Full Text
Program Category: 08 Project # 09 Project # 10 Project # Street Improvements S-09 S-16 S-16 Yes No NA X Funding Source Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Assessments 30,000 60,000 CTEP 30,000 60,000 60,000 - - - - 120,000 Budgeted Funds Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 A. Land Cost B. Construction Cost 48,000 - - 96,000 C. Contingencies (10% of B) 4,800 - - - - 9,600 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 7,200 - - - - 14,400 E. Percent for Art of B) F. Equipment Costs G. Other 60,000 - - - - 120,000 Expense Object Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Personnel Supplies Purchased Services Fixed Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service - - - - - - Responsible Person: Responsible Department: Preparer's Initials Total Score Doug Harby Public Works CJK 49 Is this equipment prioritized on an equipment replacement schedule? Are there any site requirements: How is this project going to be funded: Does this project have any additional impact on the operating budget: How is this project going to be spent: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2010-2014 Description and justification of project and funding sources: Phase I installed curb and sidewalks in the Slant Street Area bounded by Brooks, Higgins and Mount Streets. Hazardous and deteriorated sidewalks were replaced as needed. ADA improvements were made at each corner. The Public Works Master Sidewalk Plan was used to prioritize areas that were and will be upgraded first. Curb ramps were funded by general fund monies if there was no other work adjacent. The property owners paid for ramps if the curb or sidewalk was installed or replaced in the area of the ramp. The cost of installing new sidewalks was paid with a combination of property owner assessments and CTEP funds under the Slant Street Pedestrian Improvement Program CIP. Replacement of curbs and sidewalks were paid with a combination of property owner assessments and Gas Tax funds under the Annual Sidewalk Replacement Program Phase III CIP. CTEP funds were used to supplement the cost of installation of sidewalks on a 50-50 split if the property owner installed the sidewalk at the preferred boulevard location. Phase II is the next portion of the project in the area bounded by Beckwith, Mount and Stephens. Project has been designed, bid awarded and is under contract. Construction will proceed in summer 2009 with a later summer completion deadline. Spent in Prior Years OPERATING BUDGET COSTS Spent in Prior Years Funded in Prior Years REVENUE EXPENSE Project Title: Slant Street Pedestrian Improvements Program Phases I and II Date Submitted to Finance 02/17/2009 Today's Date and Time 06/03/2009 14:25 Description of additional operating budget impact: ---PAGE BREAK--- Program Category: 10 Project # Street Improvements S-16 Yes No 1. Is the project necessary to meet federal, state, or local legal requirements? This cri- terion includes projects mandated by Court Order to meet requirements of law or other X requirements. Of special concern is that the project be accessible to the handicapped. 2. Is the project necessary to fulfill a con- tractual requirement? This criterion includes Federal or State grants which require local X participation. Indicate the Grant name and number in the comment column. 3. Is this project urgently required? Will de- lay result in curtailment of an essential ser- vice? This statement should be checked "Yes" only if an emergency is clearly indi- X cated; otherwise, answer "No". If "Yes", be sure to give full justification. 4. Does the project provide for and/or im- prove public health and/or public safety? This criterion should be answered "No" un- less public health and/or safety can be X shown to be an urgent or critical factor. Raw Score Total Range Weight Score (0-3) 5. Does the project result in maximum benefit to the community from the 3 5 15 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 2 4 8 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 2 3 6 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 2 4 8 services are recognized and accepted as being necessary and effective? (0-3) 9. Does the project specifically relate to the City's strategic planning priorities or other 3 4 12 plans? Total Score 49 Allows for the mobility impaired to use facilities. A safe and complete system encourages non- motorized transportation. ADA is mandated. MMC requires the replacement of hazardous sidewalks. Community livability has been an ongoing strategic goal of the City. Quantitative Analysis Comments 100% leveraging. Court cases stating City's liability. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Project Rating Project Title: Slant Street Pedestrian Improvements Program Phases I and II