Operating Costs Description: Irrigation system inspection and.repair Source of Funding: .15 Cent Sales Tax Fund, Recreation Activity Fund Essential % ~ Desirable % 100% Discretionary Total % 100% 181 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program Project Staxus ;Report hunderijird Lake Water Managemen4 144 Departrnent: Parks 8~ Recreation sut>communlty: Southeast Boulder ~ Funding source: Parlcs:B.Recreatiori 19,95 Ballot ~ ~ ~ svcPArsa; Areal Prof ~Yv~: Existing Facility -Rehab /Repair /Deficiency Correction . CEAP R~quln3d: No LEAP Completed: . The water level in Thunderbir~:Lake has decreasgd.over the pastseyeral,years. The department is Investigating several options for replenishing the lake with water, including 1) drilling awell, 2) retrofitting the existing file drain, 3) collecting stormwater, and 4) using potable water.., The costs and feasibility of each option are being calculated and.will :be,presented to PRAB and Council in the summer of 2008 for a decision. Funds are being reserved to implement the.chosen course of.action. Environmental sustainability: Renovation and refurbishment of park sites will meet current city codes, strive ~to meet environmental goals and utilize best management practices. Water rights and waterbudgets.are topics that will be considered. Economic Sustainability. A quality parks. and recreation system .contributes to the economic viability of the community. These park renovations will meet expressed.community demands. Social Sustainability: Park Sites are community gathering places and used by various segments of the community. The Parks and Recreation master plan identified the need to maintain parks, as well as accelerate the panic renovation and, refurbishment schedule. , The. department has conducted public. meetingsand outreach to the neighborhood on.the history; ipaintenance background, ecology and.geology of the lake and area: Information is posted on the department's_ website and regular updates are provided to interested community members via email and'regular mail. The department will conduct additional public meetings as new information and changes occur. Parks and Recreation will coon:ilnate with Planning and lJttlfties regarding permits, fees and water rights. Capital Funding Plan 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 .Planned Funding $200,000 $0' $0 ~ ~ $0 : $0 $0 $200,000 Change from Prior Year. New project Annual On-going Operating Costs ~ . Description: Annual operating costs are unknown, but could InGude fees for potable water, water ri -Fits, water uali testin Source of Funding: .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund Essential % ~ Desirable % 100% Discretionary Total % 100% 182 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program Project Sfatus~Report • Unanticipated.Opportunities.-„PP&R - ' , Department: Parks Recreation ~ subcommunity. ,.System-wide Funding source: permanent Parks Recreation Fund 13vcParee: ~ Area t~ ' Protect Type:. On-Gping.Projects - . CEAP Required: Np CFJ1P Completed: The unanticipated opportunities CIP allocation is intended to meet changing•and unexpected community needs. The unanticipated opportunities may include, but is not limited to`land acquisition, facility acquisition, capital renovation or development, city contribution towards potential public=private, public-public or other partnership , agreements and energy'efficiency projects. As specifc projects~are identified, staff will shihw projects on ari individual basis within the annual CIP budget, which is approved Riy the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board: Environmental sustainatiility: Design, development, and maintenance of riew park sites will meet~current city • codes, strive to meet environmental goals and utilize best management practices. Facility renovationswill be designed and constructed to address environmental sustainab'ilty. Approaches to be considered in every-project will include efficient`use of energy and water; use of renewable~energy sources, use of recycled prodiiCts, recycling within,tFie building'operation plan; and longterm durability. economic Sustainabifity: 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 standards of 1.5 acres of park land per 1000 population,,. ,.Recreatiion facilities are intended to meet expressed community demands. Social. Sustainability: Quality recreation facilities contribute to and:enhance our quality of life and allow the department to engage a broader range of the'community. Park sites are community gathering places: The Parks and.~Recreation Master Plan identfed the need to d'eyelop,'maintai~.and renovate`facilities. Ttie need to ~deyelop.existing and newly acquired undeveloped park sites was also:deemed a priority. Any pofentiaf projects-will be reviewed and discussed at the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings. Large scale projects will encompass additional public process, including scope, design, impacts and timing. ' Planning; Open Space/futountairi Parks, FAM', Transportation•andariyother identified ifepartmehtal stakeholder will :6e`inGolvi3d in project discussions'. ~ . • ' , ' ~ ~ ~ _ ~ • - Capital Fundliig Plan 21109' 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Planned Furitling ,$0 ~ < $0` . $0 $100,000 . x.:,$100,000 - $100;000 $300,000 Change from Prior Year: Annum On-going Operating Costs; ~ ~ _ ~ . Description: As projects are determined;-operating cosfs~:will be calculated • Source of Funding:. .25 Cent~:Sales Tax, Recreation Activity Fund, GF Essential % ~ D@Sirabl@ % 100% OiSCretionary Total % 100% l83 2009-2014 Capitsl .Improvements Program Project Status Report Valmont City Park4Phase I) ~ ' ' ~ 145 Department: Pa'rRs & Recreation aut~communtty. East Boulder Funding Source: Perinanent'Parks 8. Recreation Fund ~ ~ ~ ~ svcPArea: , - . Area Protect 7YPe~ New CoristrUCtlon =Growth Related Facility/Additions , CEAP'Required: Yeg CEAP Completed: . During the process of updating the concept plan for Valmont City Park (VCP), the community has expressed a desire to t~egin development of part of the park as soon as possible. In response, staff has identified funding for the proposed Phase 1 of. VCP (completing the portion of-the park north of Valmont Road). This-would allow for construction of the bike parts, dog park and other associated parts amenities. Parts development will meet service standards ou4lined in the department's master plan. ' Environmental sustainability. Design and development of Phase 1 wilt meet current city safety standards, strive to meet environmental ggals and utilize best manac,~ement practices. Recycled and/or sustairiabty produced materials will t>e, used when feasible.. Water conservation and energy efficiency measures~will be included. Economic Sustainability: A quality parks and recreation system contritiutes.to.the economic viability of the community. This project wilt meet expressed community demands. The bjke park is Ilkely,to contribute to economic vitality through, special events. Spcial Sustainability., Park sites are.community gathering places. A master plan goal into fill in the gaps,in the parks~and recreation system. Revising the concept plan for Valmont City Park was identified as a 2007 work plan item. Completion of Valmont City Park was' identifiedin the department's vision plan. ~ ' An extensive public process has been conducted'during the revision of the concept plan, InGuding formation of an advisory group, conductlng a community survey, holtling three open houses, and numerous public meetings with the Parks,and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB). A project website was also developed and. updated regularly. As Phase 1 design and development proceeds, the PRAB will be involved and interested community members and user groups included. Parks anif:Recreation will coordinate with Planning, Utilities, Transportatjon and other departments as necessary. Capital Funding Plan., 2009 2010 ~ ~ ~ 2011 ~ ~ 2012 ~ ' ` -2013 2014 Planned Funding $770,000 $770,000 $770,000: $250;000 $250,000 $250,000 $3,Ofi0,000 Change from Prior Year: New~project ~ ~ Annual On-going Operating Coata. Description: As park Is developed, maintenance and operating costs will be determined Source of Funding: General Fund and .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund , F~sential % 0 Dsalrable % `50% Discretionary % 50% Total % 100% ]84 i . 2009-2014 Capital Improvemerits.Program~ Project Status. Report^~ Valmont, City.,Rark (Phase I) 25 cent. 145 . r_ - i Department:. Parks & Recreation - Sulcommunlty: East Boulder ' . Funaing source: Parks~& Recreation 1995 Ballot 'svePaba: ~ Area I Frolect New Construction -Growth Related Facility /Additions ~ ' CEAP.Requlred: NO CEM Completed: During the.prgcess.of updating the,_concept plan for Valmont City Park`(VCP), ttie community has expressed a desire to be0ln.develoPrr?ent,of part of the park as soon as possible. In re§ponse, staff has identified funding for the proposed Phase,l of VCP (completing the portion of the park north of Valmont Road). This would al~ow.for construction of the bike park, dog park and other_associated park amenities. Park development will-meet seivice standards outlined in the departments master plan. ' Environmental sustainability: Design and development of Phase,l will meet current city safety sfaridards, strive'to meet environmental goals and utilize best management practices. Recycled and%or sustain.ably produced materials will be used when feasible. Water conservation and, energy efficiency fieasures will be included.Economic Sustainability ~~A quajity parks, ano recreation system contributes to the economic viability of the community. This project will meet expressed community demands:- Tne bike park is likely to contribute to economic vitality through special events. Social Sustainability: Park sites are community gathering places. A master plan goal fs~to fll in the gaps in ftie parks grid recreation system.. Revising the concepf Plan.for Valmont City Park was identified as a 2007 work plan item. Completion of Valmont City Park was identified in the departnent's,,y'isionplan: P _ An extensive ubllc,process has. begin conducted during. the revision of the concept plan, including forma{ion of an advisory group, conducting a community survey, holding three open houses, and nurrierous public meetings with the Packs and: Recreation Advisory Board {PRAB). A project wetisite was also developed and updated regularly. As Phase 1 design and development-proceeds, the PRAB.will be involved and interested community members and user groups Included: Parks.and. Recreation will coordinate with Planning, Utilities, Transportation and other departments as necessary. _ GapitalFunding-Plan _ '2009"~ 2010 " - 2011" ' '2012 ~ 2013 ~ 2014 Planned Funding . . . $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 ~ $150,000' $1,50,000 $150,000 $900,000 Change from Prior Year: new project Annual On-going Operating Casts Description: Will tie'determined with final site design Source of Funding: General Fund grid .2b Cent Sales Tax Furad Essential % ~ Desirable % 50% Discretionary % 50% Total % 100% 185 2009.-201.4. Capital Improveme~tts .Program Project Status •Reptrt -1 ~ Y Wonderland Lake Park , • ; • , ; ; . -2. Department: - Parks & Recreation ` . • ~4ut?corrimunity: North Boulder - • Funding source: Permanent Parks. & Recreation Fund• ~ ~ • BVCPE?rea:~. - - .Area ProJect'iYP•~ Existing Facility =Rehab/ Repair,/ peficiency Correcpon - - - CEAP Required: Np CF.AP•Completed: . Wonderland Lake Park is a •32 acre site that consists. of a traditional active-use~park and natural area. ~ The traditional area consists of playgrourid amenities;-a shelter, ahd paths:- The Woridertan`d Pa'rk'path is located throu`~houtahe natural area:.Project plans`include three phases of removal'of th"e Wonderiarid'Park~path, including 6::feet wide sections of~conc~ete and 4 feetwide 'sections of asphalt, dependjng on path location. Replacement is necessary to restore cracKs, slopes, and trip hazards throughoutahe path. Environmental sustainability: Reriovation'and repair of park.sites will meet current city: codes; s"t'rive to meet environmental goals and utilizebest management practices. Economic Sustainability: A quality parks and. recreation system contributes to. the, economic viability of the community. These park renovations are necessary to ensure the safety of the users;`as well as to meet;expressed'~community demands. Additionally, the ' Wonderland Park path serves. as a community, multi modal transportation pa~h. Social Sustainability: Park sites are community gathering-places. The Parks•and Recreation master plan identifecJ the need to maintain parks, as well as accelerate the'park renovation and refurbishment schedule. Pubic process,ls not anticipated. The project includes,the renovation of exiting assets. Construction, signs will be posted`as needed. Path diversions. and segment Gosures may:occur,but will be limited.` Pcecautions~will be taken to.ensure contractor vehicles limit disruption to park users andminimize disfurbance to natural areas. - - Parks'and Recreation wf(1 coordinate with Planning and l`ransportatioh as necessary. Capital Funding Play 2009 2010 2011 • -2012 2073 2014 Planned,Furiding $228,000 $0> $0 $0. $0 $0 . $228,000 , Change from Prior.Year: _ Annual On-going Operating Costs ' • . Description: Snow removal and normal path maintenance Source of Funding: General Fund and .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund Essential °Io ~ 25% Desirable % 75%° ~ ~ Discretionary Total % .100% Y ~ 186 r - . LOTTERY FUND 2009-2014 CAPITAL INIPROVEMEI~TS PRbGRAM OVERVIEW The Lottery Fund Capital Improvements Program for'2009-2014 is $4,910,000. Projects _ scheduled iri 2009 total $1;035,000. _ - . - HIGHLIGHTS _ , The departments of Pazks~and Recreation; Open Space/Mountain Parks and Tributary Greenways share the State of Colorado's Conservation Trust Fund (Lottery) •revenue: A fund sharing agreement was approved in 2001 by the Open Space Board of Trustees'(OSBT) and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Boazd (PRAB). This agreement guided the distribution of Lottery Funds between the three departments and functions through 2008. For 2007, a budget shortfall totaling $300,000 was identified for Parks and Recreation's Recreation Activity Fund (RAF). In response to this budgetary issue, the OSBT agreed to allocate their portion of Lottery Funds to Parks. and Recreation for 2007-08. The generous offer from Open Space/Mountain Parks to forgo heir Lottery Funds provided ashort-term solution to the financial challenges facing the Parks and Recreation Department. During the May 23, 2006 City Council meeting, the City Manager reinforced his intent that funding in 2009 would resume being shared by the three entities. For 2009, the Lottery funds are being shared by Parks and Recreation, Open Space/Mountain Parks and Tributary Greenways. Distribution of Lottery Funds for 2009: $ 525,000 .Open Space and Mountain Parks $ 525,000 Parks and Recreation 150 000 Tributary Greenways projects $ I ,200,000 Projected annual Lottery revenues are $1,000,000 per year based on average past collections and projected interest. The $1,200,000 available for allocation in 2009 reduces the Lottery Fund balance to the target Level. `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. The funding is utilized by Pazks and Recreation to fund urban park renovation projects (e.g. playground and shelter renovations), habitat restoration and Art in the Park. 187 The Parks and Recreation Department has continued to prioritize taking care of the current system through the capital refurbishment and renovation program. Although these projects do not technically meet the CIP definition, significant capital funds (over $5,000): are.expended to replace and renovate park and infrastructure, such as playgrounds, shelters, irrigation systems, gymnasium floors, docks and walkways. FINANCING Lottery funding is provided by the State of Colorado's Conservation Trust Fund. Funding distributions are provided to eligible governmental entities based on a per capita formula. PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION On May 19, 2008 the PRAB reviewed the Parks and Recreation CIP and voted unanimously to approve the staff recommendation for the CIP budget and to forward this recommendation to City Council. OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES RECOMMENDATION The Open Space Board of Trustees will be asked to review and approve the 2009 - 2014 CIP budget submittal at either its June or July meeting and will be asked to recommend it be approved by both the Planning Board and City Council. The results of this meeting will be presented verbally to the Planning Board and City Council. lss 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program Lottery Fund 2v-?1~-08 2009 ZO10 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Recommended Protected Projected Protected Projected Projected Existing Facility -Rehab /Repair / Defldency Correction Park East Playgrcwnd Renovation 360,000 0 0 0 0 0 360,000 PlaygrotmdRcnovation 0 200,000 200.000 200,000 200.000 200,000 1,000,000 Total: 360,000 200,000 200,00(} 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,360,000 On-Going Projects OSMP - FHstorical Structures & TYaiis -Stabilization dt Rrstoratioa 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 475,000 2,850,000 7Yibatary (3roenwaYs - ~~y 150,900 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 750,000 Total: 625,000 625,000 625,000 625,000 625,000 475,000 3,600,000 00 Total for Lottery Fund 985,000 825,000 82S,0~ 825,000 825,000 675,000 4,960,000 s~tsv2ooa 8uainesa Plan Budget Submissbn Fiscally Cons#rained Plan 2au~ Lottery Fund Essential Desirable Discretionary Total Project TypelNamB Pi%ct,f Funding % Funding % Fund/ng % Funding % Existing Facidty -Rehab /Repair /Deficiency Correction Park East Playground Renovation $90 000 25% $270 000 75% $0 ~aFn mn mac Ort-Going Projects OSMP - Hlstor(cal Structures 8 Trails - Stabilization & Restoration 730000 $475,000 10096 $0 $0 $475,000 100% Tributary Greenways Program -Lottery $0 5150,000 100% $0 $150,000 100% Total for Lottery Fund: ;585,000 ti79'o 3420,000 4996 30 0% X85,000 10076 o N . . 2009-201'4 Capital Improvements Program . Project Status Report OSMP -Historical Structures 8<.Trails,-Stabilization & Restorat`ion_ ~ ~ 730600. Deparrment< Open Space Mountain Parks subcommunity. 'System-wide Funding Source: Lottery Fund BVCPArea: Area III P~ii~YYpe: On-Going Projects CF.AP ttequtred: es CEAP ~mpt~: As appropriate These funds are critical to the completion of the Visitor Master Plan (VMP). The {ocational focus for this program is the traditional Mountain Parks system together with its geographic extension along the Mountain Backdrop and contiguous foothills from Eldorado Mountain and Bull Gulch in the south to Lefthand Canyon and Buckingham Park in the north. This area still contains significant deferred maintenance that was inherent at the time of the Mountain Parks consolidation with Open Space in 2001. The historic structures and related visitor infrastructure on these OSMP lands are in need of stabilization, reclamation and restoration. Focus for 2009 will be the West Trails Study Area (TSA) process including Trail Suitability and Alternatives Analysis on lands from Eldorado Springs Drive north to Lee Hill Road. Historic site assessments and related stabilization, reclamation and restoration will be conducted on historic structures on Flagstaff Summit and major maintenance and restoration projects will be completed on the historic trails system that was largely constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) in the 1930s. Related efforts will continue across this landscape over the planning period. Supports City Council goals for Environmental, Economic and Social Sustainability. The Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) land system sustains environmental qualities and passive recreational opportunities that have made the program a leader and role model for other communities. These lands add to the quality of life and visual appeal of our community that helps to attract employment opportunities and sustain jab retention. Projects on the OSMP land system help provide worts for local employers. Community supported management practices on the land ensure that we continue to provide habitat preservation for wildli#e, protect the quality of our waterways and address the communitys desire for passive recreation. Improvements to the visitor infrastructure will further Council's goals to reconcile interests of the environmental and recreational communities. The land system is equally available to alt members of our community. Stabilization and improvement of our historic infrastructure will help to sustain the community's sense of historic identity. , Restoration'and stabilization of these historic facilities will meet the objectives of the Open Space l~ Mountain Parks Long Range Management Policies and the Visitor Master Plan. Project development will indude 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. Projecfwill indude appropriate public outreach for the level of worts that is proposed and will be determined on a project-spedfic basis. The Open Space $ Mountain Parks Department works cooperativety with other dty 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. Capkal Funding Plan 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Planned Funding $475,000 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000 $475,000 $2,850,000 Change from Prior Year: + $475,000, was re-allocated to Parks and Recreation in 2007 and 2008. Annual On-going Operating Costs $2,000 I9l 2009-2014 Capital,improvements Program Project.;Status Report Description: Annual allocation from Colorado Lottery Fund Source of Funding: Colorado Lottery Fund Essential % 100% Desirable Discretionary Total,% 100% • •t ~ 1,~ . ~ • ~ L _ • , ' • j ~ , ~ 1. w ~ ~ ~ vz 1 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program . Project Status,Report Park,East Playground Renovation. _ 140.. Department: Parks.8~ Recreation ~ Su~Jiaommun[h!: Southeast Boulder. ' Funding Source: Lottery Fund .w_gPa~ea:_ Area.;l Project.Type:. Existing Facility -Rehab /Repair 7 Deficiency Correction'- . ~ ' . ` _ ' ' CEAP.Requfred: NO CEAP Completed: , ' ~ Park East is a-11.3 acre j~eighborhood park of Aurora:arlcj,Mohawk whicf~ncludes a portion of the Bear Creek dramag~~. Ttie park contains a playground, basketball coiart''and picnic area and a portion of the ~greenways trait goes tFirough.tFie park. The ex?stirig playground equipmentrwill lie removed aril ther~iatenals-recycled,~if - possible. New equipment will be installed in 2009. Ttie basketball courfwill also be'"refurbi5h'ed. Envirori'mental sustari'ability: ` ReriovaEion of-park playgrounds will meet`cu'rrerit city "safety standards; strive to' meet eriviron'mentaf goals an'd utilize best management pri3ctices Recycled and/or su"stainalily•produced materials will be used when feasible. Economic Sustainability-. A"gwality parks and recreation system . contributes to the economic viability of ttie community. These playground renovationa'are necessary to`erisure the safety of the users, as well as to meet expressed community demands...Social.Sustainability: Park sites a_ re community gathering places. ~ ' The'Pa?ics •and.Recreation master plan identifed-the rieed to itiairfain paiics, as well as accelerate the park renovation and ~efurtiishment schedule. In addition; the depaitmeiit committed to renovating `one playground per year. - ~ • The'department w` ill coriiiuct outreach to the neighbofiood on the rieeds and design bf the `playgrourirt. Two ~ ' • public meeUrigs are anticipated - an initial orie~to gatfier suggestions'and a follow-iip meeting to review design options.' The'project will be posted on the' department's`website and regular updates'are postetf. A email group may also be created to update interested community members. Parks'arid Recreation'will coordinate with Planning, FAM and Transportation as~necessary. ' CepitalFundfng'Plan • • 2009 2010_ .2011 2012 2013 ` 2014 Planned ~tinding $3ti0;000 . , ~ ~ $0' $0 $0 $0 $0~' ''$360;000`. Charti~ge frorri~Prior Year: New project ~ ~ - Annual On-going Operating Costs $3,000 , Description: Inspection and repair of equipment, graffiti. removal; safety inspection, playground " surtace maintenance Source of Funding: General Fund and .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund ~ . Essential ,25% Desirableoo 75%'_ Dlscretfonary%~ ~ Total X100%, . ' ~ . 193 2009-2014 Capital Improv®ments Program Project, Statt;~s Report Pla round Renovatron. . _ :~:-;t. y9 Departrnent: Parks ~ Recre_ ation 3ubcommunky: System-wide „ Funding Source: Lottery Fund ~ - svcPArea: ~ Area Pro)BCtType: Existing Facility- Rehab /.Repair/Deficiency Correction - • CEAP Required: • hip ~ ~ . CEAP Completed: Upon completion of the master plan, the.department committed to renovating one playground.and one irrigation system per year- ~Formeriy, the,deparfinent identified the;projects and funded.them from th_e Urban Parks R&R budget.' As part of th~.effort to,provicle Dearer info~natio~,on large projects, tt%e department is including these annual projects in the CIP. Each year, a specific playground will be identified for renovation. Criteria include safety and code compliance, age of the equipment, location in the city, and opportunities for efficiencies, collaboration or partnerships'with Qther departments or the surrounding neighbofiood. Once a.playground; is identified; staff conducts outreach to the neighbofiood and,develops a design,forthe playground.with inputfrom... the neighbortiood. Designs are evaluated for sustainability in construction, ,rriatenals and ongoing maintenance. Existing playground equipme0t vrill .be removed and the materials recycled, ff possible. Landscaping, improvements may also.be made, as well as picnic-.area and/or shelter improvements. Environmental sustalnability. Renovation of park playgrounds will meet current city safety standards, strive to meet environmental goals and utilize best management practices.. Recycled and/or sustainably produced . materials will be used when feasible. Economic Sustainability: A quality parks and recreation system contributes to th@,economic viability,of the;community. These playground renovations are.necessary,to ensure.the safety. of. the users, as well as to meet expressed community demands. Social Sustainability: Park sites are community gathering places.. The Parks artd Recreation•.maste~ plan identified the need to maintain parks,.as well as~accelerate,the plrk renovation and refurt~shmerit schedule. In addition, the department committed to renovating one playground per year. - . 'The department will conduct outreach to the~eighbQrhood on the needs and design of the, playground Typically,, two public meetings are,conducted,- an initial..one to gather,_suggestions and afollow-up meeting to review design, opti6ns: The project is posted ~on the departriienf websife and -regular updates are posted. A email group may also be created to update interested`communitym~mbers. - - _ -.t, Parks and''Reci~eailon will"coordCnate:with,l?lanning, FRM end Transportatbn.asnecessary. ~ . , Capital Funding Plan 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Planned Funding $0 $200;000 . $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $200,000 $1,000,000 Change from Prior Year: , Annual On-going Operating-Costs ~ $3,000 Description: Inspection and repair of equipment, graffiti removal, safety inspection, playground surface maintenance Source of Funding: General Fund and .25 Cent Sales Tax Fund Essential % 25% Desirable % 75% Discretionary Total % 100% 194 2009-2014 Capital Improvements Program Project Status Report ributary Greenways Program -Lottery oepartm•n{: Parks & Recreation subcommunity: Multiple Subcommunities Fundtnp Source: Lottery Fund BVCPAroa: Project Type: On-Going Projects CEAP Required: NO CEAP Completed: The program is intended to improve and protect the many riparian corridors that pass through the Gty. 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.This represents the Lottery Fund contribution to the program. Greenways projects integrate many goals including habitat protection, water quality enhancement, storm drainage and flood management, alternative transportation routes for pedestrians and bicyclists and protection of recreation and cultural resources. Coordination with the Greenways program is described in the Parks & Recreation Master Ptan and the OSMP Visitor Master Plan. CEAP's are completed for all significant greenways projects and are reviewed by appropriate boards. See Greenway ClP for more detailed infomiation. The Greenways program requires coordinating with Transportation, Open Space, Flood Utlllty, Planning and , Parks Departments. Capital Funding Plan 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Planned Funding $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $750,000 Change from Prior Year: Mnual On-going Operating Costs Description: no addiitonal -funding Is for the program. specific projects are outlined in the Greenwa CIP Source of Funding: Essential % ~ Desirable % 100% Discretionary Total 100% 195 Attachment E i CIP Project Categories 1. Existing Facility- Rehabilitation and Repair/ Deficiency Correction • repair damage to exiting infrastructure • rehabilitate due to deterioration • bring in compliance with safety or other regulations • replacements w/o enhancements 2. Existing Facility - Enhancements/CJpgrades • renovate and improve • road/intersection additions/improvements • rehabilitation to improve or enhance existing infrastructure • include minor additions or new construction associated with existing facility • restoration 3. Reconstruction • move existing facility • reconstruct former existing facility • major renovations for new use 4. New Construction -Growth Related Facility/Additions • new facility; directly growth related • expanded space to accommodate growth related needs 5. New Construction -Not Growth Related • new improvement/facility; not directly growth related 6. Study or Analysis 7. On-Going Project