The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1980-01-03 Council Packet - Work SessionKenai City Council Work Session January 3, 1980 Capital Improvement Projects / . ~~y~ ' _ _ ~~ `f ~ j, . ~- N ~ 1 , ~ _ T y,~- ~~ . ~ .~t _ . _ \ ~ r~-- ~-a~ ~~~r-~-~ .- _.~+ _ _ _ • -_ ____. ^ _ .t..`t.Y..~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~,~ ~ ~~, ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~s ~~~ ~~,~ ~' ~ . Working Draft, November 1979 i . ~ ~ . f - ~repar~d by: R:'b~'I'~or~e a~d A~ssocia~es ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ -_ - _ _.. ~._ , - -- - . • . J . '; . f' h _ ~ ,r --.- „ ~ - __ . ~ ,^. ~ _ ~~ , [lq •. i i ~ ;'~ /.:7 . ~y' Aq,~ , n S~~ ~~~.• . :, J,; '+~ . : ' r . ~+,, . : , , ~ T'~~.~' r C '~' ~ ~~ ;~~_: ;'~,,~ • ?> .r CITy OF XENAI, ALASIC~ 'J CAPITAI. IMPRQV~iE~iTS PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 1979/80 THItOUGH 1985/86 (Current Year Plus a 5 Year Program) Prepared as aa Elemeat of the Kenai Comprehensive Plan for the City of Kenai and Kenai Peninaula Borough . .. by ' A. W. Thorpe b Associaies 815 Seattle Tower - Saattle, WA 98I01 . 1110 West bth Ave., 0503, Anchorage, Afi 99503 "The preparation of this document was financed in part by funds £rom the Office of Coastal Zoae Management. National Oceanic and Aimospheric Admiaiatration, U.S. Department of Cosnmerce, administered by the Divisioa of Comrnunity Planaiag, Department of Communitq and Regional Affairs." _~ i J t ~ _ ~ ~ t /, , ~ r ~ .- ---~ . z. ~rTaonucTioy A Capital Iwprovements Program (CIP) is one of the means whereby a muaicipality can implement the Community Development Plan. It is the pr2ncipal means whereby the aunicipal government can place its expenditure of public funds for loag-tezm improveaents on an orderly and logical schedule and at the same time give proper consideratioa to the periodic and frequeaClq limited availability of public funds. Sisnply stated, a Capital Improvemeats Program (CIP) is a plan for spending public monies £or public improvements. The City of Kenai is completino a Comprehensive Plan, prepared by a consultant team in 1979 with the assistance of the Borough Planaing Staff. It aill be adopted in Iate 19~9 or early 1980. It is intended to sezve as a general guide in matcing decisioas affecting the futare growth and development of the City. Aecognizing the aeed to place expenditures for public improvemeats oa an orderly basis aad seeing the need to meet priority needs first, the Borough and City directed that a CIP be prepared as part of the s~:: =.. SL'.-~:;equeatlq the City and Borough sought the assistance of the State of Alaska, Department of Communi.tq and Regional Affairs, in pzeparing a CIP. The Department responded to the request with a planning grant to cover part of the c:, :. of the project. The City and Borough then sought the servies of a pZanning -•:,nsultant to sssist ia prepariug the CIP. The Capital Improvements Program lists thase pnblic i~provement projects curreatly foreseen as necessary to accom.~nodate gro~rth levels and provide essential public services during variable specified time periods, primarily 6 qears. The program i.s not a budget; it does not coanit funds for laad acquisittou or pro~ect coastruction, since this is the annual task of the City Couacil r~hen it weighs available fuads with competino, equally desirable expenditure proposals. This process must be developed within a framework that a~ui.deline for the annual budset review. ,~. _ _--~..___-~ The Capital Ir~provements Program is, then, an overvieW of up-corsing ma~or expeases ahich the city muat face, and a ranking of thess projects iato two categories: Thosa deemed raost esseatial to accommodate in a short run pexiod J ~ ~ ~ ~I / r . a . ~ ~~i . ,, Uf ~Orn Qtt~~r'f C~2Yk ~ ~n;~. 5 ~i~uaurc5 ~ty~2 ~ ~ Gibvrcry ,. ~'ol~c~ '~` ~ ~uGylw" f ~ ~ . . . . IRIo~'P~ , ,i /~ , ; ~ ~'`~a~ ~~ CN~Pi C.6At~F~ ' ~ ~~' ~,la~~~`9 . --..~.... _ - ~~ ____~~..._, ~____~_--- -----..---__._-~_._ - -- - ~ ~ ~ T~ F~ _ ~- _ " ^ ~~ _ \. ~_-- .~-•. ~~" "~+-.~~ ~ ~Ci ~'LJ ~ f ?,.~ttCc.(~, ' ~ --,-- , /~80 Ca~~~ 1~n~r~acr~res~~ p~x,v~u~~ ~ ~ ~ _ 1~..Q,ue~o~o~u~u.~ av~( ~1 ~t'~o ~~c~'~ _ ~ ~i~ c~,.~h ~j ~ - ~{~oYt~-flr ~ ~E~ ~'O /~ ~-' f' ~~CG- ~1 S , ~ Ci . ~'~k a`~f ~ ~~ ~ {~ ~~ . . G'an1~s I g5tort , i~.~~:u~,~. G~,~„ !~'arla~r' (~imml~+~'1 G.~ci~ - POtlr~Jh '" ( - ~ ~ 1 G{Irprn^~ G~dv~rif ~cn~( ~ G~y,,t~~,dr ~ui~t-~ ~1or~ ~clw~l~ Pla~tn~n9 , ~ ~ :Ltbnsr~j ~a~uzt ` ; ..._.. ...... ~ ...~ ~. ._._. ~ . , ~ G~d vt~ .I~Zw~ ~1a ~1 i ~J~ ~ , ~ . ~mm~~r~t ;~g ~ L.. _ _... _._.~ _.~_._._._._. _ ____~ ' ~ ;~ .. f ; ~~ - --. _ _ . . r -r -~ - ~ -~ ~ ~. . : ~. ~v. " •~ ~ and those which are tentatively scheduLed for a midrange period ei.ther because of less im~ediate need or because potential financin~ appears more remote. In theory the process of capital improvenent programming ahould ba accomplished in a series of steps as follous: 1. Aa inventory of potential projects, including cost es[imates and aa . iaitial evaiuation of their relative prl.ority. This step will be based in part oa recommendatioas of City and Borough staffs, the City Manager, Advisory Plannfng Comaissioa, other Citq Boards aad Commissions and the Citq Council. 2. Analysis of all projects usually iavolving discussioa with the department respoasible for the proposal. 3. A preliminary prioritizatioa by the City Pfanager. ~ 4. Investigation of the financing capabilities of the community and the .~:lation of thesa to differeat project categories. S. Sources of fuadiag Will be ident3fied. . 6. A schedule of all proj ects in relation to planning, design, inplemeataEioa and construction to assess their interrelatioaship and financiag requirements. 7. Formal adoptioa of CIP after public hearings. 8. Selectioa of projects for each anaual budget. The purposes of the CIP include: 1. To eaable the Council, other agencies, and the public to comprehend the magnitude of major pro,jects requiring attention. 2. To eaable the Couacil, City Manager, city departments, commissioas, and others to ~udge nseded iwprovement projects vithin a general ranking or priority system. 3. To pravide a comprehensfve listing of contenplated public projects and a general time scale for construction, so that other public and private projects aay be scheduled cooperatfvely to minimize coastruction disruption and maximize j oint development opportunities. 4. To serve as a coordinating tool for city departa~ents and other public ageucies, and as a long range financial planning aid. ~ ~ JG-,(fl,G ~ ~ ~b Co ~JG ~2 D ~E,eA~~'6 ~r, ~ r " 3 ~ . ~ I p~`~. _ i ~ ~ ~ T~ r .- ~ ~~ _ . \ ~ ~•~. '~_.~ ~ M,~~ -~ . __ . ..~.,,..a~l ~ . , Fuuding sources have been identified as they are I~.nown or have a probability of being obtained. Because long range projections of funding levels may be difficult to assign, ia some cases, cost ranges have been employed. Some cost estimates for projects listed ia the program have been developed by the departmeats involved along with the consu2tants. Obviously these costs can be refined as each project nears the coastructioa stage. Loag-terct maintenaace costs may a2so be identified as proj ects are prioritized following review of the draft. This is not a static program, each year it should be updated, with newer, more precise cost estimates and additional projects as plans are develop2d. Annual review of this CIP by the Council will ineure conformance to long raage planni~g goals. The citq shou2d devise a regular, consisteat revie~a process for al.l major improvement projects that includes the following cbeckpoints: 1. Preparatioa of a project description, preliminary cost and funding estimates,-time schedale, and prelimiaary assessraent of all pezmits aad revievs required, generally by the departmeat or agency proposing the pro~ect. 2. Circulation and review of ehe proposed proj ect bq all city agencies, particularly to discern possible joint developaent opportunities. Other public ageacies and utility companies might be included in this atep . . 3. Detailed review of the project bq the planning staff aad cormaission, with respect to the eavironmental impact and the project's conformitq with the comprehensive plan. 4. Inclusioa of the pro,ject in the tea year improvement program. itself subject to annual review and restudy as to project priorities, fundiag opportunities, aad scheduliag. , i T ~ ~ - ' ~! ~. i , ! --- ~ - • - . r _ ~ ~ , -_- ,_ °~ '~_ ~ f . ~-~` - - -- - - - - - - - ~.:~ - - - ' - -- - -~ Studv Tea~n Robert W. Thorpe supervised and conducted the C.I.P. study eleaaent, with technical analysis and assistaace by Dr. 24undy aad R~dT/a staff. The entire process ~+ill be assisted aad reviewed by Patricia lhorpe, eaployino her ecoamaic background and present expertise in public ageacy budget and CIp procesaes. Cost estimates are to be reviewed by Dave Derry to insure estimates realistic to the Keuai Peainsula. II. NOMENCLATURE AND DEFINITIONSI ~ Cavital I mprovemenC. Aay ~ajor noarecurriag expenditure or aay ~, expenditure for physical facilities of gover~eat, such as costs for acquisi- tion of land or iaterests in land; constructioa of buildiags or other structures, iacludin,g additioas or major alterations; constructioa of highWaqs or u~j ".:.f lines; fixed equipment; landscaping and similar expenditures. .~ CaQital Imnrovectent Budzet. The list of projects together with the amounts and sources of funds for the coming fiscal year. This is sometimes regarded as the f irst year of the capital improvement program. It is oftea threated as the capital improvement sectioa of tke annual citq budget. ___ Cavital Imarovement Pro~ram. The long-range schedule of projects with '~ their estimated costs wer a period of five to 10 years. The nost common ~ ,'j ~ period is six qears. This covers a five year period beyond the capital `!~'~ improvement budget for the first year. Most'programs are presented in tercis ~ ~: _! of specific calendar or fiscal year 2istinos, although there are some shown in 1References: Princiales and Practice of Urban Planninc. ICMA. Wash D.C. 19b8. The Laa.v,uaQe of the Cities: A Glossarv of Terms. Abraas, Charles. I3ew York. 1971 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - --- - - ' - = E , r` 4 . ~ < , , ~~ ~ .=e , t ~ }! ~ . ~ '+ ' i s Y • • r t I ~ . ,~ ,. '~ ~ r , ~- I . _~~ ~_:_._. ~.:. _.~ ; ., , , _ _ _ _ ~ .-- ;..- _ _~ .. ---. . " --- -_.... ~ i . _ _ - _ _ - - ' - - - - - --- _ - ~--~--~---~ terms of several priority categories w3th a more flexiblz tiae scheduZe. It is custonary to prepare a capital improvement budyet and capital improveaaent program annually, revising Lhe entire prograa and adopting the capital improvemeat budget each year as part of the regular operating budget. Canit~l OutZavs: Expenditures which result in the acquisition of, or additions to, fixed assets. Fixed Assets: Assets of a long-term character which are inteaded to coatinue to be held or used, such as land, buildinga, machiner, furaiture, aad other equipmeat. . Real Proaertv: Land and the improvements thereon. Yersonal Proflertv: Tangible personal property such as automobiles, boats, airplanes, etc. General Oblisaation Boad: Bonds secured by teh unconditional pledge of the municipalitq's credit~'includis~ its taxing powers: Bonds may be pai.d from any revenue source not otherwise earmarked. . Reveaue Bond: Bonds secured by the reveaues received by the municipality from the earaiags fraaa some revenue-producin; eaterprise rather by the geaeral credit aad reveaue sources of the municipality. Aevenue boads are payable solely from the revenue of projects that theq have aade possible and are designed to be self-liquidating obligatioas. Special (or direct) Assessment: Arc assessmenc of tax directlq against benefiting property for purposes of deriviag revenue used to construct a specific improvements or facilutq that benefits one or a group of commonly beaefitiag properties. Definitions of inclusions in a capital program and a capital budget: ~ ~ f -.~ „ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - . _ _ r ,.. _ ~ ~ -~ _ ~ ,-- -.~ - `~~ `~ - f= " - ..~....+. <., • _ - ,..~-...~ = F - - - - " " ~l 1E , • • ~ i,a~~d: NII expenditures ior the acquisition. of land (for the purpose of ,~ _ lo~~-term use by the City) should be inc2uded in a Capttal Iaprovements ~ Program. This Would inc~ude the acquisition in fee sinple as well as paycieats of damage claims arising from the taking of or the use of the Iaad. Structnres: AlI expeaditures far the structures, including aot oalq construction costs but also equipmeat, architectural, engineezing, legal, aad related expenses would be included. Small structures of relativelq nominal I value in relation to the total City holdings would be either excluded from tne capital program and iacluded ia an operating budget as a miaor capital expenditure. . Eguip_ment/Machinerv: All expenditures for machiaery aad equipment that is a part of structures at the time of iaitial acquisftion or constructioa of the structare should be iacluded. For reasoas explained later, certaia acqui- ' . aitioas of small and relativelq iaexpensive pieces of equipneat are also being { , iacluded•in the Keaai Capital Improvements Program. ~ . ~ , ~ . Furnishintts and Eeuivment: Iacluded in the Capital Iaprovements Program only ~ c • whea a part of a new facility or initial equipment such as a.school building, ~ " _ fire statioa or police atation. } ~ . ~ Prelir..:r.::=~, Plans. Investieations and Studies: For many projects, substantial . . -- ~ sums of money are required for prelimiaary plans, investigations and studies ' , _ before the actual construction of the facility begins. Such inquiries, if ~ . _,~~ ~~ simed at possible capital outlays of the character that would be admitted to ,_ ! the capital program, would be properly included 3n the Capital Improvements ~ ,Program. ~ ~ .. , _. _. --- - - - _ --- -- -- - -- - ~, ? ~. ": . i ~ , - i I . ~ ~ ~;: : F•`' ~~ - ~ ~ `, . ': - ~ f, '` ~ ( ' r ~ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ,-__~ ~ ____ - T- ... ,.- - .. T~ --- ~ ---- ~_-... _.~. ~~ l _ _ _ - --- - - -- - - ' - - ~~ ~3 -_" _ " _ " _ _ _ _ _ _ _ " J ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ • ~ [~ III. SU"LKARY OF It~CO'M~iDED PROJECTS ' i T y ` ~ r ~~ \ T- 'r_ `~ '~` `~ ~ ' - t IV. PROPOSID CAPLYaI. PROJECTS Procedural Stevs Era~,loved to ProRram Imvrovements The process of capital iaprovement pro~raamino will ordinarily call for the follo~ring distinct steps: 1. An iaveatory of potential pro~ects, including cost estimates aad an initial evaluation of their relative prioritq. 2. Analysis of these project requests. 3. Investigation of the fiaanci.ag capabilities of the community and the relation of these to differeat pxoject categories. 4. A schedule of project execution in a long-raage program list which considers project relationships to each other and to financial requirements. S. Sel~ction froa this schedule of a slate of projects for early action. :'..1.s geaerallq takes the form of the capital bu3get for the crnsing fiscal year. 6. Formal adopt~oa of the capital budget against the background of the long-range recoarmended program~ usual2y after so~e form of pub2ic review. Criteria for Includinrt a Yroiect in the CIP In determining what qualifies u proposed project for inclusion ia a capital iciprovement program it is necessary to establish standards and measure each item or project against these standards. These criterfa can and should vary from community to commuaity, as they depead on a nuaber of circwnstances peculiar to the specific co~unity and area of the state. 1) Any purchase of laad is uormallq considered a capita2 iaprovement. regardless of the intended use or purchase cost. 2) My item or facilitq which has a useful life beyoad a specific tiwe period is considered a capital ic-proveraent. This time period normally runs any where fram three to ten years; generally it is set so as to allow complete amortization of the cost over the useful life span of the iter~ or facility beiny acquired. 3) The third criteria is that the item should ~,~.. -a ~ ` - i _~_T ~_ _ _ _.__ _ _ __ __ .~. r -« - ~ ~-~ ~ . , ~ cosi ia excess of a specific or minic~um amount. This amount is generally tied Lo the useful life of the item so as to not exceed the ~amortization period. it should be set sufficiently high enough to exclude those purchases which are actually part of the annua2 operating costs of govern:aent. This cost figure depends on the size of the municipality, the cor.naunity's financial resources and a series of other factors not the least among which is the degree of desire on the part of the residents of the community to proceed on a"pay-as- you-go" basis as contrasted to incurring public debt. The consultants recommeaded that the follocriag criteria for qualifying a project for inclusion in the CIP be established as part of the CIP. 1. All laad acquisitioa(s) where a value is givea iu return for the Iand acquired; 2. Uaeful life period -- minimum five (5) years; 3. Minimum cost - S5,000; 4. Aay pre-project planaing, design or engineering work, regardless of cost. which can be deaoastrated to be 2eading directlq to the developmenr of a capital proj ect. ~ If the pro~ect does not invo].ve land acquisitiou or is not a pre-project planning effort directly associated iwth a capital project, we would recomaend that it then meet both the second and third cirteria for iaclusion. Uader these criteria purchase of a small utility vehicle for S8.000 would have to be provided for in the general operatiag budget if it's useful Iife is less thaa five years. The purchase of a aew calculator for $750.00 would likevise be a general budget item even though it could be expected to have a useful life beyoad 5 years. The purchase of a$50,000 piece of emergency equipment would obviously meet both criteria and would be included in this CIP. Capital Proiect Prioritv Deruination: Criteria In addition to tbe commuaity survey, and economic base study and Compreheasive Plan study elements, the Consultants have revieved all avai2able reports and publications oa the City of ICeaai including the OEDP Coa~ittee's .-, ~ i- r ' ~_~r ~ -~-- _ _ _ ___ , _ ~ ~ ~ ~ • _ _. J ' I ; . . i, 1 T M. ~ ~v . ~ ~T annual report a~ various City and Borough budget and audit reports. These were revieaed for insight into the establishing of priorities for the several projects. Additionally, the consultants have evaluated, frma visits, public meetings and prior knovledoe of the corrmunity and fraa several discussions with City administrative officials,2 OEDP, Kenai Borough staff, Advisory Planning Comanission represeatatives, Park and Recreation Commfssion, Harbor Con~ission, and Citizen groups such as the Chamber of Comaerce, the relative need for various community facilities. In deteraiining criteria for raaking capital improvement proj ects the consultant has relied upon aormally accepted staadards applicable to municipal government in fulfilliag its role of providing services. Those normally applicable criteria for ascertaining the relative priorities are cited below, raaked in order of priority.3 lat: Protectioa of life, maiateaance of public health and sa£etq and protection of property (private and public). 2ad: Conservatioa of resources. 3rd: Provisioa aad replacement of esse~*3a1 public services aad facilities. 4ths Reduction ia government costs. Sth: Public comreaience and comfort. 6th: Recreatioaal value. 7th: Bcoaomic value. 8th: Social, cultural aad sesthetic value. After crnnparing the above criteria ~rith the survey results, it Was coacluded that the priority rankiag of pro~ects as indicated ia the commuaity aurvey results does reflect a some~hat reasonable approach to developing a Capital Improvements Program for Keaai, although economic value may be balanced with a21 others on a pro-quid basis. The priority rankiag of services and facilities in the survey result ic line with the criteria would aormally expect in Alaska communities, the survey results accurately reflect 2 IJote-Please see concluding cor,ments aad the limitations iatposed oa the Consultants, i.e., City Manager availibility. 3 Interaational City Manager's Association - op' cit. ~ -~~ ~~-~ '_ _ . _ I .- ..~~- . - -- -' . _ _'. -- ~.,e--~ --- ~- -- - T ~ ' _ _ - - ~.. .. _ ~ R T- -.r~ --~ - i ---. ~ ,-- -.r ~1 • . the attitudes of the comanunity as observed fraw reviewicig the physical situatioa in the City. The only exception to this is possibly aa imaatici- m pated lower priority placed upon fire fightiag and law enforcement facilitiea bq those responding to the survey. Normally, public safety services and facilities should be high on ttse list of prioritiea, certaialy higher thaa the ~ survey results indicate. The consultant therefore recomaended that upgrading of fire fightiag and law eaforcemeat facilities and services in satellite ~ stations be moved higher up on the priority list, as maintenance of these I services at a high level of proficieacq is consistent with the criteria of protection of life and property and high on the list af governmental respoasi- bilities from the staudpoint of eahaacing the general public well being. The I adopted priority schedule reflects this recomaendation. Folloving is the edopied priority ranking of generalized cagegories of capital improvemeuts for the Reaai CIP. . . » ~r ' . ~ Pri,_, oritp Pro ect ~~~., _~ ~, 1. City Aall . ~ S ~ ~ 4~ . I 1 ~~`fFt+~'f ``~'7 ~.:~~ T O~4 rYJ. s r ~ ~ ~ ~. . ~ q 9 ~ ~~ 2• Warm Storage Facility . ~~ ; , j~ 3 ~~ . O~y 3. Fire Station (Vo2untaer} Beaver Creek Area 4. Airport Iaprwements - 1980 Plan . - 1985 Plau 5. Waste Water Treatmeat Facilities - I980 Impraveanenta - 1985 Improvemeats 6. StreeL and Circulation Improvements First Street - Spur to Main - New Street Forest Drive - Spur to Toyan Dr. - Pavin~ ' Tinker Lane - Spur to S. Terminus - Paving Lawton Drive - Spur to Tinker - Pave, Reali~h Signals (2) - Spur at W. How Spur at Beaver Loop ' f" ~ ~~ ~E~ 7• ra rk a R atioa Improvemeats Kenai :funicipal Park Spruce (Birch) Park Municipal (East Kenai) Park Beaver Craek Park -- .- - , - ... -r -~ . , , -~ -----~ % . i _ ry ~i'w...,~_..- -- _ _ ", " - - ~Y '/ : . , . ~ 8• Airport Improvements Phase I - 1980 - Phase II - I985 , ! 9. Domestic Glater Supply Improvements ; ; 1980 - Central Kenai Iaterceptor Bqpass ~ i 1985 - Central Iienai Lift Station and collection lines , - West Keaai IntercepCOr Bypass - New West Renai Lift Station 10. Iad ividual City bepartment Capital Improvement Requests ~ Other Projects Neediag City Input ~ ~ 1. Small Boat Harbor . I 2. Industrial and North Renai Water Lines _ 1. Warm Storage Bldg. ~ S160,000 2. ~14 Catepillar Grader 100,000 3. Snow b~ower for Grader (Note: 1 used Blowar Purchased) b0,000 k. Portable Generator (300 KW) for Well Houses 50,000 5. Airport-Generator and Swftchgear 100,000 6. Snow Removal Equipment-Airport-Grant 500,000 7. Airport Apron Extension - Crant 2,000,000 Canital Improvements Proiect List Followiag is a list of specific projects which have beea identified for inclusion in a Capital Improvements Program for the City of Reaai. The projects are aot necessarily listed in order of priority or in the exact order iu whic:, theq vi21 actuaZly be accomplished. Such factors as casts compared ta availabil.ity of funds of tea dictates the exact order ia which they are placed in the CIP or accomplished. Some projects will require a two or three phase uudertaking to complete, i.e., a pre-pro~ect plaaaing or desiga phase, a l~and acquisitioa phase, folloaed by the actual implementatioa or coastructioa phase. Time constraints assaciated with pre-project planaing will possibly dictate some re-orderiag of pro~ ects as well . ~ ~1"f ~ ' :b ITEMS BY CITY DEPARTMENT S. j';':'~ ~~ ~~ ~e~'=C~' "- I ~~., ,~ ~ .. ~:~ .;~ ~, } Public Works ~il ~ '~' '' ' ~';,' y: ~~ . •~• ~. ~ . Current List ' •~. ~ • ' t-`. ~r, ~ ~I 7 ~ T r ~ ~ . i 1978-79 List - Current Status 1. Warm Storage Shed - In Design I60,000 2. Airport Runway - Comp. 3. Atrport Terminal (Heating) - Eliminated 4. &enovation - 5 Sewer Lift Stations - Comp. S. Water Line - Beaver Loop - Comp. 6.~ F Street Water Liae - Engr. - Comp. 7.* SeWer b Water Liae - Spur Rd.-Eagr-Comp. 8.* Sewer and Water Line-:taia St.-Eagr.-Comp. 9.* Bast Keaai Sewer ~ Water - Engr. Comp. 10.* Rogers St. Water Liae - Engr. Comp. 11.* Airport Way - TJater-Engr. Comp. . 12.~ Beaver Loop to Itenai River Rd.-SeWer Engr. Comp. 13.* Beaver Loop Water Line - Engr. Comp. 14. Renovatioa - Well Houses - Comp. 15. Ai.rport Way - Water, Sewer b Road Const.-Comp. *~ Design and Engineeriag grant of $50,000 Siac-Year Street Imnrovement Pro~ram ^ ~-~ _ • ~ i~- ~~ -~-~-~- ~ . . ~ Not all of the new or improved street facilities included in the Recou~eaded Streets and Aighwaqs Plan will be necessary in the near future, and, in fact, some may never be built as development trends within the city shift from one area to another. Certain improvements, on the other haad. appear neceasary today to correct current deficiencies in the existing street system. To guide efficient investment of public and prfvate funds in the City's •traffic circulatioa system, street improvement proj ects should be prioritized and implemented in a logical manner to serve existing aad near-term traffic needs. As part of the Cfrculation Plaa, a tenative list of short range projects Was deve2oped for consideration by the City. Figure 26. i i ~ ; 2 r i ~.: 3 ~ ,~ ~f i ~ ~~ r ;^ - - , ~ ____!-._- _ _, T ,-- +-- -r •- -~ ~ ~ ~ , . I ~ ' , ~ The Recommended Six-Year Street Improvement Prograr.- is presented in the folloaing Table ~ This table shows the location and type of improvevseat oa .city streets, the suggested project priozity, potential funding sources and an estimate of project constructioa costs. Priorities were assigned in two-year iacremeats for budgeting purposes, and these priorities reflect the TRANSPO Group's initial assessment of relative need, ease of impleraeatation aad potential funding availability. 1he project priorities aad fundiag sources should be coasidezed oaly as a starting point for discussioa within the City for use in developing an adopted implenentation program which identifies both project priority and explicit fundiag sources. The Si1c-Year Yrogram ideatiffes 16 street improveaent projects aad 4 traffic signalization projects for implementatioa over the next 6 years. The tota'_ coat of these projects is estimated at about 52.4 aillion dollars ia 1979 dollars. Gfvea typical conditions of fundiag responsibility aad participatioa by jurisdiction, the City's share of the costs could be 40 to 50 perceat of that total. The awst urgeatly aeeded street improve~aents are the paving of existing collectors -» Tiuker Lane, Lavton Drive. Forrest Drive and Canne~y Road -- whi•. serve major resideatial aad industrial areas of the City. Ia additioa to paviag Lawtoa Drive, the intersectinn of Lawtoa aad Walker Lane should be reconstructed to make a smooth curve from the aorth leg (Walker) to the east leg (Lawton) so that the collector becomes a continuous through ronte from the Spur ~iighway to Tinker Lane; Walker Lane south of T,awton would be coatrolled by a STOP siga at the intersectiou. The total costs for these initial pro3ects is estimated at $556,400; substantial portions of these costs could be paid bq Federal Highvay Adaniaistration or Economic Development Adminis- tration or Econoaic Deve2opment Administration granta. Ia additioa to tha above projects, the Public Works Department should encourage the Alaska DOT to aoaftor traffic volumes aad accidents ia the downtown and install traff ic signals at key intersections When they become warranted. Since the probra~ing of state funds of ten require considerable leaad time prior to project implementation, the city should begin to actively pursue the sigaalizatfon issues with appropriate Alas[ca DOT officials. . --- ,--- ~ '~ ~ __ _ .~ -w _ - ,.....~. _ , r~ a~ ~.~ ~ _ _~ r ~ ~ ~` - _ . ` . ~_-- T•- T '~-__~ ~ Tab le SIX-YEAR STREET 7.MPROVFT~iENT PR06RAt4 CITY OF KENAI tt ., • , ,I ~J PROJECT DESCRIPTIOy Street From To Imnrovement Lanes Class Prioritv Fundintt Cost 1. First Street Spur Rd. Main SL New Street 4 Secondary A F,S,C 405,OOQ j 2. k'alker Laae Terainus Beavez Loop tlew Street 2 Collector C C 30,000 + 3. Lawton Drive Tinker Ln Linwood Ave New Street 2 Secoadary C~ S,C 140,000 ' 4. Port of Kenai Rd Terminus Beaver Loop New Street 2 Collector C P 120,000 5. Forrest Drive Spur Rd Toyon Drive Paving 2 Collector A F,C 6k,800 6. Tinker Lane Spur Rd S. Terminus Paving 2 Collector A F,C,P 93,600 , T. Lawton Drive Spur Rd ~iaker Ln Paving, Realiga 2 Secondary A F,S,C 2I8,000 , 8. Birch Street Spur Rd Fourth St Paving 2 Collector B C 90,000 . 1 9. Fourth Stree~ Birch St Forrest Dr Paving 2 Collector B C 72,000 f I0. Cannery Road Kalifonsky Rd Terminus Paving 2 Collector C F,C,P,B 180,000 11. Princess Street Spur Rd Lawton Ave Paving 2 Collector B C 18,000 , 12. Walker Lane Lawton Dr Terminus Paving 2 Collector C C 6k,800 ~ 13. Linwood Spur Rd Lawton Paving 2 Collector C C,P 110,000 ~ 14. Main Street Loop S~'illow St Spur Rd Paving, CbG 4 SecAndary B F,S,C,P 400,000 ~ 15. Main Street Loop Willow St Beaver Loop Paving, CS~G 4 Secoadary B C 50,000 ;j 16. Cook brive Peninsula Dr :tain St Paving 2 Collector $ C I8,000 U. Foutth Forrest Evergreen Paving 2 Collector C C,P ~ 93,600 Signals . ~ ,; , 18. Spur Road to tdillow St New Signal - Primary A S 75,000 ' ~ ~ 19. Spur Road at Beaver Loop New Signal - Primary A S 75,000 , 20. Spur Road at rr~in Street New Signul - Primary C 5 75,000 ~ 21. Spur Road at Airport Waq New Signal - Priu-ary B S 75,000 ~ Funding Codes: F-Federal C-Citq Priority Codes: A a 0-2 qeare ~ S-State P-Private B s 2-4 years i B-Boroagh . C II 4-6 • years ~ ~ t ~ ' ._ _~..._____ -~ - - _ . `~ -- ------~. ._ ~_ _=~.__.~- - - ~- - -..~- _ - -~- -~ - -= - -- • 1 a • ~ , I " - - ------ . _._._.",~:~, ~ _ I ~. ~ - - f r c-.,~- --_~ a v ] ' • • ~_ . i ~ ~ j ,, " TT~~_ ~ r ~ T ~ ~ Other street improvement pro~ects in the Six-Year Program have beea ` ~ __ ~- ~ - indicated for implementation so~etime after the initial two years. Of these project s, perhaps the most important are paving the Maia Street Loop froa~ Willow Street westWard to the Spur Fiigh~+ay. and the construction of First Street as a minor arterial from the Spur to conaect with Main; this will F' provide a much aeeded "relief value" for CBD-bound Lraffic from the vest Which noa must aIl use the Spur Highwaq. 1 ~~-~'~:~ - ? n 'U~ "~: l•,~~' , Fire S 'J VJ~C)~.~•• ~;.,; ; % .~ . J~t ~ j~s 1 f. ~ 1. ~_ L! j.•.t J~:~ J Beaver Creek IQaighborhood Statioa (Volunteer/Part Time combination)' ~~~;.,i 2. West Kenai Station ~.i~ y Police ~ ~- 1. Office Space ia Satellite Pire Station Librarv 1. ~~ok Storage Areas ~ 2. '~•.~eting/Coaference/Educatioa Roan • Schoo2s (Kenai Peninsula Barough Schools) 1. r~~0 Seat Auditoriuen ' 2. West keaai Elemeatarq ~ 3. gockeq/Skating xink -. - 4. Cross Couaty 6 Ski Trails ~ 8arbor Commission 1. Small Boat Harbour ~ • I f Note: Proposed in 1971 ~IP @$490,000 t~ ±,i ~ ~ fl ~ Givea 8 to lOZ inflation per year the same proposed improvements ,~~ ~ vould be in 1980 dollars -$1,034,500 , I : I Note: Proposed invisioaed 95z matching monies by State and Federal ' source. ~ ~ _-~ !'~." ~` _ f~ ~ ~ .~ ~ a Yro~rasmi_ ng~ ioz Yarlc and Hecreation Uevelo~ent r ~ ~ --~ _ _ ~ _ _ , , _!- --w~ --~ Programming for the park and recreation improve~ents outlined 1n the Comprehensive Plan is presented in this section. As with the proposed street iaprovements, not all of the parks identified above will be necessary ia the i~ediate future. Certaia basic developmsnts will be needed immediately. However, ia order to ideatify all of the potential park aad recreation projecta to be uadertakea bq the Citq, a list of potential pro~ects has been prepared, suggested priorfties iadicated and approxiaate costs estimated. Acquisitions have also been highlighted. The recommeaded park and recreatioa capital projects are preseated in the following Table. The table ideatifies aeighborhoods, the type of improvements, praject griarity, and a estimate af praject canstruction coste. The project priorities and cost figures have been zeviewed by the Parks aad Recreatioa Commission as a first step in adopting a capital improvement program. Fourteen projects were identified for development over the next six years (some maq occur in six to tea qears if funding is uaavailable ia the CIP designated period). . _ The most urgentlq ueeded park and recreatioa improvements are ia the areas of children's play areas and athletic fields for adult recreatioaal ~~~ ~/ T'he bulk of the initial capital outlays for park improvements should occur iu the West Kenai, Central Kenai and East Renai aeighborhoods. As ideatified ia the Compreheasive Plan, the City presently has an abuadaace of park and recreational laads availahle for develapment aud some facilities such as the Renai Municipal Park are in severe need of updating and inprove- meat. The two neighborhood parks in the North Kenai aeighborhood, Sprucs Park (formerly Birch) and the park on 4th Street, are virtcsally ~mimproved. As determined by the Commisston improvements to thzse two parks ahould be considered a high priority. 2he Jarge City park in the East Kenai neighbor- hood will serve an important function ia providing the community with additional athletic fields for adult F~ . The implementution of the Townsquare Park at the site of the old City Ilall is an inportant proposal in encouraging further development of the Business District south of the Kenai Spur ~ighway. 1 -re ------ - - ,~+~__ _ __ _ .--~ - -._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _- __~ r. . :~- - . ~~ i~ l• - t" .~. ~ • • ~ , , . ~ All of the park and recreation facilities identified in the City's _ j prioritq list could be eligible for assistance either through Borou~h, State or Federal sources. It is recommended that a detailed atudy be tmdertakea by the Park and Recreation Department to clarify potential fundiag sources and applicatlon requirements for park and recreation improvements wi.thin the City of Kenai . `. ~_-- i~~. ~~ . ~.~- . ~ __ . -------.._~ _ _~.....~ ~ ~W , ~' '. ~: ~~~~ -.- -- ' _- ~_>_`~->:~-_- -- ~ _-_-- ~ - '_-`-_"-._..._. -_. r !J ~ .• c • ~ , v. ~' ~- , ~ . _ .^. ~ _--_-- . ~ ~ ~ . . - ~~.~ . ~ Tab le "~ ~ '. ~ ~ ~~: PROPOSED PARIC L~iPROVE~tEVT PROGRAM ' ~ No._ _ Protect Locatian Priority Improvenent Cost 1. Keaai Municipal W.K. A 1B~ 3YB, RR $6 00,000 Parl: Y, O.C. 2. 4th Street SJ. K. A IS, OP, RR, 20Q,000 . CP, P 3. Muaicipal E.K. A 2S, 2B, RR 1,500.000 CP, 2T, OP, P, H 4. Beaver Creek BC A CP, T, OP, Rx 15Q,000 ' S. Yest Kenai W.K. B 2S, 2B, 4T, 1,000,000 Muaici~al ~ RR, P, CP ~,~,.,,~"'f • 6. Town Square CR B OP, CP, RR, P 600,000 7. Cunni,qgham Park BC B P, Boat Ramp 75,000 O. C. 8. Birch Park W.K. A CP, P 50,000 , 9. Commuaitq Park* . .. BC C CP, IT, S, OP 800,000 . I8, I5, kR ~k' I0. Neighborhood W.K. C RH, CP. 1T, P, IS 300,000 Park 1 I1. Neighborhood W.K. C CP, P, OP 150,000 Park 2 12. Neighborhood B.K. C CP, OP, P 150,000 Yark . . Neighborhood* K C CP, OP, P 150,000 ~ Yark 14. Iadustrial Water- E.K. C Pier, Boat ramp, P 300,QQ0 front Park KeY. * Acquisition L' K. East Kenai Pciorities-Totals :OP Open play field ' N.K. North Kenai (1979 Dollars) _ P Picnicking C.K. Central Kenai A- $250,000 CP Chlldrens play K. Kalifonski B-$I,675,000 S Sof tball B. C. Beaver Creek C-$1, 850, 000 T Tennis B Baseball x Hockey RR Restroom O.C. Wernight Camping Y.B. Youth Ball Field .y ! •'i ~ i ! , , R , ~ i~ d YnM 11 ~ @ ~ i ~ ! s ~: ~ . ~ .7 .. ---~-- - -- T - .-- r- _-_- _~ I ~ ~ _ _ ::--.~ ~~. :~- . -.: .._._." - _ . . - ~ ~ : ' .- = - .. .. _ ~ ~- -~___ -. . ... - --~ ~ . _~.::~:::¢~. ~. . , . . . . .. ... - .. . . --....._.. -,.:.r>:.~:rc~'r:,ic~:.,;~;.ru.<:.~~._;:... _~_-.=-~ =._ . -~~~..:,.v~::._~ t ~•..W~;~ _....... ~. _ . _ _ _ ,.., . _ - - - • _~ . - . a_.. . . _ . _.. . : ~ ..:_ . ... ........ ..~ .. _ -. - - " . . - • .. '. - . ~ .~""~`- F . . _ ... ._ _ . _ . . . . . ~ . . . •~-r»"- _ .,i.w ru , ~„s~;~~ ' _ ~ , - . . . .:if. _~. ~bt~' ...- . ." ' .'~l~. ...~ . • _. . . _ ./Ghn=. . . . .. -.-~S~ltw~7!. . TJ~'Mi ,. ._ li ``~rN.•SM'ries.3~^' _ . . - [' ., =. ~II ` __. /~ T ~~- L ~ -- --- - - -_ - ~ Z Dnte~ < > . ~ Received Of ~ Q a ~,~°- ~ 'a • ~ . Q Por Rent Of •~~ ~ - *+- ~ From ~ra ~t~ Mow vnio z SwvE rOUQ QECEtvts ~ ~ ~,yt11 ~ Qxsz~ e.~,. q~~ B~ ~.~~OS-t~ /7 v~ ~ _19..L~.No O t) `~ I -.,~~ r ~ I:ao'~S. ' ~ ~~1 _ ..:wr~:... ~~ ~~ ~~ . .- r --.- --t 1~ !'TTV ~ ~ Y~~ ~ii P. O. BOX S80 - KpdAl, ALASKA - PNONE Z83-7335 ro: Ffnence nQpt. FROM: JRnet ~Vhelrm , Citq t'terk OAtE _ REFERENCE The City Coundf~ is having a work spsai,ctn fn the RenM Cor,-mexnity ~enter bldg. on I-3-80. 7: 00 PM to II:1l0~~'1 to re~rieiv the C.e~$el Tmproveme~et Progratn. .. - Rental on the buildi»g is ~25; OO-1ar 3 hq.q~s ~!~5.04 p~r h~ur therentter, and a=2.00 key deposit. Tdel ehargea '~~:._ °" ' I ;20.00 - rental " : ~ ~ ;:,_ .; ;~ , . ~ 2.00 - ~ey cleposit (frd~t. ~es `, -~~.~.,~,~ ., . l: F ( 5-GNEO- ^A1E