2010 - 2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. CITY OF RAMSEY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT/CAPITAL OUTLAY PLAN . 2010-2014 Enclosed is the RamseyCCiPital Improvements/Capital Outlay Plan (CIP) for "the years 2010-2014. It has'been prepared in an attempt to a.nticipate maj or capital expenditures in advance of the year in which they are budget requests. Further, several projects may interrelate or require other improvements prior to initiation, which would cause delays Without prior planning. Additionally, projects may require budgeting over several years or. receipt of funds from other sources (i.e. grants) requiring plamiing completion pdor to the funding year. Finally, the plan enables a snapshot of the identified capitaJ. needs of the community allowing for continual prioritization of these needs. . Approval of the CIP by Council does not authorize spending or initiation of a given project. It does, however, provide a guide for the com:illunity for a whole array of private and public decision-making, impacted by public capital expenditures. . Therefore, the CIP should receive ratification only if the Council perceives actions contemplated within the p~an as reasonable and planned within justified time frames. It shall further be noted ~. at initial project'design of public infrastructure projects identified within this plan often begins two years or ~ore prior to the date of construction. . .' '. '. . . The CIP is not intended to provide for precise budgeting. Capital costs are projected as estimates. Upon each . update of the plan, deletions, additions, delays, or other revisions may occur, reflecting Changing community need~. These changes allow for budget refmements as a particular project nears actual construction. . Capital improvements are improvements to land, streets, parks, utilities and buildings. This plan shows improvements with revenues projected from various fundingsources. Improvements from the General Fund are those requiring a tax levy, referendum or similar other authority resulting in listed projects being less than certain. The other funding sources (except for intergovernmental revenlle - grant funds) have increased stability- over the general fund projects.] Sp'ecific iriformation on the funding sources for each project is shown under the individual project. Cash flow projections are completed to examine the long-term stability of eaGh fund and its ability to provide for planned expenditures. . The plan does not contain a spe~ific designation which would denote project prioriti~s. There is no weighting or . matching of priorities between infrastructure types [streets, parks, utilities, building facilities] as each type of project generally has a funding source unique to the project type and from which funds cannot be reallocated. . 3