3 Volume Three | CapiTal improVemenT CiTy of SCoTTSdale arizona adopTed fy 2010/11BudgeT plan City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three City Council W.J. “Jim” Lane, Mayor Lisa M. Borowsky Wayne Ecton Suzanne Klapp Robert W. Littlefield Ron McCullagh Marg Nelssen Administrative Staff David Richert City Manager Brent Stockwell Senior Advisor David Smith City Treasurer Judy McIlroy Budget Manager Budget Review Commission Louis Schmitt, Chair Scott Miller, Vice Chair Bob Berlese Eric Borowsky Martha Ecton Michael Foster Donna Reagan TABle oF ConTenTS Overview FY 2010/11 Adopted Budget How to Use this Book – Volume Three Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN 1 1 2 Funding Source of Funds Use of Funds CIP Fund Summaries – Capital Improvement Plan Five-Year Financial Plan – Capital Improvement Plan 9 13 16 17 Project Lists and Operating Impacts Capital Improvement Plan – Project List – Alphabetical Capital Improvement Plan – Project List – By Division Capital Improvement Plan – Project List – By Program Capital Improvement Plan Operating Impacts (alphabetical order) 19 29 39 49 Project Descriptions, Locations, Funding Sources & Operating Impacts Community Facilities Drainage/Flood Control Preservation Public Safety Service Facilities Transportation Water Management 51 63 71 77 85 111 141 Appendix Recurring Capital Maintenance Projects Operating Projects 161 161 City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three oveRvIew HoW To USE THIS BooK O Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan This overview section covers why the City has a multiyear Capital Improvement Plan, the guidelines used to determine whether a project is a capital project, and the City’s capital project review process, which includes review teams and prioritization criteria. The CIP prioritization criteria describe in detail the measures used by the City’s two separate CIP teams (Construction and Technology) to rate the various proposed construction related and technology related capital projects. The CIP review process also covers senior management’s involvement. The funding section is a summary of the various sources of funds and how those funds are used to pay for CIP projects. The funding section concludes with the FiveYear Plan. Council as part of the FY 2010/11 budget. This information serves as part of the City’s long-term capital plan process and will be revisited and updated in future budget reviews. The Estimated operating Impacts list includes a four-year summary of the projected operating costs associated with capital projects. The operating impacts for projects completed prior to or during FY 2010/11 are calculated and included in the Adopted Program operating Budget. Following is detailed information arranged by major program on each of the City’s capital projects, including Community Facilities, Preservation, Drainage/Flood Control, Public Safety, Service Facilities, Transportation and Water Management. The detailed information includes location, project description, funding source(s) and project number, if applicable. Project list The Project List section includes four lists: • Capital Project List – Alphabetical by Project Name – this list summarizes all capital projects in alphabetical order. • Capital Project List – By Division – this list summarizes all capital projects by City division. • Capital Project List – By Program - this list summarizes all capital projects by major program. • Estimated operating Impacts – This list summarizes the projected operating costs associated with capital projects. The Capital Budget authorizes and provides the basis for control of expenditures for the acquisition of significant City assets and construction of all capital facilities. A five-year Capital Improvement Plan is developed and updated annually, including anticipated funding sources. Under state law, budget appropriations lapse at the end of the fiscal year. As part of the annual budget development process the City must re-budget the appropriations until the project is complete and capitalized. The first three project lists reflect each project’s adopted FY 2010/11 budget with the forecasted funding through FY 2014/15. The forecasted funding, which includes FY 2011/12 through FY 2014/15, was not adopted by City The CIP is prioritized based on Mayor and City Council’s mission and broad goals, the City’s General Plan, Citizens Boards and Commissions, the comprehensive financial policies, debt and capital management policies, long range financial forecasts and growth and development assumptions. 1 oveRvIew Recurring Capital Maintenance Projects Recurring capital maintenance projects reflect the recurring expenditure needs of the City. These projects include budget appropriation for one fiscal year, and are reviewed by the Budget staff as part of the budget development process each year. The desired goal is to close out the projects within one year. The projects may be carried forward into the next fiscal year when their completion requires more time than originally anticipated. The recurring capital maintenance projects are assigned a project number with the prefix “Y”. 2 Definition of CIP Projects The following guidelines determine what is a CIP project: • Relatively high monetary value (at least $25,000) • Long life (at least five years) • Results in creation of a fixed asset, or the revitalization of a fixed asset Included within the above definition of a CIP project are the following items: • Construction of new facilities • Remodeling or expansion of existing facilities • Purchase, improvement and development of land • operating equipment and machinery for new or expanded facilities • Planning and engineering costs related to specific capital improvements • Street construction, reconstruction, resurfacing or renovation In general, automotive and other rolling stock, personal computers, and other equipment not attached to or part of new facilities are not included as a CIP project. The exception to this is when the aggregate dollar amount of all the items are of a considerable value that they are grouped together and considered as a single capital project. CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN O Budget Development Process for Fiscal Year 2010/11 Capital Project Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) The development of the 2010/11 Capital Project Budget and Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan did not follow the traditional process due to the economic recession. The major issues that affected the development of the budget for the past two years were: • The economic downturn greatly affected Scottsdale’s ability to use “pay-as-you-go” (PAYGo) funding for existing and new projects; • Development slowdown impacted development impact fee (PAYGo) revenues expected to pay for growth related water and sewer projects; and • Bond 2000 project progress brings together a close to many projects planned nearly ten years ago and new or additional projects will require additional bond authority. To address these issues for the second year, staff carefully reviewed the capital plan for projects funded with PAYGo that could be responsibly reduced without any direct service impacts or infrastructure failure. The description of the CIP Review Process that follows is the traditional process that is followed by the City of Scottsdale. Traditional CIP Review Process The City of Scottsdale uses two cross-divisional CIP Review Teams, one for review of construction related projects and the other for review of technology related projects. Construction Review Team The Construction Review Team consists of individuals from a variety of programs and professional disciplines to review project submissions and ensure that: • Projects are scoped properly (a building has ADA access, includes telephones, computers, etc.) • Infrastructure components are coordinated (a waterline is installed at the same time as a roadway improvement at a specific location) oveRvIew • Long-term operating impacts are included in estimates (staffing, utility and maintenance costs are considered) • Timeframes for construction activity and cash flow requirements are realistic • Projects are coordinated geographically (i.e., not more than one north/south major thoroughfare is restricted at a time), and • Project costs are reviewed to determine the adequacy of the budget and appropriate funding sources Technology Review Team The Technology Review Team includes individuals from a variety of programs to review technology project submissions and ensure that: • Project meets City’s current hardware, software and security standards • If technology will be accessed from remote locations, what network bandwidth requirements are needed to support the application • Long-term operating impacts are included in estimates (training, maintenance and support) • Who is responsible for funding ongoing maintenance of hardware, operating system, application and database, if applicable • Who is responsible for day-to-day support • Does the system require after hours technical support • Includes funding to cover ongoing monthly communication costs associated with the system, if applicable • Backups and data retention have been considered • Disaster recovery and security considerations have been taken into account While these examples are not exhaustive they provide excellent examples of the value added through project review by cross-divisional teams. Each division is required to submit new funding requests to the Budget office, who then compiles the CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN O information for the applicable CIP review team. If the review teams have questions concerning a request, the divisions are asked to clarify the issue to assist the review team in prioritizing the project against all City needs. After this far-reaching review process the CIP review teams prioritize the projects. Projects are prioritized based on City Council’s broad Goals, division priorities, anticipated funding sources, and during the first review the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Project Prioritization Matrix as adjusted for the City of Scottsdale. The ICMA Prioritization Criteria were obtained from Capital Projects: New Strategies for Planning, Management, and Finance, Copyright 1989, pp 85-87. Construction Prioritization Criteria The twelve prioritization criteria used by Scottsdale for construction related projects are: 1. CAPITAL CoST This element is for the total cost of constructing or installing the proposed work. of particular concern in assigning a score for this element is the question of what makes a project a high or low priority. The rating range below is used and should not be considered adversely with respect to an individual project: CAPITAL CoST SCoRE Under $100,000 5 $100,000 - $1,000,000 4 $1,000,000 - $5,000,000 3 over $5,000,000 2 The rating is simply an acknowledgment of the current financial status of CIP funds. A project that is relatively expensive that should be deemed an overall high priority project will have its rank bolstered by other evaluation elements in which it will receive high rating scores. 3 oveRvIew 2. ANNUAL RECURRING CoSTS The expected change in operation and maintenance costs. Program operating divisions provide year-byyear estimates of the additional costs or reductions likely in the program budget because of the new project. Also to be considered are changes in revenues that may be affected by a project, for example, the loss in property taxes incurred when private land is used for a capital project. See Capital Projects operating Impacts schedule in the Project List section on page 49. 4 3. HEALTH AND SAFETY EFFECTS This criterion includes health-related environmental impacts like reductions/increases in traffic accidents, injuries, deaths, sickness due to poor water quality, health hazards due to sewer problems, etc. 4. CoMMUNITY AND CITIzEN BENEFITS Economic impacts such as property values, the future tax base, added jobs, income to citizens, changes in business income, and the stabilization (or revitalization) of neighborhoods. Such impacts may apply more to capital projects related to growth and expansion than to infrastructure maintenance although deteriorating structures can adversely affect business. 5. ENVIRoNMENTAL, AESTHETIC, AND SoCIAL EFFECTS A catch-all criterion for other significant quality-of-liferelated impacts, this includes community appearance, noise, air and water pollution effects, households displaced, damage to homes, effect on commuters, changes in recreational opportunities, etc. 6. DISTRIBUTIoNAL EFFECTS Estimates of the number and type of persons likely to be affected by theproject and nature of the impact; for instance, explicit examination of project impact on various geographical areas; on low-moderate income areas; and on specific target groups. Equity issues are central here - who pays, who benefits, and the social goals of the jurisdiction. CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN O 7. PUBLIC PERCEPTIoN oF NEED This criterion refers to project assessment of (a) the extent of public support; (b) interest group advocacy and/or opposition. 8. FEASIBILITY oF IMPLEMENTATIoN This element is a measure of (a) special implementation problems (i.e., physical or engineering restraints) and (b) compatibility with the General Plan. 9. IMPLICATIoN oF DEFERRING THE PRoJECT Deferring capital projects is tempting for hard-pressed governments but an estimate of the possible effects, such as higher future costs and inconvenience to the public, provides valuable guidance in proposal assessment. 10. UNCERTAINTY oF INFoRMATIoN SUPPLIED Amount of uncertainty and risk - For each proposal, each of the above criteria will have associated with it some degree of uncertainty as to cost estimates, effect on service quality, or impact of new procedures. When substantial uncertainties exist regarding any of the evaluation criteria for any proposal, the City should consider estimating, at least in broad terms, the amount of uncertainty — probability of occurrence — and the magnitude of the likely negative consequences. Few cities generate such information but even “educated guesses” are useful here. 11. EFFECT oN INTER-JURISDICTIoNAL RELATIoNSHIPS Possible beneficial/adverse effects on relationships with other jurisdictions or quasi-governmental agencies in the area constitute this criterion. Such effects, i.e., waste disposal via landfills in other jurisdictions, are likely to require special regional co ordination and could impair the proposal’s attractiveness. oveRvIew 12. MAYoR AND CITY CoUNCIL’S BRoAD GoALS If a capital project directly addresses the Mayor and City Council’s Broad Goals, the relative attractiveness of that project increases. Technology Prioritization Criteria The ten prioritization criteria used by Scottsdale for technology related projects are: 1. CAPITAL CoST This element is for the total cost of constructing or installing the proposed work. of particular concern in assigning a score for this element is the question of what makes a project a high or low priority. The rating range below is used and should not be considered adversely with respect to an individual project: CAPITAL CoST SCoRE Under $100,000 5 $100,000 - $1,000,000 4 $1,000,000 - $5,000,000 3 over $5,000,000 2 Again rating is simply an acknowledgment of the current financial status of CIP funds. It is simply an acknowledgment of the current financial status of CIP funds. A project that is relatively expensive that should be deemed an overall high priority project will have its rank bolstered by other evaluation elements in which it will receive high rating scores. 2. ANNUAL RECURRING CoSTS This element reflects other costs relative to a proposed project, including operation and maintenance (o&M) costs, licensing costs, and potential revenues generated by the completed project. If a project has potentially high o&M and licensing costs, then a lower rating should be assigned. If a project has the potential of generating revenues, then a higher rating should be assigned. overall, the score for this element should reflect a compilation of all three factors. See Capital CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN O Projects operating Impacts schedule in the Project List section on page 49. 3. TECHNoLoGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE This criterion refers to projects required to maintain the technology infrastructure for essential City operations. This would include such items as networks and servers; telephone PBX, extension or improvements to the Wide Area Network for remote locations, etc. Projects that include elements related to these items would be scored higher than projects that don’t support the integrity of the technology infrastructure. 4. SERVICE ENHANCEMENT AND STAFF/CITIzEN BENEFITS This element considers the impacts that a project may have on service and the benefits the project may offer to citizens or staff members. This criterion should be viewed in terms of the numbers of citizens or staff members that may benefit from the project and how a service may be enhanced by the project. 5. DISTRIBUTIoNAL (CRoSS-DIVISIoNAL) EFFECTS This element deals with the extent of influence of a proposed project. The impacts and benefits may be spread over the community at-large, to a specific geographic area, to the entire City staff or to specific City staff at specific locations. An example of a project that would receive a higher rating score would be a utility billing project where almost all citizens would benefit from the project and some staff members also benefit. Compare this to a transit technology project that targets a specific population, and benefits a limited number of staff members. 5 oveRvIew 6. FEASIBILITY oF IMPLEMENTATIoN This element is a measure of: (a) special implementation problems, i.e. physical and engineering restraints and (b) compatibility with the City’s overall Technology Plan. A project would be considered for a higher rating score if it has few restraints to accomplish it and is also compatible with the overall Technology Plan. 7. IMPLICATIoN oF DEFERRING THE PRoJECT This element accounts for the downside risk incurred for deferring a project, such as higher future costs, loss of contributions, continued inconvenience to the public and staff, possible constraints to network capacity, deterioration of the City’s technology infrastructure or legal liability. In this evaluation, increased implications for delaying a project translates into a higher rating score. 6 Projects that address the limitations of a system or software package that may render a system unusable if corrective measures are not taken would score high for this element. In addition, a lower -score might be in order if future lower-costs associated with technology would come into the equation. 8. UNCERTAINTY oF INFoRMATIoN SUPPLIED This element measures the success potential of a proposed project. Rating scores should be awarded based on the accuracy of information given by the proposing division, the detail of cost estimates, and the potential of the project going awry due to its very nature. Lower rating scores will be assigned for projects that, basically, have insufficient information to allow a “good” review of the project for prioritization. 9. EFFECT oN REGIoNAL GoVERNANCE Rating scores should be determined based on the possible beneficial or adverse effects on a proposed project due to relationships with other jurisdictions or quasi-governmental agencies in the area. Such effects may require special regional coordination that could directly impact the success or scheduling of a project. The identification of such impacts may result in lower rating scores until such issues are resolved. CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN O 10. MAYoR AND CITY CoUNCIL’S BRoAD GoALS The question to answer is simply “does it or doesn’t it” and, if the proposed project does, to what degree are the Mayor and City Council’s Broad Goals being met? The Construction Review Team and the Technology Review Team forward their prioritization results to the CIP Advisory Team and the Technology Board for the next phase of review. These two groups include senior management and key staff members who provide an enterprise-wide view for synergy and priority while balancing project requests against known City Council objectives. After their review is completed, members of the CIP Advisory Team and the Technology Board present the recommended five-year CIP to the City Manager. The City Manager reviews the recommended five-year CIP, applying a policy perspective while considering Citywide needs. In 2009/10 Council established the Budget Review Commission as an advisory board on matters related to the budget. This group will become part of the traditional CIP review process. The Budget Review Commission and the full City Council will review and recommend the five-year CIP plan during budget work/study sessions and public hearings prior to budget adoption. operational Impacts The operating impacts of capital projects are analyzed and taken into consideration during the extensive CIP prioritization process. Estimated new revenues and/or operational expenditure savings associated with capital projects are also taken into consideration (net operating costs) during the capital project review. As capital improvement projects are completed, the operating costs of these projects have been identified, prioritized, and justified as part of divisional Program operating Budget process. Divisional staff plan and budget for the significant start-up costs, as well as the operation and maintenance of new facilities. The Program operating Budget authorizes and provides the basis for control of operating expenditures for both internal and citizen services, including operating and maintaining new capital facilities. The Program operating Budget appropriations lapse at the end of the fiscal year. The Program oveRvIew CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN O operating Budget is funded with recurring annual revenues such as taxes, licenses, fines, user fees, and interest income. operating Projects During the FY 2010/11 budget development process staff identified various projects that did not meet the criteria of a capital project, and moved them out of the CIP and into the operating budget under a new category titled operating Projects. These projects specifically reflect operating and maintenance expenditures that do not result in the creation of a capital asset. operating projects Include: • Additional, replacement, or repair of operating equipment and machinery. • Master plans and studies • Public art A list of the operating projects is included in the appendix. 7 City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three 8 FunDInG Capital Improvement Plan - Source of Funds The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) uses funding from prior year carryovers. Prior year carryovers are “blended” funding from the various funding sources described below. For FY 2010/11 – 2014/15 the funding added to the prior year carryovers includes the 2000 voter-approved bonds and Preservation General obligation (G. o.) Bonds. These G. o. Bonds, together with Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) Bonds, provide the bond-funded portion of the plan, which is approximately 29% of the CIP funding in FY 2010/11 – 2014/15. Approximately 71% of Scottsdale’s FY 2010/11 – 2014/15 CIP is funded with “pay-as-you-go” revenues which include development fees, dedicated sales tax revenues and contributions from fund balance transfers. The pie chart at the end of this section represents funding source percentages for FY 2010/11 – 2014/15. Funding sources for the CIP are presented on a cash flow basis. These revenue sources are presented in the period that the revenue is expected to be collected. Funding sources include estimated balances on hand at the beginning of the period as well as revenue expected to be received during the period or future periods, i.e. bond issuances. As a result of presenting revenue on the cash basis, pay-as-you-go funding sources do not equal budgeted expenditures in each period, sometimes creating a fund deficit as cash accumulates for project expenditures in subsequent years. All potential capital funding resources are evaluated to ensure equity of funding for the CIP. Equity is achieved if the beneficiaries of a project or service pay for it. For example, general tax revenues and/or G.o. Bonds appropriately pay for projects that benefit the general public as a whole. User fees, development fees, and/or contributions pay for projects that benefit specific users. other factors considered when funding the capital plan are whether the financing method provides funding when needed and the financial costs associated with the funding source. The following summarizes the funding sources for the CIP. SoURCE oF FUNDS F Bond 2000 Bond 2000 are General obligation Bonds that were authorized by voters in calendar year 2000 and are secured by the full faith and credit of the issuer. General obligation Bonds issued by local units of government are secured by a pledge of the issuer’s property taxing power, and must be authorized by the electorate. General obligation (G.o. Bonds) General General obligation (G.o. Bonds) General are bonds secured by the full faith and credit of the issuer. G.o. Bonds issued by local units of government are secured by a pledge of the issuer’s property taxing power (secondary portion). They are usually issued to pay for general capital improvements such as parks and roads. General obligation (G.o. Bonds) Preserve General obligation (G.o. Bonds) Preserve represent excise tax revenue bonds and G.o. Bonds. The bonds are special revenue obligations of the Scottsdale Preserve Authority payable either (1) solely from and secured by a 0.2% sales tax approved by City Voters in 1995 and issued for the purpose of acquiring land for the McDowell Sonoran Preserve; or (2) solely from and secured by a 0.15% sales tax approved by City Voters in 2004 and issued for the purpose of acquiring land and preserve-related construction, such as proposed trailheads for the McDowell Sonoran Preserve. Municipal Property Corporation (MPC Bonds) water and Sewer Municipal Property Corporation (MPC Bonds) - Water and Sewer represents bonds issued by the Municipal Property Corporation (MPC), a non-profit corporation established to issue bonds to fund City capital improvements. The debt incurred by the corporation is a City obligation, but does not require voter approval. Pledged revenue streams, in this instance water and sewer rates, finance the repayment of MPC debt. 9 FunDInG Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) Municipal Property Corporation (MPC) Bonds are issued by the Municipal Property Corporation, a nonprofit corporation established to issue bonds to fund City capital improvements. The debt incurred by the corporation is a City obligation, but does not require voter approval. Pledged revenue streams, in this instance excise taxes, finance the repayment of MPC debt. Development Contributions WATER & SEWER DEVELoPMENT FEES Water & Sewer Development Fees are revenues received from developers when new construction developments are made. These fees are based upon the increased costs of providing additional infrastructure and services in the development areas. 10 oTHER CoNTRIBUTIoNS other Contributions represent amounts paid by other organizations to pay for capital projects. other contributions come from developers to pay for capital projects in development areas, the Maricopa County Flood FY 2010/11 Capital Improvement Plan Source of Funds Percent of Totals SoURCE oF FUNDS F Control District (FCD), and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADoT), to name a few. enterprise Funds WATER & SEWER RATES Water & Sewer Rates are utility bill revenues received from the sale of domestic water and the fees collected for the disposal of sanitary sewer waste from customers within the City. Water & Sewer operating revenues in excess of operating expenditures are transferred to the CIP to fund water and sewer capital improvement projects. AVIATIoN FEES Aviation Fees represent fee revenues received from users of the City’s municipal airport and related facilities. Fees paid include transient landing fees, tie down fees, hangar fees, etc. SoLID WASTE RATES Solid Waste Rates represent utility bill revenues received for the collection and disposal of solid waste from residential and commercial customers. FunDInG Internal Service Funds Internal Service Funds represent revenues received for services provided to internal customers. The City has two internal service funds (Fleet and Self-Insurance Funds). Fleet rates represent revenues from the City’s Fleet Fund and per financial policy are restricted to use for improvements to facilities providing maintenance services to the City’s rolling stock, the replacement of rolling stock, and the administration of the program. Self Insurance Funds represent revenues received from the City’s Self-Insurance Fund and per financial policy are restricted to use for self-insurance expenditures and the administration of the program. Transportation Transportation Fund HIGHWAY USER REVENUE FUND (HURF) Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF) represents the City’s allocation of the Arizona Highway User Revenue Tax and other transportation related revenues. The amount available to each City is allocated based on population, which is determined by the latest federal census. These monies must be used for street construction, reconstruction, maintenance or transit. TRANSPoRTATIoN PRIVILEGE TAX Transportation Privilege Tax represents revenues received from the 1989 voter approved 0.2% sales tax on local retail and other sales. PRoP 400 REGIoNAL TRANSPoRTATIoN SALES TAX Prop 400 Regional Transportation Sales Tax represents revenues received from the 2004 voter approved 20year extension of a half-cent transportation sales tax in Maricopa County that was first approved in 1985 to fund freeway construction (Proposition 400). SoURCE oF FUNDS F Preserve PRESERVATIoN PRIVILEGE TAX FUND Preservation Privilege Tax Fund represents revenues received from the 1995 voter approved 0.2% sales tax on local retail and other sales and is dedicated to purpose of acquiring land for the McDowell Sonoran Preserve and revenues received from the 2004 voter approved 0.15% sales tax on local retail and other sales and is dedicated to purpose of acquiring land and construction of essential preserve related necessities such as proposed trailheads for the McDowell Sonoran Preserve. Interest/other INTEREST EARNINGS Interest Earnings represents interest earnings on cash balances on hand in the General Fund Capital Improvement Fund. The amount of interest earned on funding sources other than bond proceeds is allocated to capital improvement projects that do not have a dedicated funding source. GENERAL FUND General Fund represents the transfer of cash from the General Fund to fund the “pay-as-you-go” contributions from general revenues for capital projects without a dedicated funding source, such as Bond 2000 or Transportation Sales Tax. GRANTS Grants represent revenues received from federal or state sources. Most grants require a matching funding source with the percentage of the match dependant on grant requirements. The funding is restricted in use to the improvements requested and approved in the grant application. 11 FunDInG 12 SoURCE oF FUNDS F EXTRA-CAPACITY DEVELoPMENT FEE Extra-Capacity Development Fee represents fees paid by developers to pay for the extra-capacity demands they put on current water and sewer infrastructure when developing raw land or renovating existing development and intensifying water and sewer needs. SPECIAL PRoGRAMS FUND Special Programs Fund represents revenues from dedicated funding sources and donations earmarked for specific purposes (i.e., Racketeering Influenced Corrupt organization (RICo), Court Enhancement Fund (CEF)). MISCELLANEoUS Miscellaneous funding represents revenues from several sources (groundwater treatment, reclaimed water distribution, and in-lieu fees) that are aggregated for reporting purposes. PRIoR YEAR CARRYoVERS Prior year Carryovers are committed funds from prior year purchase orders that are re-budgeted until they are expended and uncommitted funds re-budgeted until the projects are completed. FunDInG Capital Improvement Plan - use of Funds The Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is comprised of seven major programs: • Community Facilities • Preservation • Drainage /Flood Control • Public Safety • Service Facilities • Transportation • Water Management The pie chart on this page represents the percentages for each major program. Expenditures are presented on a budget basis rather than a cash flow basis. Governmental budgeting procedures require adequate budget to pay for the entire contract to be available and appropriated in the period in which a contract is entered into by the City. HowFY 2010/11 Capital Improvement Plan use of Funds Percent of Total - $677,699,800 USE oF FUNDS F ever, actual cash flows (expenditures) under the contract generally take place over more than one year and match cash flow funding receipts. The following summarizes the seven major programs that comprise the total Capital Improvement Plan. Community Facilities Community Facilities programs address the City Council Broad Goal of enhancing and protecting a diverse, family-oriented community where neighborhoods are safe and well maintained by providing neighborhood recreations facilities, parks and libraries. These recreational needs are met by providing parks, park improvements, multiuse paths, neighborhood enhancements, youth sports lighting, aquatic centers, library facilities and senior centers. Approximately 5.6% of the CIP has been identified to address the needs of this program. 13 FunDInG 14 USE oF FUNDS F Preservation Preservation addresses the City Council Broad Goal of preserving the character and environment of Scottsdale. This goal is met by land acquisition activities for the McDowell Sonoran Preserve for the purpose of maintaining scenic views, preserving native plants and wildlife, and providing public access to the McDowell Mountains and Sonoran Desert. The 1998 election expanded the recommended study boundary from the original 12,876 acres to 36,400 acres. The 2004 election provided an additional revenue stream (0.15% sales tax rate increase) as well as the bonding capacity ($500.0 million) that continues to provide authority to carry on preservation efforts. Approximately 30.7% of the CIP has been identified to address this program. changing needs of our community and addresses those needs by maximizing community outreach and looking at creative alternatives in its crime prevention efforts. Approximately 3.0% of the CIP has been identified to address the public safety needs of the City. Drainage/Flood Control Drainage/Flood Control addresses the City Council Broad Goals of protecting a diverse, family-oriented community where neighborhoods are safe and well maintained; and coordinating planning to balance infrastructure and resource needs within the budget. This program achieves these goals through flood plain mapping, meeting regulatory requirements, and identifying and correcting hazards to reduce future flood damage potential. This is accomplished through the use of detention basins, culvert and channel projects, and a program of neighborhood drainage improvements. Approximately 6.6% of the CIP has been identified to address the drainage and flood control needs of the City. Transportation Transportation programs address the City Council Broad Goal of providing for the safe, efficient, and affordable movement of people and goods. This program meets this goal by attempting to offer real transportation choices in a way that meets the needs of the community. In 1989 voters authorized a 0.2% privilege tax to fund transportation operations and improvements. In 2004 voters approved a 20-year extension of a halfcent transportation sales tax in Maricopa County that was first approved in 1985 to fund freeway construction. This program looks for the best use of these funding sources and addresses the multi-modal concept. Approximately 24.7% of the CIP has been identified to address the transportation needs of the City. Public Safety Public Safety programs address the City Council Broad Goal of enhancing and protecting a diverse, family-oriented community where neighborhoods are safe and well maintained. This goal is met by providing fire and police stations, training facilities and automation systems related to fire and police operations. In FY 2005/06 the City began operating a municipal fire department after contracting fire services for several years. Fire protection includes such programs as public education, emergency medical services and fire prevention. The Police Department recognizes the water Management Water Management addresses the City Council Broad Goal of coordinating land use and infrastructure planning within the context of financial demands and available resources. This program achieves this goal by delivering safer, reliable water and providing wastewater services. This program also reflects the City’s commitment to federal and state regulations. Approximately 26.7% of the CIP has been identified to address the water and wastewater needs of the City. Service Facilities Service Facilities programs address the City Council Broad Goal of coordinating land use and infrastructure planning within the context of financial demands and available resources. These programs achieve this goal through the renovation of current facilities and technology needs necessary for the efficient and effective operations of the City. Approximately 2.7% of the CIP has been identified to address this program. FunDInG USE oF FUNDS F FY 2010/11 Capital Improvement Plan use of Funds In Thousands of Dollars 15 FY 2010/11 Capital Improvement Plan use of Funds - Geographic Boundary Percent of Total - $677,669,800 FunDInG 16 FUND SUMMARIES F FunDInG FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL PLANS F 17 City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three PRojeCT lIST FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN FY 2010/11 - 2014/15 SoRTED BY ALPHABETICAL (IN THoUSANDS oF DoLLARS) P 19 PRojeCT lIST 20 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN FY 2010/11 - 2014/15 SoRTED BY ALPHABETICAL (IN THoUSANDS oF DoLLARS) P PRojeCT lIST FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN FY 2010/11 - 2014/15 SoRTED BY ALPHABETICAL (IN THoUSANDS oF DoLLARS) P 21 PRojeCT lIST 22 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN FY 2010/11 - 2014/15 SoRTED BY ALPHABETICAL (IN THoUSANDS oF DoLLARS) P PRojeCT lIST FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN FY 2010/11 - 2014/15 SoRTED BY ALPHABETICAL (IN THoUSANDS oF DoLLARS) P 23 PRojeCT lIST 24 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN FY 2010/11 - 2014/15 SoRTED BY ALPHABETICAL (IN THoUSANDS oF DoLLARS) P PRojeCT lIST FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN FY 2010/11 - 2014/15 SoRTED BY ALPHABETICAL (IN THoUSANDS oF DoLLARS) P 25 PRojeCT lIST 26 FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPRoVEMENT PLAN FY 2010/11 - 2014/15 SoRTED BY ALPHABETICAL (IN THoUSANDS oF DoLLARS) P City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three PRojeCT lIST PRoJECT LIST BY DIVISIoN P 29 PRojeCT lIST 30 PRoJECT LIST BY DIVISIoN P PRojeCT lIST PRoJECT LIST BY DIVISIoN P 31 PRojeCT lIST 32 PRoJECT LIST BY DIVISIoN P PRojeCT lIST PRoJECT LIST BY DIVISIoN P 33 PRojeCT lIST 34 PRoJECT LIST BY DIVISIoN P PRojeCT lIST PRoJECT LIST BY DIVISIoN P 35 PRojeCT lIST 36 PRoJECT LIST BY DIVISIoN P PRojeCT lIST PRoJECT LIST BY DIVISIoN P 37 City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three PRojeCT lIST PRoJECT LIST BY PRoGRAM P 39 PRojeCT lIST 40 PRoJECT LIST BY PRoGRAM P PRojeCT lIST PRoJECT LIST BY PRoGRAM P 41 PRojeCT lIST 42 PRoJECT LIST BY PRoGRAM P PRojeCT lIST PRoJECT LIST BY PRoGRAM P 43 PRojeCT lIST 44 PRoJECT LIST BY PRoGRAM P PRojeCT lIST PRoJECT LIST BY PRoGRAM P 45 PRojeCT lIST 46 PRoJECT LIST BY PRoGRAM P PRojeCT lIST PRoJECT LIST BY PRoGRAM P 47 City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three PRojeCT lIST oPERATING IMPACTS (THoUSANDS oF DoLLARS) P 49 City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three CoMMunITY FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS C 51 CoMMunITY FACIlITIeS 52 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS C CoMMunITY FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS C 53 CoMMunITY FACIlITIeS 54 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS C CoMMunITY FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS C 55 CoMMunITY FACIlITIeS 56 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS C CoMMunITY FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS C 57 CoMMunITY FACIlITIeS 58 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS C CoMMunITY FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS C 59 CoMMunITY FACIlITIeS 60 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS C City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three DRAInAGe & FlooD ConTRol PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS D 63 DRAInAGe & FlooD ConTRol 64 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS D DRAInAGe & FlooD ConTRol PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS D 65 DRAInAGe & FlooD ConTRol 66 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS D DRAInAGe & FlooD ConTRol PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS D 67 DRAInAGe & FlooD ConTRol 68 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS D DRAInAGe & FlooD ConTRol PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS D 69 City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three PReSeRvATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS P 71 PReSeRvATIon 72 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS P PReSeRvATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS P 73 PReSeRvATIon 74 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS P PReSeRvATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS P 75 City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three PuBlIC SAFeTY PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS P 77 PuBlIC SAFeTY 78 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS P PuBlIC SAFeTY PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS P 79 PuBlIC SAFeTY 80 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS P PuBlIC SAFeTY PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS P 81 PuBlIC SAFeTY 82 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS P City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 85 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 86 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 87 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 88 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 89 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 90 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 91 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 92 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 93 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 94 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 95 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 96 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 97 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 98 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 99 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 100 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 101 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 102 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 103 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 104 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 105 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 106 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S SeRvICe FACIlITIeS PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S 107 SeRvICe FACIlITIeS 108 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS S City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 111 TRAnSPoRTATIon 112 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 113 TRAnSPoRTATIon 114 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 115 TRAnSPoRTATIon 116 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 117 TRAnSPoRTATIon 118 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 119 TRAnSPoRTATIon 120 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 121 TRAnSPoRTATIon 122 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 123 TRAnSPoRTATIon 124 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 125 TRAnSPoRTATIon 126 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 127 TRAnSPoRTATIon 128 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 129 TRAnSPoRTATIon 130 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 131 TRAnSPoRTATIon 132 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 133 TRAnSPoRTATIon 134 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 135 TRAnSPoRTATIon 136 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T TRAnSPoRTATIon PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T 137 TRAnSPoRTATIon 138 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS T City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three wATeR MAnAGeMenT PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W 141 wATeR MAnAGeMenT 142 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W wATeR MAnAGeMenT PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W 143 wATeR MAnAGeMenT 144 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W wATeR MAnAGeMenT PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W 145 wATeR MAnAGeMenT 146 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W wATeR MAnAGeMenT PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W 147 wATeR MAnAGeMenT 148 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W wATeR MAnAGeMenT PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W 149 wATeR MAnAGeMenT 150 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W wATeR MAnAGeMenT PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W 151 wATeR MAnAGeMenT 152 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W wATeR MAnAGeMenT PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W 153 wATeR MAnAGeMenT 154 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W wATeR MAnAGeMenT PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W 155 wATeR MAnAGeMenT 156 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W wATeR MAnAGeMenT PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W 157 wATeR MAnAGeMenT 158 PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS W City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three APPenDIx PRoJECT DESCRIPTIoNS A Recurring Capital Maintenance Projects Recurring capital maintenance projects reflect the recurring expenditure needs of the City. These projects include budget appropriation for one fiscal year, and are reviewed by the Budget staff as part of the budget development process each year. The desired goal is to close out the projects within one year. The projects may be carried forward into the next fiscal year when their completion requires more time than originally anticipated. The recurring capital maintenance projects are assigned a project number with the prefix “Y”. operating Projects During the FY 2010/11 budget development process staff identified various projects that did not meet the criteria of a capital project, and moved them out of the CIP and into the operating budget under a new category titled operating Projects. These projects specifically reflect operating and maintenance expenditures that do not result in the creation of a capital asset. operating projects Include: • Additional, replacement, or repair of operating equipment and machinery. • Master plans and studies • Public art 161 City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three City of Scottsdale, Arizona Adopted FY 2010/11 Budget Capital Improvement Plan - Volume Three