Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 06/11/1992

Home

1992 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) By: Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Coordinator Background: In May or JUr~e each year, the Park and Recreation Commission begins to develop a budget request for capital:impro, gements for the following year. This budget is based on public input and the five year CIP. At[the!Same time, the five year C1P is extended one additional year. The CIP ser0es 'as a guide for determining funding and project needs. It does not, however, commit the C!ty i0 'allocate funds or undertake projects listed in the CIP. The budget ~u~mary below outlines a comparison of parks budget expenditures to the City's overall budgei f~i':years 1989 and 1990. PARKS BUDGET 1989 1990fi · Parks Capital ~ IrOprovement $ !0,500. $ :;89,700* Total Cap. lmp. Parks Parks as % as % Operating Total of City of City Budget City Budget Budget Budget $ 92,863* $2,578,538 4.3% 7.9% $155,308' $2,481,457 3.6% 9.9% For 1991, the~e W'ere no CIP dollars dedicated per say, although some of the big ticket items of the Commission's i199~1 request were accomplished in the fail of 1990A. *Approved as ~op~0sed to actual AIn 1990, Cit~, C~.. Uncil appropriated an additional $90,000 for development of two softball fields and a soccer fi~ld;[With irrigation for each of the new fields. As of mid-August :1991, there remains $158,000 in the Park Improvement Trust Fund. In remewmg ~;he~}Annua] and F~ve ~ ear CIP th~s summer, the Commission determined that the focus of the C)[P ~ould be to identify concrete needs as opposed to also including worthwhile, but not so urgent iiems. The purpose was to enhance the credib~hty of the requests and also simphfy the Budget Co~rr~.~ ttee s involvement w~th the individual elements. The Park and Reqreation Commission and at least this staff member would like to point out the potential trem~nd~U~s dollar value of in-house labor as compared to contract labor when considering capital impro~/erficnts and park development. Although it need not be said, unfortunately, improvementsi'of ~ny sort demand an associated time/maintenance requirement. So it seems that there is a recip~ocli'.'.l' benefit to planning for accomplishing CIP items in-house when feasible. I will be availableito field questions and, time permitting, conduct a brief examination of the Five Year CIP and ar Cl~P-related proposal. Attached is the', park and Recreation Commission's prioritized 1992 CIP request along with the old and current FiX/e Year Plan