2008-2013
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction 2
II. Capital Improvement Plan Development Process.......................................................................................... 2
III. Guidelines and Procedures............................................................................................................................ 3
IV. APPENDIX
A. Capital Improvement Plan Calendar...................................................................................................... 6
B. Capital Project Summary List and Project Request Form....................................................................... 7
C. Criteria and Scoring Matrix.................................................................................................................... 9
Introduction
To keep pace with the growth of Lawrence and to provide for many of the community’s needs identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan requires public investments to be made annually in capital improvements. If needed improvements are not made annually, the condition of the City’s infrastructure will deteriorate and eventually will not be able to be ignored. At that point, the cost will be much greater due to the size and scope of the needed improvements as well as the increase in construction costs.
In addition to growth, there are also older sections of the City that were developed without adequate facilities such as storm sewers and paved streets. Capital improvements are needed to address these inadequacies, benefiting not only the neighborhoods where they are located but the entire community.
Because the cost of addressing all of the City’s capital needs in one budget year is too great, it is necessary to create a multi-year plan based on priority of need and the anticipated resources available each year. That plan is called the Capital Improvement Plan or CIP.
There are many benefits of having a Capital Improvement Plan. It provides an overall perspective as the development pattern of the city, and thus enables the citizens as well as the City Commission and City staff to take a long-range view of the their future activities and responsibilities. It calls attention to the deficiencies of the city and stimulates action to correct them. It promotes coordination of projects across city departments and across overlapping governmental jurisdictions. It can also allow city staff to more effectively budget operating expenditures each year necessary to maintain new projects and stabilize personnel demands.
The Capital Improvement Plan is not to be confused with the Capital Improvement Budget. The Capital Improvement Budget is prepared each year in conjunction with the annual Operating Budget. It generally includes only those projects from the first year of the Capital Improvement Plan that will be funded that year.
Capital Project Defined
A capital project is defined as a project with a minimum total cost of $50,000 resulting in 1) creation of a new fixed asset; or 2) enhancement to an existing fixed asset with a life expectancy of at least 20 years. Examples include construction or expansion of public buildings, new storm and sanitary sewers, water line upgrades and extensions, the acquisition of land for public use, planning and engineering costs, and street construction.
Vehicle replacements less than $35,000 or projects considered as operational, recurring, or maintenance are not considered capital projects and are typically funded through the City's Operating Budget.
Capital Improvement Plan Development Process
Early each year, capital project request forms are submitted by various City departments, agencies, and the public. Forms are to be submitted for all needed improvements that should be constructed or started during the next six fiscal years. The request forms include a description of the scope and justification for a project as well as a budget for anticipated costs and expected funding sources. The departments also suggest a year for the project based on priorities and needs. If appropriate, Master Plans are used.
The projects are reviewed by the Capital Improvement Administrative Review Committee made up of representatives from several departments, as well as a City Commissioner and a member of the Planning Commission. The Committee uses a set of scoring criteria and scoring matrix to determine a score for every project submitted. The scores are translated into priority rankings and are used to develop a draft Capital Improvement Plan.
The draft CIP is submitted to the Planning Commission, who reviews the Plan and ensures all projects included are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan, Horizon 2020. The draft Capital Improvement Plan is then submitted to the City Commission for review, and if appropriate, approval.
Once approved, projects from the first year of the Capital Improvement Plan are used to develop the City Manager’s recommended Capital Improvement Budget. The Capital Improvement Budget is adopted along with the annual Operating Budget and contains projects from the first year of the CIP. It provides an estimate of the cost of the project as well as a breakdown of the funding sources that will be used to pay for the project.
Guidelines and Procedures
There are guidelines and procedures that should be followed in order to develop the Capital Improvement Plan. Submittals are to be made electronically using forms available on the neighborhood network. Those departments without access to the network will receive the forms via email.
Capital Project Summary List
A list summarizing all projects submitted by the department should be submitted. It should list projects by year and in priority order, with the project considered by the department to have the highest priority listed first.
The form should be saved in the Capital Improvement Planning folder on Citydata and should include the department name in the file name.
Guidelines for the completion of each section of the Summary List are provided below.
NA or RE+ - This column indicates if the project is acquisition of a new asset (NA) or is a repair to an existing asset (RE). If RE is used, the next column should indicate what assest is being repaired (ST = streets; BD = building).
Dept. Fund – This column indicates the source for funding. Options include GO = General Obligation Bonds; City at Large =; Sales Tax (Parks and Recreation Projects); Water and Wastewater Utility (water and wastewater projects); and Storm water Utility.
Total Cost – The total cost provided should be in 2006 dollars and should include costs to be paid by other government agencies, or by special assessments, benefit districts, etc.
City Share – Should include cost to be paid by City. City share of benefit districts should be provided here.
Criteria Check List – Each of the criteria used by the Administrative Review Committee to score projects is provided. An X should be placed in the column if the project satisfies the criteria. Projects will only be eligible to receive points for columns with an X. Not all projects satisfy all criteria but all projects should satisfy at least one of the criteria.
Explanations of each of the criteria, as well as each score, can be found on page 9 of this document.
Project Request Form
Project Request Forms are used to compile the Capital Improvement Plan. They explain and justify each project to city staff, elected officials, and the public.
A separate Project Request Form should be completed for each project, however, multiple forms should be saved in one Excel workbook. Forms should be saved in the Capital Improvement Plan folder on Citydata and should be include the department name in the file name.
Guidelines for each section of the Project Request Form are provided below.
Project Title – A name should be designated for the purpose of reference. It should be brief but should provide enough information to allow readers to distinguish between other similar projects. For instance, “6th and Wakarusa Traffic Signal” would be better than “Traffic Signal Improvement.”
Department Responsibility – The department and division submitting the request should be provided.
Map – A small map showing the location of the project should be inserted here. Contact Information Systems for assistance with this feature.
Description – The description should provide sufficient detail to permit a full understanding of the nature and scope of the project by someone with little to no knowledge of the project. If the project is construction of a facility, the square footage and/or number of stories should be provided. A more detailed description of the location of the project and its relation to existing facilities or other proposed projects should also be provided.
Justification – Detailed reasons and rationale for the project should be provided. Statements of inadequacy must be supported by comparison with accepted standard practice. For instance, “…construction of fire station at this location will increase area of City reachable within IAFF standard response time of 6 minutes or less.”
Compliant with the Comprehensive Plan and/or other Master Plan – A check should be placed in the appropriate check box.
Expenditure Schedule – The various components of project implementation have been listed as well as the total cost, expenditure this year (if any), each year in the plan, and the cost beyond the last year of the plan. Estimate as closely as possible all costs necessary to complete the project. Estimates are to be on the basis of present costs and should be reassessed each year.
Planning costs include research or planning/feasibility studies needs for the project. Preliminary and final design and engineering plans for the project should be listed in the design component. Construction costs include all landscaping and inspections. Equipment costs reflect all miscellaneous equipment/furnishings to initially equip and furnish the facility.
Operational Impact – An attempt should be made to identify and quantify any net impact of the project on the operating budget for the year of the project and years following completion of the project.
Funding Schedule – Fill in appropriate blanks. List the proposed expenditures for each source of funds according to year. If a particular project is anticipated to have more than one funding source (i.e. local funds and federal aid), indicated all sources in the appropriate year blank.
Comments – Reference to surveys, engineering reports, Comprehensive Plan, etc. should be provided here. Also, any relationship to other projects should be noted here.
Project Score – This section will be completed by the Administrative Review Committee and will be the total score the project receives.
2008-2032 Capital Improvement Plan
Calendar
|
February 2, 2007 |
Capital Improvement Plan forms and instructions posted on the City’s website and distributed to City Departments, agencies and the public
|
|
|
March 2, 2007 |
Project Request forms and department scoring sheet due
|
|
|
March 9, 2007 |
Preliminary list of projects, scoring criteria, and score sheet distributed to Administrative Review Committee
|
|
|
March 15, 2007 |
Planning Commission - Public Input on CIP
|
|
|
March 28-30, 2007 |
Administrative Review Committee meetings to review projects and develop consensus scores |
|
|
|
March 28 9:00 - 12:00 |
2008 Projects |
|
|
March 29 2:00 – 5:00 |
2009-2010 Projects |
|
|
March 30 2:00 – 5:00 |
2011-2013 Projects |
|
|
|
|
|
April 6, 2007 |
Administrative Review Committee’s Consensus Project Score Sheet Finalized
|
|
|
April 10, 2007 |
Preliminary Capital Improvement Plan distributed to Planning Commission for their review to ensure projects are in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan
|
|
|
May 17, 2007 |
Planning Commission meeting – review and, if appropriate, approve preliminary plan as being in conformity with the comprehensive plan
|
|
|
May 29, 2007 |
City Commission review and, if appropriate, approve the Capital Improvement Plan
|
|
|
June 14, 2007 |
City Commission Study Session – 2008 Capital Budget Funding Options based on priorities and funding available
|
|
Example of a Capital Projects Summary List
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
DESCRIPTION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
JUSTIFICATION: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND/OR OTHER MASTER PLAN? oYES oNO |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE ($000S) |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
PROJECT ELEMENT |
TOTAL |
THRU 2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
BEYOND 2013 |
|||||||||||
|
PLANNING |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
DESIGN |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
LAND |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
CONSTRUCTION |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
EQUIPMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
2% FOR ARTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
OTHER |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
OPERATIONAL IMPACT ($000S) |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
PROJECT ELEMENT |
TOTAL |
THRU 2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
BEYOND 2013 |
|||||||||||
|
MAINTENANCE COSTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
PERSONNEL COSTS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
FUNDING SCHEDULE ($000S) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
SOURCE |
TOTAL |
THRU 2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
2010 |
2011 |
2012 |
2013 |
BEYOND 2013 |
|||||||||||
|
G. O. BONDS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
SPECIAL ASSMT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
REVENUE BONDS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
CURRENT REV. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
FEDERAL AID |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
STATE AID |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
EX. BONDS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
OTHER |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
TOTAL |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
COMMENTS: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
PROJECT SCORE: |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||
Capital Improvement Plan
Criteria List and Scoring Matrix
Criteria |
Possible Scores |
||
|
0 |
1 |
2 |
|
|
consistency with community goals and plans |
project is inconsistent with City's Comprehensive Plan or does nothing to advance the City Commission's strategic goals |
project is consistent the City's Comprehensive Plan but does little to advance the City Commission's strategic goals |
project are directly consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and advances the strategic goals of the City Commission |
|
public health and safety |
project would have no impact on existing public health and/or safety status |
project would increase public health and/or safety but is not an urgent, continual need or hazard |
project addresses an immediate, continual safety hazard or public health and/or safety need |
|
Mandates or other legal requirements |
project is not mandated or otherwise required by court order, judgment, or interlocal agreements |
project would address anticipated mandates, other legal requirements, or interlocal agreements |
project required by federal, state, or local mandates, grants, court orders and judgments; required as part of interlocal agreements |
|
maintains or improves standard of service |
project not related to maintaining an existing standard of service |
project would maintain existing standard of service |
project would address deficiencies or problems with existing services; would establish new service |
|
extent of benefit |
projects would benefit only a small percentage of citizens or particular neighborhood or area |
project would benefit a large percentage of citizens or many neighborhoods or areas |
project would benefit all of the citizens, neighborhoods, or areas |
|
related to other projects |
project is not related to other projects in the Capital Improvement Plan already underway |
project linked to other projects in the Capital Improvement Plan already underway but not essential to their completion |
project essential to the success of other projects identified in Capital Improvement Plan already underway |
|
public perception of need |
project has no public support or established voter appeal; is not identified by the citizenry as a need |
project has been identified by the citizenry as a need in the community but lacks strong support |
project has technical and strong political support, project was suggested by or even demanded by large number of citizens |
|
efficiency of service |
project would have no impact on the efficiency of service |
project would result in savings by eliminating obsolete or inefficient facilities |
project would result in significant savings by increasing the efficiency of the performance of a service or reducing the on-going cost of a service or facility |
|
supports economic development |
project would discourage or directly prevent capital investment, decrease the tax base, decrease valuation, or decrease job opportunities |
project would have no impact on capital investment, the tax base, valuation, or job opportunities |
project would directly result in capital investment, increased tax base, increased valuation, or improved job opportunities |
|
environmental quality |
project would have a negative effect on the environmental quality of the city |
project would not effect the environmental quality of the city |
project would improve the sustainability of the environment |
|
feasibility of project |
project is unable to proceed due to obstacles (land acquisition, easements, approval required) |
minor obstacles exist, project is not entirely ready to proceed |
project is entirely ready to proceed, no obstacles (land acquisition or easements, approvals required, etc.) exist |
|
opportunity cost |
if deferred, the increase in project costs would be less than the rate of inflation |
if deferred, the increase in project costs would be equal to inflation |
if deferred, the increase in project costs would be greater than the rate of inflation |
|
operational budget impact |
project would significantly increase debt service, installment payments, personnel or other operating costs or decrease revenues |
project would neither increase or decrease debt service, installment payment, personnel or other operating costs or revenues |
project would decrease debt service, installment payments, personnel or other operating costs or increase revenues |