Capital Improvements Program (CIP) Council Workshop January 29, 2008 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m.

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 year’s CIP.

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

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 when they go to bid

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?

CIP Issues “These questions suggest a growing concern with the current CIP process and whether the document accomplishes its intended goal.” -Dan O’Leary

Two Models of Capital Improvements Programs Public Model Programmatic Model

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

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

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

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) P&Z reviews with staff (April) Conducts Public Hearings (May) Recommendation to City Council – 120 days prior to budget adoption (May)

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

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

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

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

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.

Changes in CIP Public Understanding  Clear process  Public input captured & documented  Financial & workload constraints explained

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 year’s CIP  Remain on potential project list  Eliminated from list

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

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

Policy Direction on FY 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

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.

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

Policy Issues - Electric Fund Master Plan Include underground construction in downtown for analysis in Master Plan Continue cash funding any required maintenance projects

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.

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?

Debt Capacity – First Southwest

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

Policy Issues - Workload Constraints 1 st 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.

Policy Direction #6 Workload Constraints

Policy Direction #4 Electric Fund Needs Master Plan Continue cash funding any required maintenance projects.

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

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