11-10-09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• Example 2: 033 Repair of a Damaged Park: • Cash Contribution— It would be appropriate to pay for planning and project preparation costs out of existing City funds/budget. The understanding of the community needs, the potential value added and project costs can be covered by the City Department Budgets. Since the benefit for this project is expected by current residents and will also incur to future residents, it is appropriate to consider using existing funds and/or to also seek commitment of future funds. The damage to the existing park is impairment to a current community asset. Delay or deferral of repair further damages the current community and will not meet the community's expectation that taxes have been collected and paid to maintain a park asset in a functional and undamaged state. • Future Fund Sources—The project should not be expected to wait for the collection of future sources of funds. However if fund balances are insufficient it is not unacceptable to utilize General Obligation Bonds to allow the project to proceed with payment made from future tax levies_ o TIF is not an option (State Exclusion) • Project Valuation Assessment o Criteria: • Numbers of residents impacted (residents on either side and possible destinations) • • Frequency of uses (survey of current pedestrian activities) • Projected life of the community asset (depreciable life) • Potential for ancillary redevelopment along the proposed route (e.g. percent of property with development greater than 30 years).\ o Cost Pro-Forma • Comparison costs to other regional assets • Pro-Forma opportunity costs(is there a property value premium for locations near to parks? is this impaired by the current park?) o Historical Experience • Frequency of damage • Anecdotal complaints • Community survey(business and residents) • Comparable experiences in other communities