The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCIP1989-1994CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ADOPTED FISCAL 1989-1994 0 CAPE GIRARDEAU MISSOURI BILL NO. 89-45 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE FISCAL 1989 - 1994 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 6.04 of the Charter of the City of Cape Girardeau requires a Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has presented a proposed Capital Improvement Program to the City Council; and WHEREAS, proper notice has been published concerning the availability for inspection of the proposed Capital Improvement Program and the time and place for a public hearing on the Capital Improvement Program; and WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing on the proposed Capital Improvement Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAPE GIRARDEAU, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby adopts the five-year Capital Improvement Program for fiscal 1989-1994, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk. SECTION 2. The City Clerk is instructed to attach an executed copy of this resolution to a copy of the Capital Improvement Procram for fiscal 1989-1994 and to retain such copy with the permanent records of the City. PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF �► 1989. Francis E. Rhodes, Mayor ATTEST: �S" '� ,, 1 �2 Evelyno. LeGrand, City Clerk TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGES Introduction: City Manager's Letter I Revenue Sources VIII Summaries: Revenue Funding Sources By Fiscal Year Graph IX Summary of Funding Sources by Fiscal Year 1989-1994 X Summary of Recommended Capital Improvement Program XI Expenditures 1989-1994 by Program Description and Source of Funds Summary of Funding Sources Graph XII Capital Improvement Budget By Program Area Graph XIII Capital Improvements Program: Transportation 1 - 13 Environment 14 - 19 Recreation and Leisure 20 - 25 Community Development 26 - 30 January 31, 1989 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Cape Girardeau Dear Mayor and Council Members: INTRODUCTION In accordance with Article VI, Section 6.04 of the City Charter, a recommended five year capital program was submitted to the City Council on January 31, 1989. This five year program plan is for the period July 1, 1989, through June 30, 1994. On March 20, 1989, in accordance with the City Charter, the City Council held a public hearing for the Capital Improvement Program. Following City Council and public input, the City Council passed, on March 20, 1989, Resolution No. 414 adopting the Capital Improvement Program. It should be noted that this final Capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 1989-1994 includes some changes from the original proposed document. The material contained within the budget document complies with the requirements of the Charter as to program proposals, cost estimates, methods of financing, projection of revenue sources to meet costs, recommended time schedule for each improvement, and an estimated impact on the annual operating budget. In reviewing this proposed document, the City Council gave particular emphasis to establishing priorities for projects and realistic financing sources for implementation. Most of the projects included in this document are attainable without additional revenue authorized by the voters in the community. Each of the major advisory boards to the City Council, department heads, and individual City Council members were invited to submit proposed projects for consideration in this program. In addition, a number of projects from the previous five-year capital improvement program are also included. BACKGROUND The Capital Improvement Program should be considered as an investment in the future of our community. This program will be a commitment of various forms of resources with the expectation of realizing future benefits over a reasonably long period of time. It can truly be said that if a municipality is to experience growth, its City government must recognize that the I desired growth can take place only if it is willing to make a series of investment (capital expenditures) decisions involving long-lived assets and programs. This system of capital expenditure management is important because: 1. The consequences of investments and capital projects extend far into the future. 2. Decisions to invest are often irreversible. 3. Such decisions significantly influence a municipality's ability to grow and prosper. The selection and evaluation of capital projects is a difficult task that involves some speculation and the ability to make estimations which, to some extent, are based on historical perspectives. A capital expenditure may be defined as one used to construct or purchase a facility that is expected to provide services over a considerable period of time (a multiple number of years). In contrast, a current or operating expenditure is for an item or service that is used for a short period of time (one year or less). Moreover, a capital expenditure usually is relatively large compared with items in the annual budget. This is the basic type of definition that we have used in guiding the preparation of this capital program budget. The City of Cape Girardeau, during the 19701s, because of new revenue sources, some of which were income elastic, was able to meet a number of its capital financing needs and accomplish improvement programs without the use of debt financing. These new revenue sources included city sales tax, general revenue sharing, Vrowth in the motor fuel tax, and the franchise tax. Also, during this period of time, the City reduced or eliminated other revenue sources. These included eliminating the motor vehicle tax and reducing the property tax levy by nearly one half. This pay as you go capital budgeting system allowed for the improvement of many municipal facilities while saving various debt charges. The pay as you go system meant that the City Vovernment was allocating a sivnificant portion of operating revenues each year to the Capital Improvement Fund. The monies in this fund were used for annual capital improvements or saved until there were sufficient funds for larger projects. In any case, a regular capital allocation would be made from the operating budget to smooth budget allocations for capital expenditures and eliminate the need for debt financing. During the latter part of the 19701s, the City's revenue sources began losing the struggle with the ravages of inflation. These revenue sources were unable to keep pace with the requirements for capital expenditures. Therefore, there was a sharp reduction in the available revenue for long range expenditures. Specifically, the amount of General Revenue Sharing funds Voing to the waste collection and disposal program had substantially II increased to the point that very little capital expenditure money was available from this source. This funding source has now been eliminated. The Motor Fuel Tax Fund also provided funding for capital improvement projects. However, because of continued increasing costs of maintenance of public streets and rights-of-way, the City continually used more of the money from this fund to provide for ongoing maintenance rather than capital items. Also, the revenues from this tax source had remained stagnant for several years because of more fuel efficient cars and the reduced speed limit. This tax source has now increased by approximately $175,000 per year as a result of the passage of an increase to the State Gasoline Tax. Reviewing available revenues for long range capital planning in a historical sense and projecting that to the future will require the City to expand existing revenue sources (pay as you go) and/or implement a debt financing program (pay as you use). In its pristine theoretical form, pay as you use financing means that every long term improvement is financed by serial debt issues with maturities arranged so that the retirement of the debt coincides with the depreciation of the project. Therefore, when the project finally ends, the last dollar of debt is paid off. The interest and debt retirement charges paid by each generation of taxpayers would coincide with their use of the fiscal assets. These payments parallel the productivity of the social investment with each user group paying for its own capital improvement. The City Council last year formed the Cape Girardeau Public Facilities Authority, a not-for-profit corporation entirely controlled by the City Council. This authority is providing a new means for the City to utilize its existing fixed assets to secure new debt issuance for projects which otherwise would remain unfunded. Use of this new mechanism will, of course, be limited by the availability of revenues to retire any debt that is incurred. The City Council, in 1983, formally considered and adopted a long range Capital Improvement Program for the first time under the current Charter requirement. This budget document and the process should provide a relevant approach to identifying and implementing important community -wide projects. PROGRAM AND FINANCING DESCRIPTIONS The major category program areas in which the various projects have been described include Transportation, Environment, Recreation and Leisure Time, and Community Development. These major categories contain the following types of projects: 1. Transportation. The activities in this area provide the maintenance and construction of the public streets within the City. This also includes Municipal Airport improvements. III 2. Environment. The preservation, restoration, and care of the physical resources of the City, including the control of solid waste, wastewater, and stormwater. 3. Recreation and Leisure Time. The programs under this area provide the facilities for citizens to enjoy an opportunity to participate in organized and unorganized leisure time activities. 4. Community Development. Activities under this area include construction of community and economic development projects which have citywide effect. We have included the types of revenue sources which are recommended as ways to consider for the financing of the various capital improvements. The following is a brief discussion of what the various revenue sources include. A. General Fund Revenues. These revenues would be included and available on an annual appropriation basis from the City's general fund, which includes the receipt of revenues from many and various sources. B. General Obligation Bonds. These bonds are issued for the financing of general public improvements and must be authorized by a 4/7 majority vote of the citizens. Approval of these bonds by the electorate also authorizes a property tax levy to retire the debt. C. Revenue/PFA Bonds. These bonds are issued for the financing of self-supporting and general public improvements. Revenue bonds are not included within the limitations of indebtedness by the City and are issued upon the authorization of a majority voter approval. These bonds are used for enterprise funds such as water, sewer and electric utilities, as well as the Airport and Golf Course operations. PFA Bonds are issued upon City Council approval based on collateralized assets and annual lease/purchase appropriations. D. State Grants. The City is eligible to submit grant applications to the State of Missouri for funds that they may have available either from their own revenue sources or, in some cases, from revenue sources that they administer for various federal agencies. E. Motor Fuel Tax Receipts. This fund provides for the receipt and disbursement of the revenues the City receives as its portion of the State Gasoline Tax, State Motor Vehicle Licensing, and State Motor Vehicle Sales Tax. The revenues from this source can be used for capital, as well as annual operating maintenance expenses as they relate to improvements on the City's streets. MU F. Federal Grants. The City is eligible to receive various federal grants on a competitive basis from the appropriate federal agency. This could include the Environmental Protection Agency as it relates to wastewater improvements, the Federal Highway Administration which administers and distributes funds from the Federal Gasoline Tax revenue through the Federal Aid Urban program, or the Federal Aviation Administration for airport improvements. G. Special Assessments. This category provides for the consideration of special assessments which are used for public improvements affecting specific areas. The total or a portion of the cost of an improvement is divided among property owners who benefit from the project. This type of funding can be used for diverse improvements including streets, storm water, sanitary sewer or sidewalk improvement. H. Capital ImQrovement Sales Tax. A 1/4 cent, 3/8 cent, or 1/2 cent Sales Tax can be issued by the City for various general types of public improvements. Such a tax requires the approval by the electorate with simple majority. In November, 1988, the voters of Cape Girardeau adopted a 1/4 cent sales tax to be effective January 1, 1990. I. Other. This category is used for donations, operating revenues from funds other than the General Fund, reserves, proceeds from the sale of fixed assets, etc. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The total Capital Improvement Program included here is $24,837,350. This proVram is $9,094,518 more than the program approved last year, primarily due to the flood control program. The largest category for funding proposed improvements over the next five years is through the Capital Improvements Sales Tax. This provides for $8,874,000 in funding over this period of time. This revenue source would be utilized totally for flood control improvements. However, this source will become available only if Congress appropriates construction funds for the Cape LaCroix - Walker Creek Project. The second largest funding source is the Motor Fuel Tax ($3,574,400), which will be used totally for street improvements. The third largest source of funding for proposed improvements is through the use of Special Assessments ($2,990,200): This area is proposed to be used based on the traditional policy in Cape Girardeau that improvements should be paid by those property owners directly benefitting from a project. V The Environment Program area ($11,874,000) contains the largest amount of proposed expenditures over the next five year period. This is primarily due to the extensive flood control program that is anticipated, pending Congressional appropriation of construction funds for the Corps of Engineers, Cape LaCroix - Walker Creek Project, requiring $8,350,000 in local funding. In addition, there are two other substantial flood control projects and a major trunk sewer project to serve the commercial and industrial expansion occurring in the southwest portions of the City. The second largest program area is Transportation ($9,794,350). The most significant project in this area is the funding of the construction of Lexington Street, a major east -west artery across the entire northern sector of the City, from Kingshighway to Route 177. In addition, several other new streets are proposed to be constructed and the annual asphalt overlay program is proposed to be continued throughout the five year period. Completion of these projects will stretch the City's existing revenue base to its outer limits and is dependent on our ability to fund our entire street maintenance program out of general fund revenues, thereby allowing us to dedicate all of the City's motor fuel tax receipts toward major street improvements. The Recreation Program Area ($2,020,000) is almost double the level of funding proposed in the last five year program. This is due primarily to the inclusion of a major swimming pool replacement project for the Capaha Pool. Both the swimming pool project and a new softball complex are proposed to be funded by way of a general obligation bond issue. This is the only new funding in the entire five year program that would require an increase in the existing revenue structure. A minimal five cent property tax levy would be required for a twenty year bond issue or a ten cent tax levy for a ten year bond issue to accomplish these two projects. The Community Development Program Area ($1,149,000) provides for the continued use of the Community Development Block Grant Program which would provide for rehabilitation of housing within the community and associated infrastructure improvements. Additionally, an economic development project is included to assist the Dana Corporation Industrial Plant location in Cape Girardeau which was recently announced. CONCLUSION The capital improvement program adopted by the Council is an ambitious program. However, the implementation of this program will allow for the creation of new job opportunities, an increase in revenues to private businesses, new businesses growing, existing businesses expanding, increased tax revenues to all taxing jurisdictions, and the strengthening of the quality of life in Cape Girardeau and all of Southeast Missouri. VI It is hoped that this plan will focus attention on community goals, needs and capabilites; reduce scheduling problems and conflicting or overlapping projects; maintain a sound and stable financial program; enhance opportunities for participation in federal or state funded programs; and achieve the highest public benefit from the expenditure of City revenue. The projects proposed in this document are the product of many hours of deliberative thought by a number of people within this community. The Charter requires an annual review and revision of the Capital Improvements Program which assures that the program remains responsive to changing demands and priorities. We plan to review the various projects and funding proposals contained within this document with City Council members in various work sessions and the public hearing. The final scope of this program as adopted by the CityCouncil following the appropriate public hearing is limited to affordable, achievable, priority projects. The final plan should not be regarded as a "wish list", but a sound, fiscally responsible working document that can and will be implemented through the annual budget appropriation process of the City Coucnil, support from the citizens of Cape Girardeau for appropriate revenue sources, and diligent action by the City staff. JRF/AMS/jad Respectfully submitted, J. Ronald Fischer City Manager zlll�RA�l Alvin M. Stoverink Assistant City Manager VII REVENUE SOURCES A. General Fund Revenues B. General Obligation Bonds C. Revenue/PFA Bonds D. State Grants E. Motor Fuel Tax Receipts VIII F. Federal Grants G. Special Assessments H. Capital Improvement Sales Tax I. Other Revenue Funding Sources by Fiscal Year Capital l7ri,nrovement Budget 7.5040{1D `. 6.25D.00D 5.00rMOD , Z50D,000 1Pu'r-1-9D 1990-91 1991-9i2 1992-93 1893-C-4 IX SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES BY FISCAL YEAR 1989-1994 SOURCE OF FUNDS ; 1989-90 ; 1990-91 1991-92 ; 1992-93 1993-94 ; TOTAL ; GENERAL FUND REVENUES ; ; 56,000 ; ; 144,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 350,000 ; i i i i i i i i 1 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS ; ; ; 950,000 ; ; ; ; # 950,000 ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 REVENUE BONDS/PFA 1 ;1,162,000 1 ;1,000,000 1 ; 500,000 1 ; 320,000 1 ; ;.2,982,000 ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i i i 1 STATE GRANTS 1; 987,000 1; 800,000 1 1 1 1; 1,787,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I MOTOR FUEL TAX RECEIPT 1 # 882,020 1 ; 599,760 1 ; 599,760 1 ; 757,350 1 ; 735,510 1 # 3,574,400 1 i i i i i i i i 1 FEDERAL GRANTS1 ; 430,980 1 ; 846,000 1 1 ; 952,770 1 1 ; 2,229,150 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS 1 ; 912,740 1 ; 671,740 1 ; 222,740 1 ; 222,740 1 ; 960,240 1 ; 2,990,200 1 1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SALES TAX 1 ;1,900,000 1 ;2,024,000 1 #2,600,000 1 ;2,350,000 1 1 ; 8,874,000 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 OTHER 1 ; 313,625 1 ; 91,500 1 # 91,500 1 ; 91,500 1 ; 511,875 1 ; 1,100,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTALS 1 ;6,644,365 1 ;1,127,000 1 ;4,064,000 1 #4,744,360 1 ;2,257,625 1 ;24,837,350 1 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM I i EXPENDITURES 1989-1994 BY PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND SOURCE OF FUNDS It GENERAL 1 GENERAL 1 REVENUE i ;MOTOR FUEL CAPITAL ! PROGRAM ! FUND 1 OBLIGAT.: BONDS/ ! STATE 1 TAX ! FEDERAL 1 SPECIAL !IMPROVEMENT: 1 1 'DESCRIPTION !REVENUES 1 BONDS 1 PFA GRANTS RECEIPTS 1 GRANTS ;ASSESSMENT_; SALES TAX ; OTHER 1 TOTAL :TRANSPORT. :$100,000 1 : : :;3,574,400 1;2,229,750 1;2,990,200: 1i 900,000 1; 9,794,3501 , I It 11 1 11 It !ENVIRONMENT 1 1 1;2,000,000 1;1,000,000 1 1 : 1;8,874,000 1 1;11,874,0001 !RECREATION 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 11; 2,020,0001 AND :;250,000 1;950,000 1 ;820,000 1 ' LEISURE !COMMUNITY 1 1 : ;162,000 :; 787,000: 1 1 1 1; 200,000 1; 1,149,0001 'DEVELPMENT 1 1 TOTALS 1;350,000 3950,000 :;2,982,000 1;1,787,000 1;3,574,400 1;2,229,750 1;2,990,200 1;8,874,000 1;1,100,000 1;24,837,3501 XI ,S rrarrzczrJ cil �'��•nc i;rzq ,�ur�ct-., s `'AOTOP FIJEL Sl ArE TA,€ P,EGE',FT 14m ORrJdT: FEDERAL GRANTS 9% SPECIAL k-ESE-3-b-IdEPJTS 12 XII 11 -AP IMM SALE,- TAX 3 REVDJIJE GENERAL 09 UG. SON DS 4% G ENERkL FUND REVENUES 1% CTH EF. 14 Capital Improvement Budget BV Program Area ENM RON UI E NT 48% TRANSPORTATION Jam.. % AND LEISURE 8� GEJELt7PtiQ1T a XIII Transportati T,,. Capital fm_rlrovemen.t udgp-z' Z 50a 9DD 1.50a000 1 2:169-90 1990-91 1931- 91-7 1992-43 1983-94 TRANSPORTATION ' PROPOSED PROJECTS ;PROJECT! ; ; 1989-90 ; 1990-91 ; 1991-92 ; 1992-93 ; 1993-94 ; !NUMBER ; IMPROVEMENT ITEM ; TOTAL COST ; FISCAL YEAR ; FISCAL YEAR ; FISCAL YEAR ; FISCAL YEAR ; FISCAL YEAR ; Hopper Road 1-1 ; Bridge and ; ;1,296,110 ; ; ; ; ; 630,360 ; ; 665,750 ; Extension to Kage Road ; 1-2 ; Sprigg Street ; ; 502,640 ; 502,640 Bridge - Phase III 1-3 Street Overlay ; ; 750,000 ; ; 150,000 ; ; 150,000 ; ; 150,000 ; $ 150,000 ; $ 150,000 ; 1-4 ; Silver Springs ; ; 667,000 ; 218,000 ; 449,000 i 1 Road `; 1 I i i i i i i i i 1-5 ; Airport ; ;1,000,000 ; ; 60,000 ; $ 940,000 Improvement Program 1-6 ; Lexington Street ; $3,600,000 ; ; 624,000 ; ; 624,000 ; ; 624,000 ; $1,104,000 ; ; 624,000 ; 0 f 1-7 ; Broadway Widening ; $ 94,600 ; ; 94,600 ; 0 1 1-8 1 3" Asphalt i$ 175,000 ; 175,000 Paving Program 1-9 ; South Minnesota $ 359,000 359,000 Extension 1-10 ; North Sprigg ; 650,000 ; 22,125 i i i i ; 627,875 Extension 1-I1 ; Perryville Road ; ; 700,000 ; ; 140,000 ; 140,000 ; ; 140,000 ; ; 140,000 ; ; 140,000 ; i i e i i i i i i i i i i i i TOTAIS ; $ 9,794,350 ; $2,345,365 ; $2,303,000 ; ; 914,000 ; $2,024,360 ; ;2,207,625 ; i i i i i i i A $ 100,000 $ 6,000 I$ 94,000 B i C D E ;.; 3,574,400 ; ; 882,020 ; ; 599,760 ; ; 599,760 ; : 757,350 ; ; 735,510 ; F ; ; 2,229,750 ; ; 430,980 ; ; 846,000 ; ; ; 952,770 ;. G ; $ 2,990,200 ; $ 912,740 ; $ 671,740 ; ; 222,740 ; ; 222,740 ; ; 960,240 ; H 1 ; ; 900,000 $ 113,625 $ 91,500 ; 91,500 ; 91,500 ; ; 511,875 ; 3 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TITLE: HOPPER ROAD BRIDGE AND EXTENSION TO KAGE ROAD LOCATION: HOPPER ROAD PURPOSE: PROVIDE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE BRIDGE ON HOPPER ROAD EAST OF MOUNT AUBURN ; ' ROAD AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HOPPER ROAD FROM JUST WEST OF THE HAWTHORNE ' , SCHOOL PROPERTY TO MOUNT AUBURN ROAD. PROVIDE HOPPER ROAD EXTENSION TO KAGE ROAD.; PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 110 LINEAR FOOT BRIDGE OVER CAPE LACROIX CREEK WITH A MINIMUM OF TWO LANES. ; 7,650 LINEAR FEET OF CONCRETE OR ASPHALT PAVEMENT WITH CURBS, 36 FEET WIDE. , UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN, ACQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY, AND CONSTRUCT JUSTIFICATION: BRIDGE IS FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE, TOO NARROW FOR EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUME AND ; NO ROOM FOR PEDESTRIAN USE. EXTEND EXISTING HIGH TYPE PAVEMENT ON HOPPER ; ROAD TO HANDLE INCREASED TRAFFIC AND TO MATCH BRIDGE REPLACEMENT. ; FINANCING: 6293,340 MOTOR FUEL TAX RECEIPTS (E) 6472,770 FEDERAL GRANTS (F) 6530,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (G) , , , , IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET ' INCREASE REVENUE S DECREASE REVENUE ' NET REVENUE IMPACT 6 SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT i , NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET 6 , NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. , , , 3 4 ' TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TITLE: SPRIGG STREET PHASE III LOCATION: SPRIGG STREET PURPOSE: PROVIDE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CAPE LA CROIX BRIDGE AT SOUTH SPRIGG STREET. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: APPROXIMATELY 110 LINEAR FOOT TWO-LANE BRIDGE AND APPROACHES. UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN, ACQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY ; JUSTIFICATION: BRIDGE IS FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE, NEARING STRUCTURAL OBSOLESCENCE. IT ; SERVES SEVERAL MAJOR INDUSTRIES AND WILL SERVE THE WASTE TRANSFER SITE FOR THE CITY. FINANCING: ;125,660 MOTOR FUEL TAX RECEIPTS (E) ; ;376,980 FEDERAL GRANTS (F) i , IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE ; DECREASE REVENUE i NET REVENUE IMPACT ; SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT ; NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET � I NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. 1 , 4 TRANSPORTATION , PROJECT TITLE: STREET OVERLAY f LOCATION: CITYWIDE PURPOSE: PROVIDES FOR CONTINUING MAJOR STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM TO PROVIDE FOR THE OVERLAY OF 7 MILES OF LOCAL AND COLLECTOR ASPHALT STREETS. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: MILLING OR OTHER SURFACE PROFILING METHOD AND ASPHALT OVERLAY. ;. UNIT OF WORK: CONSTRUCT JUSTIFICATION: COST EFFECTIVE MAINTENANCE TO PREVENT NEED FOR FUTURE RECONSTRUCTION ; OF ENTIRE PAVEMENT. FINANCING: ;750,000 MOTOR FUEL TAX (E) i , , , r r ' , IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET . r INCREASE REVENUE DECREASE REVENUE i ' NET REVENUE IMPACT SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT i NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET i r ' THIS KIND OF PROGRAMMED MAINTENANCE SHOULD SAVE ABOUT ;1 FOR EVERY ;1 SPENT IN FUTURE RECONSTRUCTION COSTS. r , , r ' , r r � , 1.1 ! TRANSPORTATION ' PROJECT TITLE: SILVER SPRINGS ROAD LOCATION: SILVER SPRINGS ROAD PURPOSE: PROVIDE FOR THE CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF SILVER SPRINGS ROAD AS A COLLECTOR STREET. CONSTRUCTION NORTH FROM ROUTE K TO THE COMPLETED SECTION SOUTH OF INDEPENDENCE AND FROM INDEPENDENCE STREET TO THEMIS. ; ' PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 3,150 LINEAR FEET OF CONCRETE OR ASPHALT PAVEMENT 40 FEET WIDE WITH CURBS. ; UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN, ACQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY, AND CONSTRUCT i ' JUSTIFICATION: TO EXTEND PER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORDERLY TRAFFIC FLOW. ; FINANCING: ;661,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (G) ; 1 IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE DECREASE REVENUE ' NET REVENUE IMPACT SALARY COSTS 1 ' OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT i NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET ; 1 NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. , 1.1 TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TITLE: AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM LOCATION: CAPE GIRARDEAU MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PURPOSE: PROVIDE FOR MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF MASTER PLAN. ; PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT ' JUSTIFICATION: i FINANCING: 1100,000 GENERAL FUNDS (A) 1900,000 FEDERAL GRANTS (F) IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE i ! DECREASE REVENUE ; NET REVENUE IMPACT i ; SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET 1 NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. ; RANSPORTAT r r PROJECT TITLE: LEXINGTON STREET LOCATION: KINGSHIGHWAY TO ROUTE 177 PURPOSE: PROVIDE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF LEXINGTON AS AN ARTERIAL STREET ' RUNNING EAST AND WEST ACROSS THE NORTH PART OF THE CITY. ; PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 17,424 LINEAR FEET OF CONCRETE AND ASPHALT PAVEMENT 44 FEET WIDE WITH CURBS. CONSTRUCTION OF BRIDGE OVER CAPE LACROIX CREEK. ' UNIT OF WORK: , DESIGN, ACQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY, AND CONSTRUCT i JUSTIFICATION: PER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORDERLY TRAFFIC FLOW EAST/WEST THROUGH ; THE NORTH PART OF THE CITY. FINANCING: $2,248,600 MOTOR FUEL TAX RECEIPTS (E) ; i 480,000 FEDERAL GRANTS (F) ; i 871,200 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (G) , , f I IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET , INCREASE REVENUE i I � DECREASE REVENUE I NET REVENUE IMPACT i SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE I NET EXPENSE IMPACT i , NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET i I NO SIGNIFICANT,IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. , , , 0 , TRANSPORTATION - 1 1 PROJECT TITLE: BROADWAY WIDENING 1 ' ' LOCATION: FROM U.S. 61 TO CLARK AVENUE 1 ' 1 1 1 1 PURPOSE: PROVIDES FOR A HIGHER VOLUME OF TRAFFIC MOVEMENT THROUGH THE 1 1 BROADWAY/U.S. 61 INTERSECTION. 1 ' PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: A CONCRETE WIDENING OF 14' WITH SHOULDER AND EXTENSION OF THE 1 BOX CULVERT OVER WALKER CREEK. ' UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT ' ' JUSTIFICATION: TRAFFIC SAFETY AND REDUCTION OF DELAYS. WORK WOULD FIT IN WITH IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE STATE HAS PLANNED FOR BROADWAY/U.S. 61 INTERSECTION. FINANCING: $94,600 MOTOR FUEL TAX RECEIPTS (E) I 1 1 1 t � 1 I 1 � 1 , ' I 1 � t i IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET 1 1 , INCREASE REVENUE ! DECREASE REVENUE NET REVENUE IMPACT ; SALARY COSTS ' OTHER EXPENSE ' I NET EXPENSE IMPACT NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET = ' NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. , , , 1 1 1 ! TRANSPORTATION ; PROJECT TITLE: 3' ASPHALT PAVING PROGRAM LOCATION: VARIOUS CITY STREETS PURPOSE: TO SURFACE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL GRAVEL STREETS. I � I PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: TWENTY FOOT (20') WIDE HOT MIX ASPHALTIC CONCRETE SURFACING ON EXISTING ; GRAVEL STREET BASE WHERE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE CAN BE ASSURED. ; UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT ; ' JUSTIFICATION: 1 REDUCE GRAVEL STREET MAINTENANCE COSTS. ENHANCE NEIGHBORHOOD QUALITY. ; I , 1 1 , , 1 1 FINANCING: $175,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (G) ; 1 , i I i 1 I I i 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET 1 1 INCREASE REVENUE $ ; 1 � DECREASE REVENUE NET REVENUE IMPACT $ i 1 SALARY COSTS ; OTHER EXPENSE 1 I NET EXPENSE IMPACT $ -81000 ; I i NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET $ +81000 ; 1 1 I 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 , 1 1 1 t 1 I 1 , 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I 1 , 1 I i 1 1 1 , I 1 1 � 10 11 , TRANSPORTATION , PROJECT TITLE: SOUTH MINNESOTA EXTENSION LOCATION: FROM WILSON ROAD TO NO ROUTE 14 PURPOSE: PROVIDE NORTH/SOUTH CONNECTION WITH HIGHWAY 74 TO ENHANCE PARK ACCESS AND AREA DEVELOPMENT. ! PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 2,883 LINEAR FEET OF P.C. CONCRETE OR HOT MIX ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT AND CURB, FORTY FEET (40') WIDE. UNIT OF WORK: ACQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCT JUSTIFICATION: NEW ACCESS IS NEEDED TO THE SOCCER FIELDS IN SHAWNEE PARK. THIS STREET WILL ; ALSO SERVE THE 630 INDUSTRIAL PARK AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. FINANCING: f 62,000 MOTOR FUEL TAX RECEIPTS (E) ;291,000 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (G) , IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET ! INCREASE REVENUE f DECREASE REVENUE NET REVENUE IMPACT f SALARY COSTS ' OTHER EXPENSE ' NET EXPENSE IMPACT f NFT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET f NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. , , , J � 11 1 1 TRANSPORTATION ; PROJECT TITLE: NORTH SPRIGG EXTENSION LOCATION: NORTH SPRIGG STREET PURPOSE: PROVIDE A NORTH-SOUTH LINK FOR VARIOUS EAST-WEST ARTERIAL STREETS TO THE ; DOWNTOWN AREA. EXTEND NORTH SPRIGG FROM BERTLING TO CONNECT WITH THE ; LEXINGTON/MELODY LANE ARTERIAL. I I PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 4,150 LINEAR FEET OF CONCRETE OR ASPHALT PAVEMENT, ; 44 FEET WIDE WITH CURBS. ; UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN, ACQUIRE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND CONSTRUCT ; JUSTIFICATION: PER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ORDERLY FLOW OF TRAFFIC IN THE COMMUNITY. , 1 1 1 FINANCING: $207,500 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (G) ; $442,500 OTHER (I) ; ) i , , 1 1 1 1 1 � IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET , 1 INCREASE REVENUE s 1 ' 1 DECREASE REVENUE NET REVENUE IMPACT SALARY COSTS ; ! OTHER EXPENSE ' • 1 NET EXPENSE IMPACT NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET (; ; NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. 0 , 1 1 12 13 TRANSPORTATION , PROJECT TITLE: PERRYVILLE ROAD ' LOCATION: PERRYVILLE ROAD ' PURPOSE: PROVIDE FOR CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT OF PERRYVILLE ROAD AS COLLECTOR STREET NORTH TO THE CITY LIMITS. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: THIS PROJECT IS I MILE AND INCLUDES WIDENING AND ADDING CURBS AND GUTTERS. ' UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN, ACQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY, AND CONSTRUCT ' .JUSTIFICATION: INCREASE THE SERVICE LEVEL OF THE ROADWAY TO HANDLE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES. ' FINANCING: $242,500 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS (G) $457,500 OTHER (1) , 0 , , , IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE $ DECREASE REVENUE NET REVENUE IMPACT $ SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT $ -8,000 NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET $ +8,000 , 13 i Enviroinme nt Capitat Improvc-Ment Budget i �,v9D,o9D 3.004000 2,09D,09D D 19E0-9D 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1393-94 14 NVIRONMENT 15 PROPOSED PROJECTS ; ;PROJECT; ; 1989-90 ; 1990-91 ; 1991-92 1 1992-93 1 1993-94 ; (NUMBER 1 IMPROVEMENT ITEM 1 TOTAL COST 1 FISCAL YEAR 1 FISCAL YEAR 1 FISCAL YEAR 1 FISCAL YEAR 1 FISCAL YEAR 1 1 1 I I 1 I t 1 I I 1 ! 1 1 I 1 1 ! 1 3-1 1 Southwest Trunk b 1 $3,000,000 1 ;1,500,000 1 ;1,500,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 Relief Sanitary 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sewer - Phase 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 3-2 1 Cape LaCroix - 1 ;8,350,000 1 $1,700,000 1 ;1,700,000 1 ;2,600,000 1 ;2,350,000 1 1 1 1 Walker Creek 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 Flood Control 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 3-3 1 Middle Street 1; 200,000 1; 200,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 Drainage System 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 3-4 1 Red Star 1; 324,000 1 1; 324,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 Drainage System 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TOTALS 1 ;11,874,000 1 ;3,400,000 1 $3,524,000 1 ;2,600,000 1 ;2,350,000 1 1 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 1 I 1 I ! t 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 I I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 t I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 ! i 1 i i i i i i i i 1 1 A I I 1 I t t 1 1 I I 1 1 I 1 8 C 1; 2,000,000 1 ;1,000,000 1 $1,000,000 1,000,000 1; 500,000 1; 500,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 F G 1 1 H 1; 8,874,000 1 $1,900,000 1 ;2,024,000 1 ;2,600,000 1 ;2,350,000 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 I I i i i i i i i i I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 I 1 1 t 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I ! 1 1 t I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 15 16 ENVIRONMENT PROJECT TITLE: SOUTHWEST TRUNK AND RELIEF SANITARY SEWER -PHASE II LOCATION: BLOOMFIELD ROAD/1-55 AREA TO ROUTE 14 PURPOSE: TO PROVIDE NECESSARY CAPACITY IN THE BLOOMFIELD ROAD AND I-55 DRAINAGE AREA ; FOR DEVELOPMENT AND TO SERVE DEVELOPING AREA ALONG ROUTE 74. ' PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: A NEW TRUNK SEWER OF 15" TO 36" SIZE. ' UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN, ACQUIRE RIGHT OF WAY, AND CONSTRUCT ' JUSTIFICATION: EXISTING PUMP STATION AND SEWER LINE IS AT CAPACITY NOW. THIS CONDITION ; WILL PREVENT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA WEST OF SILVER SPRINGS ROAD AND SOUTH OF ROUTE K. MAJOR AREA IN SOUTHWEST PART OF CITY CURRENTLY NOT ; SERVED. NEW LINE WILL ELIMINATE 1 LIFT STATION AND I LAGOON. ' FINANCING: $1,000,000 STATE GRANTS (D) $2,000,000 PFA BONDS (C) 1 IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE $ ' DECREASE REVENUE NET REVENUE IMPACT i SALARY COSTS ' OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT i NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET i ' NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. 0 ' 16 SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT 50,000 NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET T -50,000 ; 17 ENVIRONMENT ; PROJECT TITLE: CAPE LACROIX - WALKER CREEK FLOOD CONTROL ' 0 LOCATION: CAPE LACROIX AND WALKER CREEKS PURPOSE: TO REDUCE FLOODING. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: THREE MILES CHANNELIZATION; 157 ACRE DETENTION FACILITY; BRIDGE ; REPLACEMENTS; PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES. ; ! UNIT OF WORK: ACQUIRE RIGHT -OF -MAY, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCT JUSTIFICATION: FLOODING IN THE CAPE LACROIX - WALKER CREEK WATERSHED IS CREATING SERIOUS ; DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND ENDANGERS THE LIVES OF CAPE GIRARDEAU CITIZENS. ; FINANCING: $8,350,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SALES TAX (H) 1 ; ' THIS IS THE LOCAL SHARE OF THE COST ONLY. ; 1 ; IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET ! ! INCREASE REVENUE ; ; DECREASE REVENUE ; NET REVENUE IMPACT { I SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT 50,000 NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET T -50,000 ; 17 ENVIRONMENT PROJECT TITLE: MIDDLE STREET DRAINAGE SYSTEM LOCATION: MIDDLE STREET i PURPOSE: TO ALLEVIATE FLOODING AT THE INDEPENDENCE AND MIDDLE STREET INTERSECTION. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: ' UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT JUSTIFICATION: FLOODING OF THE INTERSECTION OF INDEPENDENCE AND MIDDLE STREET AND THE ; IMMEDIATE JOINING PROPERTIES HAS BEEN OCCURRING FREQUENTLY AND AT AN INCREASING RATE. FINANCING: $200,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT SALES TAX (H) IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE $ DECREASE REVENUE NET REVENUE IMPACT SALARY COSTS INCREASE OTHER EXPENSES NET EXPENSE IMPACT $ NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET $ ' NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. i 18 19 i ENVIRONMENT 1 PROJECT TITLE: RED STAR DRAINAGE SYSTEM LOCATION: ALONG RAND AND WATER STREETS AND EAST TO THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER. ; PURPOSE: TO REDUCE THE INCIDENCE OF STORMWATER FLOODING. ; ' PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: ACQUISITION OF EASEMENTS, CLEARING AND CLEANING OF BRUSH AND DEBRIS FROM THE ; CHANNEL AND REPLACEMENT OF STREET CROSS -DRAINS. UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT ' JUSTIFICATION: , FLASH FLOODING CURRENTLY CREATES SERIOUS HAZARDS TO PROPERTY AND PERSONAL SAFETY IN THIS AREA. FINANCING: #324,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SALES TAX (H) , IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE # DECREASE REVENUE NET REVENUE IMPACT # SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE I NET EXPENSE IMPACT # NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET # NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. 1 � ' I 19 20 Recrmtion & Leisure CapUat 1m,.prbveTment 3-2,tdg-et 75D, 040 � 54404D D 1 9-9D 1994-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993- 20 RECREATION AND LEISURE i PROPOSED PROJECTS ;PROJECT; ; ; 1989-90 ; 1990-91 ; 1991-92 ; 1992-93 ; 1993-94 ; NUMBER 1 IMPROVEMENT ITEM TOTAL COST FISCAL YEAR ; FISCAL YEAR ; FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR ; FISCAL YEAR 4-1 Softball Complex ; 500,000 ; 500,000 I I I I I 1 t I 1 i i I I t I I t 4-2 Golf Course ; ; 320,000 ; ; ; ; 320,000 ; Club House/Pro Shop; I i 4-3 ; ' General Park ; ; 250,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 50,000 ; Development t , t I 4-4 ; Capaha Swimming ; 950,000 i i ; 950,000 Pool Replacement I t t TOTALS 2,020,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 1,000,000 ; ; 550,000 ; i 310,000 ; ; 50,000 ; 1 A ; ; 250,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 50,000 ; ; 50,000 ; 8 ; ; 950,000 ; ; ; 950,000 ; C ; 820,000 i ; 500,000 i ; 320,000 i I � ' 1 D E f t 1F 1 1 G ; 1 1 H I I 1 t , 1 1 1 � t I 1 1 I 1 t t I t I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I t I I i i t t 1 1 ' i i i i t 1 i 1 1 ' Shelters, Playgrounds, Parking, Restrooms 2 1 22 RECREATION AND LEISURE PROJECT TITLE: SOFTBALL COMPLEX ; LOCA110N: SHAWNEE PARK ' PURPOSE: RELOCATE ADULT, SENO, AND CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL SOFTBALL FIELDS TO SHAWNEE PARK. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: FOUR LIGHTED SOFTBALL/BASEBALL FIELDS AROUND A CENTRAL CONTROL ; CENTER/CONCESSION AREA. UNIT OF WORK: ACQUIRE, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT ' JUSTIFICATION: TO INCREASE REVENUE, INCREASE TOURISM TRADE, INCREASE CONTROL OF FIELDS ' ! AND QUALITY, AND TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF FIELDS. ; FINANCING: $500,000 REVENUE/PFA BONDS (C) IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET ! INCREASE REVENUE $ 30,000.00 ; DECREASE REVENUE NET REVENUE IMPACT $ 30,000.00 INCREASE SALARY COSTS 4,000.00 ; ' OTHER EXPENSE , NET EXPENSE IMPACT $ 4,000.00 ; NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET : + 26,000.00 ; , , I 22 23 RECREATION AND LEISURE PROJECT TITLE: CLUB HOUSE/PRO SHOP LOCATION: JAYCEE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE PURPOSE: TO PROVIDE A LARGER CONCESSION AREA, LARGER LINE OF RESALE ITEMS, LOCKERS, ; RECEPTION AREA AND TO PROVIDE A PLEASANT ATMOSHPERE FOR GOLF PATRONS. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: 40' X 60' FACILITY WITH RESTROOMS, LOCKERS, SHOWERS, PRO SHOP, CONCESSION AREA, LOUNGE, AND RECEPTION AREA. UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT JUSTIFICATION: THIS FACILITY WILL GIVE THE COURSE A MORE PROFESSIONAL ATMOSPHERE AND ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO EXPAND USE OF THE COURSE. ; ' FINANCING: ;320,000 GOLF COURSE REVENUES/PFA BONDS (C) I IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET I ' INCREASE REVENUE ; 10►000.00 I DECREASE REVENUE ' NET REVENUE ► IMPACT ; 10,000.00 ; I SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT ; I NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET ; + 10,000.00 ; ► 23 i RECREATION AND LEISURE PROJECT TITLE: GENERAL PARK DEVELOPMENT - SHELTERS, PLAYGROUNDS, PARKING, RESTROOMS LOCATION: VARIOUS PARKS ' PURPOSE: TO REPLACE AND EXPAND FACILITIES WHICH ARE BASIC FOR PUBLIC USE OF PARK AREAS. ! PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCT NEW SHELTERS, INSTALL NEW PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, PAVE PARKING AREAS, AND INSTALL RESTROOMS. UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT I JUSTIFICATION: CITY PARKS HAVE SOME FACILITIES WHICH ARE AGING AND NEED REPLACEMENT. ; THERE ARE ALSO A NUMBER OF VACANT AREAS WHICH NEED TO BE DEVELOPED ; ! TO ACCOMMODATE INCREASING USE BY CITIZENS. FINANCING: $250,000 GENERAL FUNDS (A) IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE $ DECREASE REVENUE NET REVENUE IMPACT i SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT i NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET i NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. ; I 1 ; 24 OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET i 25 RECREATION AND LEISURE ' PROJECT TITLE: CAPAHA SWIMMING POOL REPLACEMENT 1 LOCATION: CAPAHA PARK + PURPOSE: TO REPLACE EXISTING POOL. ' PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: RECREATIONAL 'FUN' POOL TO BE INSTALLED IN EXISTING POOL BASIN ' AND RENOVATED BATHHOUSE. UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT ' JUSTIFICATION: CURRENT POOL IS OVER 30 YEARS OLD, AT THE END OF ITS NORMAL LIFE. ; FINANCING: i9S0,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (B) IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE i ' DECREASE REVENUE NET REVENUE IMPACT i SALARY COSTS ' OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET i 25 i Comm-unUy Development -CarAta6Irrvrdrovevment Budget 1.0oa0oo 750 090 SOD. 000- \ Y5G,000 ` 1 D9-90 1994-91 19?1-4.' 1992-93 1993-9-0- 26 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 27 PROPOSED PROJECTS ;PROJECT; 1989-90 1990-91 ; 1991-92 ; 1992-93 ; 1993-94 ; NUMBER 1 IMPROVEMENT ITEM ; TOTAL COST FISCAL YEAR ; FISCAL YEAR ; FISCAL YEAR ; FISCAL YEAR ; FISCAL YEAR 1 1 5-1 I 1 ; Community 1 1 # 787,000 1 1 ; # 487,000 1 1 1 ; 300,000 1 I ; I 1 I I 1 1 Development Block ; ' 1 Grant Projects 5-2 1 Public Works/ ; 200,000 # 200,000 1 Parks Maintenance 1 Facility 5-3 11 ; Municipal Court ; ; 162,000 # 162,000 111 1 Relocation ; 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 t 1 TOTALS 1 #1,149,000 I 1 # 849,000 1 ; ; 300,000 t ; 1 I ; 1 1 t 1 I 1 ' 1 I I 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i i i 1 t 1 1 1 1 i i i i i i 1 1 1 t A B C ; 162,000 ; 162,000 1 1 D ; ; 787,000 1 ; 487,000 1 ; 300,000 ; f E 1 1 1 I I 1 F t I G I t I # 200,000 1 ; 200,000 1 1 I 1 I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 i 1 i i i i i 1 1 � t 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ' I 1 1 1 f t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 I I I 1 I 1 1 t t 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 t I 1 ' 1 I ! I 1 1 1 1 1 - I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 I I 1 1 1 t 1 1 , 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 t 27 28 ' 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ; � 1 ' PROJECT TITLE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECTS ; LOCATION: ; PURPOSE: TO PROVIDE FOR ANNUAL GRANTS TO ASSIST IN NEIGHBORHOOD RECONSTRUCTION AND ; REHABILITATION OF VARIOUS PUBLIC WORKS AND HOUSING RELATED ITEMS, AND TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. 1 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: REHABILITATE HOMES, PAVE STREETS, CONSTRUCT WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES. UNIT OF WORK: REHABILITATE, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCT ; JUSTIFICATION: TO ARREST THE DECLINE OF THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOODS AND STABLIZE THEM IN ; ORDER TO OFFER BETTER LIVING CONDITIONS FOR COMMUNITY RESIDENTS, AND TO ; PROVIDE JOBS FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME. ; FINANCING: #787,000 STATE GRANTS (D) 1 1 � 1 i 1 1 1 1 t I t 1 1 IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET f INCREASE REVENUE # ; 1 1 DECREASE REVENUE ; NET REVENUE IMPACT # ' r I 1 SALARY COSTS ; OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT # ; NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET # ; 1 1 t 1 NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. ' 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 i 28 i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' PROJECT TITLE: PUBLIC WORKS/PARKS MAINTENANCE FACILITY LOCATION: TO BE DETERMINED ' PURPOSE: PROVIDE EXPANDED STORAGE FACILITIES FOR MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ; AND RELOCATE PARK MAINTENANCE OUT OF ARENA BUILDING. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: i , UNIT OF WORK: ACQUIRE PROPERTY, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCT JUSTIFICATION: CENTRALIZED AREA IS NEEDED TO STORE SALT AND OTHER MATERIALS WHICH ARE ; CURRENTLY LOCATED ON PARKS AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION SITES. i FINANCING: $200,000 OTHER (1) , , , IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE $ DECREASE REVENUE ' NET REVENUE IMPACT i SALARY COSTS OTHER EXPENSE NET EXPENSE IMPACT $ i ' NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET $ , NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. , , , 29 UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT JUSTIFICATION: MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS COURT SPACE AND OFFICE SPACE TOGETHER, SEPARATE FROM 11 POLICE STATION, PER RECOMMENDATION OF STATE AUDITOR. CITY COUNCIL ROOM IS ; OFTEN OVERCROWDED WITH STANDING ROOM ONLY. FINANCING: ;162,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY (C) 3 IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE DECREASE REVENUE ' NET REVENUE IMPACT SALARY COSTS ; ' OTHER EXPENSE ; NET EXPENSE IMPACT ; ; NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET ; I NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. I i ti ' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ; ' PROJECT TITLE: MUNICIPAL COURT RELOCATION LOCATION: CITY HALL PURPOSE: TO RELOCATE MUNICIPAL COURT OFFICE FROM POLICE STATION, CONSTRUCT COURT HEARING/ CITY COUNCIL ROOM, AND CONVERT OLD COUNCIL ROOM TO OFFICE AND CONFERENCE ROOMS. PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION: CONSTRUCT OFFICES AND COURT ROOM. UNIT OF WORK: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT JUSTIFICATION: MUNICIPAL COURT NEEDS COURT SPACE AND OFFICE SPACE TOGETHER, SEPARATE FROM 11 POLICE STATION, PER RECOMMENDATION OF STATE AUDITOR. CITY COUNCIL ROOM IS ; OFTEN OVERCROWDED WITH STANDING ROOM ONLY. FINANCING: ;162,000 PUBLIC FACILITIES AUTHORITY (C) 3 IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET INCREASE REVENUE DECREASE REVENUE ' NET REVENUE IMPACT SALARY COSTS ; ' OTHER EXPENSE ; NET EXPENSE IMPACT ; ; NET IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET ; I NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON OPERATING BUDGET. I i ti