Date: January 25,2018, To: Board of Park Commissioners From: Wade Walcutt, Director of Parks PARKS Subject: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND FUNDING BACKGROUND At the December 18, 2017 Board meeting the Board approved the FY2019 capital budget which included budget exception requests to help close the gap between the ‘amount of capital funds targeted for Parks by the City adminstration and the ‘amount needed to just keep up with annual infrastructure needs and impending Drojects. And it was pointed out that this budget exception would not even begin Cover the costs ofa backlog of deferred capital needs. ‘The Director said he would come back to the Board at the next meeting with information on the capital improvement budgeting process, deferred projects, Specific infrastructure needs, and priorities. And that this information and Board discussion would help initiate further study on how to address unmet capital ‘improvement necds with new funding sourees. Deferred Capital I ‘The annual need to correct safety hazards, fix broken infrastructure, and keep up withthe needs of aging and deteriorating buildings, utilities, roads, walks, retaining walls and park features is $4 million (See Attachment A’~ “Park Infrastructure Typical Annual Needs”). Annual capital appropriations to Cincinnati Parks has not come anywhere near this amount in swell aver a decade. The average. annuel appropriation for the past five years is $1.96 million and this has been diminishing, Recent appropriations and future targets are now about $1.6 million annually. Over the last decade (including the current budget of $1.66 milion, the average funding fom the City has been $2.44 million a year, In addition to this annual shortfall of funding to address typical annual needs, the 2007 Parks Master Plan called for additional funds 10 address infrastructure improvements and enhancements aeross the park system, The total unmet capital improvement needs at Parks for the first 10 years since plan adoption now exceeds ‘$58 million and this has been referred to as the “Deferred Maintenance” funding ap (see Attachment B - “Parks Capital Improvement Program from 2007 Master Plan 2007-2016"). tachment B shows the Master Plan funding recommendations ‘compared to appropriations).Defining Capital Needs ‘The Park Board’ annual capital improvement budget is built through a process that relies on the following: 1) 2007 Parks Master Plan ~ The plan's capital improvements component lists capital needs and costs. The plan is projected to take from 10 to 20 years to implement. Though it indicates the amounts needed snnvally from the city’s capital improvement budget, it also shows the amounts of private and other public dollars needed for each project. The master plan provides guidance on capital improvement needs but by its nature its implementation must constantly ‘beadjusted to respond to changing circumstances, needs and available funding, 2) Life Cycle Costs ~ This provides a more detailed breskdown of capital needs for every element of park infrastructure in every park. Costs take into consideration both short term and longer term infrastructure needs. They are derived from life cycle formulas. Basic mainterance, renovation and replacement costs are shown annually for every element at every site, The intent iso invest annually inal infrastructure to keep it in geod, working condition, Basically the life cycle costs are @ guide which depicts ideal conditions of inastructure investment. (see Attachment C~ “Infrastructure Life Cycles and Costs”) 3) Annual Capital Improvement Budgets/Current Needs ~ The City runs the ‘capital improvement program on a bi-annual basis. All ity departments submit ‘two-year budget requests, though City Council only appropriates funding ‘anaually. Generally forthe 2 year ofthe budget process, departments resubmit the 2" year budget, which often needs to be adjusted to respond tothe amount of funding evalale at tha tine. ‘The Perk Board’s annual budget request is guided by the Master Plan and by Life Cycle Costs, but ultimately itis finally shaped by what are the most urgent current infrastructure needs atthe time which include a review of deferred projects, new community requests and city and Park Board priorities. The final request is aly tempered by the departmental budget target that Parks is given from the budget office, and the amount of total capital resourves that the city expects to have availa. Since the demands on the city's capital budget far exceed the resources available, many park projects are often deferred while others can only be addressed in phases over several budget years. Parks Master Plan is a general guide for capital improvement needs but it must be ‘considered in light of curent conditions. Essentially iti supplemented by annual infrastructure assessments, life cycle costs, and annual capital budgeting ‘Capital budgeting also takes into account community requests, opportunities to leverage City dollars such as through matching grants, and the remaining needs ‘rom deferred projects. Projects and needs are then prioriized with many of the capital noeds being deferred to future budget requests. This then forms the basisforthe Park Board capital budget request submitted annually tothe City along with projected future capital needs, geneally fox the following six years Prior to making these requests, the Board is given a “target” budget which is provided by the City Administration based on the total amount of capital resources the city expects to have on hand in the next budget year. The Board's requested ‘budget is gereraly far less than the actual need since the request is made knowing. that resources will not be adequate to meet all the needs identified by all city departments. As an example, the FY2018 target was $1.66 million, the Board ‘request was $4 million (a fraction of the overall need) bu the appropriation was the target amourt. The recently submitted FY2019 budget target was $1,627 million and the Board request was once again $4 million. ‘pital Fundin; ‘Overall there are four basic budget considerations that go into what the Park Board ‘requests annually for capital support. These are; 1) What did the Master Plan say, 2) What does life eycle cost analysis recommend and whathas been deferred, 3) ‘What are the current conditions/needs/opportunities and community requests, and 4) How much money is available and how much can we reasonably expect. Appropriations have been consistently below the amounts requested cach yeur, and the fundsreceived generally go toward the highest priorities of removing safety hhazards, correcting severe deterioration, renovatiag/replacing failed infrastructure, and extending the useful life of infrasructure assets, (see ‘Attachment D ~ “Capital Improvement Priorities”) Given the lack of adequate capital dollars from the City budget, many projects continue to be deferred and some basic infrastructure needs go unfunded, (Cleary there has not been sufficient City capital funding to adress needs and the list of deferred projects continues to grow. Parks has pursued grant opportunities at the State and Federal level, and some eapital improvements were made with these other public fands. Private fundraising hus also helped meet some of these needs, with Smale Riverfront Park being a particularly suocessful example. Collaborations with various partners in the private and public sector has also helped meet some capital needs. Examples ofa public collaboration are the leases with Great Parks of Hamilton County which successfully funded the improvemen: and maintenance of ‘0 city parks al no cost tothe City. And collaborations with 3CDC renovated and expanded Washington and Ziegler Parks. It is at the locel government level, however, that new capital resources need to be pursued in the near term. And it should be noted that this is an issue citywide (and regionally and nationally) for public inrastracture in general Funding in the Future ‘The primary source of capital improvement funds for Parks isthe City of Cincinnati through its annual capital improvement budget. Budget dollar in the past and into ‘the foreseeable future do not appear to be adequate to meet the most basi level of‘capita! ned in parks let alone fund the backlog of deferred projects. It should be noted that there Inve been umber of instances o° additional capital ‘appropriations from the City capital budget for special projects, essentially ouside of and in addition to the base capital budget for park infrastructure. This provess hhas funded some significant projets in recent years including Washington Park (14 million), Ziegler Park ($10 million), Westwood Town Hall Park ($4 million) and improvements in two Mt. Auburn Parks. And one “mega project” ouside of ‘the annual capital funding for park infrastructure for over a decade has been Seale Rivertont Park. As important a these projects are, however, the basic need for capital improvement funding for park infrastructure has not diminished and eurent levels of City funding will not solve the problem. There are limited opportunities for Federal and State grants to pay for base infrastructure and private fundraising cannot be relied ‘on to pay for large portion of this need. Collaborations will continue to be sought to fill some of these gaps, but again, this eannot be the primary or even a reliable socondary source of eapital funding. A levy is currently in place forthe county park system operated by “Great Parks”. City residents fund part of the county park system through property taxes, though ‘most county parks are outside of city limits. Lease agreement with “Great Parks" for Ferbank and Armleder Parks bring county parks management and operation to these pars, returning some city levy dollars back tothe city. And Parks and DOTE. have been working with county parks and private partners 1» advance bike trail planning within city limits. That being said, the bulk of the county levy funding from city residents do not directly benefit city parks. A levy to fund city parks was fon the ballot in 2015 but was defeated, ‘Designating a percentage of annual city budgets for Parks as is the case in many ‘ther cities was proposed in the Parks Master Plan but bas never been brought forward. Increasing the earnings tax to help fund parks has boen discussed in the ‘ast but has also not been pursued. FINDINGS ‘The above-described materials demonstrate the infrastructure needs of parks, how ‘these meds were derived, and the funding gaps in meeting these needs. Because of limited capital funding, many projects have been deferred and priorities have been developed to determine which projects should be funded first. The Board should review this material, confirm or add to the recommended priorities, and consider appointing a committee which would study future funding possibilities and then ‘make recommendations on future funding strategies.ichments 4 Atachient A — Park instuctre Typical Annual Neots ‘+ Attachment B— Master Plan Capi! inprovements Card to Actual Cty Punding Aitchment C— Life Cele SpradsoeSunsnary of Need ‘Artachment CI Explanation of Formals for Lit Cele Coss ‘Atchment D —Captal Improvement PissesCAPITAL BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS PARK INFRASTRUCTURE TYPICAL ANNUAL NEEDS Sanuary 2018 i Pavilions and Lodves - The Park Board has total of 2 pavilion and lodges and most of these structures ere built between 1940 and 1960. The buildings snd the grounds round them arc rented ot esa service to the pubic and asa way to bring revenue to Parks, In edition to addressing base novation needs of ‘hese buildings and replacement of aging infrastructure elements suchas building systems, they also need ‘upgrades and enhancements fo serve users demands. An on-going program of renovations and enhancements cost $300,000 Comfort Stations ~ There are 23 free standing comfort stations inthe park sytem and they are generally ‘over 65 yeas old. They require upgraded finishes, new lighting and more sustainable features, Psa call for renovating 12 buildings at an average cost of $50,000 each. The total cost is $600,000, An annual investment o $120,000 is recommended over five years. Additional general repairs to existing comfort ‘ations cost approximately $20,000 annually. ‘Shelters Ther are 24 open shelter buildings in Parks. These are 60 to 70 years old and requir an on-going rogram of renovations and replacements of thet ros, walls, floors and doors and some upgries to lites and their sites. Some shelters are renal sites which provide a service tothe public as well ta way t bring revenue o parks, Other shelters are nonteservable and provide first come/fis served facilites, The anna need is $100,000, Service Buildings ~ A 2012 study of sx sevice facilites showed an overall need of $7,50,000 (in 2012 dollars) for both new and upgraded facilities. This work is needed to corect code deficiencies, achieve ‘renter energy savings, and provide for more efficent and larger work and storage space. The new and ‘upgraded facilities wil also provide more presecton for equipment, supplies and vehicles, cating down on loss and deterioration of these items. Since the original study was conducted a number of enhancements have been made. The curet total estimated need is $6.5 million and this could be spread over a number of years. Estimated annual need f $1,300,000 over 5 years Offices-Park Board offices are located in various parks ina total of five buildings, Most ofthese buildings ate over 80 years old. Building nceds include on-going renovations and replacemcat of eging in rastruture ‘nd building systems, Project needs from year to year will vary depending on building condtons and vier ‘needs. The annual need is $50,000, [Neture Centers There are five mature centers inthe park system dating from the 1930s up te the 1970s. In addition to basi renovation need, two of these centers alto require upgrade of furnishings, finishes and ‘educational displays. “The cost for this level of renovation work i estimated at $150,000 pa center for @ total cost of $200,000. Doing this work spread over four years is an estimated annual need of $75,000. ‘Additional general repairs to nature centers cost approximately $20,000 annuly. Krohn Greenhouses Krohn Conservatory is over 75 years old, sare the buildings at Warder Nursery that, support Krohn and the horticultural needs ofthe park system, The annul renovation and infrastructure replacement needs at Krohn are $40,000 which generally covers work on the HVAC, plumbng, gation, clectric and control systems as wel as glass replacements and various building work. Warder Nursery Consists of 15 separate buildings and greeabouses and work there annually costs $10,000, ‘Vandalism Repairs ~ Tere isan annual need to remove graft and to repair of replace material that are vandalized. Recurring vandalism has damaged doors and windows, rot, gulers and downspouts, and buildings and rains. Prior year expenditures show a need of at least 835,000 annually. Other Facilites» Thre are 21 buildings that do not it into ther specific categories. These include stall service buildings, garages, storage buildings, bandstends/perZormance venues and concesson buildings,‘These also include several small buildings inthe pak system that are rented to other entities with these organizations paying reat and utes while Parks remsias responsibie for the infrastructure needs ofthese Dulldngs. Project needs fom year to year will vary dopending on building conditions and use needs. The ‘anna noed ie $80,000, Waterfront Waterton! improvements and Deferred Mainteaance ~The downtown waterfront consists of several parks, ‘The newest (not counting SRP) is Friendship Park which s 15 years od. Bicentenaial Commons is 29 years ‘old, and Yeatman’s Cove is 42 years old. Tey al see heavy use, they contin many special features, sod they are suffering from deteriorating infrastructure, Inthe ease of Bicenennial Commons and Yeatman's Cove, they also suffer fom years of defered maintenance (om the period of time tht they were under the management ofa different deparient). The estimated annual need at these parks is $100,000. ‘This ‘would cover annual repairs to concrete walks, uty repairs, sprayground repairs, panting and lighting replacement. Additionally, there isan estimated need of $300,000 annually funded over 10 years (0 adress larger capital projects atthe Waterfront including extensive paver and concrete walk replacement projets, comfort station renovations, and renovations tothe P&G Pavilion. Uatiies [Renovations and Replacements - Jur as isthe case for aging buildings, Park's utility systems of sewers, ‘waterline, gu ines, electric lines and communication lines are aging and require upgrades and replacement, ‘Additionally, since the gstem is 0 old and so much oft is underground, thre are annual breaks in ulity lines hat equi inmate leaion. These erorgeacies happen every Year, cannot be predicted, and of les are expensive. Capital expenditure histories show an average need of $180,000 every year for ‘emergency work. Additionally, there are project-by-project needs to replace specific utlity Hines and Lightin System Replacement Poisst -The majority of Parks have clesric service, eletic outlets and panels, and many have fll lighting systems, witha variety of light poles. There are 38 parks with lighting stems. Of these, 27 area least 25 years old and 16 ofthese are over 35 years old. Many of the ight poles ae deteriorated and need to be replaced and many ofthe light fixtures are outdated, obsolete snd heavily ‘nergy-consuming. The poles at Alms are concrete and ae cracking. The poles thoughout Burmet Woods ‘ace rusting and some appear structurally unsound. The estimate forthe Burmet Woods projec lone (total replacement) is in exces of $25 million. Other poles snd lighsin need of short tena replacement di to condition and age include Drake, McEvoy, and Lytle Park, among others. The total ight pole replacement needs of the system have not yet been ett. Structures ‘Walls Brides There re many miles of retaining walls nthe park system. These walls support roadways, ‘walks, buildings and overlooks. Many also date from the 1930s and 1940s, Addtionaly, there are such other structures as aging bridges and concete-lned lakes and ponds. Parks manages 34 retaining walls and other structures throughout the system. ‘The replacement value of these structures isin exeess of $16 milion. Funding is needed to replace each srutire on 50-year cycle plus annual minor maintenancelepair work. ‘This equals a total annual cost projection of approximately $656,000 forall ofthese kinds of srucares However, addressing walls and related stuctures in the most need in atypical year, the need i $150,000 annually, Circulation Roads! Packing - The park system has 64 lane miles of roadways pls numerous parking lots and parking ‘areas. Paving costs $60 per square yard and repeving just 2.5 miles of roadway annually on a 25-year replacement eyele is $300,000 annually. Sidewalks! Steps ~ The pak sytem has approximately 68 miles of walkways, pathways and sep systems. Many of the steps are stone and were but in the 1930s and 1940s and need repirs or replacements Walkways, generally concrete, have a life spen of approximately 25 years. These circulation systems are essential t0 provide general access to parks and to provide universal accessibility as sites permit. As anexample, replacing 400” of sidewalk the length ofa cit block) costs approximately $15,000 The estimated, ‘annual need forall walks and steps is atleast 100,000, ‘rls - The park system has 65 miles of hiking tls, seven miles of bridle tails and nine miles of bike nil. These tris all require annual renovation and cakuncemeats, replacement of broken of aging tail bridges and related trail work. Extensive rebuilding of a trail is approximately $80,000 per mile. Typical clearing and basi trail repair i about $2,000 per mile. The annual need to cover basle maintenance for hl the hiking trail mileage per year is $65,000 though this would not be adequate for major tail rebuilding or relocation, Parks master plan additionally cll for new tails. Individual Building Needs ‘Several park facilities have major renovation needs bu these have not yet been finalized or budgeted. These include the following sites: lnwcod Pavilion - Estimated renovation of this histori building is over $2,000,000. Renovation ofthis faclity would support the Uptown Parks Pan, Owls Nest Pavilion ~ Removing the building and redesigning the site is estimated at approximately $100,000. Ezzard Charles Site~ A brick amphitheater, concrete plaza, ised concrete ramp and a covered balcony structure are severely deteriorated, n hazardous condition and shouldbe removed. Costs are estimated 0 exceed $150,000, Warder Nursery ~ The Warder Nursery is severely outdated and does not provide support 0 Krohn Conservatory efficiently, Wark a this fciity i valued at $1,000,000. 7. Other tems uriohines ~ Parks as a large inventory of benches, picnic tables, gil, trash receptacles ight poles, railing, fences and signs, and they require reglar maintenance and a regular cycle of replacement. At examples, a single new beach costs SI,200 ad a sinle picnic table costs $700, There are over 450 picnic lables inthe park system plus hundreds of beaches, Every year numerous alings, fences and signs need to ‘be replaced or repaired and replacement benches and picnic tables are necded, The annual need is $120,000, Play Set Replacement and Repairs - A stteay has been developed to replace outdtedeteriorated play ‘equipment and safety surfaces. Thre are 18 outdated swing sets and 22 playsets that area Teast 15 years od. The life cyle of play equipment is approximately 10 to 20 years Al ofthis play equipment need to be replaced at some point. Playsets average $125,000 each to replace and sovng eis average $16,000 each to replace, Replacement of all play equipment will cost about $3,000,000 er $300,000 a year over ten years ‘Additionally there are 14 play areas with rubberized safety surfaces which cost approximately $1Sisf to ‘place. Thelifecycle of play suraeneappnsimately 10 years thogh some need patching or replacement ‘even sooner. The strategy isto replace one safety surface a year at a cost of about $60,000 annually. Lay, there isan annual need for minor repairs, replacement of broken elements, and replacement of mats a annual cost of $50,000. Total fanding for lay surface replacements and play seUpars repairs annually is $110,000. Combining these anal costs with the above equipment replacement cyele amounts toa total funding nee for play set replacement and repairs of $410,000 a year. Pblic Art Restoration ~ There are over 40 memorials, monuments and sculptures in parks, These require regular maintenance, and maay require restoration of renovation, Bronze monuments generally require annual cleaning and waxing. Monuments and sculptures of other materials also require regular maintenance, "The estimated annual ned is $20,000, 8. Green lafrastructure Reforestation - Part of the infrstructueof parks includes thousands of tees, Many tree need tobe regularly replaced because of tree loss due to disease and infestations, age, structural condition or storms, Also, itsome instances, for amore sustainable and diverse landscape, mowed areas are replaced with new trees. The ‘annual need is $50,900, ‘Revesetaion/ Landscape Enfancement~ Tere are numerous opportunities for park improvements to mske them more enjoyable and useful to visitors and which can make perks more sustainable. There sre still ‘portunities to increase accessibility to park facilities, to improve rental facilities which bring revenue to patks, an, thee is 2 constant need to replace aging of diseased or damaged tres and filing andseapes, Further, new landscapes are neoded to dscrease storm water impacts on parks, crease the amount and velocity of storm water entering the sewer system, and fo create more sustainable and more diverse landscapes. Its aso beeo estimated tht there are 1,500 acres covered with honeysuckle and other invasives and that renoval of invasive plants cost over $5,500 pe acre. The annual need for new landscape and revegetation is $75,000. Engincering/ Design Geotech Studies Geotech Studies! Structural Assessnents/Encinecrig’ Environmental Studies and Design - There are generally range of engineering and other special studies required every yearn support of project needs or ‘emergency needs. This has averaged $300,000 annually, There ar also projec specific needs related to other projects inthe park ystem and these are generally budgeted as part ofthese specifi projects.‘ued soyeou ox wu o6png euryonnseiut onoge a eNdAIERAD Joue10M 95019 Sue prenuo} own aney senenU pue spedu juewenoduu eydeo mau snoen poidope Sem UEC oun souls BAK OF eat Ul + 10 osam specu eumonsisesjyuouserem Te 050}4049 ‘OD JO fANJOO OY JopUN Sem LOLHOTEM WMOIWMOP OP 's}809 onoge oi U0 ued ou u Poprul “opnou ou eve scoloid esnyanuseyu so} UejdsoiseU 24 U pos Soaunos Buput “hcjenest0g ‘wjony Jo uasuedxe o¥2 20 "uolsnboe fed "Wed WoIpoNRy eFeWS SE YRS UE JORSOW ALY UH pasodoAd BYVEd Mau epNIOLLIOU OP IsCD ORNL + 2002 soquoides ‘rounea Aig fq panaudde Wels 1856619 SION ores |erzso _|seeve |eosre joevss _lezsrz |voere_|szorz [20069 levee _|voooe TERNS feoar'ez lowe? Joooz |ieert ooo jeceze leseoe lonsoe [sesre levere looure swonendoridy| josevioe |cezee [size —losre7 —losveZ [savor ro1_|zssror [e609 _|osore freer joszoes [s001'y [seor'» lozeez —lozcez losers Sis |osert loser | _seaze jeameu 9 syed poowoquBieN jooov'er [raizy lousy Joutey Jovi osis'y lost» [eves |zva6y —lorrer lower SHUSUIBAOIGUN samonAeeapUl weld 0180 Gyior) aorta voz | soz T ztoz | voz T ovoz | s00z | e002 | Zon: oz secwoo0g, (9102 - 2002) Nvid U3LSYW 4002 NOUS WWYDOUd LNAW3AONd! TWLldvo S¥u¥dINFRASTRUCTURE LIFE CYCLES AND COSTS Costs were derived from several sources: = Records of prior renovaionieplacement costs * Contracorcensutant experience ifesracure audits and cost eatimates *Proectfaciy planning “Industry standards and fe eycte costs Lifecycle costs are based on certain assumptions about he longevity of various infrastructure elements. These costs ae broken down into two calagories; shor1o-mié tom needs vs, long erm needs = Thelong term needs imply major renovation work if not replacement = The shert io mid-term needs are forthe renovation o repiacementof elements which have arelalvely short lcogevty, generaly ten years or loss, and includes anrusl rehablaton and replacement needs. The ‘renovation cyceis ferent or ciferenteloments, ‘Vandalism and heavy public use tend to diminish the te expectancy of park iastructre. = _ Assumptions abou the exten of maintenance the various elements wil recelve annual i factor. = adequate maintenance isnot provided, future capital improvement costs woul ise. In many ‘tances, ‘adequate maintenance funding was not made avaiable and tis contributed Wo lnereased cost er Balding systems and buling element, Genaaly the life cycles crive the budget needs for iratructure renova planning end facility planning dives te cost of specie park and park fachty renovations ans replacements ‘Adétional elements of Parcs ifastucture which have thelr own life cyces include furnishings (pcre abies. benches, trash cans, gil, fences, rains, signs), gculptures and monuments, rearing wal, structures such as Stop, bridge and coneretodned ponds, and “green” infraatructure suche londscapes and Woes, Frequency Bullings Buldina Systems Bulking Elements (shorlmia term) {feng ier) 1) Painting: 5-7 years 1) Roofs: Metalslate: 50-75 years (ot longer) 2) Mechanical: 10 yoars ‘ult-up, shingle:15-20 years 3) Finishes: 51 years 2) Masonry: 80-75 years (r longer) 4) AC systems: 18 years 53) Doors! Windows: 30-40 years 5) Heaing 18 yoare ‘2 Wood Elements: 2-40 years 6) Foor te: 10-18 yoars 5) Toles 20 years 7) Motors: 5 years £8) Guters/Downspouts: 20 years 8) Pumps: 10 years 7 Plumbing: 40 years 8) Sinksfaucots: 10-15 years 8) Elon 30 years 10) Lighting: 25 years 9) Watex’Sewer nes: 30-40 years (or onger) 10) Light poles: 25 years ‘Concrete Walks 20025 yours Biackiop Waks 10 years Roadways (Crack seaing 5-10 years Repaving: 20025 yearsPlaygrounds Replacoment chips onnusiy Replacement equipmentrubber surfaces: 10 yeare Rubberized surface patching § years Masonry Wall ‘Clesring/Poining: 10-15 years Majo work 40 years Costs Buildings: For ite cyle-derived costs a formula was used, based on current costs of replacing ‘ach bulting. Using the expected fe cytes fer bung elemenss, @ schedule of building renovations and the cost for each was developed, ‘© Wehave assumed that 20% ofthe replacement cost of buldings i tod to building systems (.e.ighting, MEP, HVAC, fishes). which require renovation over a ten-year eyes © Werhave assumad 30% is relates to building elements (ie roofing, doors, windows, was) which require renovation on a 30 year eycl. Half ofthe replacement value of each bung, foundation and walls, ts foors and is roo structure, eranariy do not need lobe replacad and thove dls, therefore, ‘af not neecod in future captal Budgets excep or extraordinary creumstances he Structural falure or where there may be significant changes In use required. Some buildings, suchas open sheers, wil have few bulsng systems (no HVAC oF plumbing for example) and wal therfore not have many shor.term needs Playgrounds: ‘) Large swing replacement: $24 000/Small wings: $18,000 '8) Medium sizo equipment wth chipsimtes amaunt of rubberizod surface: $60,000 ©) Larger playoround with fubberzed surface: $120,000 to $140,000 LUghtng Systems: Moderate size park ighting, wth postop lights: $200,000 to $200,000 Trails: There are 65 miles of ral, A single mie of major renovaton/val rebulding Is approximately $80,000, The annual need for base repairs and brushitree clearing on wali $2,000rmte. funds were provided for just two mies of ral rebuilding ($160,000) annual, k woul ake over 30 years to rebuild the tral systom, Plans cal fr $381,000 annual fr tras which woul take care of 477 mies. Ais annual rate Itwoul take 13 years to renovate the ene tral sytem. Invasive Plant Eradication: There ae 1,500 aeres of parkland covered with honeysuckle and other lnvasives wich are choking out the ecosystem, Removal of these invasive species of plants cost $5,606 per ‘acre. Pans cal fr $425,000 annual for invasive plant removal bleh would clet 70 scres per year. A this ‘annual rate it would tke over 20 years to clear the system lores Hazard elimination + CosuBenefit (leveraging matching funds, ‘Legal mandates or Reguatory compliance oat savings, revenue generating, obs) Project completion (inshes phased projects with related Service Betterment (increased senvces or already commited or expandod funding) to meet demandincreased qualty) Prevention of asset falure or Extended usafl fe of asset _- Facilies generating revenue Projects leveraging investmentisevelopment + Projects serving the most users (regional paresfiacites)CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRIORITIES ‘enn ofp dla ino psd pt ei rbd on mn ii Tht ping infrasructue requires constant maintenance, renovation and replacement, yet thee is ‘Edu foting to dress hse problems, rie area ray Wott ares te mon es cptal projects with the amount of City capital improvement funding made available in any given year. The backlog of capital needs and new and curent needs are assessed and ranked with hese priorities as guides. ‘The resulting priory list of projects and needs can then form the basis for guiding fundraising efforts of | the Parks Foundation, funding requests ofthe City, and increased and focused efforts to seck other peblic and private funds, grat, and new partnerships and collaborations. Th erteria fr ranking projects ar as follows: Infrastructure Comecting/lininaing safety hands Halting/preveating deterioration of infrastructure Extending useful feof facility Repairing broken infastuctare ‘Reducing maitenance costs ‘Conservingenovatng histori aructures General Princio Providing accesible facilities Improving parts equitably throughout the citysir geographic distribution Preservng/extending recreational valve Increasing security Serving the mest people Enhancing park and facility usefulness and funtion ‘Community support Impacts + Renovating/improving revenue-generatng faites = Improving prominent parks and facilites = Inproving tegionserving pak = Improving parses that promote economic rowthican be eatalysts for neighborhood development [Enhancing pals to draw more use and social interaction, and encourage heals end wellness Leveraging other funding sources (gran, private funding, sponsorships, partnerships) Environment Advancing green infrastructure, improving park facilities energy efficiency, and reducing their carbon footprint + Revegeating and reforesting parks and mitigating storm water impacts ~ Hliminating unsightly conditionsiimproving aesthetics ‘Projects, needs, and opportunities for improvements come from a numberof sources ranging fom the basic blueprint for parks ~ the park masterplan - o curren! and new noods, and the growing list of defered Projects. These sources of capital needs come from the following sources: