08/27/91 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

CASE 1992 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) By: Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Coordinator Background: In May' or June each year, the Park and Recreation Commission begins to develop a budget request for capital improvements for the following year. This budget is based on public input and the five year CIP. At the same time, the five year CIP is extended one additional year. The CIP serves as a guide for determining funding and project needs. It does not, however, commit the City to allocate funds or undertake projects listed in the CIP. The budget summary below outlines a comparison of parks budget expenditures to the City's overall budget for years 1989 and 1990. PARKS BkJD~ET Total Cap. Imp. Parks Parks Capital Parks as % as % Improvement Operating Total of City of City Budget Budge[ Ci_ty Budget Budget Bu0get 1989 $110,500' $ 92,863* $2,578,538 4.3% 7.9'% 1990A $ 89,700* $155,308' $2,481,457 3.6% 9.9% For 1991, there were no CIP dollars dedicated per say, although some of the big ticket items of the Commission's 1991 request were accomplished in the fall of 1990A. *Approved as opposed to actual AIn 1990, City Council appropriated an additional $90,000 for development of two softball fields and a soccer field with irrigation for each of the new fields. As of mid-August 1991, there remains $158;000 in the Park Improvement Trust Fund. In reviewing the Annual and Five Year CIP this summer, the Commission determined that the focus of the CIP should be to identify concrete needs as opposed to also including worthwhile, but not so urgent items. The purpose was to enhance the credibility of the requests and also simplify the Budget Committee's involvement with the individual elements. ,j~The Park and Recreation Commission and at least this staff member would like to point out the ,'~,r potential tremendous dollar value of in-house labor as compared to contract labor when considering '~\i~' ~:apital improvements and park development. Although it need not be said, unfortunately, ~0s~? in~provements of any sort demand an associated time/maintenance requirement. So it seems that ~/~[¢fi(, there is a reciprocal benefit to planning for accomplishing CIP items in-house when feasible. / ~ I will be available to field questions ancl, time permitting, conduct a brief examination of the Five Year CIP and a CIP-related proposal. Attached is the Park and Recreation Commission's priorfized 1992 CIP request along with the old and current Five Year Plan.