Agenda - Parks and Recreation Commission - 05/14/1992

Home

CASE # 1992 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM (CIP) By: Mark Boos, Parks/Utilities Coordinator Background: In May or Jun~ ~¢h year, the Park and Recreation Commission begins to develop a budget request for capital irnlbro~¢mcnts for the following year. This budget is based on public input and the five year CIP~ At ih¢ ~ame time, the five year CIP is extended one additional year. The CIP scrv~s ~.s a guide for determining funding and project needs. It does not, however, commit the City ~allocate funds or undertake projects listed in the CIP. The budget st~mflaary below outlines a comparison of parks budget expenditures to the City's overall budge~fo~ ~,¢ars 1989 and 1990. PARKS .BI JDGET Total Cap. Imp. Parks iPa~ks Capital Parks as % as % iln~provement Operating Total of City of City ~ Bud eet City Bud ~et Bud ~et Budget 1989 i$110,500' $ 92,863* $2,578,538 4.3% 7.9% 1990iX }$ 89,700* $155,308' $2,481,457 3.6% 9.9% For 1991, th ,e_r6~ w~re no CIP dollars dedicated per say, although some of the big ticket items of the Commission s !9~11 request were accomplished in the fall of 1990A. · Approved aS ~pp~Sed to actual AIn 1990, CjtylCduncil appropriated an additional $90,000 for development of two softball fields and a soccer fie~ld Mth irrigation for each of the new fields. As of mid-Aug~ust!!1991, there remains $158,000 in the Park Improvement Trust Fund. ! In reviewing tt~e Annual and Five Year CIP this summer, the Commission determined that the focus of the CIp sgould 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 Con~mittee's involvement with the individual elements. The Park and l~ec~eation Commission and at least this staff member would like to point out the potential tremendoUS dollar value of in-house labor as compared to contract labor when considering capital improvi~mgnts and park development. Although it need not be said, unfortunately, improvements ~f ~i~[v sort demand an associated time/maintenance requirement. So it seems that there is a reCipr4~ea! l~enefit to planning for accomplishing CIP items in-house when feasible. I will be availalile t~0 field questions and, time permitting, conduct a brief examination of the Five Year CIP and a CI~'related proposal. Attached is the Park~and Recreation Commission's prioritized 1992 CIP request along with the old and current Fiw Y~ar Plan.