Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

1
Capital Improvements Program (CIP)

• Council Workshop
• January 29, 2008
• Council Chambers
• 600 p.m.

2
Two Goals for this Workshop

• Discuss and receive direction on changing the CIP
  process based upon issues/questions raised by
  City Council, public and staff.
• Formulate policy direction on development of this
  years CIP.

3
CIP Issues

• Issues
• City growing projects becoming too numerous.
• Little energy left for the CIP during and at the
  end of the annual budget process

4
CIP Issues

• During the last year, staff heard questions or
  comments such as
• The CIP contains suggested project expenditures
  for the next budget year without basic funding
• Growing concern that CIP projects are lagging
  behind
• CIP projects are under-funded whenthey go to bid

5
CIP Issues

• Other questions staff has heard
• Where did this project come from?
• How can we afford all of these projects in the
  CIP?
• How can I look at the CIP and determine wants
  vs. needs?
• How can staff get all these projects done?
• If there is a project in the CIP, is there a
  citizen expectation it will done?

6
CIP Issues

• These questions suggest a growing concern with
  the current CIP process and whether the document
  accomplishes its intended goal.
• -Dan OLeary

7
Two Models of Capital Improvements Programs

• Public Model
• Programmatic Model

8
Public Model

• CIP primarily designed by citizens
• Minimal involvement by staff except for assisting
  in process
• Created without emphasis on cost
• Created with emphasis on qualitative assessment
• Open process with many opportunities for
  input

9
Programmatic Model

• CIP primarily designed by staff
• Minimal citizen or elected official involvement
• Created based upon quantitative assessment
• Created with strict adherence to master plans
• Use of best management practices

10
Where are We?

• Like most communities somewhere in between the
  two models.
• OUR TASK - modify our process to provide best of
  both models.

11
What is the Current Process?

• Council of Neighborhood Associations Mtg.
  (February)
• Blank forms distributed to staff to complete
  (March)
• Forms compiled by PADS into draft CIP document
  (April)
• Draft reviewed by Administrative Review Team
  (April)
• CIP document distributed to Planning Zoning
  (April)
• PZ reviews with staff (April)
• Conducts Public Hearings (May)
• Recommendation to City Council 120 days prior
  to budget adoption (May)

12
Opportunities for Improvement

• Council policy direction prioritization
• Use of staff time
• Accuracy of project information
• Public input process
• Creating a realistic document that captures
  community priorities
• Public understanding

13
Changes in CIP

• City Council Involvement
• Separate CIP from annual budget process but use
  budget process as a model
• Council direction early in the process annual
  policy workshop to create policy statement for
  use by staff and advisory boards
• Prioritization review after public
  input

14
Changes in CIP

• Staff Input Project Accuracy
• Less time filling out forms, more time on review
• Prior CIP adjusted for inflation
• Emphasis on master planning to determine
  priorities cost estimates
• Project phasing fund design first, construction
  funds later

15
Changes in CIP

• Public Input- Expanded and Structured
• Master Plans include public input
• Propose input earlier in the CIP process
• Inclusion of new projects for current year
  limited the closer the CIP is to adoption
• Boards and Commissions used to collect public
  input

16
Changes in CIP

• Realistic Document Reflecting Community
  Priorities
• Master Plans
• All projects captured but not automatically
  placed in CIP
• Financial workload constraints established
  earlier in process and includes multi-year
  forecasting.

17
Changes in CIP

• Public Understanding
• Clear process
• Public input captured documented
• Financial workload constraints explained

18
(No Transcript)
19
(No Transcript)
20
(No Transcript)
21
(No Transcript)
22
(No Transcript)
23
Proposed Process Highlights

• Council policy direction starts process.
• Boards and commissions facilitate public input
  earlier in the process.
• Emphasis on plan supported projects.
• All potential projects documented and either
• Approved for scoping in next years CIP
• Remain on potential project list
• Eliminated from list

24
Proposed Process Highlights

• 2nd Council review to more closely evaluate
  priorities.
• Multi-year forecasting
• Process for new projects to be evaluated prior to
  being scoped.

25
Discussion on Process Change

• Council involvement
• Public input
• Use of Master plans for priorities costs
• Multi-year forecasting for financial workload
  constraints
• Potential project list

26
Policy Direction on FY 2009-2018 CIP

• Council priorities on CIP historically discussed
  in budget policy statement.
• Focused on projects to be funded in next fiscal
  year.
• Want to step back for policy direction at a
  higher level looking at the 10-year CIP

27
Policy Issues - Overall

• Staff proposing CIP looked at as two parts
• First 5-years constrained
• Second 5-years unconstrained
• Constraining near term helps establish a
  realistic document
• Un-constraining long term keeps good but not
  priority projects on the radar.
• Could constrain longer but forecasting
  not as accurate.

28
Policy Issues - W WW Fund

• Focus on required maintenance projects and master
  planned expansions
• Rate model update underway should be ready by
  Budget Policy Workshop
• Stay within previously planned debt issuances for
  now.
• Incremental 1-2 rate increases rather than large
  increases for future WWTP

29
Policy Issues - Electric

• Fund Master Plan
• Include underground construction in downtown for
  analysis in Master Plan
• Continue cash funding any required maintenance
  projects

30
Policy Issues - Drainage Utility

• Rate increase in 2007 to support expanded
  maintenance program
• Need Master Plan update rate analysis
• Continue drainage improvements with approved G.O.
  street projects project priorities in current
  plan.

31
Policy Issues - General Fund

• Airport, Parks Public Buildings, Public Safety
  Streets
• Last G.O. election 2005 next 2010?
• Debt capacity based upon debt coming off and
  growth in tax base
• What is our capacity for new debt?

32
Debt Capacity First Southwest
33
Debt Capacity First Southwest
34
(No Transcript)
35
Policy Issues General Fund

• No tax increase without bond election.
• Anticipate Blue Ribbon Bond Committee in 2009 for
  2010 bond election.
• Include Phase I of Loop 110 in CIP
• Include CDBG projects

36
Policy Issues - Workload Constraints

• 1st Priority - Complete 2005 Bond projects
• Donaldson Street Construction
• Sessom Drive Reconstruction
• Thorpe Hopkins Improvements
• Victory Gardens Street Reconstruction
• LBJ Sidewalk Hutchinson Street Reconstruction
• Bike/Ped Improvements
• Loop 82/Post Road Realignment
• Projects to meet prior commitments and maintain
  regulatory compliance.

37
Policy Direction 6 Workload Constraints
38
Policy Direction 4 Electric Fund

• Needs Master Plan
• Continue cash funding any required maintenance
  projects.

39
Policy Issues Workload Constraints

• Limited ability to start design of new projects
  next year with current staffing
• Will look at new ways to allocate workload
• Continue commitment to build quality projects
  that are an assett to the community

40
In Closing

• Start evaluation process much sooner
• Separate CIP process from Budget process
• Work from Departmental Master Plans
• Adjusted for inflation
• Two part CIP
• Constrained
• Unconstrained