HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES 84-380 R E S O L U T I O N
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF BEAUMONT:
THAT the revised Capital Improvements Program, attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" , as revised to accommodate the City Council' s deferral
of $419 ,000 in projects originally proposed for Fiscal Year 1985,
be, and the same is hereby , approved.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Beaumont this
the j day of , 1984.
(1/wJ L S:
Mayor -
r
capital
improvement
program
1985 - 1989
city of
be mont ,
WITH FINAL REVISIONS texas
Exhibit Y-�vo
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
1985-1989
CITY OF BEAUMONT, TEXAS
CITY COUNCIL
William E. Neild, Mayor
Joseph Deshotel, Mayor Pro-Tem
Nell Weisbach, Ward I David Moore, Ward IV
Mike Brumley, Ward II Wayne Turner, At-Large
Audwin Samuel, Ward III
PLANNING COMMISSION
David Ledyard, Chairman
William Pearson Emma Kyles
Walter Mayer, Jr. Delores Chevis
Ted Blanton, Jr. Roger McCabe
Brad Viator Mike Ramsey
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .1.1
What is Capital Improvements Programming?. . . .1.2
What are the Benefits of the CIP Process?. . . .1.2
How Does the CIP Relate to the Compre-
hensive Plan? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . ..1.3
How Does the CIP Relate to the Annual
Budget?. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.6
2 THE CIP PROCESS . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.1
Steps Involved in Preparation. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .2.1
Priority Rating Systems:
Departmental. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4
Planning Commission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.4
3 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.1
Sources of CIP Funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .3.1
Effects of Local and National Economic
Trends on Local Revenues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.5
Table 3-1: Urban Consumer Price Index. . . . . . .3.7
Real and Personal Property Valuation:
Trends and Projections. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .3.8
Sales Tax Revenues. .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..3.8
Table 3-2: Recent Job Losses by
Employment Sector. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .3.9
Table 3-3: Trends and Projections,
Property Values. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.10
Table 3-4: Sales Tax Revenues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.11
4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .4.1
Explanation of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.2
CIP Summary by Function (Table 4-1) . . . . . . .. . .4.4
CIP Summary by Funding (Table 4-2) . . . . . . . . . . .4.5
CIP Projects by Function (Table 4-3) . . . . . .. . .4.6
CIP Projects by Funding Source (Table 4-4) . . .4.26
CIP Projects: Location Maps (Figures
4-1 through 4-8). . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.43
APPENDICES
A Adopted City Council Policies
re: Capital Improvements and Debt. . . . . . .A.1
BProject Summaries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .B.1
C CIP Proposal Project Guide
(bound separately)
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Beaumont's Charter requires the annual
preparation and official adoption of a Capital Improvements
Program (CIP) containing the estimated costs, time schedules,
funding sources, and justification of need for all capital
improvements proposed for construction during the next five
years. The City staff has prepared this preliminary CIP for
fiscal years 1984-85 through 1988-89 for review by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
The CIP process will be repeated each year to provide the
City Council with reliable guidance in making decisions
concerning the financing, scheduling, and prioritizing of
public improvements. The facilities programmed for the first
fiscal year each annual CIP comprise the Capital Budget, which
will become a part of the City's Annual Budget.
What is Capital Improvements Programming?
Capital improvements programming is the multi-year
scheduling of capital improvements for a community based on
agreed-upon priorities, available funding sources, and local
financing capabilities. The capital improvements program
includes a list of all proposed capital improvements ranked in
1. 1
order of priority, an identification of all possible funding
sources, an analysis of the financing capability of the local
government and a schedule or time table for development.
A five to six-year period is usually selected for the
capital improvements program. Two or three years is often too
short for the planning, land acquisition, designing and
financing of major public facilities. Seven or more years is
too long to realistically program major community facilities in
step with changing community needs. For the City of Beaumont,
a five-year program has been established by the City Charter.
This covers the annual capital budget and the proposed capital
improvements for th succeeding four years.
What are the Benefits of the CIP Process?
Initiation of an ongoing CIP process is an important step
in improving the City government's effectiveness at physical
planning and financial management. Among the benefits that can
be expected from an effective capital improvements programming
process are:
- Introduction of a longer-range perspective into the
financial planning and physical development processes.
- Coordination of the capital projects undertaken by al.l City
departments and other agencies, thereby avoiding conflicts
or overlaps in scheduling and funding.
- A means of comparing the total cost of proposed projects
with the financial resources available.
1 . 2
- A means of allocating scarce fiscal and labor resources to
the projects that are most crucial to the health, safety and
well-being of Beaumont's citizens.
- The opportunity to evaluate proposed improvements in terms
of their consistency with the Council's financial management
and physical development policies.
- Stabilization of tax rates through a rational approach to
the management of bonded indebtedness.
- A means of evaluating the effects of capital improvements on
the operating budget.
- The opportunity to involve citizens in the decisionmaking
process.
- The ability to evaluate the cumulative effects of all
proposed capital projects rather than evaluating individual
projects in isolation.
- A clear-cut means of measuring progress in providing public
improvements.
How Does Capital Improvements Programming Relate to the
Comprehensive Plan?
The Capital Improvements Program usually is based upon
the local community's Comprehensive Plan. The main objectives
of the Comprehensive Plan are: (1) to identify and analyze the
major population and economic force that might influence the
development of the community, (2) to set achievable goals for
the future of the community, (3) to establish future
requirements for public improvements and services, an (4) to
provide the official public policies for guiding the future
physical growth and development of the community.
1. 3
44z-
The importance of public facilities in implementing
community planning and development policies has been understood
and accepted for many years. The 1928 Standard City Planning
Enabling Act called for city planning commissions to review
major public works decisions for consistency with the
comprehensive plan.
The preparation and review of the capital
improvements program (CIP) was intended as
a way to assure that public facilities
reinforced the policies enunciated in the
plan.l
The growing relationship between capital improvements and
planning and management is becoming increasingly apparent. A
recent report prepared in 1980 by the American Planning
Association noted that the following steps were being taken by
various communities in order to more effectively link planning
and budgeting and to achieve community development objectives
through the capital allocation process:
- Preparing annual policy statements specifically designed to
guide the capital budgeting process.
1Local Capital Improvements and Development Management:
Literature Synthesis, (Washington, D.C. : American Society of
Planning Officials, 1977), p. iv.
1. 4
4� 3'-r-J
- Reorganizing their planning and budgeting departments to
foster closer coordination.
- Combining their total budgets -- capital and operating --
and considering them in terms of overall programs they hope
to accomplish.
- Broadening the base of public participation in the capital
budgeting process.
- Establishing tighter control over the major capital
facilities that affect their development.
- Refusing to rezone, to subdivide, or to annex development
without making agreements with developers about the
provision of capital facilities.
- Shifting responsibility for capital costs away from the
public sector to the developer and the consumer.
- Limiting the physical areas for which they will provide
facili ties. 2
In Texas, the City of Fort Worth is one community which
supports the case for closely integrating planning and capital
improvements programming as shown by the following excerpt from
a publication of that city:
2Local Capital Improvements and Development Management:
Analysis and Case Studies, (Washington, D.C. : U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1980), p. 1.
1. 5
The capital improvement planning process
(has changed) from an engineering
orientation to a master goal and objective
program for the city. . .(The ) physical plan
must give consideration to the socio-
economic mix in the city and the new broad
range of environmental concerns as well as
the traditional needs. . .An effective
Capital Improvements Program requires a
team effort with meaningful interface of
physical, social and fiscal considera-
tions. 3
How Does the CIP Relate to the Annual Budget?
Each year, the City Manager prepares an Annual Budget for
adoption by the City Council. The Budget lists in detail all
proposed expenditures and revenues for the upcoming fiscal
year. The first year of the Capital Improvements Program is
included in the budget as the Capital Improvement Budget (CIB).
In this way, the Capital Improvement Program serves as a
"bridge" between the City's short-range planning (the budget)
and its long-range plan (the Comprehensive Plan). It is
customary to prepare the capital improvements budget and the
capital improvements program annually, revising the entire
program and adopting the capital improvement budget each year
as part of the regular operating budget.
3Morris Matson, "Capital Budgeting -- Fiscal and Physical
Planning," Governmental Finance, Vol. 5, No. 3, August 1976,
PP• 43, 58.
1. 6
The remainder of this report is divided into three parts:
Chapter 2 - a summary of the CIP process;
Chapter 3 - a financial analysis;
Chapter 4 - the recommended CIP.
1. 7
CHAPTER 2
THE CIP PROCESS
The preparation of the current CIP began in January, 1984,
and will be completed when the CIP is adopted by City Council
in September. The following steps, summarized in Exhibit 1,
were involved in the CIP process:
STEP 1: Each participating City department prepared a
detailed, 2-page form summarizing each of the
department's proposed projects. These forms
(compiled as Appendix "C" - Preliminary Project
Proposals). Included in the forms were cost
estimates, time schedules, recommended funding
sources, justification for projects, location
maps, priority ranking, estimated impacts of
projects on the City's operating budget, and
relationship of projects to other planned or
completed projects.
STEP 2: 'The Planning Department transferred the project
information to a computer file, produced tables
showing the total cost of the approximately 200
proposals by year, function and funding source.
Projects were also mapped to show the geographic
distribution of the proposals.
STEP 3: The Planning Commission adopted a priority rating
system (discussed later in this chapter) to be
used in rating projects as to their effectiveness
in implementing the Comprehensive Plan.
STEP 4: The Planning Commission's CIP subcommittee
reviewed the proposed projects with City
department heads. The City Manager also went
through this same process.
STEP 5: The Planning Department applied the Planning
Commission's point ranking system to the proposed
2. 1
projects. The Commission passed these
recommendations on to the City Manager.
Each project had also received a "departmental
priority" rating during Step 1 of the process.
This rating system is also discussed later in
this chapter.
STEP 6: The City Manager and his staff analyzed the City's
capacity to fund capital improvements projects
over the next five years based on expected
operating expenditures, debt service requirements,
and revenues.
STEP 7: Based upon funding limitations and capabilities
identified in Step 6, a preliminary list of
projects was compiled. The following projects
were included:
a) Any project which had received an "A"
(critical to public health, safety and
welfare) departmental priority rating.
b) Any project which scored 16 or higher on the
Planning Commission's priority rating system.
c) Any project funded by an approved bond issue,
an approved grant, or water revenue bonds.
d) Any project that could be reasonably expected
to be entirely or substantially funded by a
grant.
STEP 8: The list was revised in order to bring proposed
expenditures for each of the five years within the
limits of available funding.
STEP 9: Several projects identified as critical needs by
the City Manager were added back to the
preliminary list. Several projects already
authorized in the 1983-84 budget were deleted from
the list. A few projects with enough revenue-
producing or cost-saving capacity to "pay for
themselves" were added to the list. Other minor
adjustments were made to keep the total proposed
2. 2
, ' � 7�
CIP expenditures within the limits of available
funding.
The following additional steps will be required to
complete this year's CIP:
STEP 10: Review by Management Team (City Manager and
department heads).
STEP 11: Review and recommendation by Planning Commission.
STEP 12: "Workshop" review with City Council.
STEP 13: Public hearing.
STEP 14: Adoption (before October 1).
STEP 15: Staff will re—evaluate this year's CIP process to
determine what changes should be made in next
year's process.
STEP 16: The City's Budget and Research Department will
monitor the financial status of capital projects
in progress on a continuous basis and will issue
reports quarterly.
PRIORITY RATING SYSTEMS
As previously noted, two unrelated priority rating systems
were used in prioritizing projects. Departmental priorities
were based upon severity of need in terms of the protection and
welfare of the public, anticipated future needs for replacement
of facilities, and the City staff's concerns with delivery of
high quality, efficient services. The Planning Commission's
rating system was primarily based upon the goals, objectives,
policies and proposals of the Comprehensive Plan.
2. 3
DEPARTMENTAL PRIORITY RATINGS
Projects were ranked by the initiating department using a .
four-level scale:
Priority "A", Critical. Indicates a project of
critical need which cannot reasonably be postponed
because it will provide a remedy for conditions
dangerous to public health, welfare, or safety, or it
brings the City into compliance with legal require-
ments.
Priority "B", Essential. Indicates projects which
should be carried out within a few years to met
current or anticipated needs or for replacement of
unsatisfactory facilities.
Priority "C", Desirable. Indicates projects needed
for a proper and desirable expansion of a department
program. The exact timing of these projects can wait
until funds are available.
Priority "D", As Required. Indicates projects which
would be needed for ideal operation but which cannot
yet be recommended for action. These projects can be
postponed without detriment to present services.
Projects were also prioritized within each of the four
categories above by adding a number (A-1, A-2, A-3, etc.) with
"1" being the highest priority.
PLANNING COMMISSION PRIORITY RATINGS
The following rating system was officially adopted by the
Planning Commission in order to create an effective link
between the Comprehensive Plan and the CIP. The criteria are
based upon adopted goals, objectives, policies, and proposals
from the Comprehensive Plan; goals statements contained in the
2. 4
officially-adopted Goals for Beaumont document; and general
City responsibilities such as protecting the public health,
safety and welfare and provision of services on an equitable
basis.
POINT
VALUE CRITERIA
PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE
3 Project is needed as soon as possible to
correct serious service deficiencies which
threaten the public health, safety, or
welfare.
2 Project will directly improve public health,
safety or welfare.
1 Project is needed to retain existing services
to protect the public, health, safety or
welfare.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
3 Project will directly result in permanent
private sector jobs; new businesses or
industries; or will directly "leverage"
private sector development.
2 Project will make introduction of new private
sector jobs, businesses, or industry more
feasible.
1 Project will provide temporary construction
jobs.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION/REVITALIZATION
3 Project is an essential element of a neigh-
borhood conservation or revitalization
effort.
2. 5
2 Project will contribute to neighborhood
conservation or revitalization.
1 Project will prevent further neighborhood
deterioration.
DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION
3 Project will directly support new private
construction or revitalization in the
central business district.
2 Project will directly contribute to down-
town's status as a regional center of com-
merce, professional services, government,
entertainment, and tourism.
1 Project will provide indirect support to the
downtown's status as a regional center of
commerce, professional services, government,
entertainment, and tourism.
NEW GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
3 Project will support programmed new private
sector development in accordance with the
Land Use Plan.
2 Project will make new private development in
accordance with the Land Use Plan more
feasible in the immediate future.
1 Project will improve long-term prospects for
new private development in accordance with the
Land Use Plan.
QUALITY OF LIFE
3 Project will directly increase cultural,
recreational or educational opportunities
available to citizens.
2 Project does not meet above criteria but will
improve the image and physical appearance of
Beaumont.
1 Project is needed to retain existing quality
2. 6
of life features.
EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF SERVICES
3 Project corrects an inequitable service
deficiency in an existing developed area.
2 Project improves the city-wide distribution
of services.
1 Project is needed to retain existing level of
equitability in City services.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
3 Project is required to bring City into
compliance with Federal or State
environmental standards.
2 Project will improve or help preserve some
part of the natural environment.
1 Project will not disturb the existing natural
environment.
LEVEL AND QUALITY OF SERVICES
3 Project will expand services provided to the
public to include new services.
2 Project will make existing services more
efficient or convenient to the public.
1 Project will help sustain existing level of
services.
VOTER ACTION (BOND ELECTIONS)
3 Project has been approved by voters in a bond
election.
1 Project will not be built without voter
approval in a future bond election.
The priority rankings developed through this process will
be one factor used in selecting projects for the final CIP.
2. 7
Other factors will be the submitting department's own priority
ratings an the availability of funds.
Since the City's various capital project funding sources
are generally not interchangeable, some projects which will be
included in the Council's final CIP may have lower priority
ratings than projects which are not included. As an example, a
project with secure funding from a Federal grant or bond issue
might be included in the first year of the CIP, while a project
with a higher priority rating but without a feasible funding
source -ght be deferred until a later fiscal year.
2. 8
CHAPTER 3
FUNDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
The initial list of proposals submitted during this year's
CIP process would have required over $85 million to complete.
Funding all of the preliminary proposals would have required
approximately $24 million in General Revenues over five years,
whereas the maximum of General Revenue funds expected to be
available for CIP projects in the next five years is
$1,530,000. This tremendous gap between requested and
available General Revenues illustrates the need for a realistic
appraisal of the City's capacity to finance capital projects.
This disparity also underlines the importance of the
prioritization of CIP projects. This chapter contains a brief
summary of each funding source available for capital
improvements and an analysis of the City's funding
capabilities.
Sources of CIP Funding
Although the number and variety of potential CIP finding
sources is quite vast, in practice there are a relatively few
financial sources that finance most capital projects. Among
the most important are:
GENERAL REVENUES. General revenues are derived primarily from
property taxes, sales taxes, franchises, license permit fees,
3. 1
fines, and other miscellaneous sources. General revenues are
often used to finance capital projects on a "pay as you go"
basis. "Pay as you go" financing preserves financial
flexibility by not accumulating fixed debt service liabilities
and avoids the payment of interest. Disadvantages of this
technique are the inconvenience and inefficiency of deferring
capital projects until sufficient funds are accumulated and the
difficulty of financing large projects. Since general revenues
are the primary source of the City's operating budget, their
availability for CIP projects is limited.
GENERAL REVENUE SHARING. Each year the City receives
approxmately $1.7 million in General Revenue Sharing funds from
the Federal government. Revenue Sharing can be used for
virtually any legitimate municipal facility or service.
Historically, Beaumont has used its Revenue Sharing funds
exclusively for capital improvements until the City's recent
budget problems made it necessary to use a portion of the
Revenue Sharing alotment for the operating budget.
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (G.O. BONDS) . In issuing G.O. Bonds,
the City is borrowing money secured by a pledge of the City's
full faith and credit. Because a full faith obligation can
result in a tax increase, voter approval of G.O. Bond issues is
required.
3. 2
CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION (C.O.$) . While C.O.s are backed by
the City's full faith and credit, voter approval is not
required. C.O.s are subject to a "reverse referendum, "
however.
REVENUE BONDS. Revenue Bonds can be issued for revenue
producing facilities and are backed by the revenues of those
facilities. Revenue Bonds do not require voter approval and
have the advantage of effectively changing the costs of a
facility to the users of that facility. Disadvantages of
Revenue Bonds are their relatively higher interest rates and
the fact that revenues do not begin to accrue until the
facility is completed.
GRANTS. The Federal and State governments operate various
financial assistance programs which can enable cities to
provide services and facilities that would otherwise not be
available . The City annually receives two major Federal
"entitlement" grants -- the approximately $1.7 million in
General Revenue Sharing discussed previously; and a Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) of approximately $1 .8 million
which must be used as part of an approved program of aiding
low—to—moderate income persons, eliminating slums and blight,
and promoting economic development.
Other grants are "discretionary, " meaning the City must
apply, and often compete, for them. Discretionary grants have
3. 3
been used for sanitary sewerage improvements, park develupment,
mass transit improvements, and downtown redevelopment, among
many other purposes.
An advantage of grants is that the costs are spread out
over the entire state or nation and are no directly assessed to
local taxpayers. A major disadvantage of grants is the fact
that if they are used unwisely, they may be used to fund
low-priority projects that would not have been considered
unless outside funding was available. Even when facilities are
built without local funding, however, they generally will
generate maintenance and/or operating costs which must be paid
by the local taxpayer.
Furthermore, the uncertainty of future grant allocations
often makes then very precarious sources of funds for long-term
programs, services, or multi-phase projects. Finally, most
discretionary grants pay only a portion of the costs of a
capital project, with a 10 to SO percent "matching" share
required of the local government.
DONATIONS. Private donations have played a relatively small,
but significant, role in the City's past capital improvement
efforts. Donations have partially funded several parks and
community facility projects, including the Miller Library,
Julie Rogers Theatre, and Alice Keith and Klein Parks. A large
portion of the parks capital program, included in Chapter 4,
3. 4
will depend on donations of land, cash, or equipment. Cash,
land, equipment, or labor donations can be used as the local
matching requirements for some grant programs.
Financial Analysis and Funding Recommendation
The bulk of the proposed CIP consists of projects funded
by sources which are readily available (such as the
Thoroughfare Improvement Program and Comprehensive Drainage
Program bond issues) . Another group of projects can be funded
through user fees or self-generated revenues. Projects
proposed for funding through grants or donations can usually be
deferred if funding is not secured.
The financial analysis process that was used in preparing
the CIP focused on projects not included in any of the
categories above. These were projects which would require
funding through general revenues or tax-supported bond issues.
The financial analysis involved effects of local and national
economic conditions on City revenues; trends and projections in
taxable property values; sales tax revenues; and projected debt
service requirements.
Effects of Local and National
Economic Trends on Local Revenues
The City of Beaumont's two largest sources of General Fund
revenues are the sales tax (23% of General Fund revenues) and
the property tax (29% of General Fund revenues). The rates of
3. 5
growth in these two revenue sources are closely tied to
national, regional, and local economic conditions . The total
assessed taxable property valuation is especially sensitive to
two economic trends: the rate of inflation, which increases
property values; and the growth and expansion of businesses and
industry, which create the demand for new plant facilities,
offices, housing and retail and service establishments . During
the current recession, inflation has abated significantly, as
the National Urban Consumer Price Index increased by only 3.2%
in 1983 and 6.1% in 1982, compared to 13.6% in 1980 and 10.4%
in 1981 (see Table 3=1) . The inflation of real estate values
that prevailed from the mid-seventies to 1981 has similarly
abated.
The national unemployment that characterized the current
recession has had a profound effect locally. In recessions
during the 1970s, which were related to high demand for and low
supply of oil, the local oil/petrochemical/shipbuilding-based
economy fared comparatively well. The number of jobs in
Beaumont increased by only 944 from 1960 to 1970, but increased
by 6,785 from 1970 to 1980, according to the U.S. Census. The
current recession, however, accompanied an international "oil
glut" which reduced the demand for petroleum and related
support industries. Between September, 1981, and January,
1984, 26% of the manufacturing jobs in the 3-county
3. 6
TABLE 3-1
URBAN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
ANNUAL PERCENT
YEAR AVERAGE CHANGE CHANGE
1967 100 2.8 2.8b
1968 104.2 4.2 4.20
1969 109.8 5.6 5.37
1970 116.3 6.5 5.92
1971 121.3 5 4.30
1972 125 .3 4 3.30
1973 133.1 7.8 6.23
1974 147.7 14.6 10.97
1975 161.2 13.5 9.14
1976 170.5 9.3 5.77
1977 181 .5 11 6.45
1978 195.4 13 .9 7.66
1979 217 .4 22 11.26
1980 246.8 2.4 13.52
1981 272.4 25.6 10.37
1982 289.1 16.7 6.13
1983 298.4 9.3 3.22
SOURCE: U.S. Dept. of Labor
U.S. City Average
All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
1967=100
3. 7
Beaumont-Port Arthur Metropolitan Statistical Area were lost.
The loss of these 12,500 jobs was accompanied by severe
declines in construction employment and a reduced demand for
consumer goods (Table 3-2) .
The net result of the local employment slump and the
slowdown in inflation has been a slow rate of increase in
assessed property values and a decline in the rate of growth in
sales tax revenues.
Real and Personal Property Valuation:
Trends and Projections
Table 3-3 shows trends and projections in total property
valuation from 1974 through 2002. During the period of high
property valuations increased at rates of 8 to 15 percent per
year. Increases of 3 per cent per year are projected through
the year 2002.
Sales Tax Revenues
Table 3-4 shows trends in sales tax collections from 1973
through 1983. As a result of inflation, an increase in local
per capita income relative to national per capital income, and
construction of region-serving retail, entertainment and
service establishments, Beaumont's sales tax revenues increased
from 10 to 19 percent each year between 1973 and 1981. The
rate of increase slowed to 7 percent in 1982 and declined by 1
3. 8
TABLE 3-2
RECENT JOB LOSSES BY EMPLOYMENT SECTOR
BEAUMONT, TEXAS, METROPOLITAN AREA
CHANGE, PERCENT CHANCE,
SEPT. 81 SEPT. 81
EMPLOYMENT SECTOR SEPT. 81 SEPT. 82 JAN. 84 TO JAN. 84 TO JAN. 84
Manufacturing 44,450 36,950 31,900 -12,550 -28.23
Mining 2,200 2,200 2,600 400 18.18
Construction 11,850 12,250 9,800 -2,050 -17.30
Transportation, Com- 11,550 11,40U 11,600 50 0.43
munication, Utlities
Trade 33,300 32,500 33,800 500 1.50
Finance, Insurance, 6,000 5,650 5,500 -500 -8.33
Real Estate
Services & Misc. 26,100 24,900 26,000 -100 -0.38
Government 18,650 19,700 20,100 1,450 7.77
TOTAL 154,100 145,550 141,300 -12,800 --
JSource: Texas Employment Commission Labor Market Review; November 1981, November 1982, February 1984.
TABLE 3-3
TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS:
REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY VALUES
1974-2000
ESTIMATED ACTUAL INCREASE FROM INCREASE FROM
FISCAL VALUE PREVIOUS YEAR PREVIOUS YEAR
YEAR ($ MILL.) ($ MILL.) (PERCENT)
1974 1,057
1975 1,122 65 6.13
1976 1,191 69 6.17
1977 1,280 88 7.39
1978 1,382 103 8.04
1979 1,572 189 13.69
1980 1,705 133 8.48
1981 1,872 167 9.77
1982 2,165 293 15.68
1983 2,416 251 11 .59
1984 2,526 110 4.55
1985 2,588 62 2.45
1986 2,666 78 3.01
1987 2,746 80 3.00
1988 2,828 82 2.99
1989 2,913 85 3.01
1990 3,000 87 2.99
1991 3,090 90 3.00
1992 3,183 93 3.01
1993 3,278 95 2.98
1994 3,377 99 3.02
1995 3,478 101 2.99
1996 3,582 104 2.99
1997 3,690 108 3.02
1998 3,801 111 3.01
1999 3,915 114 3.00
2000 4,032 117 2.99
2001 4,156 124 3.08
2002 4,281 125 3.01
3. 10
TABLE 3-4
SALES TAX REVENUES
FISCAL $ J
YEAR $ INCREASE INCREASE
1973 2,690,588
1974 3,050,333 359,745 13.37
1975 3,486,281 435,948 14.29
1976 4,146,102 659,821 18.93
1977 4,777,371 631,269 15.23
1978 5,280,290 502,919 10.53
1979 6,135,353 855,063 16.19
1980 7,024,856 889,503 14.50
1981 8,147,717 1,122,861 15.98
1982 8,717,207 569,490 6.99
1983 8,659,538 -57,669 -0.66
3. 11
percent in 1983. Factors contributing to this decline in the
growth of sales tax revenues include reduced inflation, severe
regional unemployment, and construction of a regional shopping
mall in Port Arthur.
Outstanding Debt
Table 3-5 shows projected future debt service requirements
through the year 2000. Debt service, requirements for existing
debt and anticipated, authorized bond sales will increase
through 1986 and will begin to decline in 1987, not falling
below fiscal 1984 levels until 1993.
Because assessed property valuations and tax revenues have
not increased at the rate anticipated, the portion of property
tax revenues required for debt service has increased from an
originally expected $.27 per $100 of assessed valuation to $.30
in fiscal years 1986 through 1988 and $.31 in fiscal years 1989
through 1992. The long-term result is that, because of the
decline in the rate of growth of property tax revenues, there
will be less money available for capital improvements.
Funding Recommendations
1) Due to the fact that debt service on existing and voter
authorized general obligation bonds sales will continue to
increase and will not decline below 1984 levels until
1992, no new G.O. bond issues are proposed to fund the
current CIP except for those which will be retired from
3. 12
TABLE 3-5
PROJECTED FUTURE DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
Tax Water and Present Estimated Total
Assessed Rate Sanitation Total Debt Total Paying Debt Fund Balance
Fiscal Value per Collections Interest Fund Resources Service $20HH $9FM New Fees Service End of Year
Year (millions) $100 (000) (000) (000) (000) (000) Principal and Interest (000) Debt 000) (000) (000)
82 $6,028
83 $2,415 .24 $5,650 $ 877 $ 709 $13,264 $ 9,185 16 $ 9.201 4,063
84 2,526 .25 6,189 900 897 12,049 9,482 18 9,500 2,549
as 2,588 .27 6,848 2,500 690 12,587 9,324 $ 11000 $ 1,000 16 10.340 2,247
86 2,666 .30 7,838 1,950 489 12,524 9,156 2,000 2,000 14 '11,170 1,354
87 2,746 .30 8,073 2.200 486 12,113 8,874 $ 100 2,000 2,100 16 10,990 1,123
88 2,828 .30 8,314 1,350 497 11,284 7,559 700 1,990 $ 450 3,140 11 10,710 574
89 2,913 .31 8,850 800 494 10,718 7,364 200 1,920 900 3,020 16 10,400 318
90 3,000 .31 9,114 450 496 10,378 7.160 100 1,900 $ 100 900 3,000 10 10,170 208
91 3,090 .31 9,387 400 489 10,484 7,229 - 1,890 - 890 2,780 11 10,020 464
L� 92 3,183 .31 9,670 450 357 10,941 6,719 200 1,890 100 890 3,080 11 9,810 1,131
93 3,278 .30 9,637 500 355 11,623 6,394 200 1,870 100 880 3,050 16 9,460 2,163
94 3,377 .27 8,936 550 11,649 5,730 500 1,850 200 870 3,420 10 9,160 2,489
95 3,478 .25 8,521 550 11,560 5,515 400 1,800 200 850 3,250 15 8,780 2,780
96 3,582 .23 8,074 550 11,404 5,187 400 1,760 200 830 3,190 13 8,390 3,014
97 3,690 .21 7,594 550 11,158 3,992 1,000 1,720 500 810 4,030 18 8,040 3,118
98 3,801 .19 7,077 550 10,745 1,751 2,400 1,620 1,200 760 5,980 19 7,750 2,995
99 3,915 .18 6,906 500 10,401 3,600 1,380 1.800 640 7,420 10 7,430 2.971
2000 4,032 .16 6,322 500 9,793 3,800 1,020 1,800 460 7,080 10 7,090 2,703
01 4,156 .14 5,702 450 8.855 3,800 640 1,900 280 6,620 10 6,630 2,225
02 4,281 .04 1,678 250 4,153 2,600 260 900 90 3,850 10 3,860 293
$110,621 $20,000 $28,510 $ 9,000 $10,500 $68,010 270 $178,901
identifiable, non-property tax sources, such as user
fees.
2) A return to the City's policy of using Federal General
Revenue Sharing funds exclusively for capital improvements
is proposed.
3) Due to the City' s financial status, no general revenues
are proposed for CIP projects in 1985. For the remaining
four years of the CIP, the following allocation is
proposed:
PORTION OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO BE
FISCAL YEAR TO BE ALLOCATED TO CIP PROJECTS
198b 1 cent of tax revenue per $100 assessed
value
1987 2 cents of tax revenue per $100 assessed
value
1988 2 cents of tax revenue per $100 assessed
value
1989 3 cents of tax revenue per $100 assessed
value
4) Projects which "pay for themselves" in increased revenues
or cost savings will be given a high priority.
5) General Revenue funds programmed for use as local matching
shares for State or Federal grants will be reprogrammed
for use on other capital projects if these grants are not
received.
3. 14 / lJ�r-)
CHAPTER 4
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
The Capital Improvements Program is a strategic pl=inning
tool used to promote maximum efficiency in the allocation of
the limited funds available for public improvements . Because
of the perpetual scarcity of capital project funds, it is
essential that the projects included in the CIP must be
evaluated in terms of their impact on the City's long-term and
short-term finances, their consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan, their overall benefit to the public, and their
relationship to other public and private sector improvements.
Using the process described in Chapter 2, the City staff
and Planning Commission have prepared a 5-year program of
prioritized public improvements based upon priorities,
available funding sources, and the Comprehensive Plan.
The total estimated cost of the proposals over a five-year
period is $67,918,825. Table 4-1 provides a cost summary of the
preliminary CIP project proposals by year and functional
classification.
Table 4-2 shows tentative funding sources for the $67
million + in proposed projects. Approximately $7.1 million in
State and Federal grants, $17 million in Water Revenue funds
4. 1
and $26 million from previously approved bond issues make up
the bulk of the preliminary funding package. Approximately $2
million in General Fund Revenues, $8.5 million in Federal
General Revenue Sharing, and $5.7 million in other funds would
be required to finance the remainder of the proposals.
The preliminary CIP project proposals, their priority
ratings, functional classifications, implementation schedules,
and proposed funding sources are shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4.
Table 4-3 lists projects by function. Table 4-4 lists projects
sorted by funding sources. Each table provides the following
information:
ID #. Each proposal has been assigned a code number for
identification and computerization purposes.
FUNCTION. Projects have been grouped into 15 functionai
categories:
Library, Health, Water and Sewer, Parks, Fire
Protection, Airport, Drainage, Street Lighting and
Traffic Signals, Streets, Transit System, Police,
Community Facilities, Municipal Court, and Landfill.
PRIORITY. Projects were ranked by the initiating department
using a four-level scale and by the Planning Commission using a
system of 10 adopted criteria. (Both priority rating systems
are described in detail in Chapter 2.) The departmental
priority ratings are shown under the column heading "DPRI."
The Planning Commissioner's ratings are shown under the column
heading "PCPRI."
COST (BY YEAR) . Estimated project costs are shown by fiscal
year. A five-year total is also indicated.
SOURCE OF FUNDS. Proposed funding sources are indicated by the
following symbols:
4. 2
GR/GRS The City's General Fund or Federal
General Revenue Sharing
GRS84 Revenue Sharing funds held over from
Fiscal 83/84
GRANT Federal of State grants other than
Revenue Sharing
R Revenue Bonds
RB(W) Water Revenue Bonds
CDP Drainage Bond Issue approved by voters
in 1983 (Comprehensive Drainage
Program)
TIP Transportation Improvements Program
Bond issue approved by voters in 1980
RB(I) "Internal" Revenue Bonds secured by
Homberg Golf Course revenues
GOB Other general obligation bonds not
included in above bond issues
DON Private donations (host of these would
be through the Park and Recreation
Committee's fundraising drive.)
OF User fees
Figures 4-1 through 4-8 show the general geographic location ,of
each proposal (with the exceptions of proposals not associated
with a fixed location, such as motor vehicles, or projects
which apply to numerous locations throughout the city) .
4. 3
..ale -1- - i
CIP PROPOSALS
7/23/84
BY FUNCTION
5-YEAR
FUNCTION TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89
LIBRARY $420,000 0 0 $300,000 120,000 0
HEALTH 202,395 $105,000 $97,395 0 0
WATER AND SEWER 17,168,580 4,290,030 3,332,490 3,944,260 $4 ,080,880 $1 ,520,920
PARKS I 7,282,100 705,000 1,124,600 2,420,000 470,000 2,562,500
FIRE 915,000 112,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 578,000
AIRPORT 80,000 80,000 0 0 0 0
TRANSIT 3,477,500 0 170,000 1,700,000 1,397,500 210,000
LIGHTING/SIGNALS 1 ,613,250 434,000 383,700 285,000 235,000 275,550
STREETS 19,103,300 2,160,000 4,869,300 6,671 ,000 3,623,000 1 ,780,000
DRAINAGE 14 ,278,000 0 3,453,000 3,710,000 3,805,000 3,310,000
POLICE 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0
COMMUNITY FACILITIES 516,000 285,000 0 106,000 0 125,000
MUNICIPAL COURT 374,000 0 374,000 0 0 0
LANDFILL 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 0
$67,730,125 $101271 ,030 $13,979,485 $19 ,311 ,260 $13,806,380 $10,361 ,970
Table 4-2
CIP PROPOSALS
7/23/84
BY FUNDING SOURCE
FUNDING 5-YEAR
SOURCE TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89
GR OR GRS $10,092,350 $1 ,281 ,000 $1 ,950,300 $2 ,210,000 $2 ,200,500 $2 ,450,550
GRS84 70,000 70,000 0 0 0 0
GRANTS 6,917,195 36 ,000 980,695 3,225,000 1,395,000 1 ,280,500
DONATIONS 1 ,980,000 0 250,000 430,000 100,000 1 ,200,000
OF 430,000 130,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000
CDP 14,078,000 0 3,403,000 3,660,000 3,755,000 3,260,000
TIP 12,274,000 1,734,000 3,988,000 4,202,000 2,220,000 150,000
GOB 3,895,000 2,030,000 0 1,565,000 0 300,000
RB(I) 700,000 700,000 0 0 0 0
RB(W) 17 ,168,580 4,290,030 3,332,490 3,944,260 4,080,880 1 ,520,920
LS 125,000 0 0 0 0 125,000
TOTAL $67,730,125 $10,271 ,030 $13,979,485 $19 ,311,260 $13,806,380 $10,361 ,970
°4
1
Q.
Table 4-3
CL? BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
LIBRARY
I # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
1 TYRRELL LIBRARY 11 Al 420,000 0 0 300,000 120,000 0 GR/RS
RESTORATION
420,000 0 0 300,000 120,000 0
POLICE
I= 11 PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
136 POLICE STATION 13 B 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 GR/RS
EXPANSION: LAND
ACQUISITION
300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0
MUNICIPAL COURT
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
153 COURT FACILITY EX- 9 Al 374,000 0 374,000 0 0 0 GR/RS
PANSION
374,000 0 374,000 0 0 0
�y
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
HEALTH
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
9 PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER 15 B4 97,395 0 97,395 0 0 0 GRM T
PHASE 4
9.1 PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER 15 B4 55,000 55,000 0 0 0 0 OF
PHASE 4: $ FROG: IDE
212 HEALTH CENTER Al 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 GR/RS
RENOVATION
202,395 105,000 97,395 _ 0 0 0
FIRE
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUND;
40 #14 FIRE STATIeC.N 15 Al 540,000 37,000 0 0 0 503,000 GR/RS
47 FIRE TRAINING 5 CB 375,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 OF
FACILITY
915,000 112,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 578,000
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
AIRPORT
ID PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
50 UPDATE AIRPORT 8 Al 36,000 36,000 0 0 0 0 GRANT
MASTER PLAN
50.1 MATCHING FOR AIR- 8 Al 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 0 GR/RS
PORT MASTER PLAN
51 AIRPORT SECURITY 9 Bl 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 GR/RS
FENCE
52 AIRPORT SEAL COAT 9 B2 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 GR/RS
PAVING
80,000 80,000 0 0 0 0
LAN DF I LL
ID 11 PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
210 LANDFILL CLOSE-OUT Al $2,000,000 $2,000,000 0 0 0 0 GOB
$2,000,000 $2,000,000 0 0 0 0
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
139 REPLACE ROOF, JULIE 10 A 70,000 70,000 0 0 0 0 GR/FS
ROGERS THEATRE
140 FOUNDATION, JULIE 10 B 75,000 0 0 75,000 0 0 GR/RS
ROGERS THEATRE
141 JULIE ROGERS MEET- 9 C 31,000 0 0 31,000 0 0 GR/ S
- ING-ROOM RENOV. -
144 LIGHTING CONVER- 8 B 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 0 GR/RS
SION, CIVIC CTR.
145 ROOF REPAIR, CIVIC 8 A 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 GR/RS
CENTER
147 EQUIPMENT REPLACE- 8 C 125,000 0 0 0 0 125,000 GR/CS
MENT, CIVIC GTR.
149 PORTABLE HORSE 7 C 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 RB(I)
STALLS, FAIR PARK
200 RIVERFRONT PARK A 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 GOB
RETAINING WALL
$516,000 $285,000 0 $106,000 0 $125,000
'V
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
WATER UTILITIES
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
10 IH-10 36" SANITARY 11 Al $ 1,801,700 $1,801,700 0 0 0 0 RB(W)
SEWER INTERCEPTOR
11 WEST ELEVATED WATER 5 BI 18,180 18,180 0 0 0 0 RB(W)
TANK
12 23RD ST. 12" WATER 9 B2 164,900 164,900 0 0 0 0 RB(W) --
LINE
13 SHAKESPEARE DRIVE 9 B4 24,500 24,500 0 0 0 0 RB(W)
12" WATER LINE
14 GLADYS AVENUE 12" 9 B5 60,100 60,100 0 0 0 0 RB(W)
WATER LINE
15 11TH ST. SAN. SEWER 11 Al 1,487,750 1,487,750 0 0 0 0 RB(ii)
INTERCEPTOR
16 MAJOR DRIVE ELEVATED 14 B1 2,829,000 282,900 2,546,100 0 0 0 RB00
TANK
(CONTINUED)
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
WATER UTILITIES (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
-a
17 CALDER 33" SANITARY 11 B1 1,619,750 0 0 1,619,750 0 0 RB(n)
SEWER INTERCEPTOR
18 EAST-WEST 24" TRANS. 10 B1 1,363,900 0 136,390 1,227,510 0 0 RBO )
LINE SEC. 1
19 5.0 MCD WELL AT 11 B1 644,400 0 0 64,440 579,960 0 RB(:+)
LOEB FIELD
20 EAST-WEST 24" TRANS. 11 B2 2,416,800 0 0 241,680 2,175,120 0 RB(W)
LINE SEC. 2
21 KEITH ROAD 12" WATER 13 B3 408,000 0 0 40,880 367,920 0 RB(W)
LOOP SEC. 1
22 KEITH ROAD 12" WATER 13 B1 578,800 0 0 0 57,880 520,920 RB(W)
LOOP SEC. 2
23 UTILITY LINE EXTEN. 12 BI 3,750,000 450,000 650,000 750,000 900,000 1,000,000 RB( )
AND REPLACEMENT
$17,168,580 $4,290,030 $3,332,490 $3,944,260 $4,080,880 $1,520,920
`(U
Q
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
TRANSIT
ID 41 PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
130 PASSENGER AMENITIES 11 B1 $ 120,000 0 $ 80,000 0 $ 40,000 0 GRANT
130.1 MATCHING FOR 41130, 11 B1 30,000 0 20,000 0 10,000 0 GR/RS
PASSENGER &MENITIES
131 MAJOR VEHICLE PARTS 8 B2 64,000 0 32,000 0 0 $ 32,000 GRriNT
131.1 MATCHING FOR 41131, 8 B2 16,000 0 8,000 0 0 8,000 GR/RS
VEHICLE PARTS
(CONTINUED)
�?J
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
TRANSIT (CONT`D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
132 OFF-STREET TRANSFER 13 B3 1,125,000 0 0 0 1,125,000 0 GRANT
FACILITY
132.1 MATCHING FOR X1132, 13 B3 222,500 0 0 0 222,500 0 GR/RS
OFF-STREET TRANSFER
133 SERVICE VEHICLE 8 B4 24,000 0 24,000 0 0 0 GRANT
REPLACEMENT
133.1 MATCHING FOR #133, 8 B4 6,000 0 6,000 0 0 0 GR/RS
SERV.VEH.REPL.
134 PARTIAL FLEET 8 B5 1,275,000 0 0 $1,275,000 0 0 GRANT
REPLACEMENT
134.1 MATCHING FOR P134, 8 B5 425,000 0 0 425,000 0 0 GR/RS
FLEET REPLACEMENT
135 PARATRANSIT VANS 11 B6 136,000 0 0 0 0 136,000 GRANT
135.1 MATCHING FOR #135, 11 B6 34,000 0 0 0 0 34,000 GR/RS
PARATRANSIT
$3,477,500 0 $170,000 $1,700,000 $1,397,500 $210,000
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
93 TRAFFIC SIGNALS/ 10 Al $ 270,000 $ 50,000 $ 60,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $60,000 GR/RS
MISC. LOC.
94 STREET LIGHTING/ 11 A2 40,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 GR/RS
RESIDENTIAL
95 TRAFFIC SIGNALS/ 15 B1 224,550 0 0 75,000 64,000 85,550 GR/RS
STREET PROJ.
95.1 BONDS FOR x`95, 312,200 203,500 108,700 0 0 0 TIP
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
96 STREET LIGHTS/ 17 B2 636,000 40,000 205,000 150,000 116,000 125,000 GR/RS
STREET PROJECTS
96.1 BONDS FOR #96, STR. 17 B2 130,500 130,500 0 0 0 0 TIP
LIGHTS -STR.
$1,613,250 $434,000 $383,700 $285,000 $235,000 $275,550
nl)
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
PAWS
ID # PROJECTS PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
24 HOMBERG MUNICIPAL 10 Al $ 600,000 $ 600,000 0 0 0 0 RBI/I)
GOLF COURSE
27 ALICE KEITH COMMUNITY 14 B2 125,000 0 $ 125,000 0 0 0 GR.'�T
CENTER
28 ALICE KEITH PARK 14 B2 80,000 0 80,000 0 0 0 GRA2iT
RESTROOMS
29 ROBERTS PARK TENNIS 13 B3 30,000 0 0 0 $ 30,000 0 GRr:. T
COURT
30 CENTRAL PARK 11 B4 115,000 0 115,000 0 0 0 GRANT
IMPROVEMENTS
31 HEBERT PARK TENNIS 11 B5 35,000 0 0 $ 35,000 0 0 GRkN T
COURTS
(CONTINUED)
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
PARKS (CO NT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
34 BABE ZAHARIAS PARK 12 C2 100,0000 0 0 0 100,000 0 GRANT
IMPROVEMENTS
34.1 MATCHING FOR #34, 12 C2 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 0 GR/RS
ZAHARIAS PARK
34.2 MATCHING FOR #34 12 C2 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 0 DON
ZAHARIAS PARK
35 CHAISON PARK PLAY- 14 D1 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 GRANT
GROUND
36 BMT. ART MUSEUM REC. 10 D2 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 DON
FACLITIES
37 ACQUIRE/DEVELOP 15 D3 125,000 0 0 0 0 125,000 GRANT
EDWARDS SCHOOL
37.1 MATCHING FOR #37, 15 D3 125,000 0 0 0 0 125,000 GR/RS
EDWARDS SCHOOL
38 NEW PARK: HEBERT 18 C 825,000 0 150,000 200,000 100,000 375,000 GRANT
HIGH AREA
38.1 MATCHING FOR #38, 18 C $ 425,000 0 0 0 0 425,000 DON
HEBERT AREA
V (CONTINUED)
�lJ j
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
PARKS (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
39 ATHLETIC COMPLEX 11 D5 $62,500 0 0 0 0 $62,500
TENNIS COURTS
157 CALDWOOD PARK REHAB 13 B 70,000 $ 20,000 $ 50,000 0 0 0 GR/RS
158 PIPKIN PARK REHAB 15 B 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 GRANT
162 RIVERFRONT PARK 11 C 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0 0 GRANT
PHASE 2
165 "WOODLANDS" PARK 18 B 72,300 0 72,300 0 0 0 GRANT
DEVELOPMENT
(CONTINUED)
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
PARKS (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86!87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
165.1 MATCHING FOR #165, 18 B 72,300 0 52,300 20,000 0 0 GR/RS
WOODLANDS PARK
166 NEW PARK: FLORIDA/ 17 B 125,000 0 0 0 0 125,000 GRANT
HIGHLAND AREA
166.1 MATCHING FOR #166, 17 B 125,000 0 0 0 0 125,000 LS
-- FLORDIA/HIGHLAND PK.
167 NEW PARK: 4TH/11TH/ 17 B 155,000 0 155,000 0 0 0 GRANT
WASHINGTON/COLLEGE
167.1 MATCHING FOR #167, 17 B 95,000 0 0 95,000 0 0 DON
4TH/11TH/WASH/COL.
168 NEW PARK: AMELIA 17 B $ 125,000 0 0 $ 125,000 0 0 GRANT
168.1 MATCHING FOR X1168, 17 B 125,000 0 0 125,000 0 0 DON
AMEL IA PARK
169 NEW PARK: WILLOW 16 C 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 DON
CREEK AREA
(CONTINUED)
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
PARKS (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
170 NEW PARK: DELAWARE 15 C 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 DON
PLACE AREA
171 NEW PARK: WINDEMERE 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 GRAST
AREA
171.1 MATCHING FOR F171, 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 DON
WINDEMERE PARK
172 NEW PARK: 105/MAJOR/ 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 GRA';T
KEITH/LNVA
172.1 MATCHING FOR #172, 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 DON
PARK 105/MAJOR
173 NEW PARK: PARK 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 GRA2�T
MEADOWS AREA
(CONTINUED)
O
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
PARKS (CONT°D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86`87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
173.1 MATCHING FOR #173, 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 DON
PARK MEADOWS
174 COLLIERS FERRY PARK 17 D 375,000 0 0 0 0 375,000 GRANT
174.1 MATCHING FOR #174, 17 D 375,000 0 0 0 0 375,000 DON
COLLIERS FERRY
176 TRAIL SYSTEM 15 C 100,000 15,000 25,000 20,000 40,000 0 GR/FS
177 TYRRELL PARK 500,000 0 250,000 0 0 250,000 DON
IMPROVEMENTS
211 BEST YEARS CENTER 70,000 70,000 0 0 0 0 GRSf4
$7,282,100 $705,000 $1,124,600 $2,420,000 $470,000 $2,562,500
{
U
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
STREETS
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
102 SPUR 380 RIGHT-OF- 14 B4 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 0 0 0 0 TIP
WAY
103 MAJOR DRIVE, WASH- 12 B6 1,352,300 0 0 1,352,000 0 0 TIP
INGTON TO DISHMAN
104 GLADYS STREET 12 B6 950,000 950,000 0 0 0 0 TIP
105 CONCORD ROAD I 11 B7 3,629,300 0 $ 3,629,300 0 0 0 TIP
106 SIDEWALKS 13 B8 600,000 0 0 300,000 0 300,000 GOB
107 STREET REHAB 14 B9 3,437,000 500,000 600,000 464,000 983,000 890,000 GR/RS
108 INTERSECTION IM- 10 B10 370,000 50,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 GR/RS
PROVEMENT S
109 BRIDGE REPLACE- 9 B11 400,000 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 GR/RS
MENT PROGRAM
111 LIBERTY/LAUREL II 11 B13 360,000 360,000 0 0 0 0 TIP
112 LIBERTY/LAUREL III 11 B13 1,540,000 40,000 0 0 1,500,000 0 TIP
113 LUCAS STREET 10 B15 3,100,000 0 250,000 2,850,000 0 0 TIP
(CONTINUED)
O
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
STREETS (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 E6/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
114 CONCORD ROAD II 12 B16 700,000 0 0 0 700,000 0 TIP
115 RAIL CROSSING 8 B17 200,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 GR/RS
IMPROVEMENTS
16 FOLSOM: CROW TO 12 B18 1,265,000 0 0 1,265,000 0 0 GOB
DOWLEN
123 FRANKLIN STREET 10 C5 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 TIP
215 ASPHALT SEAL COAT 14 B9 1,000,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 GR/RS
(STREETS)
$19,103,300 $2,160,000 $4,869,300 $6,671,000 $3,623,000 $1,780,000
t '
�9
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
DRAINAGE
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
65 STREET CROSSINGS 9 B1 440,000 0 175,000 160,000 105,000 0 CDP
(DD $6)
71 23RD STREET DITCH 15 B7 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 CDP
SOUTH
72 SPECIAL DRAINAGE 12 B8 200,000 0 50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 GR/RS
PROJECTS
73 IRVING STREET PHASE 15 B9 1,168,000 0 1,168,000 0 0 0 CDP
II DRAINAGE
74 5TH STREET DRAINAGE 15 B10 110,000 0 110,000 0 0 0 CDP
75 IH-10/11TH STREET 16 B11 250,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 CDP
DRAINAGE
76 SOUTH PARK DRAINAGE 16 B12 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 0 0 0 CDP
77 CARTWRIGHT PHASE 15 B13 19600,000 0 0 1,600,000 0 0 CDP
IIIB DRAINAGE
78 FANNIN STREET BOX 12 B14 1,900,000 0 0 1,900,000 0 0 CDP
79 CALDWOOD DRAINAGE 15 B15 350,000 0 0 0 350,000 0 CDP
(CONTINUED)
CIP BY FUNCTION
7/23/84
DRAINAGE (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
80 CARTWRIGHT PHASE 15 B16 1,500,000 0 0 0 1,500,000 0 CDP
IIIB DRAINAGE
81 HIGH SCHOOL DITCH 15 B17 1,800,000 0 0 0 1,800,000 0 CDP
PHASE I
82 FANNETT ROAD PHASE 15 B18 760,000 0 0 0 0 760,000 CDP
I DRAINAGE
83 MOORE/UNIVERSITY 15 B19 600,000 0 0 0 0 600,000 CDP
DRAINAGE
84 HIGH SCHOOL DITCH 15 B20 500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 CDP
PHASE II
85 CARTWRIGHT PHASE IV 15 B21 1,400,000 0 0 0 0 1,400,000 CDP
$14,278,000 $0 $3,453,000 $3,710,000 $3,805,000 $3,310,000
tV
4
Table 4-4
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
GENERAL REVENUES OR REVENUE SHARING
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
1 TYRRELL LIBRARY 11 Al $420,000 0 0 $300,000 120,000 0 GR/RS
RESTORATION
34.1 MATCHING FOR #34, 12 C2 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 0 GRJRS
ZAHARIAS PARK
37.1 MATCHING FOR #37, 15 D3 125,000 0 0 0 0 125,000 GR/RS
EDWARDS SCHOOL
40 #14 FIRE STATION 15 Al 540,000 37,000 0 0 0 503,000 GR/RS
50.1 MATCHING FOR AIR- 8 Al 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 0 GR/RS
PORT MASTER PLAN
51 AIRPORT SECURITY 9 B1 20,000 20,000 0 0 0 0 GR/RS
FENCE
52 AIRPORT SEAL COAT 9 B2 20,000 20,000 0 0 0
PAVING 0 GR/RS
(CONTINUED)
` V
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
GENERAL REVENUES OR REVENUE SHARING (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
72 SPECIAL DRAINAGE 12 B8 200,000 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 GR/RS
PROJECTS
93 TRAFFIC SIGNALS/ 10 Al 270,000 50,000 60,000 50,000 50,000 60,000 GR/RS
MISC. LOC.
94 STREET LIGHTING/ 11 A2 40,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 GR/RS
RESIDENTIAL
95 TRAFFIC SIGNALS/ 15 B1 224,550 0 0 75,000 64,000 85,550 GR/RS
STREET PROJECTS
96 STREET LIGHTS/ 17 B2 636,000 40,000 205,000 150,000 116,000 125,000 GR/RS
STREET PROJECTS
107 STREET REHAB 14 B9 3,437,000 500,000 600,000 464,000 983,000 890,000 GR/RS
108 INTERSECTION IM- 10 B10 370,000 50,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 GR/RS
PROVEMENTS
109 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 9 Bll $400,000 0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 GR/RS
PROGRAM
115 RAIL CROSSING IM- 8 B17 200,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 GR/RS
PROVEMENTS
130.1 MATCHING FOR #130, 11 BI 30,000 0 20,000 0 10,000 0 GR/RS
PSGR. AMEN.
131.1 MATCHING FOR #131, 8 B2 16,000 0 8,000 0 0 8,000 GR/RS
VEHICLE PARTS
(CONTINUED)
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
GENERAL REVENUES OR REVENUE SHARING (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
132.1 MATCHING FOR #132, 13 B3 222,500 0 0 0 222,500 0 GR/RS
OFF-ST. TRANS.
133.1 MATCHING FOR #133, 8 B4 6,000 0 6,000 0 0 0 GR/RS
SERV. VEH. REPL.
134.1 MATCHING FOR #134, 8 B5 425,000 0 0 425,000 0 0 GR/RS
FLEET REPL.
135.1 MATCHING FOR X1135, 11 B6 34,000 0 0 0 0 34,000 GR/RS
PARATRANSIT
136 POLICE STATION 13 B 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 GR/RS
EXPANSION. LAND
ACQUISITION
139 REPLACE ROOF, JULIE 10 A 70,000 70,000 0 0 0 0 GR/RS
ROGERS THEATRE
140 FOUNDATION, JULIE 10 B 75,000 0 0 75,000 0 0 GR/RS
ROGERS THEATRE
141 J. ROGERS MEETING 9 C 31,000 0 0 31,000 0 0 GR/RS
ROOM RENOVATION
144 LIGHTING CONVERSION 8 B 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 0 M/RS
CIVIC CENTER
(CONTINUED)
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
GENERAL REVENUES OR REVENUE SHARING (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
145 ROOF REPAIR, CIVIC 8 A 25,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 GR/RS
CENTER
147 EQUIPMENT REPLACE- 8 C 125,000 0 0 0 0 125,000 GR/RS
MENT, CIVIC CTR.
153 COURT FACILITY 9 Al $374,000 - 0 374,000 0 0 0 GR/RS
EXPANSION
157 CALDWOOD PARK REHAB 13 B 70,000 20,000 $50,000 0 0 0 GR/RS
165.1 MATCHING FOR #165, 18 B 72,300 0 52,300 20,000 0 0 GR/RS
WOODLANDS PARK
176 TRAIL SYSTEM 15 C 100,000 15,000 25,000 20,000 40,000 0 GR/RS
212 HEALTH CENTER A 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 GR/RS
RENOVATION
215 ASPHALT SEAL COAT 14 B9 1,000,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 GR/RS
(STREETS)
$10,092,350 $1,281,000 $1,950,300 $2,210,000 $2,200,500 $2,450,550
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
1983/84 REVENUE SHARING
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
211 BEST YEARS CENTER $70,000 $70,000 0 0 0 0 GRS84
$70,000 $70,000 0 0 0 0
USER FEES
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
9.1 PUBLIC HEALTH CTR. 15 B4 $55,000 $55,000 0 0 0 0 OF
PH. 4: $ FROM IDB
47 FIRE TRAINING 5 C8 375,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 OF
FACILITY
$430,000 $130,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000
JV
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
OTHER GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
106 SIDEWALKS 13 B8 $600,000 0 0 $300,000 0 $300,000 GOB
116 FOLSOM: CROW TO 12 B18 1,265,000 0 0 1,265,000 0 0 GOB
DOWLEN
200 RIVERFRONT PARK A 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 0 GOB
RETAINING W LL
210 LANDFILL CLOSE-OUT A 2,000,000 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 GOB
$3,895,000 $2,030,000 0 $1,565,000 0 $300,000
"INTERNAL" REVENUE BONDS
ID PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
24 HOMBERG MUNICIPAL 10 A] $600,000 $600,000 0 0 0 0 RB(I)
GOLF COURSE
149 PORTABLE HOPSE 7 C 100,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 RB(I)
STALLS, FAIR. PARK
$700,000 700,000 0 0 0 0
V
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
WATER REVENUE BONDS
ID Oi PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
10 IH-10 36" SANITARY 11 Al $1,801,700 $1,801,700 0 0 0 0 RB(W)
SEWER INTERCEPTOR
11 WEST ELEVATED WATER 5 B1 18,180 18,180 0 0 0
TANK 0 RB(ti)
12 23RD ST. 12" WATER 9 B2 164,900 164,900 0 0 0
LINE 0 RB(i )
13 SHAKESPEARE DRIVE 9 B4 24,500 24,500 0 0 0 0 FB(i;)
12" WATER LINE
14 GLADYS AVE. 12" 9 B5 60,100 60,100 0 0 0 0 RB(w)
WATER LINE
15 11TH STREET SANITARY 11 Al 1,487,750 1,487,750 0 0 0 0 RB(m)
SEWER INTERCEPTOR
16 MAJOR DRIVE ELEVATED 14 B1 2,829,000 282,900 2,546,100 0 0 0 ( )
TANK RB
17 CALDER 33" SANITARY 11 BI 1,619,750 0 0 1,619,750 0 0 EB M
SEWER INTERCEPTOR
(CONTINUED)
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
WATER REVENUE BONDS (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
18 EAST-WEST 24" TRANS. 10 B1 1,363,900 0 136,390 1,227,510 0 0 RB(W)
LINE SEC. 1
19 5.0 MGD WELL AT 11 B1 644,400 0 0 64.440 579,960 0 RB(W)
LOEB FIELD
20 EAST-WEST 24" 11 B2 2,416,8000 0 0 241,680 2,175,120 0 RB(W;
-- TRANS. LINE SEC.2
21 KEITH RD. 12" WATER 13 B3 408,800 0 0 40,880 367,920 0 RB(W
LOOP SEC.1
22 KEITH RD. 12" WATER 13 B1 578,800 0 0 0 57,880 520,920 RB(Wi
LOOP SEC.2
23 UTILITY LINE EXTEN. 12 B1 3,750,000 450,000 650,000 750,000 900,000 1,000,000 RB(W
AND REPL.
$17,168,580 $4,290,030 $3,332,490 $3,944,260 $40,080,880 $1,520,920
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
GRANTS
ID 11 PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
9 PUBLIC HEALTH CTR. 15 B4 $97,395 0 $97,395 0 0 0 GRANT
PHASE 4
27 ALICE KEITH COM- 14 B2 125,000 0 125,000 0 0 0 GRANT
MUNITY CENTER
28 ALICE KEITH PARK 14 B2 80,000 0 80,000 0 _ _0 0 GRANT
RESTROOMS
29 ROBERTS PARK TENNIS 13 B3 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0 GRANT
COURT
30 CENTRAL PARK IM- 11 B4 115,000 0 115,000 0 0 0 GRANT
PROVEMENTS
31 HEBERT PARK TENNIS 11 B5 35,000 0 0 35,000 0 0 GRANT
COURTS
34 BABE ZAHARIAS PARK 12 C2 100,000 0 0 0 100,000 0 GRANT
IMPROVEMENTS
35 CHAISON PARK PLAY- 14 Dl 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 (SLANT
GROUND
(CONTINUED)
t
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
GRANTS (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
37 ACQUIRE/DEVELOP 15 D3 125,000 0 0 0 0 125,000 GRANT
EDWARDS SCHOOL
38 NEW PARK: HEBERT 18 C 825,000 0 150,000 200,000 100,000 375,000 GRANT
HIGH AREA
39 ATHLETIC COMPLEX it D5 62,500 0 0 0 0 62,500 GRANT
TENNIS COURTS
50 UPDATE AIRPORT 8 Al 36,000 36,000 0 0 0 0 GRANT
MASTER PLAN
130 PASSENGER AMENITIES 11 B1 120,000 0 80,000 0 40,000 0 GRANT
FACILITY
133 SERVICE VEHICLE 8 B4 24,000 0 24,000 0 0 0 GRANT
REPLACEMENT
(CONTINUED)
1�
1
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
GRANTS (CONY D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
134 PARTIAL FLEET RE- 8 B5 $1,275,000 0 0 $1,275,000 0 0 GRANT
PLACEMENT
135 PARATRANSIT VANS 11 B6 136,000 0 0 0 0 $136,000 GRANT
158 PIPKIN PARK REHAB 15 B 50,000 0 50,000 0 0 0 GRANT
162 RIVERFRONT PARK 11 C 1,500,000 0 0 1,500,000 0 0 GRAN:
PHASE 2
165 "WOODLANDS" PARK 18 B 72,300 0 72,300 0 0 0 GRANT
DEVELOPMENT
166 NEW PARK: FLORIDA/ 17 B 125,000 0 0 0 0 125,000 GRAN!
HIGHLAND AREA
167 NEW PARK 4TH/11TH/ 17 B 155,000 0 155,000 0 0 0 GRAN!
WASH./COLL.
(CONTINUED)
l
V
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
GRANTS (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
168 NEW PARK: AtfELIA 17 B 125,000 0 0 125,000 0 0 GRANT
171 NEW PARK: WINDEMERE 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 GRANT
AREA
172 NEW PARK: 105/MAJOR/ 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 GRANT
KEITH/LNVA
173 NEW PARK: PARK 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 GRANT
MEADOWS AREA
174 COLLIERS FERRY PARK 17 D 375,000 0 0 0 0 375,000 GRANT
$6,917,195 $36,000 $980,695 $3,225,000 $1,395,000 $1,280,500
'� V
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
DRAINAGE BONDS
ID 11 PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
65 STREET CROSSINGS $440,000 0 $175,000 $160,000 $105,000 0 CDP
(DD #6)
71 23RD ST. DITCH SOUTH 15 B7 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 CDP
73 IRVING STREET PHASE 15 B9 1,168,000 0 1,168,000 0 0 0 CDP
II DRAINAGE
74 5TH STREET DRAINAGE 15 B10 110,000 0 110,000 0 0 0 CDP
75 IH-10/11TH ST. 16 Bll 250,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 CDP
DRAINAGE
76 SOUTH PARK DRAINAGE 16 B12 1,500,000 0 1,500,000 0 0 0 CDP
77 CARTWRIGHT PHASE 15 B13 1,600,000 0 0 1,600,000 0 0 CDP
IIIB DRAINAGE
78 FANNIN STREET BOX 12 B14 1,900,000 0 0 1,900,000 0 0 CDP
(CONTINUED)
(V
GIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
DRAINAGE BONDS (COh'T'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
79 CALDWOOD DRAINAGE 15 B15 350,000 0 0 0 350,000 0 CDP
80 CARTWRIGHT PHASE 15 B16 1,500,000 0 0 0 1,500,000 0 MP
PHASE IIIB DRAINAGE
81 HIGH SCHOOL DITCH 15 B17 1,800,000 0 0 0 1,800,000 0 a P
PHASE I
82 FANNETT ROAD PHASE 15 B18 760,000 0 0 0 0 760,000 CDP
I DRAINAGE
83 MOORE/UNIVERSITY 15 B19 600,000 0 0 0 0 600,000 MP
DRAINAGE
84 HIGH SCHOOL DITCH 15 B20 500,000 0 0 0 0 500,000 CDP
PHASE II
85 CARTWRIGHT PHASE 15 B21 1,400,000 0 0 0 0 1,400,000 a;
IV DRAINAGE
$14,078,000 0 $3,403,000 $3,666,000 $3,755,000 $3,260,000
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
TIP BONDS
ID ll PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
95.1 BONDS FOR $95, $312,200 $203,500 108,700 0 0 0 TIP
TRAFFIC SIGNALS
96.1 BONDS FOR #96, 17 B2 130,500 130,500 0 0 0 0 TIP
STREET LIGHTS-STR.
102 SPUR 380 RIGHT-OF- 14 B4 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 TIP
WAY
103 MAJOR DRIVE, WASH- 12 B6 1,352,000 0 0 1,352,000 0 0 TIP
INGTON TO DISH AN
104 GLADYS STREET 12 B6 950,000 950,000 0 0 0 0 TIP
105 CONCORD ROAD I 11 B7 3,629,300 0 3,629,300 0 0 0 TIP
111 LIBERTY-LAUREL II 11 B13 360,000 360,000 0 0 0 0 TIP
112 LIBERTY-LAUREL III 11 B14 1,540,000 40,000 0 0 1,500,000 0 TIP
113 LUCAS STREET 10 B15 3,100,000 0 250,000 2,850,000 0 0 TIP
114 CONCORD ROAD II 12 B16 700,000 0 0 0 700,000 0 TIP
123 FRANKLIN STREET 10 C5 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 TIP
$12,274,000 $1,734,000 $3,988,000 $4,202,000 $2,200,000 $150,000
Qs
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
DONATIONS
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
34.2 MATCHING FOR #34, 12 C2 $100,000 0 0 0 $100,000 0 DON
ZAHARIAS PARK
36 BMT. ART MUSEUM 10 D2 150,000 0 0 0 0 $150,000 DON
REC. FACILITIES
38.1 MATCHING FOR #38, 18 C 425,000 0 0 0 0 425,000 DON
HEBERT AREA
167.1 MATCHING FOR #167, 17 B 95,000 0 0 95,000 0 0 DON
PARK 4TH/11TH/WASH
168.1 MATCHING FOR #168, 17 B 125,000 0 0 $125,000 0 0 DON
AMELIA PARK
169 NEW PARK: WILLOW 16 C 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 DON
CREEK AREA
170 NEW PARK: DELAWARE 15 C 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 DON
PLACE AREA
(CONTINUED)
��V
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
DONATIONS (CONT'D)
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 FUNDS
171.1 MATCHING FOR 1/171, 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 DGN
WINDEMERE PARK
172.1 MATCHING FOR #172, 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 DON
PARK 105/MAJOR
173.1 MATCHING FOR #173, 16 C 30,000 0 0 30,000 0 0 Dpl;
PARK MEADOWS
174.1 MATCHING FOR #174, 17 D 375,000 0 0 0 0 375,000 DGN
COLLIERS FERRY
177 TYRRELL PARK IM- 500,000 0 250,000 0 0 250,000 DCN
PROVEMENTS
$1,980,000 0 $250,000 $430,000 5100,000 $1,200,000
(\ j
CIP BY FUNDING SOURCE
7/23/84
LAND SALE
ID # PROJECT PCPRI DPRI TOTAL 84/85 85/86 86/87 87/88 88/89 ft'NDS
166.1 MATCHING FOR 41166, 17 B9 $125,000 0 0 0 0 $125,000
FLA/HIGHLA_ID PARK
$125,000 0 0 0 0 $125,000
W
PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS
Figure 4-1
LIBRARY, HEALTH,
.POLICE, MUNICIPAL COURT.
u \
I 1 TYRRELL LIBRARY
I \) RESTORATION
9 PUBLIC HEALTH CENTER
PHASE 4
212 HEALTH CENTER
RENOVATION
I 136 POLICE STATION
EXPANSION
L_ \ 153 COURT FACILITY EX-
PANSION
.n J
w _ J
'
'-�$ • 6 53
•9,I
�---� CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
Beaumont, Texas 1985-1989
•19
Figure 4-2
PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS
^� WATER & SEWER
ou 10 IH-10 36" SANITARY 21 KEITH ROAD 12" WATER
SEWER INTERCEPTOR LOOP SEC. 1
11 WEST ELEVATED WATER 22 KEITH ROAD 12" WATER
TANK LOOP SEC. 2
12 23RD ST. 12" WATER V23 UTILITY LINE EXTEN.
LINE AND REPLACEMENT
13 SHAKESPEARE DRIVE
12" WATER LINE
I 14 GLADYS AVENUE 12"
WATER LINE
15 11TH ST. SAN. SEWER
INTERCEPTOR
a
16 MAJOR DRIVE ELEVATED
2 TANK LK 18 1 4` 17 CALDER 33" SANITARY
J SEWER INCEPTOR
— 1 1 0 •1 1 16 EAST-WEST 24" TRANS.
C LIM 1 LINE SEC. 1
12 19 5.0 MGD WELL AT
22 COLLME LOEB FIELD
20 EAST-WEST 24" TRANS.
15 LINE SEC. 2
*16 V=Various Locations
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
Beaumont, Texas 1985-1989
Figure 4-3
PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS
PARKS
24 HOMBERG MUNICIPAL 38 NEW PARK: h%BERT 170 NEW PARK: DELAWARE
/�yy GOLF COURSE HIGH AREA PLACE AREA
�1!
25 TYRRELL PARK TRAILER 39 ATHLETIC COMPLEX
PARK TENNIS COURTS 171 NEW PARK: WINDEMERE
AREA
27 ALICE KEITH COMMUNITY 157 CALDWOOD PARK REHAB
CENTER 172 NEW PARK: 105/MAJOR/
1 158 PIYRIN P�,:1: I'�_:A;; KEITH/LNVA
91 6 5 28 ALICE KEITH PARK
o1 7 1 RESTROOMS 160 PATOO ETIC COMPLEX 173 NEW PARK: PARK
29 ROBERTS PARK TENNIS MEADOWS AREA
COURT 161 KLEIN PARK PHASES
I 0172 3 AND 4
30 CENTRAL PARK 174 COLLIERS FERRY PARK
IMPROVEMENTS 162 RIVERFRONT PARK
o 3 7 \ PEE 2 -x/176 TRAIL SYSTEM
J31 HEBERT PARK TENNIS
0170 *3 4 COURTS 165 DEVELOPMENT PARK 177 TYRRELL PARK
L 34 BABE ZAHARIAS PARK 166 NEW PARK: FLORIDA/ IMPROVEMENTS
IMPROVEMENTS HIGHLAND AREA
211 BEST YEARS CENTER
p 35 GROUND PARK PLAY-
GROUND NEW PARK: 4TH/11TH/
I� 3 C 2 GROUND WASHINGTON/COLLEGE
CITY LNr e J 0157 031 36 BMT. ART MUSEUM REC. 168 NEW PARK: AMELIA
FACLITIES
COLLCOE •3 01 1 01 58 37 ACQUIRE/DEVELOP 169 NEW PARK: WILLOW
*39,1650 67 •�� EDWARDS SCHOOL CREEK AREA
1 8 •35�
�lg *168 •38 2 28 V=Various Locations
0166
�--� CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
924'25'1 7 PROGRAM
� r
J Beaumont, Texas 1985-1989
Figure 4-4
PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS
^� FIRE. LANDFILL. AIRPORT
40 414 FIRE STATION
47 FIRE TRAINING
FACILITY
50 UPDATE AIRPORT
MASTER PLAN
HWY. 106 51 AIRPORT SECURITY
FENCE
I 52 AIRPORT SEAL COAT
1 PAVING
210 LANDFILL CLOSE-OUT
• 10
ut 10 •
MY uWARS
1050-52 COLLEGE
L
0
Fn L� CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PR
� � ® OGRAM
north Beaumont, Texas 1985-1989
d
Figure 4-5
PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS
DRAINAGE
71 23RD STREET DITCH
SOUTH
�. V72 SPECIAL DRAINAGE
\ PROJECTS
1 73 IRVING STREET PHASE
I 1 II DRAINAGE
74 5TH STREET DRAINAGE
75 IH-10/11TH STREET
DRAINAGE
p 76 SOUTH PARK DRAINAGE
I 77 CARTWRIGHT PHASE
IIII IIIB DRAINAGE
L_ 17 1 78 FANNIN STREET BOX
J
79 CALDWOOD DRAINAGE
J 80 CARTWRIGHT PHASE
uiio IIIB DRAINAGE
�J 5 81 HIGH SCHOOL DITCH
PHASE I
82 FANNETT ROAD PHASE
cffys 179 I 4
I DRAINAGE
COLLEGE 7� 83 MOORE/UNIVERSITY
Q � DRAINAGE
--t —85 84 HIGH SCHOOL DITCH
7 7 PHASE II
/82 7;;6j 85 CARTWRIGHT PHASE IV
83
�--� CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
Beaumont, Texas 1985-1989
m
Figure 4-6
PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS
TRANSIT, STREET LIGHTS
& TRAFFIC SIGNALS
V130 PASSENGER AMENITIES
131 MAJOR VEHICLE PARTS
132 OFF—STREET TRANSFER
FACILITY
133 SERVICE VEHICLE
•1�• REPLACEMENT
I •••••••95. 96 134 PARTIAL FLEET
y J �7 REPLACEMENT
�-- ■ �•• 1 135 PARATRANSIT VANS
•••••• J V93 TRAFFIC SIGNALS/
OD 9 ' 96 ••. MISC. LOC.
■ r7 /
95. 96
V94 STREET LIGHTING/
RESIDENTIAL
. ....
95. 96
■■�*■���■■ 95 TRAFFIC SIGNALS/
STREET PROJ.
cm
LmITS
96 STREET LIGHTS/
■ STREET PROJECTS
COLLE
■
95. 96 V=Varlous Locations
• ■
■
95, 6
■
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM
Beaumont, Texas 1985-1989
U�
Figure 4-7
PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS
STREETS
V 65 STREET CROSSING$ (06)
102 SPUR 380 RIGHT-OF-
WAY 103 MAJOR DRIVE,WASHINTON
TO DISHMAN
104 GLADYS STREET
105 CONCORD ROAD I
V106 SIDEWALKS
V107 STREET REHAB
V108 INTERSECTION IM-
105 PROVEMENTS
HWY. 105
V109 BRIDGE REPLACE-
MENT PROGRAM
�-
116 ill 05 111 LIBERTY/LAUREL II
a 112 LIBERTY/LAUREL III
1 (� 113 LUCAS STREET
10 1 1 1 4 / 114 CONCORD ROAD II
V115 RAIL CROSSING
I1 1 1 IMPROVEMENTS
Crry u rTs J 1 03 116 FOLSOM: CROW TO
DOWLEN
02 V 215 ASPHALT SEAL COAT
1
123 FRANKLIN STREET
V=Various Locations
NV
A
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
® PROGRAM
_� old Beaumont, Texas 1985-1989
Figure 4-8
PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS
^^�� COMMUNITY FACILITIES
139 REPLACE ROOF, JULIE
ROGERS THEATRE
140 FOUNDATION, JULIE
ROGERS THEATRE
141 JULIE ROGERS MEET-
. ING ROOM RENOV.
144 LIGHTING CONVER-
SION. CIVIC CTR.
ROOF\�11" 145 ROOF REPAIR, CIVIC
CENTER
L_ 147 EQUIPMENT REPLACE-
"49 MENT, CIVIC CTR.
o 149 PORTABLE HORSE STALLS,FAIR PARK
LH. 10 200 RIVERFRONT PARK
N RETAINING WALL
844, 145, 147 1
`-1
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
® PROGRAM
'� _� Beaumont, Texas 1985-1989
APPENDIX A
CITY COUNCIL'S ADOPTED
FISCAL POLICIES FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
In adopting the Fiscal 1984 Annual Budget, City Council
also adopted fiscal policies addressing the operating budget,
revenues, capital improvements, debt, reserves, investment, and
financial reporting. Council's capital improvements and debt
policies are reprinted here in their entirety.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET POLICIES
- The City will make all capital improvements in accordance
with an adopted capital improvement budget.
- The City will develop a multi-year plan for capital
improvements and update it annually.
- The City will enact an annual capital budget based on the
multi-year capital improvement plan. Future capital
expenditures necessitated by changes in population, changes
in real estate development, or changes in economic base will
be calculated and included in capital budget projections.
- The City will coordinate development of the capital
improvement budget with development of the operating budget.
Future operating costs associated with new capital
improvements will be projected and included in operating
budget forecasts.
- The City will use intergovernmental assistance to finance
only those capital improvements that are consistent with the
adopted capital improvement plan and city priorities, and
whose operating and maintenance costs have been included in
operating budget forecasts.
- The City will maintain all its assets at a level adequate to
protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future
maintenance and replacement costs.
- The City will project its equipment replacement and
maintenance needs for the next several years and will update
this projection each year. From this projection a
maintenance and replacement schedule will be developed and
followed in the fleet replacement and maintenance fund.
- The City staff will identify the estimated costs and
potential funding sources for each capital project proposal
before it is submitted to the City Council for approval.
A. 1
- The City will determine the least costly financing method
for all new projects.
- The City will utilize Federal general revenue sharing funds,
fees from the fire training facility and golf course
operation solely for support of capital improvements except
under extreme conditions.
DEBT POLICIES
- The City will confine long-term borrowing to capital
improvements or projects that cannot be financed from
current revenues.
- When the City finances capital projects by issuing bonds, it
will pay back the bonds within a period not to exceed the
expected useful life of the project.
- The City will try to keep the average maturity of general
obligation bonds at or below 20 years.
- Total debt service for general obligation debt will not
exceed twenty-five percent of total annual locally generated
operating revenue.
- Total general obligation debt will not exceed 5.00 percent
of the assessed valuation of taxable property.
- Where possible, the City will use revenue, or other
self-supporting bonds instead of general obligation bonds.
- The City will not incur long-term debt to support current
operations .
- The City will retire any tax anticipation debt annually.
- The City will maintain good communications with bond rating
agencies about its financial condition. The City will
follow a policy of full disclosure on every financial report
and bond prospectus.
A. 2
APPENDIX B
PROJECT SUMMARIES
This appendix provides capsule summaries of each of the
projects included in the 1985-1989 CIP. More detailed
information is provided in Appendix C, Project Reference Guide
(bound separately).
Projects are grouped by function. Each project is
preceded by its identification number.
LIBRARY
1 Phase 3 of preservation of the Tyrrell Historical
Library. Includes window repairs and restoration, door
repair and restoration, additional repointing, overall
general weatherization.
POLICE
136 Land acquisition for future expansion.
MUNICIPAL COURT
153 Expansion of Municipal Court to accommodate 59% increase
in personnel and 76% increase in charges filed since
present court facility was completed in 1975.
HEALTH
9 Construction of additional space for existing Beaumont
Community Health Clinic to provide four additional clinic
rooms and office space for primary medical care for the
indigent. Provide physical examination rooms for City
physicals. Provide first-aid treatment for on-the-job
injuries.
FIRE
40 Construction of a two-bay fire station at Walden Road and
IH-10 to accommodate new development.
47 Construction of a larger classroom/office facility at the
Fire Department Training Center.
B. 1
�� �J()
AIRPORT
50 An update of the 1975 airport master plan is recommended
to assist in planning capital improvements and operations
at Beaumont Municipal Airport.
51 A four-foot security fence will control access along
Keith Road at Beaumont Municipal Airport.
52 Seal coating for maintenance of runways 12 and 30 and the
taxiways is included in this project.
LANDFILL
"Closing-out" of the Old Pine Street landfill.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
141 Julie Rogers Meeting Room renovations will improve
usefulness and versatility of Julie Rogers Theatre.
144 Upgrading of the existing Civic Center lighting to a more
energy-efficient metal halide/incandescent system will
provide improve lighting quality. The system will pay
for itself in decreased electricity consumption within
one to three years.
145 Civic Center roof repairs are needed to prevent serious
deterioration due to leaks.
147 Equipment replacement at Civic Center consists of routine
replacement of operating equipment (chairs, tables,
stages, etc.) .
149 Portable horse stalls at Fair Park will enable the City
to host larger horse shows which have roughly the same
economic impact as a convention.
2uO Retaining wall at Riverfront Park pedestrian underpass
will improve the appearance of the area immediately
behind City Hall and will also stop serious erosion that
has been occurring.
WATER UTILITIES
lu Replace 36" sanitary sewer in street r.o.w. from east
side of Highway 69 and Kenwood to 23rd Street lift
station. Total footage 8200 feet.
11 Altitude valve on west elevated water tank.
B. 2
Z�C—fv-3V
12 3,000 feet of 12-inch water line in 23rd Street from
Calder Avenue to Eloise.
13 550 feet of 12-inch water line from Shakespeare Drive to
Prutzman.
14 1,350 feet of 12-inch water line in Gladys Avenue from
Howell Drive to Crescent.
15 Replace 60" sanitary sewer in existing sewer alignment
from Washington Boulevard and 11th Street to Cardinal
Drive. Total footage 5750 feet.
16 2.0 MG Humble Road elevated water tank.
17 Replace 33" sanitary sewer in existing sewer alignment
from Calder and Junker to 23rd Street lift station.
Total footage 9150 feet.
18 16,200 feet of 24-inch water line from Major Drive and
Dishman to West Lucas .
19 5.0 million gallons per day (MGD) well at Loeb Well Field
and transmission facilities. Needed to supplement
anticipated 1988 water demand.
20 16,300 feet of 24-inch transmission line from West Lucas
to Isla and Mariposa.
21 5,800 feet of 12-inch water line in Calder Avenue from
Westbrook High School to Keith Road.
22 7,600 feet of 12-inch water line in Keith Road from
Calder Avenue to Washington Boulevard.
23 Pro rata/oversize construction; fire protection; line
relocation and rehabiliation.
TRANSIT
130 Fiscal year 1984 project included purchase and
installation of 20 passenger shelters, 25 benches, 60
litter receptacles, 65 litter barrels, an 15 display
stands. Future projects would expand amenities of these
and other types.
131 Major vehicle parts are eligible for purchase with
federal and state grant assistance. Major bus
replacement items would be included.
B. 3
132 An off-street transfer facility would provide a safer and
more convenient means of transfer from one bus route to
another in a central location.
133 This project includes purchase of administrative and
repair vehicles necessary in the daily activities of the
transit system. Two sedans and a pickup are included.
Beyond fiscal year 1989, a replacement tow-truck is
anticipated.
134 Current route service is provided by 1975 model year
buses . It is anticipated that a partial fleet
replacement (9 buses) will be necessary in fiscal year
1987. Additional replacement buses are assumed in fiscal
year 1990.
135 The project includes the purchase of three vans with
wheelchair lifts and radios. The vans are used in a
demand responsive system to serve mobility impaired
persons who are physically unable to board regular
transit buses.
SIGNALS AND LIGHTING
93 Installation of new signals, school flashers, warning
lights and permanent barricade lighting.
94 Installation of street lights requiring new poles to be
set in residential areas developed prior to January
1977.
95 Traffic signal equipment and operational modifications
associated with street projects. This project will be
coordinated with the following street projects:
1984 - 1985: Highland, College, Liberty-Laurel I & II
and Gladys
1985 - 1986: Concord I
1986 - 1987: Major Drive Phase I, Lucas
1987 - 1988: Major Drive Phase II
96 Installation of street lights associated with street
projects. This project will be coordinated with the
following street projects:
1984 - 1985: Highland, College, Liberty-Laurel I & II,
Gladys
1985 - 1986: Concord Road I
1986 - 1987: Major Drive Phase I, Lucas
1987 - 1988: Major Drive Phase II
B. 4
STREETS
102 Purchase of right-of-way from Threadneedle to IH-10.
Highland relocation and Phase I from Threadneedle to
Irving is complete. Phases II and III are dependent on
State's program.
105 Street improvements along Concord Road from Lucas to Live
Oak and along Live Oak from Concord to Gulf.
106 Sidewalk construction will be included with street
construction on projects funded by TIP bonds .
107 Rehabilitation of streets throughout the city (Federal
Revenue Sharing Funds).
108 Improve intersections throughout the city to increase
capacity and efficiency in handling traffic (Federal
Revenue Sharing Funds) .
109 A program to replace deteriorating wooden bridges in the
city with concrete structures.
111 Rehabilitation and resurfacing of Liberty and Laurel
Streets from Forrest to Eleventh Street . Traffic flow on
Liberty and Laurel to be reversed.
112 Rehabilitation and resurfacing of these two streets from
11th Street to IH-10. One-way traffic flow on Liberty
and Laurel to be established.
113 Widening of roadway from Folsom Drive to Phelan Boulevard
with left-turn lanes at major intersections.
114 Construction of Gulf and Mariposa from Live Oak to IH-10
in coordination with Spur 380 project.
115 Upgrading railroad grade crossings throughout the city.
116 Extending the concrete curb and gutter pavement from Crow
Road to Dowlen Road.
117 Widening the existing three-lane concrete street to five
lanes between IH-10 and Langham Road (completing she
section); then extending the five-lane section from
Langham Road to illajor Drive.
PARKS
24 Engineering study. Improvements (dependent on study) :
Improve drainage;
B. 5
16
� ��
New irrigation system;
New cart trails;
New cart shelter;
New clubhouse.
25 Repair plumbing and electrical hookups; hardsurface
parking area.
27 Replace decaying wood. Siding for exterior of building.
xeplace tile floor. Renovate restrooms to meet
handicapped requirements .
28 New sheltered restrooms on grounds.
29 Tennis courts .
30 Two new tennis courts. Hardsurface parking lot. New
playground equipment .
31 Two new tennis courts.
34 Parking lots, playground equipment, covered play area.
35 New playground equipment.
36 Passive recreation area to include trails, benches,
picnic units, landscaping and parking.
37 Acquisition - Edwards School property.
38 A new "community park" of 20 to 40 acres is proposed to
serve the area within a 2-mile radius of the FanneLt
Road/Washington Boulevard intersection. Could include
new swimming pool to serve south Beaumont.
39 Tennis courts - Athletic Complex.
157 Rehabilitation of Caldwood Park, to include new
playground, renovated tennis courts, picnic areas.
158 Installation of "creative playground" system at Pipkin
Park.
161 Klein Park Phase 3. Continued development of Klein Park
in northwest Beaumont.
162 Development of northern end of Riverfront Park to improve
appearance of waterfront and contribute to further
downtown redevelopment.
165 Develop "Woodlands Park" on a 10-acre, City-owned
undeveloped site near the Woodland Acres Subdivision.
B. 6
"Ile
Would include creative playground, basketball court,
tennis court, picnic area.
166- New neighborhood parks in newly developing or
173 park-deficient areas would include creative playgrounds,
wading pools, picnic units, tennis courts, other
facilities as per neighborhood needs. Locations:
- Florida/Highland area;
- between 4th Street/Washington/11th Street/College;
- Amelia area;
- Willow Creek area;
- Delaware Place area;
- Windemere area;
- between Highway 105/Major/Keith/LNVA canal;
- Park IMeadows area.
174 Colliers Ferry Park would be a new regional park along
the Neches River north of the I-10/Neches bridge. Would
feature an extensive trail system, boat slips, nature
preserve.
176 Approximately 2 miles per year of interconnected
recreational trails in existing public land or
rights-of-way.
177 Tyrrell Park improvements. Rehabilitation of
Recreational Center, additional parking, new auto
entrance, updated picnic and playground areas .
211 New roof and cosmetic improvements at Best Years Center.
DRAINAGE
71 Place a diversion pipe in right-of-way of Gladys to
divert water from the 23rd Street Box at Gladys to Ditch
102 east of Edson. The enlarging of inlets along
Gladys.
72 These are projects needed throughout the City. It will
be done by City forces or by contract, to meet the needs
of the city.
73 An underground box to be constructed as a replacement for
a deteriorated box from Burt Street to Hemlock.
74 Installation of storm sewer in 5th Street right-o.t--way
from Blanchette to Cartwright Street, connecting the box
in Corley Street and the box at Cartwright.
B. 7
75 Placing sewer in 11th Street from Louisiana Street south
to about Evalon, increase number and size of inlets in
11th Street.
76 The construction of storm sewers from Threadneedle down
Ogden to Essex Street, east along Essex to Congress, down
Congress to Woodrow, down Woodrow to Santa Fe railroad.
Construct ditch in railroad right-of-way to the crossing
under right-of-way to DD #6 No. 16 .
77 Construction of box from France Addition east to
approximately S.P . Railroad with laterals at Amarillo
Street to connect Cartwright Ditch.
78 Placing additional box in Fannin Street with lateral
south in 8th Street to College Street and north to
Hollywood Subdivision.
79 Increase storm drain in Caldwood Drive from Bristol Drive
north to Hillebrandt Bayou, the enlarging of inlets in
roadway.
80 Construction of box from S.P. Railroad to Avenue A with
laterals at Avenue G North, Avenue E South and Avenue B
North and North and South at Avenue A.
81 Enlarge capacity of high school box by installing
drainage along Smart Street and to S.P. Railroad to
provide additional outfall between IH-10 and Smart
Street .
82 The extension of the box down Fannett Road from Ethel to
Harriot Street. The first section was from Ethel to
Ditch 11-A to eliminate flooding in this area.
83 Enlarging capacity by widening, deepening or lining
existing ditch. Increasing the opening under roadways,
increasing inlets to improve system.
84 A new storm system and larger catch basins to serve a
600-acre area between IH-10 on North S .P. Railroad on
East 11th Street on West and Liberty on South.
85 Completion of boxes and storm system in connection with
Cartwright I, II and III.
B. 8